This document discusses studying everyday social movements (ESMs) from a storytelling perspective. It proposes framing ESMs as complex systems with emergent and adaptive properties. A preliminary framework is presented for studying ESMs with three perspectives: 1) analyzing communication structures and networks, 2) examining knowledge creation and shared discourses, and 3) exploring how communication structures, knowledge, and trust change over time as the community coevolves. The goal is to develop analytical tools to better understand ESMs as distinct from other types of social organizations and movements.

1. Studying
everyday
self-­‐organized
social
movements
from
a
story-­‐
telling
perspec7ve
Petro
Poutanen,
MSSc
University
of
Helsinki,
Department
of
Social
Research,
Communcia;on
and
media
Studies
15th
Jun
2015,
The
University
of
Tokyo
(Hongo
campus)

2. AGENDA
How
to
theorize
everyday
social
movements
(ESM)?
How
to
study
ESM?
Haarlem,
The
Netherlands,
1981
(in
the
Public
Domain)

3. PART
I
How
to
theorize
everyday
social
movements
(ESM)?

4. SOME
RECENT
TRENDS
Cook's
Handbook
for
London.
With
two
maps.
Guide
Books.
London
(In
the
Public
Domain)
Hyper-­‐locality
and
glocal
adapta7ons
The
use
of
social
and
digital
media
Personaliza7on
and
co-­‐
crea7on
Digital
storytelling

5. How
to
frame
ESM
as
a
”complex
system”?
”Complex
systems
are
usually
open
systems,
i.e.
they
interact
with
their
environment.
As
a
maUer
of
fact,
it
is
oVen
difficult
to
define
the
border
of
a
complex
system.
Instead
of
being
a
characteris;c
of
the
system
itself,
the
scope
of
the
system
is
usually
determined
by
the
purpose
of
the
descrip;on
of
the
system,
and
is
thus
oVen
influenced
by
the
posi;on
of
the
observer.
This
process
is
called
framing.”
-­‐
Paul
Cilliers
(1998)

6. How
to
frame
ESM
as
a
”complex
system”?
Interac7on
and
communica7on
Networked
Open
boudaries
Emergence,
”boUom-­‐up”
Self-­‐organiza7on
Adap7ve

7. Hierarchical
Self-­‐organizing
SoV
/
everyday
Radical
Roberta
F.

8. PART
II
How
to
study
ESM?
A
communica;on
based
preliminary
framework

9. Focus
on
communica7on
structures
Neighborhood
Youngsters
in
the
Playground
–
US
Na;onal
Archives
(In
the
Public
Domain)
The
structure
of
a
”storytelling
network”
Macro,
meso,
micro
levels
A
degree
of
connectedness
”Communcia;on
ac;on
context”
(openness)
(Kim
&
Ball-­‐Rokeach,
2006)

10. Focus
on
knowledge
crea)on
The
communica;on
context
Nature
of
knowledge
Shared
interpreta;ve
schemas
/
discourses
Trust
(e.g.
Hislop,
2002)

11. Focus
on
change
and
dynamics
How
the
dynamics
of
knowledge
crea;on
and
dissemina;on
/
discoursive
sphere
change
over
;me?
How
communica;on
structures
(connec;vity)
and
ac;on
context
(openness)
evolve?
How
trust
is
created,
maintained
or
lost?
How
a
community
/
movement
coevolves?
Community
urban
gardening
in
Leipzig
CC
BY-­‐NC-­‐ND
by
mitost/

12. Conclusion
l ESMs’
can
be
seen
as
complex
systems
l For
the
analy;cal
purposes,
they
should
be
separated
from
other
types
of
social
organiza;ons
/
movements
/
ac;vites
l When
studying
ESMs,
three
perspec;ves
are
available:
1. Structural
(communica;on
structures
/
networks)
2. Knowledge
crea;on
/
discourses
3. Dynamics
and
change

13. Ques7ons
&
conversa7on…
aVer
the
next
presenta7on!
Foto
(CC)
por
Keoni
en
Flickr
hUps://
www.flickr.com/photos/keoni101/
Petro
Poutanen
hUp://blogs.helsinki.fi/pkpoutan/
petro.poutanen@helsinki.fi
@PetroPoutanen

14. Literature
Anderson,
B.
(1991).
Imagined
communi;es.
New
York:
Verso.
BenneU,
W.
L.,
&
Segerberg,
A.
(2013).
The
logic
of
connec;ve
ac;on:
Digital
media
and
the
personaliza;on
of
conten;ous
poli;cs.
Cambridge
University
Press.
Boonstra,
B.,
&
Boelens,
L.
(2011).
Self-­‐organiza;on
in
urban
development:
towards
a
new
perspec;ve
on
spa;al
planning.
Urban
Research
&
Prac;ce,
4(2),
99-­‐122.
Chen,
K.
K.
2013.
“Storytelling:
An
Informal
Mechanism
of
Accountability
for
Voluntary
Organiza;ons.”
Nonprofit
and
Voluntary
Sector
Quarterly
42(5):
902-­‐922.
Chen,
K.
K.
(2012).
Charisma;zing
the
rou;ne:
Storytelling
for
meaning
and
agency
in
the
Burning
Man
organiza;on.
Qualita;ve
sociology,
35(3),
311-­‐334.
Cilliers,
P.
(1998).
Complexity
and
postmodernism.
Understanding
complex
systems.
London:
Routledge.
Heylighen,
F.
(2001).
The
science
of
self-­‐organiza;on
and
adap;vity.
The
encyclopedia
of
life
support
systems,
5
(3),
253-­‐280.
Hislop,
D.
(2002).
Mission
impossible?
Communica;ng
and
sharing
knowledge
via
informa;on
technology.
Journal
of
Informa;on
Technology,
17(3),
165-­‐177.
Kim,
Y.
C.,
&
Ball-­‐Rokeach,
S.
J.
(2006).
Civic
engagement
from
a
communica;on
infrastructure
perspec;ve.
Communica;on
Theory,
16(2),
173-­‐197.
Seppälä,
P.
(2012)
Tiny
social
movements:
Experiences
of
social
media
based
co-­‐crea;on.
In
A.
Botero,
A.G.
Paterson
&
J.
Saad-­‐Sulonen
(eds.)
Towards
Peer
Produc;on
in
Public
Services:
Cases
from
Finland
(pp.
62-­‐75),
Aalto
University
publica;on
series
15/2012.