Spatial Mobility in Social Theory Ettore Recchi, Aurore Flipo

To cite this version:

Ettore Recchi, Aurore Flipo. Spatial Mobility in Social Theory. SocietàMutamentoPolitica. Rivista italiana di sociologia, Firenze University Press, 2019, Spatial Mobility in Social Theory, 10 (20), pp.125-137. ￿10.13128/smp-11051￿. ￿hal-02443307￿

HAL Id: hal-02443307 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02443307 Submitted on 17 Jan 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. società muta mentopolitica r i v i s t a i t a l i a n a d i s o c i o l o g i a

Spatial Mobility in Social Theory

Citation: E. Recchi, A. Flipo (2019) Spatial Mobility in Social Theory. Ettore Recchi, Aurore Flipo SocietàMutamentoPolitica 10(20): 125-137. doi: 10.13128/smp-11051

Copyright: © 2019 E. Recchi, A. Flipo. Abstract. While the concept of ‘mobility’ lends itself to a variety of metaphorical mean- This is an open access, peer-reviewed ings, ‘spatial mobility’ is in fact poorly theorized in the history of sociology. Nonethe- article published by Firenze University less, it plays an underrated role in the theories of all the classics of the discipline: Marx Press (http://www.fupress.com/smp) and Engels, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, and the Chicago School. The paper explores the and distributed under the terms of the role of ‘spatial mobility’ in these classics and its re-emerging importance in more recent Creative Commons Attribution License, social theory. The influence of geography is highlighted, as John Urry’s ‘mobility turn’ which permits unrestricted use, distri- draws on the earlier ‘spatial turn’ of human geographers. After reviewing the controver- bution, and reproduction in any medi- sy about the use of mobility as a conceptual framework for the analysis of migration, um, provided the original author and source are credited. the paper calls for stronger attention to the spatial dimension of human life in socio- logical theory altogether, rather than confining ‘mobility’ to a specific research field and, Data Availability Statement: All rel- ultimately, treating it as yet another dependent variable to be accounted for. evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Keywords. Mobility, space, social theory, migration. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest.

The concept of ‘mobility’ is frequently used in a number of areas of soci- ological research, yet with different meanings. One way of defining mobility, which aligns with common sense, is a movement in physical space. ‘Mobility’ thus describes travels, tourism, migration, and commuting, quite a diverse array of phenomena in terms of geographical span, temporal duration and individual motivations. Nonetheless, they share an essence – being ‘socio- logical facts formed spatially’, to borrow Georg Simmel’s original formula (Bagnasco 1999). For such social actions, the geographical component – the ‘places’ where they occur (Gieryn 2000) – is key. There are, however, non- physical spaces that are of paramount importance in social life. After Pierre Bourdieu (1993), we call them ‘fields’: arenas of competitive interactions to gain or preserve access to particular resources. Examples are the economic- occupation field (that is, the social structure), the political field (that is, in democracies, the political system in which parties and candidates compete for offices), the affective field (that is, the sphere of personal relationships). In all these instances, the spatial dimension of ‘fields’ is merely metaphorical, yet it helps to outline the capacity of actors to change their relative position vis-à-vis others. Thus, the term ‘mobility’ has been adopted to denote social phenomena that have no geographical anchorage but nonetheless express some change in a relational system. In the three fields mentioned above, there is ‘social mobility,’ a shift among positions within the social structure; ‘political mobility,’ a change in voters’ preferences; and ‘affective mobility,’ a move from one romantic relationship to another. According to Michael

SOCIETÀMUTAMENTOPOLITICA 10(20): 125-137, 2019 ISSN 2038-3150 (online) | DOI: 10.13128/smp-11051 126 Ettore Recchi, Aurore Flipo

Walzer (1990: 11-12), along with freedom of spatial he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and mobility, these three forms of mobility substantiate lib- consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats eral societies1. The study of mobility is therefore a way of and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their dealing with the nuts and bolts of social life in the mod- domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude ern age. Spatial mobility, in turn, seems to be the more towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” quintessential form – one can hardly imagine social life to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A. The without human movements. Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland (Marx 1975: SPATIAL MOBILITY AMONG THE FOUNDING 224). FATHERS OF SOCIOLOGY According to Marxist thinkers, there is a further While mostly neglected in traditional accounts of advantage for capitalists in these immigration-related their thought, insights on ‘spatial mobility’ can be found discords within the working class: among all the classics of sociology of the late 19th-early 20th century: Marx and Engels, Weber, Durkheim and The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the Simmel. hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and To start with, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels2 are England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation deeply aware of the role of population movements in the between the working classes of the two countries impossi- ble. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever emergence of capitalism. In its early stage, industrializa- they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by tion demands workers as an instrument of profit-mak- their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between ing and pulls them away from the countryside (Engels the two countries (Pröbsting 2015: 333). 1962: 119; Marx 1961: 632). Lenin and Luxembourg (and others in their footsteps, like world-system theorists) Eventually, international migration depresses the point out that, in a more advanced stage of capitalism possibilities of internationalism – that is, the original (the imperialist phase, in Marxist terminology), such scenario of a Communist revolution as envisaged in a demand for an exploitable workforce concerns less Marx and Engels’ Manifesto3. developed countries. Immigration feeds the ‘industrial Population mobility stands out as a chief interest of reserve army’, the main lever of the exploitation of the Max Weber as an empirical sociologist involved in the working class, which in turn forms the sine qua non of research activities of the Verein für Socialpolitik in the capitalism in all its manifestations (Castles and Kosack 1890s. Central to the Verein’s interest was the immigra- 1973). tion of Poles into the North-Eastern areas of Germany On top of this, Marx recognizes an additional func- and their consequent displacement of German-speak- tion of an internationally mobile workforce: divide pro- ing peasants, as landlords relied on them as a cheaper letarians and thus weaken their potential for class con- immigrant workforce. The spatial mobility of the Poles sciousness and action. In 1870, Marx evokes the enmity therefore triggered the out-migration of Germans, many between the English working class and immigrant Irish of whom ended up moving to the Americas (Abraham workers as well as the confrontation between poor white 1991). Weber points out that, by replacing traditional workers and black slaves in the US: relationships in which land-owners cared about their farm workers, capitalism in rural settings accelerat- Every industrial and commercial centre in England now ed both class struggle and the loss of (German, in that possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, case) national identity. In Weber’s analysis, population English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who mobility is a force of social and cultural disorganization, lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker revealing the latent conflict between cultural groups that is at the core of social life. Incidentally, the so-called

1 To be precise, Walzer uses the term ‘marital’ rather than ‘affective’ 3 An original argument for the capitalists’ interest in boosting interna- mobility. Changes in norms about personal relationships in more recent tional mobility is to be found in a less well-known Russian Marxist, decades suggest replacing this adjective, as marriage is no longer the Evgenij Preobrazenskij (silenced by Stalin’s purges in the 1930s), who exclusive institutional framework of couple formation and recognition claimed that alienation and pauperization would progressively exclude in the Western world. larger parts of the workforce from the labour market: ‘This immobiliza- 2 Possibly, Engels touched upon the issue of human mobility before tion of a growing part of the pauperized native unemployed encourages Marx, in his 1845 book on the condition of the working class in Eng- the capitalists to look for more mobile, less demoralized labor forces— land. the migrants’ (Pröbsting 2015, 335). Spatial Mobility in Social Theory 127

