innovation as evolution in social movement networks · “innovation as evolution in social...

“Innovation as evolution in social movement networks” ([email protected])

Innovation as evolution in social movement networks Network archeology of Amsterdam’s activism ecology in 1965-1975

Sander van Haperen

[email protected]

Department of Sociology

University of Amsterdam

WORK IN PROGRESS – NOT FOR PUBLICATION – PLEASE DO NOT CITE

1. Abstract

Why do social movements develop the way they do? A key development of social movements is the emergence of new mobilizations within the activism ecology. To understand the mechanisms of such innovation, a historical period is reconstructed and analyzed in terms of evolution. The turbulent activism ecology of Amsterdam between 1965-1975 is characterized by a wide variety of individuals and mobilizations. The relations within and between these groups can be represented as a network that evolves over time, shedding light on the mechanisms of innovation such as the emergence of new mobilizations. The emergence and configuration of groups is determined from rich archival data and an understanding of subsequent trajectories is formulated as evolution, in terms of variation and adaptability to the environment.

Goals • To reconstruct a complex contentious network within a specific environment, by

developing a historical case study of the Amsterdam ‘activism ecology’ in the period between 1965-1975.

• To determine which mechanisms precede new mobilizations.

v.201408b WORK IN PROGRESS – PLEASE DO NOT CITE 1

mailto:[email protected]


Main question • Which are the mechanisms that precede new mobilizations within the ‘activism ecology’

Amsterdam 1965-1975?

Sub questions 1. How to understand these innovations?

a. Mutations & Grievances b. Natural selection & Branching c. Migration & Fusion

2. It’s a network: which are the innovations within the activism ecology in Amsterdam

between 1965 and 1975? a. Nodes: identifying individuals and mobilizations. b. Ties: how to the relations between these individuals develop over time, and how

are their trajectories configured in mobilizations?

2. Introduction A lot of things change in a period of ten years, and the period between 1965 and 1975 was an especially turbulent time of social upheaval in many places. For the Netherlands, the epicenter of this turbulence was Amsterdam. It is fair to say that social movements and activists played a crucial role in the changes that took place in Amsterdam. The many innovations of those days have wrought a lasting influence on society in the Netherlands and abroad. The following examples illustrate the turbulent state of activism in Amsterdam in the period between 1965 and 1975. To set the international stage, these events are taking place simultaneously with the Cold War, the Vietnam war, and American civil rights movements.

In May 1965 the first of a series of pamphlets appears which marks the emergence of Provo, a non-violent counter-culture movement in Amsterdam. With a range of publications, actions and mobilizations Provo aims to “renew anarchism [and] mobilize youths”. The group repeatedly and successfully ‘Provokes’ the authorities, most famously by disrupting the royal wedding on March 10th, 1966 with smoke bombs.

In May 1969, a large group of people for six days occupy the Maagdenhuis, the administrative center of the University of Amsterdam. Occupiers demand more voice in the university’s affairs and become an icon of broader waves of “democratization” in society, the action becomes a legendary episode in Dutch student activism and the Maagdenhuis is henceforth the obvious building for disgruntled students to occupy until this day.

On January 23rd of 1970, a group of Amsterdam’s feminists now known as Dolle Mina occupies Castle Nijenrode, which houses a prestigious business school. They protest the fact that women are not allowed to study there, generating a lot of publicity. The occupation marks the first of a wide variety of actions over the course of the 70’s, and the group has become a legendary symbol of women’s movements, its influence still evident in society today.




On March 24th and April 8th of 1975, violent riots break out in the Nieuwmarkt neighbourhood. Large-scale urban redevelopment plans included the construction of a metro and a highway, for which many buildings and houses in the area were to be torn down. After years of tension between citizens and the municipality, violence erupts leading to a battlefield and skirmishes throughout the city.

How can we understand the emergence of these (and other) mobilizations? It will be argued that the analysis of the activism ecology as a complex network may help to explain innovation in movements. In the relational approach developed in this study, innovation such as the emergence of new groups is understood as being contingent on the relations that develop among individuals situated within an ecology. Put simply: the initiative for a new group is a result of people getting together sometime somewhere.

This study builds upon earlier work in social movement studies to understand the emergence of new groups. Literature suggests theories of collective action that may help to explain why new mobilizations emerge. New issues or grievances may be the catalyst for collective action. Disenfranchisement and internal conflict in mobilizations may lead to defection and branching into new mobilizations. A third explanation suggests that the recombination of information and resources from different groups may lead to the emergence of new groups.

These three theories suggest different membership configurations of a new mobilization. There are three likely compositions of participants in new mobilizations, each indicating a specific explanation for its emergence. By looking at the preceding relations between the participants, we can determine which of the following three compositions form the foundation of the new mobilization. It may consist of new activists who have no earlier activity in other mobilizations, its members may share a single common earlier mobilization, or its members may come together from various other mobilizations. By reconstructing the trajectories of individuals in the activism ecology over time, these patterns can be identified as the development of the network.

It is argued that these mechanisms of emergence from social movement theory correspond with mechanisms of variation in evolutionary theory. An ecology of activism houses populations of activists, consisting of individuals that possess ‘genetic’ resources. Such resources are recombined in a new mobilization, being a new ‘generation’. Understood thus, the different configurations of new groups are indicative of similar mechanisms of variation/innovation. If the membership of a new mobilization is made up of individuals who have no earlier activity in the ecology, this is an indication that the mobilization is organized around a newly arisen grievance, which serves as a catalyst for individuals to organize collectively, understood here as a mutation. If a new mobilization’s membership shares a common earlier mobilization, this indicates branching, either as sustained collective action under a new nomer or as a faction that splits from the predecessor. This is understood here as an adaptation to the environment. If a new mobilization consists of membership from multiple different activities, this indicates migration and fusion across specific clusters of the activism ecology, and can be identified in the network topology as brokerage. The examination of relational patterns in the development of the network topology thus sheds light on the mechanisms by which innovations emerge.




