2010/01/01 by Vincent Kaufmann · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #Cross-Border Cooperation and Integration #Urban Planning and Governance #Global Urban Networks and Dynamics
paper · pdf · doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01294.x
openalex publication_date 2010/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
John Urry's article Mobile Sociology (2010 [2000a]) proposes a sociological revolution – a revolution the field itself is not yet fully conscious of – heralding the first fruits of the ‘mobility turn’ for which Urry advocates so strongly. Since its publication in 2000, the article has been the focus of a lively debate, as has his book, Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century, published the same year. Despite such debate, the article's main propositions in my opinion have not had sufficient impact across the discipline of sociology, or the social sciences more broadly. This is perhaps linked to several misunderstandings the author attempts to clear up in Mobilities (2007), a work looking at social inequalities and their roots. However, the school of thought originated by John Urry's publications on mobility now risks getting stuck amongst the post-structuralist trends that have run through Anglo-Saxon sociological studies for the past two decades, without truly spilling over into the field as a whole. Four main arguments in Urry's article merit further discussion in this context: the growing importance of horizontal mobilities as a factor in social differentiation; the critique of the notion of society; mobility as the main focus of the social sciences; and the call for post-disciplinary social science. Trends in consumerism, ways of life and their translation in terms of mobility have diversified considerably over the past decades. Urry, based on this observation, tells us that aptitude for movement has become a new form of social capital (which he refers to as ‘network capital’ in his more recent texts), thus contributing to the debate on social fluidity. The social fluidity question is nothing new – sociology has been grappling with it since the works of Pitirim Sorokin (1927). It harks back to the dream of a classless society that guarantees equal opportunity for all. With the issue of the impact of modern systems of communication and transport, however, the argument takes another twist. According to classical sociology, a fluid society presents no barriers and allows the individual to move vertically in the socio-professional space on a strictly meritocratic basis. This idea has been developed considerably since the 1960s, notably with the works of Lipset, Zetterberg and Bendix, as well as that of Blau and Duncan. In this often ideologically-oriented body of work, fluidity has extremely positive connotations as a conveyor of advancement in social justice terms. Compared to this traditional sociological argumentation, the fluidity issue that is currently under debate in the social sciences concerns horizontal movement as much as vertical movement in social space, thus abandoning the idea of a single, aspirational model of socio-professional success that individuals must pursue. Consequently, this debate is no longer restricted to the field of work but takes on a more global relevance, concerning itself with different spheres of activity and their relationship to time and space. In short, the fluidity debate is considerably more far-reaching than the simple question of moving from one social category to another; it concerns all barriers, constraints and margins for manoeuvre that individuals are confronted with throughout their lives and can be summed up in the question: does the compression of time and space increase the room for manoeuvre that each individual has available to them over the course of their life? The limitation of Urry's idea undoubtedly lies in the fact that he confines network capital to the horizontal aspect of social space, when the whole point of his proposition is to go beyond analysis in terms of consumption in general to question the vertical dimension of social structuring. Contemporary Western societies require very specific mobility aptitudes, to the point that they are becoming a condition for social integration. Being flexible, knowing how to adapt, and being open to new opportunities seem to have become prerequisites for a successful life both professionally and personally (leisure activities, family, friends, etc.), as has being equipped with a motility that allows you to respond accordingly to these areas (Kaufmann 2002, Kaufmann 2008). The fact that mobility (like income or education) has become another dimension of social stratification and that motility, which is based on typification rather than quantification,1 creates new types of social inequalities is a double corollary. This – while it is the most provocative aspect of the article – is also an essential part of Urry's thinking. He proposes abandoning the notion of society as a subject of sociology in favour of mobility – a proposition that is of great merit as it would truly bring the notion of space into sociology. Let us recall that ultimately Urry's critique of society stems from the view that the concept has been both poorly defined and misconceived in sociology. Going beyond this vision allows us to adopt a much more subtle, spatialized vision of social issues. The growth of speed differentials in cities has reordered the importance of the different spatial forms (areola, network and rhizome) in the modalities of social integration. Each form relates to a conception of space: Areolar space. In this first conception space is static, manifesting itself as an enclosed area with clearly identifiable boundaries, an inside and an outside. Each individual occupies a place in this space. Mobility consists in moving from one space to another – a directed movement with both an origin and destination. A good part of the conceptual and methodological devices in the social science is based on this model, as is the mapping of territories, social classes and national public policies as the subject of political science. Most statistical data implicitly refers to areolar spaces (meaning spaces typically labelled as relevant, considered homogenous and delimited by borders), their criteria for social differentiation (socio-professional categories, household make-up) and spatial differentiation (country, administrative region). The most basic critique we can make of the areolar conception of space is that it is founded on categories that are fixed and closed. Critics cite the decline in the power of differentiation of a fair number of categories of analysis based on this conception as proof of its conceptual obsolescence (Bauman 2000). Reticular space. In this second conception space is viewed as a functional arrangement of lines and points; it is discontinuous, open and, if there are identifiable limits, they are topological. Here, each individual disposes of access to the network that is space. As access is a key issue, material support for the transmission of values, ideas, culture, etc. becomes the focus of the analysis. While transportation and communication means are merely neutral supports for mobility