‘Polish question’ is a litmus test of Weber’s normative omy and individualization, but on the other it makes positioning in defence of German nationalism and, at a people more vulnerable and therefore in demand of soli- more general level, his commitment to a ‘national image darity and protection. This explains the bonding force of of society’ (ibid.: 47; see also Mommsen 1990). ethnic diasporas, which – like in the paradigmatic case Even though he does not speak about it explicitly, of the Jews – are at the same time containers of highly spatial mobility plays a key part in one of Emile Dur- individualized persons and remarkably tight communi- kheim’s most famous theories. In a crucial passage of ties. Simmel’s thoughts touch also upon a very contem- The Division of Labour in Society (1893), the French soci- porary issue: the relationship between technical progress ologist imputes the rise of ‘moral density’ in modern and spatial mobility. His rather paradoxical view is that societies, from which the division of labour ultimately travelling has become somewhat less necessary than in depends, to the intensification of social interactions the Middle Ages: stemming from immigration into cities and the develop- ment of transportation means (Durkheim 1933: 258 and What we gain in consciousness of solidarity through letters 291-2). The capacity of moving more rapidly and at long- and books, checking accounts and warehouses, mechanical er distances is the root cause of further social and cul- reproduction of the same model and photography had to be tural differentiation: “the greater mobility of social units done at the time through travel by persons (ibid.: 594). which these phenomena of migration suppose causes The expansion of large-scale travels since the sec- a weakening of all traditions” (ibid.: 293). Durkheim th insists further on the liberating effect of geographical ond half of the 20 century has partly disproved this. mobility: mobile people – who form the backbone of Travel-friendly technologies have gained enormous trac- great cities – are “freed from the action of the old” (ibid.: tion since Simmel’s times, and travel-saving technolo- 295). The same idea is later reformulated in the discus- gies (like the telephone and the Internet) have been more sion of the ‘organic solidarity’ of modern societies. Dur- incentives than brakes to mobility until recently (Urry kheim predicates it on individual autonomy, which in 2007: 21). However, as we will discuss further, it is not turn is enhanced by spatial mobility: impossible that in the future environmental concerns may eventually contribute to the use of technology – vir- More mobile, he [the modern individual] changes his envi- tual reality, for instance – to curb rather than increase ronment more easily, leaves his people to go elsewhere human mobilities. to live a more autonomous existence, to a greater extent forms his own ideas and sentiments (ibid.: 400). THE CHICAGO SCHOOL: MIGRATION AND SOCIAL Among the classics of sociology, Georg Simmel has ORGANIZATION IN THE CITY a prominent place as precursor of research on spatial mobility. In particular, his 1903 essays The Sociology As is well known, Simmel’s influence has been par- of Space and On the Spatial Projections of Social Forms ticularly strong in the development of urban sociology, (later merged and revised as a single chapter in his Soci- given the popularity of his essay on The Metropolis and ology of 1908) and his most famous essay The Stranger Mental Life. After Simmel, urban sociology was largely (written as an add-on to that chapter) point out that spa- constructed in reference to rural ethnology (Agier 1996), tial mobility creates the conditions for otherwise impos- framing the city as an environment that is defined by sible social relations. By joining physical proximity and mobility and social distance, as opposed to the notions cultural distance, strangers’ encounters with natives of roots and community that are associated with rural are an epitome of the sociological outcomes of mobil- space. Even though the radical asymmetry between a ity. More generally, “humanity – Simmel writes (2009, sedentary rural space and a nomadic urban space is 587) – achieves the existence that we know only through historically unfounded, this opposition explains the its mobility”. Mobility promotes social differentiation, centrality of mobility in the analysis of urban phenom- and particularly “wandering individualizes and isolates ena. Like European sociologists, for the Chicago school, in and of itself” (ibid.: 590). Thus, the rise of individual mobility embodies the spirit of modernity. Thus, for mobility in space goes hand in hand with “the extraor- William I. Thomas, the mobile man forges universal and dinary increase in the difference of needs among mod- abstract knowledge and diverse social abilities, while ern people” (ibid.: 589). As is typical of Simmel, however, the knowledge of the sedentary man (the peasant) is these two tendencies – the rise of mobility and social local, practical and based on ‘personal acquaintances’ differentiation – are intertwined but have ambivalent (Thomas 1909, 169). Thomas in some way already makes outcomes. On the one hand, migration enhances auton- the distinction between strong and weak ties (Granovet- 128 Ettore Recchi, Aurore Flipo ter 1974) on the one hand, and mobility capital vs. local Disorganization as preliminary to reorganization of atti- capital on the other (Renahy 2010). tudes and conduct is almost invariably the lot of the new- The urban ecology approach, forged by Robert E. comer to the city, and the discarding of the habitual, and Park, emerged in the particular context of intense demo- often of what has been to him the moral, is not infrequently accompanied by sharp mental conflict and sense of person- graphic growth that marked the beginning of the twen- al loss (Burgess 1925: 38). tieth century in North American cities, especially Chi- cago. The term ecology refers to the city as an ecosystem The social and spatial segregation of immigrants encompassing heterogeneous entities that are intercon- results, in this context, from the incompatibility of new nected through a complex set of social and spatial rela- immigrants’ norms with the new environment, sup- tions. Specifically, Park defines the city as an ‘institution’ posedly only temporary (Park 1914). For Burgess, it is a that includes: ‘natural’ process by which individuals are integrated into the large urban body: The places and the people, with all the machinery, senti- ments, customs and administrative devices that goes with it, public opinions and street railways, the individual man This differentiation into natural economic and cultural and the tools that he uses, as something more than a mere groupings gives form and character to the city. For segrega- collective entity (Park 1915: 577). tion offers the group, and thereby the individuals who com- pose the group, a place and role in the total organization of city life (Burgess 1925: 39). This results, according to Park, in the fact that “the city possesses a moral as well as a physical organiza- This assimilationist perspective has been largely crit- tion” (ibid.: 578), the adjective ‘moral’ referring to a set icized since the 1960s and 1970s for two reasons. First, of socio-demographic characteristics, dispositions, habits because the systemic and political dimension of segrega- and lifestyles that would be described today as ‘social’ or tion is largely omitted by the naturalist approach of the ‘cultural.’ Chicago sociologists. Second, because the persistence of Thus, urban ecology is interested in the way that dif- segregation strongly undermines the hypothesis that it is ferent entities (social but also material) that make up the merely a transitory phenomenon (Heisler 2007). Moreo- city are distributed spatially, with the hypothesis that the ver, analysing mobility as the ‘transplantation’ (Thomas spatial organization of the city reflects its social organi- et al. 1921) of populations from one environment to zation: another has been vigorously challenged by the transna- tional approach (Glick-Schiller et al. 1995). Physical and sentimental distances reinforce each other, and the influences of local distribution of population par- Yet, by focusing on the settlement process of new ticipate with the influences of class and race in the evolu- populations, their reciprocal relationships as well as tion of the social organization (ibid., 578). norms, values and the process of social iteration that fol- lows international mobility, the Chicago School made a It is in this sense that the city can be thought of as fundamental contribution to establishing sociology of a ‘social laboratory’: at once a microcosm – a miniature migration (Réa et Tripier 2008) and paved the way for society that can be observed by the naked eye (which numerous fields, from theories of segmented assimila- explains the importance of ethnographic methods and tion (Portes and Zhou 1993; Portes and Rumbaut 2001) the empirical nature of the Chicago School approach) to the social construction of ethnic identity (Barth 1969; – and a novel historical context of urban growth (Bur- Alba 1985). gess 1925). The diversity of city-dwellers and the way in which the city organizes this melting pot is of central impor- ‘TAKING SPACE SERIOUSLY’: THE SPATIAL TURN IN tance in the perspective of the Chicago sociologists, SOCIAL THEORY which explains their interest in immigrant communi- ties. For William I. Thomas and Florian Znanecki, who Historically, more than sociology it is human geog- offered one of the very first large-scale studies of interna- raphy that focuses on the mobility of individuals and tional migration with The Polish Peasant in Europe and populations in physical space. Since the 1950s, this dis- America (1996 [1918]), immigrant status represents a par- cipline’s core aim is to study the role of distance in the ticularly interesting lens for understanding the interrelat- functioning of social organization (Claval 1991). Indeed, ed process of normative ‘disorganization’ and ‘reorgani- it is a human geographer, David Harvey (1989), who first zation’ that is generated by mobility. Thus, for Burgess: popularized the idea of ‘time-space compression’ as the Spatial Mobility in Social Theory 129 hallmark of our age, for the joint effect of technical pro- (1979) wants to break with American functionalism by gress in transportation and telecommunications and the arguing that social systems do not have necessary func- international expansion of capitalism. In