This study sets out to understand innovation in social movements by testing these explanations. Participation in mobilizations is reconstructed for a historical period in Amsterdam, between 1965 and 1975. To obtain information on participation in movement activity, four data sources are used.

The first data source is the International Institute for Social History (IISH), which keeps a vast number of archives (including minutes, posters, correspondence, periodicals, et cetera) donated by movement organizations and activists. Based on this information, the ecology of active mobilizations in Amsterdam between ’65 and ’75 is determined. This forms the first, low-resolution iteration of the activism ecology, outlining the active mobilizations and organizational ties between them. The second data source are media sources which serve to determine the measure of novelty on the basis of contemporary media prominence. A selection is made of the most prominent mobilizations for further examination in more detail. The third data source is the extensive literature on movements in Amsterdam. Most of these monographs deal with one movement or particular campaigns but they provide detailed information about participants and their activities. These data serve as a second iteration of the activism ecology, adding more resolution to the network in terms of relations between individuals and organizations. The fourth data source are interviews with participants of those selected mobilizations, who could provide details and background information on the individuals involved in the emergence of the mobilization. Data obtained from these sources was coded and processed as relational data.

- Nodes: The network nodes are mobilizations and individuals participating in mobilizations.

- Ties: A tie is assigned when individuals have participated in the same mobilization (at a meeting, demonstration, occupation, et cetera) at the same time and place.

- Tie strength: Tie strength is proportional to the number of occasions where individuals participated in the same activity.

Based on these data, we can draw up the topology of the activism ecology at any moment in time, showing activist clusters, central figures within clusters, and brokers between clusters. We analyze the evolution of the activism ecology by creating slices for each year and investigating how the configurations of participants changes over time. The position of participants within this topology is our independent variable while the composition of participants in novel activity is our dependent variable; we examine whether the position of activists in a particular period explains novel activity in subsequent periods. The activism ecology is made up of the complete field of mobilizations and individuals active at a specific time in a specific place.

The paper begins with a literature review of innovation and variation, combining social movement studies and evolutionary theory, leading to the formulation of three mechanisms that are posited to explain the emergence of new mobilizations: grievances, branching, and fusion. These theories are operationalized and the methodology outlined, and a case will be introduced in which these mechanisms will be tested. A description of the context is provided to set the stage of the activism ecology in Amsterdam between 1965-1975. It situates the network that will be analyzed within a time of societal turbulence and change, and briefly introduces some illustrations of mobilizations to help the reader’s orientation. The key ingredients for the analysis of the case consists of the network development and aggregated findings, in turn leading to the conclusions.




3. Mechanisms of innovation: towards a relational approach

The activism ecology in a specific time and place consists of many different groups and mobilizations. A social movement is an intricately weaved network of individuals, each with many relations within, across and beyond the constellation of groups and mobilizations. Consider for example the diversity of a movement such as Occupy, consisting of a range of different groups from the very origins. Had those earliest participants shared preceding activity with each other in some way, either directly or indirectly via brokers?

Which are the mechanisms that drive the emergence of such new mobilizations? It will be argued that a relational approach provides opportunities to identify mechanisms of innovation, contributing to an understanding of innovation in social movement literature.

Broadly speaking, three mechanisms can be derived from social movement studies that explain the emergence of mobilizations: grievance theory, theory on political processes, and identity-based approaches.

a. Mechanisms of innovation in social movement networks

How do new groups emerge? Three contrasting theories have been suggested that might explain the emergence of a new group: grievance, branching, and brokerage. To establish which of these explanations hold for the period between 1965 and 1975 in Amsterdam, these theories will need to be operationalized. The development of the network over time is examined, determining which mobilizations and affiliations exist at points in time. The emergence of a group can then be related to the activists that are involved with the group. The three theories suggest different configurations of involvement, which will be described here in further detail. In addition to the three theories, two configurations are outlined for groups that are not new: 1) where a group sustains its membership and is relatively stable, and 2) where a group dissolves and/or membership declines.

Grievance, branching, and brokerage

Grievance mobilization suggests that a new issue or perceived grievance forms the catalyst to organize for people who were not previously mobilized. Individuals who were not previously mobilized will have no previous trajectory, or in other words: no affiliation to mobilizations in the network at preceding points in time. For this theory to hold true, the membership of a new group that appears in the data should consist of individuals with no preceding trajectory.

Proposition 1: under conditions of grievance mobilization, a new group that emerges consists primarily of individuals with no preceding affiliation with other groups at earlier points in time in the network.




Branching suggests that groups diversify from a common predecessor. Diversification then is the result of resource combinations within a group. The experience of individuals as part of a group may lead them to branch out into new groups, for any reason. Conflict may for example motivate a faction to branch out, or forms of collective effervescence may inspire a group to branch out. Conflict should be understood here in a broad sense, including differences of opinion that may arise over time in the experience that is shared. A number of scenarios are likely. Disagreement or conflict may arise within a group as people work together, for example between challengers and the leadership cadre. It may become clear after time that there is less common ground besides initial motivations to organize collectively, for example when someone’s feminist concerns are not addressed appropriately as part of a socialist group. Disagreements may thus become the inspiration that leads some to initiate a new group. On the other hand, positive experiences shared within a group may just as well be the motivation for individuals to organize and address other challenges, responding to changes in the environment. For example, the zeal that is shared in a successful action may inspire the shared undertaking of subsequent mobilizations. There is a transformative power to being part of collective action that becomes the driving force for more action. For this theory to hold true, the membership of a new group that appears in the data should consist (in part) of individuals with preceding membership of another group.