between origin and destination points in the areolar conception, in the reticular conception they are likely to favour or disfavour mobility based on potential for access. Conceptually speaking, the notion of ‘network’ has already been subject to numerous developments in the analysis of social relationships (social networks, social capital, etc.), technical and regional networks (agglomerations, automobile dependence) and their effects (fragmentation). Research on global cities, in its attempt to highlight the dependency links between cities, from overhead cables or telephone lines for example (Taylor 2004), relies heavily on the notion of network. In addition to the idea of a territorial overdetermination by networks, the effect of the reticular conception on the social sciences is that of binary analysis in terms of exclusion or access. Space as rhizome. The third conception of space imagines a world in which distance no longer matters. In this last perspective, in which the peopling of time supplants the peopling of space, society becomes like an organless body. Space is smooth, undefined, open – the sum of its potential opportunities in perpetual reorganization: a rhizome. The world is no longer merely a vast interface, with ‘[t]he instantaneity of ubiquity lead[ing] to the atopia of a single interface’ (Virilio 1984: 19). Here the compression of space is complete and its impact on society radical. The notion of mobility no longer has meaning as space is rhizome and crossing borders is no longer a possibility. Individuals are thus reduced to living in a largely immaterial world and carrying their ‘space’ with them. The conception of space as rhizome inspired Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's works on deterritorialization (1980), with its conceptualization leading to the development of work on instantaneous remote communication technology. In addition to the absence of empirical proof, this conception suffers from a kind of technological enthusiasm that considers that technological innovation (in this case, the digital spaces of remote communication) radically changes the world. No one denies that whole branches of finance now operate entirely on the notion of instantaneity and that ‘virtual’ communities have developed on the Web. Forgive our doubting, however, that this alone will be the cause of the cataclysms predicted by Paul Virilio and some of his disciples. In Urry's work we have already observed that the critique of the notion of society goes hand in hand with the proposition to make mobility the main focus of the social sciences. Urry has long regretted the underdevelopment of transportation sociology and the notions of space and time in sociology in general, which for him are key social issues. Urry thus points to a very important area of general sociology. Since the Second World War it is true that we go faster and farther, but practically speaking our journeys take us longer and longer on a day-to-day basis. This has been the experience of many; identities that were once locally rooted have now become multiple and cosmopolitan. Low-cost travel options have also left their mark on the economy by contributing to its globalization and transforming modes of production. In this context it is no longer possible to think of nation-states as autonomous societies vis-à-vis one another, nor of geographical areas as homogenous spaces cordoned off by distinct borders. In short, the conditions under which movement takes place have changed and are still changing the world. This mobility turn is at the heart of global change, acting upon all aspects of economic, political and social life. Practically speaking it has resulted in the unprecedented growth of transportation and telecommunications flows. Thus commuter travel for example (for all types of travel and modes of transportation) grew from two to five billion kilometres travelled per year in Western Europe between 1970 and 2005. This growth brings with it various problems at the practical level, such as chronic traffic jams of roadways, railways and airports, environmental problems ranging from atmospheric and sonic pollution to in-ground waste, and problems of energy consumption. In cities in particular this means problems of social and spatial cohesion the likes of which have never been seen, problems with the cognitive management of information, and finally an increase in societal friction (multicultural tensions, local and global struggles). This is the fourth key idea that comes out of Urry's article – one that is particularly invigorating in terms of getting around the categorical oppositions between les grandes théories that insulate different fields of social analysis. Linked to schools of thought such as structural-functionalism, post-modernism, and post-structuralism to a greater or lesser degree, all-embracing theories within sociology often seem as if unaware of one another. This lack of awareness results from the fact that they evolve independently in different fields of research, which, in the opinion of François Dubet (and I agree with him on this point), has three major disadvantages: ‘The first is that general theories are in fact treated as middle range theories. The second is that intellectual fashions play a central role owing to the weakness of the lack of choice. The third disadvantage may be the abandonment of classical sociology with little consideration of the ambitions’, (Dubet 1994: 14). Where indifference ends, defamation often begins. Religious wars are undoubtedly part of sociology's charm, but are also an obstacle to the advancement of knowledge. Firstly, all-embracing reflections often seem to take the form of ideology, which makes debate impossible. Certain formulations of the network concept, for example, serve as a vehicle for the myth of progress and sink into a form of technological determinism (Offner 2000). This type of theory is, in fact, in total harmony with the neo-liberal ideology that promotes the world of nomad space over that of sedentary space in the name of the fight against borders, which it considers archaic. As John Urry summarizes, ‘[t]hose with economic interest in promoting capitalism throughout the world argue that globalization is inevitable and that national governments should not intervene to regulate the global market-place’ (Urry 2000: 12). Secondly, the expression of these stances is too often sensationalist and often tinged with technological enthusiasm, or alternatively with an alarmism predicting a return to obscurantism. As Urry puts it, ‘[t]here are global enthusiasts who see these processes as producing a new epoch, a golden age of “cosmopolitanism without borders”. This epoch offers a vast array of new opportunities, especially in terms of overcoming the limitations and restrictions that societies (and especially nation states) have exercised on the freedom of corporations and individuals to treat the world as “their oyster”. Others describe globalisation not as a borderless utopia but as a new dystopia. The global world is seen as a new medievalism, as the “West” returns to the pre-modern era . . . ’ (Urry 2000: 13). The question that follows is that of how one returns to a real debate in such an intense atmosphere?