turn, such a tions, but are rather the result of specific historical and ‘compression’ acts as the playground of globalization4. social trajectories. A similar perspective is developed by In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a new research Henri Lefebvre (1974; 1986) with the regressive-progres- agenda in the social sciences called the ‘spatial turn’ sive method, which is based on the principle that social highlighted the role of space in history, sociology and facts must be analysed at once ‘horizontally’ and ‘verti- in the production of inequalities (Massey 1994; Harvey cally,’ meaning through present (the ‘analytical-regres- 1996; Soja 1989). More broadly, this spatial shift arose sive’ phase) but also past (the ‘historical-genetic’ phase) from a new interest in space and time, with roots both in structural arrangements. Moreover, both authors devote social theory and radical geography. The latter emerged a central place to practices. For Giddens, “all social in the late 1960s with American geographers David Har- action consists of social practices, situated in time-space, vey, Neil Smith and Edward Soja and the British geog- and organised in a skilled and knowledgeable fashion rapher Doreen Massey. This geography is ‘radical’ in by human agents” (Giddens 1981: 92). Thus, structured two respects: first, because it diverges strongly from any social systems are “simultaneously medium and out- reference to physical geography, space being defined as comes of social acts” (ibidem) via individual practices. relational rather than material. And second, because this For this reason, social interactions, which can now take perspective argues that space contributes to producing place across large distances and between social units and reproducing power structures, in a particularly stra- which were before relatively independent from each oth- tegic way. Radical geography emerged in the context of er, fundamentally disrupt the process of social structure anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and feminist struggles, as a for Giddens. For Lefebvre, the notion of ‘globality’ repre- counter power to official geography (Gintrac 2012). This sents above all an expansion of existing power relations, field became more structured and grew in popularity in and thus an extension of the hegemony of the dominant the 1980s and 1990s. Adopting a critical Marxist per- Western classes. It is in daily practices, to the contrary, spective, these geographers thus reaffirmed the impor- that we find a potential for resistance and change: tance of considering the spatial dimension of society and the social construction of space, at a time when space A revolution happens when people (not only a class) no seemed to be increasingly compressed and when the con- longer want to live and no longer can live like before. So cept of globalization emerged and the shift towards polit- they are unleashed and invent (by seeking) another way of ical neo-liberalism occurred in Western countries. life (Lefebvre 1986: 112). The thought of radical geographers and the concept of ‘time-space compression’ developed by Harvey (1989) Despite being controversial, even within geography, resonate with the social theory developed by Giddens what could have been called the ‘spatial turn’ thus ini- about the process of ‘time-space distanciation’ (Giddens tially comes from a critical re-examination of time and 1979). This refers to the expansion of social interactions space as fundamental social constructs that have been through increasingly large distances. It also describes neglected in social theories: the fact that modern Western culture has introduced a One of the most general underlying notions in all my argu- distinction between the notions of space and time, a dis- ments is that time-space relations have to be brought into tinction that has enabled the ‘emptying’ of these notions. the very heart of social theory, in ways in which they have This explains, according to Giddens, why the terms were not been previously (Giddens 1981: 91). often apprehended by the social sciences as simple ‘con- tainers’ of human activity. Thus, Giddens is interested in For Lefebvre as well, the analysis of the spatial-tem- historical time in order to show that it is not the ‘nat- poral dimensions of societies is essential for understand- ural’ result of linear time that is passing, but the prod- ing the way they work, particularly capitalist society: uct of accumulated social dynamics that make up soci- “the mode of production organises – produces – simul- ety. By forging his theory of social structure, Giddens taneously with certain social relationships – its space and its time. In this way it fulfils itself” (Lefebvre 1986, 4 Radical versions of this idea foresee the ‘end of distance’ in social rela- IX). The early analyses of Lefebvre and Giddens thus tions, in analogy with the organization of the global financial system, in call for ‘taking space seriously’ in social theory (Gieryn which investments flow electronically and boundlessly. This vision of a deterritorialized world, originally put forward by Deleuze and Guattari 2000) by investigating the real spatial consequences of (1980), is empirically unsubstantiated and unconvincing, especially at a globalization and in particular the power processes at time of returning nationalisms and geopolitical tensions between sover- work. It is therefore quite logical that these perspectives eign states. 130 Ettore Recchi, Aurore Flipo have been particularly interested in the social dimension a question of determining the shape of a ‘post-society’ of space, what Lefebvre calls ‘social space’5, and through (Urry 2000) with fluid characteristics (Bauman 2002a), it, the question of inequalities. where the notion of motility, meaning the ability to be However, up until the mobility turn, the lessons mobile, is decisive (Kesselring 2006; Kaufmann 2002; of the spatial turn have been relatively rarely used in Kaufmann et al. 2004). sociology, except for urban sociology. The rediscov- The originality of Urry’s contribution consists in ery of Lefebvre’s work by critical geographers in the US the definition of the forms of mobility (that he simply has revived interest in this author, particularly around calls ‘mobilities’) that substantiate much of social life the notion of the right to the city. Similarly, the urban in late modernity: ‘corporeal travels’, ‘physical move- context has been investigated in particular to illustrate ments of objects’, ‘imaginative travels’ (through the pas- Harvey’s relational theory of space, departing from the sive perceptions of the media), ‘virtual travels’ (through conception of a city as a ‘time-space container’ (Graham active interactions with distant places), ‘communicative and Healey 1999) that was dominant in the ecological travels’ (through letters, phone calls, emails, chats and perspective, to describe the uneven character of time- social media) (Urry 2007: 47). These mobilities are inter- space compression processes. Indeed, the “relational connected and amplify each other. For instance, virtual theory of spatio-temporality indicates how different pro- mobilities feed into the aspiration to have face to face cesses can define completely different spatio-temporal- contacts rather than replace them. The outcome is an ities, and so set up radically different identifications of exponential growth of different types of mobilities, and entities, places, relations” (Harvey 1996: 284). thus of physical movements of individuals across space, with a variety of motives and aims. In this regard, Urry (2007: 10-11) draws the following classification of physi- THE EMERGENCE OF A SOCIOLOGY OF MOBILITY: cal mobilities of individuals: THE MOBILITY TURN − asylum, refugee and homeless travel and migration; In the wake of the spatial turn, with which it has − business and professional travel; a number of shared references and concepts, a new − discovery travel of students, au pairs and other approach emerged in the early 2000s: the ‘mobility turn’. young people […]; British sociologist John Urry created a ‘mobile sociol- − medical travel […]; ogy’ (Urry 2010), intending to surpass the ‘static and − military mobility […]; sedentary’ nature of the discipline, and even go beyond − post-employment travel and the forming of transna- the very concept of society (Urry 2000). Thus, Urry tional life-styles within retirement; criticizes sociology for undermining the importance of − ‘trailing travel’ of children, partners, other relatives spatial mobility, by reducing the notion of mobility to and domestic servants […]; movement between places, belonging to the social order, − travel and migration […] within a given diaspora which are both un-situated (occupational categories, for […]; instance, do not contain any indication of space) and − travel of service workers […] including the contem- static in time and space (Urry 2000). Therefore, the aim porary flows of slaves […]; is to put mobility at the heart of classic sociological anal- − tourist travel […]; yses (in particular, social stratification and social mobil- − visiting friends and relatives […]; ity), while also applying the precepts of the ‘spatial turn’ − work-related travel including commuting. for describing the relational dimension of social life. More broadly, Urry’s ‘mobility turn’ is meant to be a This list encompasses a broad spectrum of behav- new paradigm for sociology in late modernity, urging it iours that are usually examined by different areas of to focus on the ‘flows’ rather than the ‘structures’ under- sociology. However, at a closer look, it is possibly redun- lying social relations. For the mobility turn theorists, dant and hinges on quite shaky logical criteria. Some mobility is the new dimension through which the ‘pro- forms of mobility are identified on the basis of motiva- duction of social phenomena’ occurs. Indeed, the emer- tions (business, study, health, or military activities). gence of digital tools has not erased space, but has rather Other forms are ill-defined – how to distinguish ‘travel provided additional opportunities for ‘multiple mobili- of service workers’ from ‘professional travel’ and ‘work- ties’ – material, human and virtual. It is therefore now related travel’? Others overlap – for instance, is a Chi- nese woman following her husband and finding a job 5 As is well known, this concept is also part of Bourdieu’s vocabulary, abroad a case of ‘trailing travel’, ‘diaspora mobility’, or but largely devoid of geographical references. Spatial Mobility in Social Theory 131