Proposition 2: under conditions of branching, a substantial part of the membership a new group that emerges consists of individuals with preceding membership of another group.

Fusion and brokerage suggests that groups diversify as a result of the recombination of resources. Variation and the emergence of new groups then is the result of resource combinations across groups. Each group has a set of resources which may constitute new mobilizations. The pooling and recombination of resources from multiple groups may lead to new friendships, new ideas, new enthusiasm, new facilities, or other inspirations to initiate a new mobilization. Practically, it becomes a lot easier to meet up for the next action once you have met someone in a mobilization. It is no coincidence that there are many contemporary efforts among activists to focus their attention on networking with others around the globe and across thematic concern, in the belief that this will strengthen movements and lead to new ideas. Whatever the motive may be, there needs to be some possibility for two groups to get into touch. Two groups that are disconnected cannot exchange information, and in networks terms this forms structural holes in the network. Someone needs to bridge the structural hole and facilitate contact. Individuals that occupy such strategic positions in the network are called ‘brokers’, and the transformative work they do by exchanging information between groups is called brokerage.

For this theory to hold true, the membership of a new group that appears in the dataset should exist of individual trajectories that coalesce from two or more preceding groups into a new group, with one or more clearly identifiable brokers that bridge the structural hole between the preceding two groups.

Proposition 3: under conditions of brokerage and fusion, a new group that emerges consists primarily of individuals with preceding affiliation with one or more other groups at earlier points in time in the network, and there will be one or a few clearly identifiable brokers connecting those groups.




Two other likely group developments should be outlined briefly. The membership of some groups remains stable over time, with only minimal changes. Variations of this may occur, for example with political parties or religious organizations. In a sense, these are instances of collective effervescence, where collective action serves to sustain the group as it is. Another likely group development is attrition, with individuals retiring from roles and functions, leading both groups and individuals to disappear from the data. They may or may not reappear later on. Examples include membership of a student association that becomes involved with a mobilization, whereas the individual does not partake in subsequent actions. While both these conditions will undoubtedly occur in the data, they do not represent innovation in the sense of group emergence, and as such are not relevant to the main question of this research.

Proposition 4: under conditions of collective effervescence, a group maintains a relatively stable membership configuration over time, either in hibernation or over the course of multiple mobilizations.

Proposition 5: under conditions of attrition, a group and or/individual dissolves, either abruptly or slowly over time.

It should be noted that these propositions are not mutually exclusive. It is possible, even likely, that a new group’s membership is diverse: a few veterans may be involved as well as newly aggravated newcomers. It is also possible that two groups merge, while there is no single clearly broker can be identified in the dataset. [expand]

b. Innovation as evolution By which mechanisms then do new groups emerge? The relational approach posited here looks at the relations that people have across and within a variety of prior (movement) activities. There is a specific configuration of mobilizations and groups in multiple overlapping domains, and networks of individuals across all these levels. An event may take place where some people meet, pooling a variety of backgrounds and experiences, and from the recombination of their ideas spring forth new enthusiastic intentions. Some of these individuals may engage over a new grievance having little previous experience, while others may be grizzled veterans with long careers of activism. Most of these groups will not endure in the broad environment of context, but some do make history.

This relational approach serves to identify the mechanisms of innovation. Innovation such as the emergence of mobilizations can be understood in terms of ‘evolution’. The relational approach helps us to reconstruct the activism ecology of a specific period and place, so we can determine the networks of activists and configurations of groups. The descriptive reconstruction of the ecology would ideally consist of all groups active within that specific environment. The emergence of a new mobilization in the ecology at a certain point in time is both contingent on what preceded it and it is a constitutive element of the ecology. Put simply: there would be no new mobilizations if nothing in the environment changes, if the population remains constant, and the efficacy of activism is stable.




Defined thus, innovation resembles evolution: descent with modification within a system. In terms of social movements the population consists of activists and the environment is the activism ecology. The ‘genes’ in a new mobilization are the resources available to its initiators, both material (financial, technological, access to location, et cetera) and immaterial (ideas, points of view, behaviors, contacts, norms, et cetera). The gene/resource flow by which these are combined are traced as network ties when individuals partake in collective action. Defining evolution as descent with modification, we should ask by which mechanisms change occurs in descent. Which mechanisms of change might be expected in terms of evolution? The basic mechanisms that will be explored, by means of the well-known example of colored beetles, are: mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. These mechanisms offer explanations for the prevalence of specific genes in a population.

Mutation, a random genetic variation, might cause the parents in a population of green beetles to have offspring with a gene for brown coloration, increasing the frequency of these genes in the population. In an activism ecology, this happens whenever a new activist becomes active and introduces new resources. While a single mutation can have a large effect, the accumulation of many mutations is what causes evolutionary change.

Migration occurs when a number of brown beetles joins a population of green beetles. As a result, genes for brown coloration become more frequent in the population. The flow of mutations between populations happens when genes are carried from one population to another, where recombinations might occur. In the activism ecology, migration occurs when activists switch from one group to another, for whatever motivation. An individual might simply move from one city to another, carrying over and introducing new resource ‘genes’ to that population.

