Week 3: Space and Mobilitiy
Kellerman
It's interesting that Kellerman begins the disucssion in this chapter by contrasting fixity and mobility, because--just two years out from this publication--there is what one might call a counter-mobility trend coming to fruition in the literature. This counter-mobility trend emphasizes concepts such as stillness. The slow food movement, for example, can be seen as a precursor/parallel/parcel of this movement. But I digress. Kellerman gives a pretty good summary of the work that's been done on place and social space. His perspective is a fairly middle-of-the-road cultural studies approach to the construction of social space: that our places are informed not just by their design but by the social practices occurring within them. Or, to flesh this out even further, we can refer to Lefebvre's (1991) spatial trialectics: space as perceived, conceived, and experienced. Kellerman concludes, as to others, that there is a relationship between increased mobility in a space, technology, and our social experience of space.
Shelly & Urry
Shelly and Urry summarize the new mobilities paradigm in social sciences. It's important to note that they're not writing about a "new" mobilities paradigm (though in some way they are, when they place this in contrast with "old" mobilities such as sedentarism and nomadism). Rather, they write of a "new mobilities" paradigm. Thus, it is the mobilities which are new, and not necessarily the paradigm itself. This paradigm seeks to move social sciences beyond geographically dichotomous terminology (such as global/local) to an understanding that is much more fluid (per the authors). Essentially, the authors are suggesting that social scientists are beginning to study and question the materialities of mobilities: how is it that mobility -- something fluid and dynamic -- has very clear (though equally dynamic and unstable) material social effects.
Jensen
I forget who Jensen quoted, but I think the distinction between Simmel (as "macro") and Goffman (as "micro") is spot on. Simmel gives us a rather large theoretical perspective on--then--new mobilities in a city. Drawing inspiration from Benjamin's flaneur, Simmel speaks from an observational, uninvolved standpoint. He later terms such a person a "stranger." Besides providing us with the concept of the Stranger, Simmel also talks about the flows of money in a city, as well as how the external cityscape / social space is reflected internally in us. Upon internalizing this city mindset, we then externalize it in our relationship to others, therefore perpetuating this uniquely urban type of social space. Goffman, the "micro" theorist looks very much at the reactions of people in particular situations. Goffman explores what happens when two -- or just a few-- people come in proximity to each other. In contrast to Simmel, rather than perceiving people as somewhat detached (blase), Goffman sees people intimately involved by themselves and with each other in the dynamic and active process of managing facework.
Wood & Graham
Wood and Graham approach this problem of surveillance/mobility/power/security through Latour, who was partly inspired by Foucault (as W and G note). I find Foucault's treatment of the same issues in "Security, Territory, Population" to be much more trenchant than the one here. Notably, this English translation of Foucault's works was just released in the US last year, or about 2 years after the W and G piece.
Although W and G don't focus on power, they mention it, and I take issue with their description of power as an outcome between actants. I much prefer Foucault's understanding of power as something that can neither be created nor destroyed nor measured. Rather, power is ever-present, relational, and always moving through (in this case, those very actants). I also take issue with what I perceive is a very technologically deterministic argument. W and G hint at the role of people about 2/3 through the chapter, but even this mention makes it sound like people just create technology, wind it up, and let it do its thing. I find this even more surprising, given their reference to ANT. I figured if they're referencing ANT, they should be speaking more about techno-human imbrications; articulations of culture/technology; and assemblages rising from these articulations. But I didn't really hear any of that. Rather, this seemed to remove a great deal of agency from us (excepting the creation of technology), and places the agency almost squarely with technology that's been created. We--as people--do have agency, and as someone mentioned in their post, we're reminded of the necessity to take up a politics of technology through a "new mobilities" paradigm.