‘work-related mobility’? At the end of the day, Urry does and expand their horizons, but generates unforeseen not bother much about a systematic analysis of the types spatial and temporal constraints. Mass motorization of mobility, which his classification fails to distinguish feeds into inaccessibility and frustration. The car is the neatly. His paramount concern is rather with ‘systems of concrete version of “Weber’s ‘iron cage’ of modernity [...] mobility’ and, in his later work (Elliott and Urry 2010), People inhabit congestion, jams, temporal uncertainties the consequences of mobility on social actors. Let us and health-threatening city environments through being thus consider each of these two points in greater detail. encapsulated in a domestic, cocooned, moving capsule, According to Urry, human history is marked by an iron bubble” (Urry 2007: 120). prevailing ‘systems of mobility’ – possibly, an echo of These remarks lead us to the ultimate messages ‘modes of production’ in Marxism. Such systems include of Urry’s analysis of spatial mobility. The first one is not only transportation means (physical and virtual: the increasing complexity and interconnectedness of the telephone is a key part of a mobility system as well), mobility systems. Even an apparently simple movement but also users, infrastructures, actors that produce and between home and the workplace requires the interface maintain the system, as well as associated symbols and of a series of organizational and technological systems – messages. The system of mobility of late modernity automobiles, traffic, information, railways, control and hinges around the automobile. Although cars are over- supervision. Given their interdependence and expansion, looked by scholars of globalization, Urry contends that such systems of mobility are vulnerable – as connections their capacity to organize social life and individuals’ grow, so are possibilities of errors and malfunction- mobility is pivotal and unsurpassed (albeit increasingly ing that spread along a multiplicity of routes. Mobility- challenged: Dennis and Urry 2009). With the TV set linked crises can paralyze societies, revealing its inher- and the personal computer, the automobile is the icon of ent ‘risk’ nature (Beck 2000). But there is more. At the the second half of the twentieth century. To begin with, heart of Urry’s interest are the consequences on culture Urry (2007: 115) notes that “one billion cars were manu- and personality: factured during this last century and there are currently between 500-600m cars roaming the world”. Industrial Freedom of movement is the ideology and utopia of the production has largely evolved after changes in the pro- twenty-first century [...] The existential question of where duction system of the automobile sector. Conceptually, are our lives supposed to be going? That answer has come ‘Fordism’ and ‘post-Fordism’ reflect the primacy of the in the form of ‘going elsewhere’, being somewhere else (Elli- ott and Urry 2010: 8). automobile industry in shaping the dominant mode of production. And there is more. ‘Automobility’, as Urry This hunger of ‘place consumption’ is not satisfied calls it, has totally altered human habitats. Landscapes by the expansion of communication and transportation and natural environments have been transformed by means, which in fact amplify it further. The point is that highways, parking lots, bridges and shopping places that the articulation of mobility systems, linked to their (par- are tailor-made for car users. Moreover, the expansion of tially false) promise of freedom, can generate addiction, access to private cars has entailed an individualization loss of control, fetish-like attachments to the (physical of mobility, which triggers an emerging sense of appar- or virtual) tools of mobility. Urry’s conclusion is there- ent personal control of space and time. Echoing Baudril- fore in line with some of the key themes of the founding lard (1968), Urry underlines that automobiles are a fathers of sociology (from Marx to Weber to Simmel): promise of unprecedented autonomy for human beings. system-derived rationalization weakens the meaningful- Having a car means access to (almost) any place, with- ness of individual action to the extremes of alienation. out particular help from or coordination with the rest Urry is aware of such consonance with the classics when of society. This potential of freedom goes hand in hand he dismisses with the personalization of the vehicle, which leverages on the aspiration to status and distinction of consum- the notion that mobilities are simply new. However, what ers (Bourdieu 1983). In sum, the automobile epitomizes are new are the following: the scale of movement around the key material object and the foundational ideology of the world, the diversity of mobility systems now in play, the advanced capitalism: speed, individual control of time special significance of the self-expanding automobility sys- and space, personal freedom, and the idea that identity tem and its awesome risks, the elaborate interconnections expresses itself through consumption choices. Each sys- of physical movement and communications, the develop- tem of mobility, however, yields ‘scapes’ that co-deter- ment of mobility domains that by-pass national societies, mine individual action and culture with unintended the significance of movement to contemporary governmen- effects. ‘Automobility’ makes people think to save time tality and an increased importance of multiple mobilities for people’s social and emotional lives (Urry 2007: 195). 132 Ettore Recchi, Aurore Flipo

MOBILITY AND FLUIDITY IN THE NETWORK lems caused by the over-accumulation of capital. In this SOCIETY perspective, international migrations are caused by an imbalance between capital and labour, namely a surplus The relationship between the mobility turn and the of capital and a shortage of labour. The main inequal- spatial turn is obvious, in that this new conception of ity linked to mobility is thus above all the opposition mobility (as both a central process in contemporary soci- between capital, entirely and instantaneously movable, eties and as a social construct) comes from the renova- to fixed humans, societies and the environment. It is tion of the space-time approach developed in the spatial out of the desire to go beyond this fixity that the tech- turn. Yet, the mobility turn also developed out of other nological obsession of capitalism is born, in particu- social theories that were built around concepts that have lar for communication technologies. This perspective more or less direct ties to the notion of mobility. This is joins Immanuel Wallerstein’s (1982; 2004) analyses of first and foremost the case of the ‘network society’. A net- the world-system, which revolves around the interna- work refers to the relationship between different points tional and transnational division of labour. In world- between which items are exchanged – whether material system theory, international mobilities are the result of (electric signals, water) or immaterial (information, ide- globalized labour markets and international power rela- as), animate or inanimate. The idea of exchange contrib- tions, as shown in certain sub-sections of the labour uted to the development of the notion of mobility (mobil- market, such as care (Hochschield 2000), sports (Magu- ity of the item that is exchanged), linked to communi- ire and Bale 1994), or particular spaces such as global cation media used (for instance, terms like ‘immaterial cities (Sassen 1991 and 1992). mobility’ or ‘telemobility’ to designate exchanges made Further, the notion of mobility has been refash- through communication and information systems). ioned in post-colonial and feminist criticism, from the Moreover, Urry’s view of mobilities sets out from perspective of spatial domination and intersectionality. his earlier work with Scott Lash on the end of ‘organ- This is notably the case of Doreen Massey who, with the ized capitalism’ (Lash and Urry 1987), which relates the notion of ‘power geometries’, criticizes the dual view of advent of a post-industrial and post-Fordist economy Harvey, who opposes work and capital while omitting to the dispersion and internationalization of produc- other dimensions of power relations, particularly ethnic- tion and consumption on the one hand, and the loss of ity and gender: nation state sovereignty on the other. Such macroeco- nomic and political changes are mirrored at the micro The degree to which we can move between countries, or level by changes in social relations, which have become walk about in the streets at night, or take public transport, more unstable and volatile. This theme, dear to other or venture out of hotels in foreign cities is not influenced social theorists of the 1990s and early 2000s like Gid- simply by ‘capital’ (Massey 1994: 60). dens (1990), Beck (2000) and Bauman (2002a), is further elaborated by Urry in line with Manuel Castells’ (1996) Finally, the mobility turn argument is frequently reading of globalization as the advent of a ‘network rooted in the increase of international migration as society’. Multiple and dynamic connections, finding in being one indicator of the global expansion of mobil- the Internet both an organizational model and its tech- ity. International mobility has indeed soared in these nological support, are held to inform social life in all past decades along three dimensions: quantity (num- its domains. Social structures are no longer the a priori ber of people), diversity (types of mobility) and spatial of social relations, but rather relations (re)shape social scale (the areas concerned). The multiplication of forms structures through the intensified mobility of actors. of migration at the global scale has produced a rich and Thus, as Faist (2013) notes, “certainly the concept of net- abundant literature focused on interactions between work society has an elective affinity with mobility”. globalization and mobility (Skeldon 1997; Cohen 2006). The spatial turn, the mobility turn, and theories of Starting in the 2000s, there is increasing reference to globalization have participated in a renewed interest for ‘global migration’ (Czaika and De Haas 2014) or ‘glob- international mobility, whether from the angle of the al mobility’ (Smith and Favell 2006). All international spatialization of inequalities or the expansion (or com- movements of people are thus presented as several facets pression) of space-time. For Harvey (1989), the notion of the same phenomenon: of mobility includes the expansionist nature of capital- ism, which is constantly seeking new ways to expand The global order is increasingly criss-crossed by tourists, workers, terrorists, students, migrants, asylum-seekers, sci- further and faster. Capitalism’s possibility of mobility entists/scholars, family members, businesspeople, soldiers, is precisely what enables it to find a ‘spatial fix’ to prob- guest workers and so on (Hannam, Sheller and Urry 2006). Spatial Mobility in Social Theory 133

Similarly, the figure of the ‘trans-migrant’ (Glick et al. 2016), whose experiences span between residential Schiller et al. 1995; see also Appadurai 1996) and diaspo- mobilities, tourism and international migrations. Thus, ras have become central in descriptions of globalization. the ‘mobility acceleration’ described by the mobility turn is also characterized by the conflation of different scales of mobility – whether real or virtual. TOURISM, TRANSPORTATION, MIGRATION, Equally, in the field of migration studies, the bor- MOBILITY: OVERLAPPING SOCIAL AND RESEARCH ders between mobility and migration seem to be more FIELDS blurred than ever, and the terms are frequently used interchangeably or juxtaposed (Boswell and Geddes Despite the attempts of the mobility turn to reu- 2011; Favell 2014). If the classic geographical definition nite all mobilities under a single theoretical framework, considers migration as a particular form of mobility mobility as an object of inquiry in the social sciences (Lévy 2000), it is obvious that a more generic conception remains largely fractured, approached from a wide range of the term mobility is increasingly used to describe, and of different disciplinary traditions, such as demography, even manage, international migration (Labelle 2015). The geography, sociology, and urban planning, as well as a plurality of migratory phenomena has indeed led cer- growing number of interdisciplinary fields: transporta- tain researchers to diverge from a definition of interna- tion studies, mobility studies, tourism studies, migra- tional migration that is considered too tight, particularly tion studies, and so forth. Mobility as an object therefore concerning the issue of duration. Thus, as the temporal remains pulled between an (impossible?) search for theo- aspects of geographical movement are both unpredicta- retical unity on the one hand and an increasingly strong ble and very difficult to measure, the difference between division across specialized sub-fields. This boom of stud- the two concepts cannot be boiled down to a clear and ies is related to the specific ‘competitive dynamics’ of aca- uncontroversial distinction. demic social sciences and the desire of scholars to form Some scholars criticize the growing use of the word an autonomous discipline. Research tends to showcase ‘mobility’ to describe international migrations, seeing the ambition of ‘going beyond’ disciplinary borders, by it as a kind of celebration of geographical movement seeking to ‘accumulate’ and ‘combine’ the contributions (Waldinger 2006; Portes 2010; Dahinden 2016). Mobil- of different specializations (Réau 2017: 226). In addition, ity, an individualized, de-socialized form of migration, there is a growing demand of expertise in the non-aca- would represent the avatar of neoliberalism, rooted in demic environment: the tourism industry, governments, a new imaginary of modernity that is more ideologi- and political and economic interests contribute to shap- cal than empirical. On top of this, the mobility turn is ing a ‘space of the thinkable’ in which research fields are blamed for its tendency to magnify mobility by extrapo- structured (ibid.). Defining the boundaries of a unified lating from the personal experiences of academics, who international mobility field is particularly complex, given are among the most internationally mobile populations. that it covers several sub-categories that have historically Friedman (2002) gives the example of some studies that been structured in different ways. Kaufmann (2000) dis- include reflections about the authors’ personal experienc- tinguishes four basic types of mobility: daily, residen- es. These narratives, which are frequently used as exam- tial, migration and travel. In turn, these are categorized ples or in prefaces, nonetheless convey the biased percep- according to 1) their geographical scope (within or out- tion of international mobility as a universal feature from side of a local area) and 2) time, specifically its cyclical the standpoint of privileged white males (Massey 1994; or linear aspect. In a context where certain individuals’ Skeggs 2004). Another criticism of the mobility turn is ‘local’ surroundings have an international scope, can we the alleged linearity of the relationship between spatial still talk about travel and migration? Moreover, the inten- and social mobility. In particular, the idea that ‘different tion of return that is contained in temporal or cyclical degrees of ‘motility’ or potential for mobility […are…] a linearity is not always a given: cyclical movements can crucial dimension of unequal power relations’ (Hannam become definitive, and to the contrary, a movement that et al 2006) seems to neglect the persistence of inequalities is conceived of as definitive can become cyclical. For between migrants and natives in receiving societies and selected populations, transnational back-and-forth move- the pre-eminence of national frameworks in determining ment may imply long distance on a daily basis (Vincent- opportunities and life conditions (Faist 2013). Geslin and Kaufmann 2012), just as international migra- On the other hand, the criticism of methodological tions can be circular, while travellers can become perma- nationalism has pushed other authors to adopt the term nent residents, like people with ‘lifestyle mobilities’ or mobility in order to render the complexity of migra- ‘lifestyle migrations’ (Benson and O’Reilly 2009; Cohen tion dynamics as well as the importance of migrants’ 134 Ettore Recchi, Aurore Flipo agency in their geographic and biographic trajecto- of migratory practices, which research in non-Western ries (Morokvasic and Rudolph 1996; Morokvasic 1999). contexts has emphasized. The profiles of international Mobility is used as a concept that helps widen the scope migrants have diversified, blurring the borders previous- of migration research. Similarly, a plethora of empiri- ly established by sociology of immigration (that is, with cal studies have shown that the permanent character of a focus on receiving countries) between highly skilled moves attributed to international migrations is largely migrants and low skilled migrants. The conceptual dis- disputable (eg, Wyman 1993; King 2002; Beauchemin tinction between migrations and mobilities is therefore 2018). As the ‘narrative of departure, arrival and assimi- questioned in current sociology. Neither a disciplinary, lation’ (Ley and Kobayashi 2005: 112) is more and more nor a geographic, nor a status distinction helps discern discredited, traditional research on migration is accused ‘movers’ from ‘migrants’ in the literature. of an in-built ‘settlement bias’ (Hugo 2014). Moreo- ver, the mobility turn has contributed to incorporating migration among the facets of ‘bottom-up globalization’ CONCLUSION to be explored with a variety of methods – from ethnog- raphies to big data (Tarrius 2002; Smith and Favell 2006; After this attempt at a non-exhaustive summary, it Recchi 2017). seems that spatial mobility undercuts all of the major Divergences about the relation between mobil- fields of sociology, from the founding fathers to contem- ity and migration are partly explained by the very dif- porary theories. Still, it remains an object of inquiry that ferent theoretical origins of these perspectives, noted is strongly scattered across the discipline. throughout this article. Sociology of migration, rooted On balance, the call to develop an integrated in the Chicago School, approached migration from the approach to spatial mobility, stemming above all from angle of labour and inequalities, via the formation of a the advocates of the mobility turn (Sheller and Urry new urban working class. This original take has guid- 2006; Urry 2007), has only modestly been received in ed research to focus on low-skilled migrants from less empirical research. At the same time, social theory economically developed countries, as the question of has not really taken stock of empirical studies of spa- migration increasingly became a new social problem in tial mobility, also because empirical research remains receiving countries (Fassin and Fassin 2006). Sociology strongly compartmentalized within distinct fields. Thus, of international mobility, in contrast, comes first and few studies have sought to describe and analyse differ- foremost from the sociology of elites. Thus, research ent scales of spatial mobility together (for an exception, that has focused on the international migration of high- see Bassand and Brulhardt 1980 and 1983). It must also skilled managers in the context of an internationalized be recalled that a number of disciplines define and treat economy has used the term ‘mobility’ since it is the mobility in different ways (Kaufmann 2000). Beyond ‘indigenous’ term used by corporations and interna- distinct approaches (literature, concepts, definitions, tional organizations to describe the expatriation of their methods, hypotheses, perspectives and research aims), employees (for an example, Forster 1992). Moreover, the the multiple dimensions of mobility studied have also time-based distinction between permanent migration given rise to new fields of research that are relatively and temporary mobility has led sociologists of elites to independent. An adjective is therefore often appended adopt the latter term, since the international trips of the to the notion of mobility (Epstein 2013). From trans- upper classes are most often not considered definitive portation studies to tourism studies to urban studies, (Andreotti et al. 2013). Sociology of international mobil- the analysis of mobility is at once central to numerous ity has thus developed around the upper classes and fields, while uniquely lacking, following Georg Simmel, focused on the formation of what can be called ‘interna- any theoretical unity. Similarly, and despite the origi- tional capital’, namely the social and economic returns nally interdisciplinary ambition of the spatial turn, spa- of international mobility (Wagner and Réau 2015). The tial sociology has never been organized as a separate term ‘mobility’ has entered sociology of international field (Gans 2002). For most sociologists, space remains migration as the result of a hybridization of different a lateral issue rather than a socially meaningful object traditions divided into sub-fields. Its relative success also of inquiry (Fuller and Löw 2017). This difficulty nota- reflects a form of ‘normalization’ of migratory practic- bly stems from the tenet that any social fact is also a es, once imagined from the perspective of marginality, spatial fact (Gieryn 2000). Thus, by acknowledging the exception and anomy which were ideally absent in eth- relational dimension of space, the spatial turn has given nically homogeneous societies. Add to this the growing rise to a paradoxical de-spatialization of space: emptied awareness of the complexity, flexibility, and reversibility of its physical content, space becomes ungraspable. Yet, Spatial Mobility in Social Theory 135 there is wide room to advance knowledge on the spa- Boswell C. and Geddes A. (2011), Migration and mobility tial dimension of social relationships, spatial socializa- in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac- tion, or proximity effects (Torre and Rallet 2005), espe- millan. cially in an age where virtual spaces have an increasing Bourdieu P. (1993), The Field of Cultural Production, influence. New conceptual and methodological tools are Cambridge: Polity Press. needed to include spatial mobility among the dimen- Burgess E. (1925), The Growth of the City: An Introduc- sions of general sociological analysis rather than keep it tion to a Research Project, in «The Trend of Popula- confined within a specific and circumscribed research tion», XVIII: 85-97. field. Castles S. and Kosack G. (1973), Immigrant workers and class structure in Western Europe, London: Oxford University Press. REFERENCES Castells M. (1996), The rise of the network society, New York-London: Wiley. Abraham G. A. (1991), Max Weber: Modernist anti-plu- Claval P. (1991), Geografia umana, in Enciclopedia delle ralism and the Polish question, in «New German Cri- scienze sociali, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Itali- tique», (53): 33-66. ana. Agier M. (1996), Les savoirs urbains de l’anthropologie, in Cohen R. (2006), Migration and its enemies: global capi- « Enquête. Archives de la revue Enquête », (4): 35-58. tal, migrant labour and the nation-state, Aldershot: Alba R. (1985), The Twilight of Ethnicity among Ameri- Ashgate. cans of European Ancestry: The Case of Italians, in Czaika M. and De Haas H. (2014), The globalisation of «Ethnic and Racial Studies», 8(1): 134-158. migration: Has the world become more migratory?, in Andreotti A., Le Galès P., and Moreno Fuentes F.J. (2013), «International Migration Review», 48(2): 283-323. Transnational mobility and rootedness: the upper mid- Dahinden J. (2005), Contesting transnationalism? Lessons dle classes in European cities, in «Global Networks», from the study of Albanian migration networks from for- 13(1): 41-59. mer Yugoslavia, in «Global Networks», 5(2): 191-208. Appadurai A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Deleuze G. and Guattari F. (1980), Capitalisme et schizo- Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis: University phrénie 2. Mille plateaux, Paris: Les Éditions de of Minnesota Press. Minuit. Bagnasco A. (1994), Fatti sociali formati nello Dennis K. and Urry J. (2009), After the Car, Cambridge: spazio, Milan: Angeli. Polity. Barth F. (1969), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Durkheim E. (1893 [1933]), The Division of Labor in Soci- Little, Brown, and Company. ety, New York: Macmillan. Bassand M. and Brulhardt M.-C. (1980), Mobilité spa- Engels F. (1845 [1962]), The Condition of the Working tiale. Bilan et analyse des recherches en Suisse, Saint- Class in England, in Marx and Engels, On Britain. Saphorin: Ed. Georgi. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Bassand M. and Brulhardt M.-C. (1983), La mobilité spa- Elliott A. and Urry J. (2010), Mobile Lives. London: Rout- tiale : un processus social fondamental, in « Espace ledge. Populations Sociétés », 1(1) : 49-54. Epstein D. (2013), La mobilité spatiale locale: l’influence Baudrillard J. (1968), Le système des objets, Paris: Galli- de la mobilité quotidienne sur la mobilité résidentielle: mard. l’exemple des résidants actifs luxembourgeois, PhD Bauman Z. (2002a), Modernità liquida, Roma-Bari: Lat- Thesis. Strasbourg: Université de Strasbourg erza. Faist T. (2013), The mobility turn: a new paradigm for Bauman Z. (2002b), Il disagio della postmodernità, the social sciences?, in «Ethnic and Racial Studies», Milano: Bruno Mondadori. 36(11): 1637-1646. Beauchemin C. (ed) (2018), Migration between Africa and Fassin D. and Fassin, E. (2006), De la question sociale à Europe, New York: Springer. la question raciale ? Représenter la société française, Beck U. (2000), I rischi della libertà: gli individui nella Paris: La Découverte. società globalizzata, Bologna: Il Mulino. Favell A. (2014), Immigration, integration and mobility: Benson M. and O’Reilly K. (2009), Migration and the new agendas in migration studies, Colchester: ECPR search for a better way of life: a critical exploration Press. of lifestyle migration, in «The Sociological Review», Forster N. (1992), International managers and mobile 57(4): 608-625. families: the professional and personal dynamics of 136 Ettore Recchi, Aurore Flipo

trans-national career pathing and job mobility in On the edge: living with global capitalism, London: the 1990s, in «The International Journal of Human Jonathan Cape, 130-46. Resource Management», 3(3): 605-624. Hugo G. (2014), A multi sited approach to analysis of Friedman J. (2002), Champagne Liberals and the New destination immigration data: An Asian example, in ’Dangerous classes’ : reconfigurations of class, identity «International Migration Review», 48(4): 998-1027, and cultural production in the contemporary global https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12149. system, in «Social Analysis», 46(2): 33-55. Kaufmann V. (2000), Mobilités quotidiennes et dynam- Fuller M.G. and Löw M. (2017), Introduction: An invi- iques urbaines: la question du report modal, Lausanne: tation to spatial sociology, in «Current Sociology», Presses polytechniques universitaires romandes. 65(4): 469-491. Kaufmann V. (2002), Re-thinking Mobility. Contemporary Gans H.J. (2002), The Sociology of Space: A Use–Centered Sociology, Aldershot: Ashgate. View, in «City & Community», 1(4): 329-339. Kaufmann V., Bergman M.M. and Joye D. (2004), Motil- Gieryn T. F. (2000), A space for place in sociology, in ity: mobility as capital, in «International Journal of «Annual review of sociology», 26(1): 463-496. Urban & Regional Research», 28(4): 745-756. Giddens A. (1979), Central problems in social theory: Kesselring S. (2006), Pioneering Mobilities: New Pat- action, structure and contradiction in social analysis, terns of Movement and Motility in a Mobile World, in London: Macmillan. «Environment and Planning: Economy and Space», Giddens A. (1981), Time and space in social theory, in 38(2): 269-279. Matthes J., Lebenswelt Und Soziale Probleme: Verhan- King R. (2002), Towards a new map of European migra- dlungen Des 20 Deutschen Soziologentages Zu Bremen tion, in «International journal of population geogra- 1980, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. phy», 8(2): 89-106. Giddens A. (1990), The consequences of modernity. New Kivisto P. (1990), The transplanted then and now: The York-London : Wiley. reorientation of immigration studies from the Chicago Gintrac C. (2012), Géographie critique, géographie radi- School to the new social history, in «Ethnic and Racial cale : Comment nommer la géographie engagée ?, in Studies», 13(4): 455-81. «Carnets de géographes», 4: http://www.carnetsdege- Labelle M. (2015), Le paradigme de la mobilité propose-t- ographes.org/PDF/rech_04_04_Gintrac.pdf il une perspective adéquate de l’immigration interna- Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., Szanton Blanc C. (1995), tionale ?, in «Éthique publique. Revue internationale From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Trans- d’éthique sociétale et gouvernementale», 17(1): htt- national Migration, in «Anthropological Quarterly», ps://journals.openedition.org/ethiquepublique/1751. 68(1): 48-63. Lash S. and Urry J. (1987), The End of Organized Capital- Graham, S. and Healey, P. (1999), Relational concepts of ism, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. space and place: Issues for planning theory and prac- Lefebvre H. (1974), La production de l’espace, «L’Homme tice, in «European Planning Studies», 7(5): 623-646. et la société», (31-32) : 15-32. Granovetter, M. (1974), Getting a job: a study of contacts Lefebvre H. (1986), La production de l’espace. Paris: and careers, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Anthropos. Press. Lévy J. (2000), Les nouveaux espaces de la mobilité, in Hannam, K., Sheller, M., and Urry, J. (2006), Editorial: Bonnet M., and Desjeux D. (eds), Les territoires de la Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings, in «Mobilities», mobilité, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 155- 1(1): 1-22. 170. Harvey, D. (1989), The condition of postmodernity, Ley D. and Kobayashi A. (2005), Back to Hong Kong: Oxford: Blackwell. Return Migration or Transnational Sojourn?, in Harvey D. (1996), Justice, Nature and the Geography of «Global Networks», 5: 111-128. Difference, Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell. Maguire J. and Bale J. (1994), The global sports arena: ath- Heisler B. (2007), The Sociology of Immigration: From letic talent migration in an interdependent world, Lon- Assimilation to Segmented Assimilation, from the don: Franck Cass. American experience to the Global Arena, in Brettell Marx K. and Engels F. (1975), Selected correspondence. C. and Hollifield J. (eds), Migration Theory: Talking Moscow : Progress Publishers. Retrieved online: htt- Across Disciplines, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge, ps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/let- 83-112. ters/70_04_09.htm. Hochschild A. R. (2000), Global care chains and emotion- Marx K. (1867 [1961]) Capital, Vol. I, Moscow: Progress al surplus value, in Hutton, W. and Giddens, A. (eds), Publishers. Spatial Mobility in Social Theory 137

Massey D. (1994), Space, Place and Gender, Cambridge: Skeggs B. (2004), Class, Self, Culture, London: Routledge. Polity Press. Skeldon R. (1997), Migration and Development: A Global Mommsen W. J. (1990), Max Weber and German Politics, Perspective, Essex: Longman. 1890-1920, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith M. and Favell A. (eds) (2006), The human face of Morokvasic M. (1999), La mobilité transnationale comme global mobility: international highly skilled migration ressource: le cas des migrants de l’Europe de l’Est, in in Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific, Pis- «Cultures & Conflits», (33-34) : 105-122. cataway, NJ: Transaction Books. Morokvasic M. and Rudolph H. (1996), Migrants: les nou- Soja E.W. (1989), Postmodern Geographies: The Reasser- velles mobilités en Europe, Paris: L’Harmattan. tion of Space in Critical Social Theory, London, New Park R.E. (1914), Racial Assimilation in Secondary York: Verso. Groups, with Particular Reference to the Negro, in Soja E. W. (2000), Postmetropolis: critical studies of cities «American Journal of Sociology», 19(5): 606-623. and regions, Oxford: Blackwell. Park R.E. (1915), The City: Suggestion for the Investiga- Tarrius A. (2002), La Mondialisation par le bas: les nou- tion of Human Behavior in the City Environment, in veaux nomades de l’économie souterraine, Paris: Bal- «American Journal of Sociology», 20(5): 577-612. land. Park R.E. and Burgess E.W. (1921), Introduction to the Thomas W. I. (1909), Source book for social origins, Chi- Science of Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago cago: University of Chicago Press. Press. Thomas W.I. and Znaniecki F. (1918 [1996]), The Polish Portes A. and Zhou M. (1993), The New Second Genera- Peasant in Europe and America: A Classic Work in tion: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants, in «The Immigration History, Urbana: University of Illinois Annals», 530(1): 74-96. Press. Portes A. and Rumbaut R. G. (2001), Legacies: The Story Thomas W.I, Park R.E., and Miller H.A. (1921), Old of the Immigrant Second Generation, Berkeley, CA: world traits transplanted, New York, London: Harper. University of California Press. Urry J. (2000), Sociology Beyond Societies, London: Rout- Portes A. (2010), Migration and Social Change: Some ledge. Conceptual Reflections, in «Journal of Ethnic and Urry J. (2007), Mobilities, Cambridge: Polity. Migration Studies», 36(10): 1537-1563. Urry J. (2010), Mobile sociology, in «British Journal of Pröbsting M. (2015), Migration and Super-exploitation: Sociology», 61(1): 347-366. Marxist Theory and the Role of Migration in the pre- Vincent-Geslin S. and Kaufmann V. (eds) (2012), Mobilité sent Period of Capitalist Decay, in «Critique», 43(3-4): sans racines. Plus loin, plus vite… Plus mobiles? Paris: 329-346. Descartes et Cie. Réa A. and Tripier M. (2008), Sociologie de l’immigration, Wagner A. C. and Réau B. (2015), Le capital interna- Paris: La Découverte. tional : un outil d’analyse de la reconfiguration des Réau B. (2017), Esquisses pour une analyse critique des rapports de domination, in Siméant, J. (ed), Guide de Tourism studies, in «Zilsel», 2(2) : 223-249. l’enquête globale en sciences sociales, Paris: CNRS Edi- Recchi E. (2017), Towards a global mobilities database: tions, 33–46. rationale and challenges, MPC Paper. Firenze: Euro- Waldinger R. (2006), ‘Transnationalisme’ des immigrants pean University Institute, http://www.migrationpoli- et présence du passé, in «Revue européenne des cycentre.eu/docs/GMP/Global_Mobilities_Project_ migrations internationales», 22(2): 23-41. Explanatory_Note.pdf. Wallerstein I. (1982), World-Systems Analysis: Theory and Renahy N. (2010), Classes populaires et capital Methodology, Beverly Hills: Sage. d’autochtonie, in «Regards sociologiques», (40) : 9-26. Wallerstein I. (2004), World-systems analysis: An introduc- Sassen S. (1991), The Global City – New York, London, tion, Durham: Duke University Press. Tokyo, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Walzer M. (1990), The communitarian critique of liberal- Sassen S. (1992), The mobility of labor and capital: a study ism, in «Political theory», 18(1): 6-23. in international investment and labor flow, Cam- Wyman M. (1993), Round-Trip to America: The Immi- bridge: Cambridge University Press. grants Return to Europe, 1880–1930, Ithaca: Cornell Sheller M. and Urry J. (2006), The new mobilities para- University Press. digm, in «Environment and Planning A», 38(2): 207- 226. Simmel G. (1908 [2009]) Sociology: Inquiries into The Construction of Social Forms, Leiden-Boston: Brill.