Genetic drift allows for external chance which influences the frequency of genes in a population. If green beetles are stepped on, less green beetles will reproduce. If brown beetles had more offspring in this generation which reproduces, genes for brown coloration become more frequent in the population. These external vagaries of chance are random, and no adaptation occurs because of it. In the activism ecology, we are subjected to external chance which might force us out of the ecology, aspirations crushed by the unruly realities of life. Because no adaptive innovation can occur from the termination of individual activist’s trajectories in the ecology, it is not treated here as a mechanism of innovation.

Natural selection occurs when the likeliness of reproduction changes, for example when green beetles are easier than brown beetles to spot and be eaten by birds. Conversely, changes in the environment might make green beetles less easy to spot than brown beetles, leading to more green beetle offspring, and hence a higher frequency of green coloration genes. Unlike genetic drift, natural selection is not random, and can thus be analyzed as a mechanism. Elements of the political opportunity structure, as described in social movement theory, can be translated to external influences in relation to natural selection. If aspects of the environment warrant the continuation of activity, or facilitate the emergence of new varieties of that activity, translates to the availability of and access to resources. Natural selection in the activism ecology can for example be seen operating in the logic of media, where a bias towards newsworthiness garners more media attention for the ‘novel’, ‘controversial’, or the ‘mediagenic’. In this example of the media, variation in the activism ecology might be the drive of some individuals to invent creative new actions, rather than relying on




a time tested repertoire of marches. As this tendency of the creative over the conventional becomes a norm within a group, it becomes hereditary. Because of the operating media logic, this group is consequently more likely to garner media prominence, and have an advantage in the ecology.

How do these mechanisms of evolution compare to the theories of group emergence in social movement theory which were discussed before? We have defined grievance, branching, fusion mechanisms of innovation, respectively indicated as a new group, a continuation from a single group, and a combination from various preceding groups. Variation of ‘genes’ in these mechanisms can occur because either new activists become active introducing mutations within a population, because continues existing configurations as a new adaptation, or because of migration across groups leads to recombination. Genetic drift is of influence on all three of these mechanisms, because they are operative as elements of the environment.




Evolutionary mechanism

Mechanism in Activism ecology

Defined as Network topology Indicator

Mutation Grievance New activists becoming active

No prior activity in ecology

Natural selection Branching Adaptation of existing population to environment

Configuration of preceding activity similar in descent

Migration Fusion Reconfiguration of varying resources from population

Configuration of preceding activity varied in descent

Genetic drift Attrition Random external influence

Individual trajectories terminate

When analyzing the activism ecology of a specific time and place, we can determine the preceding activity of the constitutive activists within the ecology. We might for example note that a group (say, a minority) mobilizes in demonstrations against the occurrence of police violence. The majority of these activists had not been previously active in other mobilizations, but now perceive a specific grievance against which they rise up, representing a mutation in the broader activism ecology. In the network, this would be recognizable as a cluster of individuals that emerges at one point in time, whereas these same individuals had no prior activity in preceding mobilizations.

Or we might see a large collective, individuals from which form a new splinter group that branches out as time progresses. In the network, this would be recognizable as a large group of individually connected nodes at one point in time, whereas at a later point in time those same individuals make up another configuration. This indicates that certain individuals have diverged from a larger collective of (say, environmental) activists into smaller (say, more radical) groups. In terms of the evolution mechanisms, these new factions are adaptations to the environment, thriving on a previously unexploited a niche of the ecology.

We might also see a new mobilization emerge in which a wide variety of backgrounds is fused, such as Occupy Wall Street. In the network, this would be recognizable as a cluster that emerges at a point in time, constituted of individuals from a variety of preceding activities in the ecology. Individual migration to this new group leads to the recombination of available resources.

From any of these emergent mobilizations, a range of subsequent innovations may develop. Some branches may be less durable and dissolve rapidly. To understand these cycles in terms of evolution would focus our attention on the mechanisms by which variation occurs.

c. An ecology of activism This broader view of activism situated in an ecology allows us to understand social movements as evolving networks that have a measure of persistence, coherence, and embeddedness within an environment, rather than singly isolated instances of collective action existing in a void. In order to




pinpoint the mechanisms of innovation, we trace the affiliations of activists through a contextualized history. Activists may have ‘collective action careers’ that are not restricted to one mobilization or a single movement identity. Allegiances develop, and these may be more ambiguous than simply being an ‘Occupier’. Someone who is part of a squat may simultaneously have ties to student activists, feminists, anarchists, or communists. Because the populations of these groups are not in calibration, the representation of oneself as a squatter is not a neutral occurrence. Individual sense-making is involved to figure out how to relate to an emerging mobilization. What kind of group is this, and how do I fit within it? There is also negotiation involved among individuals in the construction of the frame and how it is represented. It is of significance to examine previous affiliations of someone who begins to publicly affiliate with a squatting group.

The ‘Occupy movement’ can be better understood as a range of various subgroups of individuals with intragroup relations, collaboration, and animosity. It is also likely that one individual affiliates with multiple mobilizations, for example being both part of an environmental group and of Occupy. Like professional networks and other domains of social life, ties between activists and groups are formed and disbanded within the context of experience and personal histories. Such overlap facilitates the diffusion of resources across the ecology, because the overlap is where we find the relations between groups that make up the network.

Just like personal trajectories, mobilizations also evolve. They grow and change shape and change character. Scholars have convincingly shown continuity in movements, most notably in the work on movement spill-over and carry-on (Gusfield, 1981) as well as the abeyance structures of women’s movements (Mizruchi, 1983; Taylor, 1989). In hindsight and history writ large, movement identities appear clearly demarcated and recognizable, tempting us to analyze them as newly birthed instances. Someone has been part of the movement against the war in Vietnam and others have some notion about it, some notion of the story of that mobilizations. But there was no script for that story, it took shape over time in the interactions of people that were involved.

