Social Media and Ambient Social Distance

  • Katja ValaskiviEmail author
  • Anna Rantasila
  • Mikihito Tanaka
  • Risto Kunelius


This chapter looks at the Fukushima disaster as a media event from a spatial perspective by raising the question of how social media activity constructs social distance, and in so doing conditions the dynamics of public discourse. By applying co-retweeted network analysis of retweeting in Japan during three consecutive years, the chapter shows how the ambient sense of community in Twitter feeds about Fukushima moved from an early ‘disaster utopia’ to a more acute political polarization that in the context of national nuclear politics is articulated as a core theme. Polarization of discussions in the aftermath of Fukushima, the general political landscape and the increasingly strategic use of social media lead to a mediated social geography where it is difficult for science and journalism to play a constructive role.


Social media Social distance Ambient sense of community Polarization Retweet networks Twitter Scientific communication Journalism and social media Network analysis 


  1. Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Conference paper, The third international conference on weblogs and social media, ICWSM 2009, San Jose.
  2. Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Endo, K. (2012). Media ha daishinsai genpatu wo dou katattaka: houdou, net, documentary wo kensyo suru [How did media narrate the great earthquake and nuclear disaster: Verifying coverage, internet and documentary]. Tokyo: Tokyo Denki University Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Igarashi, Y. (2018). Genpatsu Jiko to Shoku: Shijō Komyunikēshon Sabetsu [The nuclear accident and food: Market, communication, discrimination]. Tokyo: Chūōkōronshinsha.Google Scholar
  5. Ishido, S. (2017). Risk to Ikiru, Shisha to Ikiru. [Living with risk, living with the dead.]. Tokyo: Aki Shobo. [Japanese].Google Scholar
  6. Itō, M. (2017). Jōdō No Shakaigaku: Posuto Media Jidai Ni Okeru ‘Mikuro Chikaku’ No Tankyū [Sociology of affect]. Tokyo: Seidosha. [Japanese].Google Scholar
  7. Kawai, T., & Fujishiro, H. (2013). Use of Twitter in the disaster information after the Great East Japan earthquake. Koho Kenkyu, 17, 265–288. [Japanese].Google Scholar
  8. Kimura, A. H. (2016). Radiation brain moms and citizen scientists: The gender politics of food contamination after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kurokawa, S. (2018). Comment on “individual external dose monitoring of all citizens of date city by passive dosimeter 5 to 51 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (series): II”. Journal of Radiological Protection. [] 30 Dec 2018.
  10. Lee, B., & LiPuma, E. (2002). Cultures of circulation: The imaginations of modernity. Public Culture, 14(1), 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Merton, R. K. (1973 [1942]). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton & N. W. Storer (Eds.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. MIC (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan). (2011). White paper 2011 on information and communications in Japan.
  13. Miura, A., Toriumi, F., Komori, M., Matsumura, N., & Hiraishi, K. (2016). Relationship between emotion and diffusion of disaster information on social media: Case study on 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 31(1), 1–9. [Japanese].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murai, H. (2012). Twitter trends following the Great East Japan earthquake: A quantitative analysis of earthquake-related hashtags. Joho Chishiki Gakkaishi, 22(2), 97–106. [Japanese].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nomura, S., Tsubokura, M., Hayano, R., Furutani, T., Yoneoka, D., Kami, K., Kanazawa, Y., & Oikawa, T. (2015). Comparison between direct measurements and modeled estimates of external radiation exposure among school children 18 to 30 months after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(2), 1009–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective publics. Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 13585–13592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Solnit, R. (2009). A paradise built in hell: The extraordinary communities that arise in disaster. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  20. Sumiala, J., Valaskivi, K., Tikka, M., & Huhtamäki, J. (2018). Hybrid media events: The Charlie Hebdo attacks and global circulation of terrorist violence. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sunstein, C. (2017). #Republic. Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tanaka, M. (2015). Agenda building intervention of socio-scientific issues: A science media centre of Japan perspective. In Y. Fujigaki (Ed.), Lessons from Fukushima: Japanese case studies on science, technology and society. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Tanaka, M. (2016). STS to kanjoteki kokyoken – Watashitachi wa syakaiseigi no senshi nanoka? [STS in the age of affective public: Are we ‘social justice warriors’?]. Japanese Society of STS Journal, 12, 190–200. [Japanese].Google Scholar
  24. Tsubokura, M., Onoue, Y., Torii, H. A., Suda, S., Mori, K., Nishikawa, Y., Ozaki, A., & Uno, K. (2018). Twitter use in scientific communication revealed by visualization of information spreading by influencers within half a year after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. PLoS One, 13(9), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). (2017). Fukushima 2017 white paper. United Nations.
  26. Valaskivi, K., & Sumiala, J. (2013). Circulating social imaginaries: Theoretical and methodological reflections. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(3), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(1), 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wile, J. L. (2013). A surprising study of people living near Fukushima. Accessed 9 Sept 2018.
  29. Yagi, E. (2013). Kagakuteki konkyo wo meguru kunou: Hisai tojisya no katari kara [Anguish surrounding scientific evidence: From narratives of the victims]. In M. Nakamura (Ed.), Post 3.11 no Kagaku to Seiji [Science and politics after the disaster of March 11 in Japan]. Kyoto: Nakanishiya. [Japanese].Google Scholar
  30. Yamada, K. (2013). 3.11 to media: tettei kensyo shinbun, TV, Web ha naniwo dou tsutaetaka [3.11 and the media: What and how did the newspaper, television and web mediate]. Tokyo: Transview. [Japanese].Google Scholar
  31. Yamamoto, S. (1983). Kuki no kenkyu [The study of air]. Tokyo: Bungei-Shinju. [Japanese].Google Scholar
  32. Yoshinaga, D., Obata, T., & Tanaka, M. (2017). The representation of ‘artificial intelligence’ in contemporary hybrid media systems. Japanese Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 32(6), 943–948. [Japanese].Google Scholar
  33. Ziman, J. (2002). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katja Valaskivi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Rantasila
    • 1
  • Mikihito Tanaka
    • 2
  • Risto Kunelius
    • 1
  1. 1.Tampere UniversityTampereFinland
  2. 2.Waseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations