The overarching aim of this study is to analyse how social media communication can impact the formation of cultural trauma discourses in the aftermath of disruptive societal events. The article focuses on how the hashtag #openstockholm was used on Twitter for support, sharing and cooperation after the Stockholm lorry attack in 2017. Much of the content posted with this hashtag had a light-hearted tone, flouting the conventional trauma discourses of grief and sorrow in a way that was surprising, and perhaps even provocative, to some. A thematic analysis of tweets shows the different uses of the hashtag over time, as well as distinguishes two conflicting discourses that either downplayed or amplified the cultural trauma narrative. The study shows that the responses to traumatic events may depend on a culturally specific logic of collective action frames which implies the need for contextual understandings of how cultural trauma discourses are negotiated.
AlexanderJCEyermanRGiesenBet al. (2004) Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
2.
AltheideDL (2006) Terrorism and the politics of fear. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies6(4): 415–439.
3.
BennettWLSegerbergA (2012) The Logic of Connective Action: digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739-768.
4.
BrunsABurgessJ (2013) Crisis communication in natural disasters: the Queensland floods and Christchurch earthquakes. In: WellerKBrunsABurgessJet al. (eds) Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 373–384.
5.
BrunsABurgessJ (2015) Twitter hashtags from: ad hoc to calculated publics. In: RambukkanaN (ed.) Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 13–28.
6.
BrunsAHanuschF (2017) Conflict imagery in a connective environment: audiovisual content on Twitter following the 2015/2016 terror attacks in Paris and Brussels. Media, Culture & Society39(8): 1122–1141.
CarleyKMMalikMLandwehrPMet al. (2016) Crowd sourcing disaster management: the complex nature of Twitter usage in Padang Indonesia. Safety Science90: 48–61.
9.
CarpentierN (2017) The Discursive-Material Knot: Cyprus in Conflict and Community Media. Bern: Peter Lang US.
10.
ClarkeNBraunV (2017) Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology12(3): 297–298.
DavidE (2008) Cultural trauma, memory, and gendered collective action: the case of women of the storm following Hurricane Katrina. NWSA Journal20(3): 138–162.
13.
De ChoudhuryMMonroy-HernándezAMarkG (2014) ‘Narco’ emotions: affect and desensitization in social media during the Mexican drug war. Computers and Society. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.01287
14.
DurodiéB (2004) The limitations of risk management: dealing with disasters and building social resilience. Tidskriften Politik8(1): 14–21.
15.
DurodiéBWesselyS (2002) Resilience or panic? The public and terror attack. The Lancet360(9349): 1901–1902.
16.
ErikssonM (2016) Managing collective trauma on social media: the role of Twitter after the 2011 Norway attacks. Media, Culture & Society38(3): 365-380.
17.
EyermanR (2011) The Cultural Sociology of Political Assassination: From MLK and RFK to Fortuyn and Van Gogh. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
FassinDRechtmanR (2009) The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
GaffneyCPuschmannC (2014) Data collection on Twitter. In: BrunsABurgessJMahrtM (eds) Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 55–68.
20.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21.
Haider-MarkelDPJoslynMR (2001) Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: the conditional influence of issue frames. The Journal of Politics63: 520–543.
22.
HeverinTZachL (2012) Use of microblogging for collective sense-making during violent crises: a study of three campus shootings. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology63(1): 34–47.
23.
HjorthLKimK-HY (2011) Good grief: the role of social mobile media in the 3.11 earthquake disaster in Japan. Digital Creativity22(3): 187–199.
24.
HughesALPalenL (2009) Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. International Journal of Emergency Management6: 248–260.
25.
HughsonJSpaaijR (2011) ‘You are always on our mind’: the Hillsborough tragedy as cultural trauma. Acta Sociologica54(3): 283–295.
26.
KaufmannM (2015) Resilience 2.0: social media use and (self-)care during the 2011 Norway attacks. Media, Culture & Society37(7): 972–987.
27.
LandwehrPMWeiWKowalchuckMet al. (2016) Using tweets to support disaster planning, warning and response. Safety Science90: 33–47.
28.
LindgrenS (2012) Collective coping through networked narratives: YouTube responses to the Virginia Tech shooting. Studies in Media and Communications7: 279–298.
29.
LindgrenSLundströmR (2010) Inside victims and outside offenders: dislocations and interventions in the discourse of rape. Social Semiotics20: 309–324.
30.
MarkhamA (2012) Fabrication as ethical practice. Information, Communication & Society15: 334–353.
31.
MurthyDLongwellSA (2013) Twitter and disasters. Information, Communication & Society16(6): 837–855.
32.
OksanenARäsänenPNurmiJet al. (2010) ‘This can’t happen here!’ Community reactions to school shootings in Finland. Research on Finnish Society3: 19–27.
33.
OnoratiTDíazPRecioBC (2016) Tweet me and I’ll help you: mapping tweets for emergency operation centers: the case of Paris attacks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on collaboration technologies and systems, Orlando, FL, 31 October–4 November, pp. 31–34. New York: IEEE.
34.
OstertagSFOrtizDG (2013) The battle over meaning: digitally mediated processes of cultural trauma and repair in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. American Journal of Cultural Sociology1: 186–220.
35.
PondPLewisJ (2017) Riots and Twitter: connective politics, social media and framing discourses in the digital public sphere. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 17August. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1366539.
36.
QuYHuangCZhangPet al. (2011) Microblogging after a major disaster in China: A case study of the 2010 Yushu earthquake. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work, Hangzhou, China, 19–23 March, pp. 25–34. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1958824.1958830 (accessed 24 August 2017).
37.
RambukkanaN (ed.) (2015) Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks. New York: Peter Lang.
38.
RocheleauSMilletteM (2015) Meta-hashtag and tag co-occurrence: from organization to politics in the French Canadian Twitter sphere. In: RambukkanaN (ed.) Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks, vol. 103. Bern: Digital Formations, pp. 243–254.
39.
SapirsteinG (2006) Social resilience: the forgotten dimension of disaster risk reduction. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies1(1): 54–63.
40.
SheppardBRubinGJWardmanJKet al. (2006) Viewpoint: terrorism and dispelling the myth of a panic prone public. Journal of Public Health Policy27(3): 219–245.
41.
SnowDARochfordEBJrWordenSKet al. (1986) Frame alignment processes, micro mobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review51: 464–481.
42.
SpiroESFitzhughSSuttonJet al. (2012) Rumoring during extreme events: a case study of deepwater horizon 2010. In: Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM web science conference, Evanston, IL, 22–24 June, pp. 275–283. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2380718.2380754 (accessed 24 August 2017).
StoneLDPennebakerJW (2002) Trauma in real time: talking and avoiding online conversations about the death of princess Diana. Basic and Applied Social Psychology24: 173–183.
45.
SuttonJJohnsonBSpiroESet al. (2013) Tweeting what matters: Information, advisories, and alerts following the Boston marathon events. Available at: http://heroicproject.org (accessed 24 August 2017).
46.
TakahashiBTandocECCarmichaelC (2015) Communicating on Twitter during a disaster: An analysis of tweets during Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Computers in Human Behavior50: 392–398.