The intention of this study is not to explain away individual lives, reduced experience to strictly mechanical network development. There may be any number of personal reasons, emotions and motivations for different individuals to mobilize in collectivity. Rather than identifying universal principles that explain personal experience, the point of this study is to determine the larger ripple effects that small changes may have in complex systems. At some point people start to become affiliated with a group such as Occupy. To understand how these innovations occur, we should analyze the relationship channels across groups and time by which these collective identities are formed. Mertes et al’s (2004) notion of a ‘movement of movements’ thus does not only apply to the global justice movement but also to every other mobilization, because in order to organize an amalgamation of trajectories is required, a mix of experience and resources that people pool when they come together.

A fascinating paradox about these emergent mobilizations is brought into focus by tracing their evolution as a network. One the one hand, if a mobilization is to endure its definition needs to be broad enough to be resonant for many different individuals in the network ecology. Simultaneously, it demarcates and excludes individuals as the mobilization becomes more clearly defined. Individual trajectories converge in one mobilization. As more others become involved and the group becomes more mainstream, hardliners may dissociate themselves. Or the mobilization may become more




rigid and closed, discouraging potential newcomers and perhaps alienating insiders with diverging attitudes. While studying an isolated instance of collective action might suggest the absolute dissolving of a movement identity, we may expect another pattern when analyzing the evolution of movement identities as the activism ecology: cycles of mutation, branching, or fusion. Subgroups may branch from the collective because a mobilization’s raison d’etre expands or contracts. As a mobilization becomes more mainstream its early adapters or hardcore ideologists may become alienated. At some point the collective as a whole may be disbanded, while the people are still part of the ecology, moving on to other things.

Analysis of these contingent interactions requires a reconstruction of relations, a “topology of the possible (Padgett & Powell, 2012:3-4)”. The channels that facilitate these interactions can be examined as a network, as specific configurations of individuals and their relations. Such a relational approach would help us to understand how relationships are simultaneously contingent upon and guiding interactions, or in the words of Padgett and Powell (2012:9): how networks “do transformational work”. Our task then becomes to identify the mechanisms by which this transformational work operates.

In order to reconstruct such a transformational network from which mobilizations develop, a turbulent period of Amsterdam’s activism is mapped, showing the specific configuration of groups and individuals. To understand how these configurations develop, the network is reconstructed dynamically over a 10 year period and it is argued that what transpires is a form of innovation within an environment

d. Concepts The core concepts employed are the following. [expand with definitions from lit]

Networks. A network is a heuristic device that helps to explore the relations between individuals. Very generally speaking, it consists of nodes and ties and the analysis of networks “can help to reveal the mechanisms that determine social developments (Bruggeman, 2008:2)”, because it illustrates patterns in those relations that we may not otherwise detect for a (large) population. In this study, there are different types of nodes are identified: 1) ‘individuals’ and 2) ‘mobilizations’. This study treats the ties between these nodes as ‘affiliations’. See below.

Node: Individuals. One type of node in this study is ‘individuals’. These are actors that are in some way involved in the activism ecology under scrutiny. Involvement comes in many forms: from being arrested for partaking in an occupation to the signing of a signature list. Some individuals are involved as a professional, such as civil servants or the mayor, others as journalists. The coding strategy treats every proper name or function title that is encountered as an individual. To answer the research question, these data will be aggregated focusing on those involved in the early stages of collectives.

Mobilizations. Any type of collective action is treated in this study as a mobilization. Mobilization is chosen as a concept because it captures a broad range of activities. This includes repertoires made manifest such as a demonstration or occupation, but also organizations such as a group with a formally defined purpose like a student association, as well as informal groups, any group with some




regularity but without formally defined purpose, such as a group of neighbors. The coding strategy treats every proper name that is not an individual as a collective. To answer the research question, these data will be aggregated focusing on those involved in the early stages of collectives.

Ties: Affiliation. An affiliation is any sort of positioning of which record exists between two individuals as part of a mobilization.

It should be noted explicitly that ties in this study thus come in many forms. Two people who were both arrested during riots certainly may not know each other in any way, while this study treats them as sharing an affiliation. The coding strategy initially treats any hint of a connection between nodes as a tie and records the nature of the tie. This ranges from making publicly recorded statements as a representative of a group, to sharing a mention on the attendance list of a meeting, to being arrested during a mobilization.

Trajectories. This study treats the development of ties of a node over the ten-year period as a trajectory. At tx an individual may be affiliated with the mobilization a. At ty the individual may be affiliated with mobilizations a, b and c. At tz the individual may be affiliated with mobilizations b, c and the new mobilization d. This development is crucial to understanding what the membership of the new mobilization d is made up of. To answer our research question it is significant if an individual has no preceding trajectory, or rather has a trajectory rich with variety among other groups.

Activism ecology. The ecology of activism is understood in this study to be the complete configuration of nodes and ties situated in the environment of Amsterdam between 1965-1975.

The choice for borrowing the term ecology from the natural sciences corresponds with the perspective of evolutionary model of innovation. It reflects that the network dynamics are understood to be inherently complex. It helps to understand how new groups develop in interaction with the environment.

Conceptually, this implies that any individual that in some way relates to any node in the period is part of the network, which might include a journalist in France reporting about the riots. Including such nodes in the study is not relevant to our research question, and accordingly it should be explicitly noted that the network is not considered to be bounded. Consequently, the proper use of many network measures is not viable for the current dataset because of inevitable missing data. Herein also lies the distinction between the concepts of ecology and network in this study. Both are treated as heuristic devices that help us identify the mechanisms of innovation. The activism ecology is the concrete system within which part of the network is situated, and offers a practical boundary.

Innovation. Innovation in this study is understood as the emergence of a new mobilization. It refers to the application of resources for some purpose, which is made manifest as a mobilization. The diffusion of technological innovation in networks is a scientific field in its own right, which warrants application to social movement studies. While that is beyond the scope of the current article and the concept is not intended here to refer to technological innovation, the translation of technology from its Greek etymological root techne as “art, skill, cunning of hand” is surprisingly resonant with the notion of activists as agents of change within the ecology. Initiating a new group is not an exact science, but is an art that requires skill, which is developed in experience. The cunning of hand reflects the agency and strategic behavior that is involved.




• The emergence of a new mobilization is the earliest appearance of that mobilization on record, configuring a number of individuals as the initiators.

[Expand]: Two models of innovation: the pyramid (perfectability and rationality = diffusion?) and the tree (evolution and adaptation = recombinations?).

Brokerage. In network science, brokerage takes place on strategic positions in the network topology between clusters that are not otherwise connected. [formal def]. The general assumption is that individuals within a network cluster share a specific set of resources. Different clusters in the network contain different sets of resources. An individual that occupies the only path between two clusters that are otherwise unconnected is a broker. Access to more varied resources enables the strategic manipulation of those resources or the recombination of sets of resources, which in turn may lead to innovation.

Grievances and issues. A grievance or issue is understood in this study to be a specific and identifiable phenomena that serves as a focal point for collective action. [formal definition]. Examples include the placement of a homeless facility in a neighborhood or the tearing down of houses to make place for city redevelopment plans. Social movement theory and other fields such as policy science, help us to understand how such phenomena serve as concrete topics around which publics form. As a new issue arises, this forces individuals to position themselves in relation to it: for or against. It is in relation to specific topics that action takes place, interpretations develop and perceptions of a group take shape.

4. Methodology

To reconstruct the development of Amsterdam’s activism ecology between 1965 and 1975, historical data are collected. To describe and map the activism ecology in this period two questions need to be answered. Firstly, which are the groups and mobilizations that comprise the ecology of this period in Amsterdam? Secondly, who are the individuals associated with which groups and mobilizations? In order to show the evolution of this ecology, the reconstruction needs to be dynamic so that individual trajectories can be modeled longitudinally. The groups active at a particular time-slice will be represented as a birth-and-deaths table. As a starting focal point, the Provo mobilizations of 1965 are identified as a critical moment which brought together key individuals. In preliminary research this event was identified as a defining melting pot from which many new groups evolved. Around this focal event, we can identify subsequent key innovations and map the trajectories of involved individuals, as well as newcomers.

Patterns are expected in the development of the ecology, which are brought to light with the graphical network representation. Firstly, this will bring to light multiple affiliations of an individual with varying groups. Secondly, personal trajectories are brought to light, as individuals move from one group to the next, converging with other trajectories, and moving on again. Shifting affiliations




will be illustrated for individuals as the changing membership of clusters between multiple time periods. It may be expected that such diverging and converging trajectories show how and where mechanisms of innovation occur. Where a new cluster emerges that formerly didn’t exist, this can be taken as indicative of innovation, and the key individuals that constitute it.

The aim of the project is to determine the mechanisms preceding the emergence of new mobilizations. Three mechanisms are hypothesized: grievances, branching, and fusion. The preceding personal trajectories of initiators, and the composition of these in emerging mobilizations will be taken as indicative of these mechanisms. Respectively, the following compositions are expected: for grievance, initiators will be newly engaged with no prior activity in preceding mobilizations; for branching, initiators will share a common preceding mobilization from which they split; for fusion, initiators will combine activity from multiple different preceding mobilizations.

The primary challenge is the sheer amount of rich and detailed information, from a wide variety of sources. This is mainly due to the enormous amount of individuals and mobilizations active in a city over a decade. In order to develop an accurate picture of the complete activism ecology and the developments of individual trajectories, a selection is necessary. After a preliminary identification of active organizations, key initiators from key organizations will be selected, for which more detail will be added. If the activism ecology as a whole might be understood as a galaxy, we will determine where the solar systems are on which planet’s development to zoom in, increasing the resolution of those trajectories.

Data collection will be realized in the following three iterations, each adding more detail.

1st iteration: network archeology and the IISG archives The aim of this iteration is to identify which mobilizations are active and emergent, and which individuals are associated with them at specific times and places. This will form the basis of the activism ecology. It is approached like a quick scan, where every proper name of individuals and organizations is recorded, plus the time and place of the activity where available.

This scan is achieved by computer-aided text analysis. Documents available in the archives is digitalized and converted by means of OCR (optical character recognition) software to digital text. A script helps to identify which characters in a text resemble names, places, and dates. For example, a combination of 4 numbers is suggested as a year, the repeated appearance of this year may help to situate a document in time. Similarly, if two words that are both capitalized occur in sequence, this combination of characters is proposed by the script to the analyst as a name. If the analyst confirms this is a name, it will henceforth be whitelisted, and subsequent appearances registered in the dataset. This code assisted analysis enables the processing of the enormous amount of data available in the IISG archives.

The product of this first iteration will be a longitudinally dynamic network. Figures 1, 2 and 3 depict the development of a detail of this ecology network. Its nodes are individuals that appear by name in the archives, the ties are affiliations they share with the mobilizations Provo. For example, if two individuals both appear in an archive folder with the minutes of a Provo meeting, this document serves as evidence of their sharing a tie at the time and place of the meeting.




Figures 1-3 development of individual’s association within the mobilization Provo at three 5 month intervals.

On the basis of this dynamic network, it will be possible to determine which mobilizations emerge, and the individuals affiliated with them (according to the IISG archives). The activity periods of both mobilizations and ties between individuals and mobilizations are recorded.

The IISG archive’s inventory database serves as the source for these data. Every archive summary is organized with tags detailing person’s and organization names as well as ‘unit date’. The broadest search for all available archives with ‘language Dutch’ returns 2715 archives (each archive containing a number of boxes, each box containing a number of folders), many of which are not relevant for the period 1965-1975. Every item contained in the archive has a ‘unit-date’, on the basis of which the item is in- or excluded in further analysis. For example, the archive “Archief Provo” contains 646 folders (unit titles). Every unit title carries a unit date and number of organization and person names. For every relevant item (unit date between 1965-1975) in the archive, the associated ‘person’ and ‘organization’ names are extracted. This provides node names of two types, individual and mobilization respectively, each with a unit date. The association of the node with the archive topic is recorded as a tie, plus the period wherein this association is ‘active’. Note that ties will be recorded between associated nodes sharing a ‘common ancestor’ (in this example “Provo”), no ties will be recorded between ‘organizations associated with Provo’ and ‘individuals associated with Provo’.

The active period of the node and the ties will be adjusted iteratively for every occurrence. By way of another example: if the name of the mobilization “Dolle Mina” emerges in 1969, this is recorded as a new node of the type ‘mobilization’, with unit date as the starting time. For every occurrence of this name, the activity period is stretched to accommodate the earliest and latest unit dates. While not directly relevant to our period, years outside the 1965-1975 bracket will be recorded. Individual proper names that appear in combination with the mobilization name “Dolle Mina” are added as a node type individual, if a unique node of this name did not already exist. For this (new) individual type node, a tie is recorded with the mobilization type node, plus the period of activity. For every occurrence of individual plus mobilization association, the activity period is stretched to accommodate the earliest and latest dates.




Based on the product of this first iteration it will be possible to determine for the activism ecology as a whole:

1. The first known activity date (emergence) of “[mobilization name]”. 2. The individuals (node type individual) associated with node “[mobilization name]” (ties) at

specific time periods. The earliest initiators can thus be preliminarily identified. 3. Preceding associations with mobilizations (trajectories) of associated individuals preceding

the emergence of “[mobilization name]””. 4. Aggregation is now possible of individual’s trajectories, to determine if and which other

mobilizations initiators were associated with.

An example of an IISG archive summary may be found here: (e.g. Provo: http://search.socialhistory.org/Record/ARCH02030/ArchiveContentList)

To summarize:

- Nodes: The network nodes are all proper names encountered in the documents containd in the archive. Striving for a complete picture of the activism ecology, every proper name encountered is registered. Prominence of nodes will be filtered in later iteration.

- Ties: A tie is assigned when individuals are named as a person in documents contained in the archive of the mobilization. E.g. two names that appear together in a the minutes of a Provo meeting contained in the archive will have a tie, at the time of that meeting. This may lead to results in the first iteration that are not initially relevant, such as the assignment of a tie between John Lennon, Marinus van der Lubbe, or Princess Beatrix in the dataset of Provo relations. Such results are filtered in a second iteration of the data where higher resolution will be added.

- The time of the tie activity is added as the time at which the shared occurrence takes place. If subsequent appearances of the tie turn up, multiple ties are recorded that reflect the new information. The time is added with as much specificity as available: sometimes this is a year, other appearances include the exact date and time.

- Tie strength: Tie strength is proportional to the number of occurrence of association between nodes named in the archive. This serves as a measure of prominence in the mobilization.

2nd iteration: Media prominence

The aim of this second iteration is twofold: 1) to identify which of the active mobilizations and individuals associated with them have relatively high levels of media prominence, and 2) it serves as a correction to the bias of the IISG archives. While extensive, it is not unlikely that the selection of data available in the IISG is biased. The representation of the activism ecology would accordingly be biased. Appearances in the media of names and mobilizations that were not identified in the first iteration of the activism ecology will be added as nodes and ties to the network.

To further prepare the groundwork for more in-depth analysis, this iteration serves to identify specific mobilizations with high levels of prominence in the media. Media prominence is understood




to be indicative of ‘novelty’, because what is at the time of publication seen as novel will garner more media attention, with higher media prominence as a result. [expand]

3rd iteration: secondary literature

For the mobilizations and individuals identified as having relatively high levels of prominence, existing studies and literature such as monographs and biographies will be analyzed, to create more detailed subgraphs of the larger activism ecology network. These detailed maps allow us to zoom in, with higher resolution, at the development of specific mobilizations. The aim of this iteration is thus to gather more nuanced specifications of association, times, and places.

After this iteration, the data sources combined provide insight in both macro and micro levels of the network topology and its development. From these data, it will be possible to identify configurations of membership of mobilizations at times of emergence, and from those configurations derive the mechanisms of innovation. [expand]

4th iteration: talking to real people

After identifying the prominent mobilizations, the membership configurations at their time of emergence, and the preceding trajectories of its constitutive members, we cannot be satisfied without verifying those findings with those individuals. Given that the period under study is about 50 years ago, many of the key individuals might still be around today. Interviews with them will be held with the aim to open up possibilities of other mechanisms of innovation at play and introduce our theoretical framework to backtalk, which will help the further development of the approach presented in this study. [expand]

5. Case introduction: A time of turbulence and innovation in Amsterdam’s activism ecology ‘65-‘75

a. A turbulent context

b. A time of innovation > some examples: squatters, provo, squatting, dolle mina.

6. Analysis




7. Conclusions

8. Bibliography (NOT COMPLETE!)

• Arampatzi, A. & Nicholls, W.J. (2012) “The urban roots of anti-neoliberal social movements: the case of Athens, Greece”, Environment and Planning, vol. 44, pp. 2591-2610.

• Benford, R.D. & Snow, D.A. (2000) "Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment", Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 26, pp. 611–639.

• Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., Garcia, I., et al, (2011) “Structural and Dynamical Patterns on Online Social Networks: the Spanish May 15th Movement as a case study”, eprint arXiv:1107.1750. Available via http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1750 (last accessed 13/11/2013).

• Burt, R.S. (2004) “Structural Holes and Good Ideas”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 110(2), pp. 349-399.

• Castells, M. (2007) “Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society”, International Journal of Communication, vol. 1, pp. 238-266.

• Easley, D. & Kleinberg, J. (2010) “Networks, Crowds and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Gamson, W.A. (1995). “Constructing Social Protest” in: H. Johnston and B. Klandermans (eds) Social Movements and Culture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 89-10.

• Gould, R. (1991) "Multiple Networks and Mobilization in the Paris Commune", American Sociological Review, vol. 56, pp. 716-29.

• Granovetter, M. (1973) “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78(6), pp. 1360-1380.

• Gusfield, J.R (1981) “The Culture of Public Problems. Drinking, Driving and the Symbolic Order”, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

• Henrich, J. (2004) “Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 53, pp. 3−35.

• Kadushin, C. (2012) “Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Koopmans, R. & Olzak, S. (2004) “Discursive Opportunities and the Evolution of Right-Wing Violence in Germany”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 110(1), pp. 198-230.

• Koopmans, R. (1993) “The Dynamics of Protest Waves: West Germany, 1965 to 1989”, American Sociological Review, vol. 58 (5), pp. 637-658.

• Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak J. W. & Giugni, M. (1992) “New social movements and political opportunities in Western Europe”, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 22, pp. 219-244.



http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1750


• Lubin, J. (2012) “The ‘Occupy’ Movement: Emerging Protest Forms and Contested Urban Spaces”, Berkeley Planning Journal, vol. 25(1), Available via http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5rb320n3 (last accessed 13/11/2013).

• MacAdam, Tarrow, & Tilly (2008) "Methods for Measuring Mechanisms of Contention", Qualitative Sociology, vol. 31(4), pp. 307-331.

• Mascaro, C.M., Novak, A.N., Goggings, S.P. (2012) “Emergent Networks of Topical Discourse: A Comparative Framing and Social Network Analysis of the Coffee Party and the Tea Party Patriots Groups on Facebook”, Public Administration and Information Technology, vol. 1, pp. 153-168.

• McAdam, D. (1982) “Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M.N. (1977) "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.", American Journal of Sociology, vol. 82(6), pp. 1212–41.

• McQuarrie, M. (2013) “No Contest: Participatory Technologies and the Transformation of Urban Authority”, Public Culture, vol. 25(1), pp. 143-175.

• Melucci, A. (1985) “The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements”, Social Research vol. 52, pp. 789-816.

• Melucci, A. (1988) “Getting Involved: Identity and Mobilization in Social Movements”, Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, vol. 1, pp. 329-348.

• Mertes, T. (ed) (2004) “A Movement of Movements: Is Another World Really Possible?”, New York: Verso.

• Mizruchi, E. (1983) “Regulating Society”, New York: Free Press. • Morris, A. (1984) “The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities

Organizing for Change”, New York: Free Press. • Nicholls, W.J. (2009) “Place, Networks, space: theorizing the geographies of social

movements”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 34(1), pp. 78-93. • Nicholls, W.J. (2011) “Cities and the unevenness of social movement space: the case of

France's immigrant rights movement”, Environment and Planning A, vol. 43, pp. 1655 – 1673.

• Padgett, J.F. & Powell, W.W. (2012) “The Emergence of Organizations and Markets”, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

• Rogers, E.M. (1962) “Diffusion of Innovations”, New York: The Free Press. • Saunders (2007) "Using Social Network Analysis to Explore Social Movements: A

Relational Approach", Social Movement Studies, vol 6(3), pp. 227-243. • Taylor, V. (1989) “Social Movement Continuity: The Women's Movement in Abeyance”,

American Sociological Review, vol. 54(5), pp. 761-775. • Tilly, C. (1978) “From Mobilization to Revolution”, Reading: Addison-Wesley. • Uitermark J., Nicholls W., Loopmans M., (2012), "Cities and social movements: theorizing

beyond the right to the city", Environment and Planning, vol. 44(11), pp. 2546 – 2554. • Uitermark, J. & Nicholls, W. (2012): “How Local Networks Shape a Global Movement:

Comparing Occupy in Amsterdam and Los Angeles”, Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 11:3-4, pp. 295-301. Available via http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.704181 (last accessed 13/11/2013).



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.704181


• Uitermark, J. (2013) “Complex movements, contentious cities”. Presentation Rethinking Urban Social Movements, May 22, Gothenborg, Sweden.

• Uitermark, J., Traag, A., Bruggeman, J. (2013) “Dissecting a Discursive Revolution: A Network Analysis of the Dutch Debate on Minority Integration, 1990–2005”. Available via https://sites.google.com/site/jebrug/jeroen-bruggeman-social-science/Discursive-revolution.pdf?attredirects=0 (last accessed 13/11/2013).



https://sites.google.com/site/jebrug/jeroen-bruggeman-social-science/Discursive-revolution.pdf?attredirects=0

https://sites.google.com/site/jebrug/jeroen-bruggeman-social-science/Discursive-revolution.pdf?attredirects=0