Content uploaded by Vincent Kaufmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vincent Kaufmann on Apr 02, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sociologica, 1/2014 - Copyright © 2014 by Società editrice il Mulino, Bologna. 1
Symposium / Moving Boundaries in Mobilities Research
Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
by Vincent Kaufmann
doi: 10.2383/77046
x1. Introduction
According to Marcel Mauss’ definition, mobility is a “total” social phenomen-
on, in other words a lens through which may be read all of the social relationships
of a given society. As early as the 1920s, Robert Park declared that “the man gifted
with locomotion” is the subject of urban sociology. The idea is therefore not new
but, rather, was long left fallow. Concretely, the central place of mobility in soci-
ology was ignored until the 1970s, when it resurfaced first in urban sociology and
then, more recently, in general sociology. However, this rediscovery is accompanied
by a multitude of works on mobility whose scope is often very general and theoret-
ical.
In this article, we would like to seriously consider the idea that mobility is a
“total” social phenomenon and, therefore, that the analysis of mobility teaches us
about the composition of and changes in a society. This implies seeing mobility as
a tool that must be well defined and finely tuned to be able to “read” a society. As
such, we will revisit and identify common conceptual limits of understanding mobility
to address the urban phenomenon. Then, using theoretical works on mobility, we
will diagnose the pitfalls that a re-conceptualization of mobility must avoid. Thirdly,
we will develop a new conceptual proposition based on motility. Finally, from the
research findings based on this conceptualization, we will attempt to highlight its
contribution to knowledge.
Kaufmann, Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
2
x2. The Urban and Mobility
Analysis of the urbanization process has put mobility on the sociology agenda.
More specifically, it is the gradual shifting of the city-country dichotomy – the result
of the reign of the urban and metropolitanization – that has made mobility central.
Among the many ingredients that comprise the essence of any space, there are
three whose relationships have changed – a change that is the source of the transfor-
mation the city is currently undergoing. 1) Functional centrality: a city spreads into
its hinterland, of which it is the functional centre; 2) Morphology of the built envi-
ronment: a city is characterized by building density, forms and infrastructures; and
3) Lifestyles: inhabitants have specific social practices [Kaufmann 2011]. Just a few
decades ago, centralities, morphology and lifestyles fit together like “Russian dolls,”
in the words of Pierre Veltz [1996]; lifestyles were organized according to morphol-
ogy, the city’s core functions were organized in a hierarchical way and municipal
boundaries corresponded to functional ones. In other words, daily life was rooted
in territories whose boundaries were multiple but nonetheless clear and relatively
fixed. Cities spread into the countryside following modalities that were extensively
modelled by geographers. But the Russian doll has burst. The relationship between
what is nearby, what is connected and what is moving has changed, thus changing
the very definition of “nearby,” “moving” and “connected” (or in relation with).
From a pedestrian standpoint, territories today are organized according to car
metrics [Wiel 1999]. The speed potential afforded by the automobile was overwhelm-
ingly appropriated by households in order to live further from the city, attracted by
both individual homes and reasonably-priced real estate. This phenomenon, coupled
with significant development of major urban road infrastructures (ring roads, free-
ways), would gradually lead to a change in metrics. As the car became more widely
used, business localization strategies shifted towards the city outskirts, amplifying the
urban phenomenon [Chalas and Paulhiac 2008].
Some cities are gradually acquiring global centrality that surpasses even the
reputation of the countries in which they are located. The creation of jobs, added
value, artistic creativity, and innovation in general are concentrated in these cities. The
process is not entirely physical, although there are morphological implications (such
as the development of financial districts, or strong urban growth often associated
with urban sprawl). These cities – often large but not always – are often specialized
and compete amongst themselves.
While several decades ago the city-country dichotomy was associated with spe-
cific cultures and lifestyles, this is no longer true today, though specificities do, of
course, remain. Many analysts suggest that this phenomenon reflects freedom of spa-
Sociologica, 1/2014
3
tial proximity in cultural references, through the distribution of consumer goods
throughout the territory and the development of mass media.
Upon closer examination, it seems that this situation attests to the disappearance
of the unity of place that the city once constituted and challenges its theoretical
approaches. Since its inception, urban research has been characterized by a plurality
of theoretical bases, as the pioneers of sociology immediately recognized big cities as
revelatory of social and societal dynamics. That is why Karl Marx considered the city
the privileged arena of class struggle, why Emile Durkheim saw it as the privileged
place of modernity - made of freedom and of risk of anomie, why Max Weber called it
the privileged place of capitalism, and why Georg Simmel thought of it as the theatre
of the objectification of cultures and the birthplace of the “urban personality” [Stébé
and Marchal 2011].
Marx’s ideas are thus quite different from bourgeois economists, as they pre-
suppose not the homogenization of spaces but rather their differentiated develop-
ment. Harvey says that the geographical expansion and intensification of capital ac-
cumulation, in fact, are emblematic of Marx’s theory of imperialism. “In Marx’s own
thought it appears that the crucial intermediate steps encompass a theory of location
and an analysis of fixed and immobile investment; the necessary creation of a geo-
graphical landscape to facilitate accumulation through production and circulation”
[Harvey 2001, 266].
All of these authors have had many descendants in urban sociology, be it the
Marxist-inspired sociology of Manuel Castells and Francis Godard, the morpholo-
gical analysis of Durkheimian obedience so dear to Maurice Halbwachs [Halbwachs
1970] and later Marcel Roncayolo, works on the emergence of global cities that utilize
numerous Weberian concepts, the Simmelian urban ecology of the Chicago School,
or Goffmanian interactionism.
With the gradual breakup of the unity of place due to the bursting of the Russian
doll, the ability of these approaches to describe, comprehend and explain the urban
phenomenon has weakened. Indeed, all are based on the implicit assumption of unity
of place – that somehow, the city is society. And yet, urban dwellers now have the
possibility of escaping from this framework by living outside of it in order to seek
those qualities the city cannot offer, and continuing to frequent the city for work or
relaxation.
Similarly, private actors and investors have a much wider range of choices in
terms of location and relocation. With the increase in speed potential offered by
transportation and communication systems, the possibilities in terms of travel – up-
dated and democratized – have increased considerably.
Kaufmann, Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
4
In the 1960s and 1970s, many empirical studies took this to mean that the city
was disappearing, or at the very least dissolving. More prosaically put, we now know
that the compact city of the past – delimited and marked by the congruency between
spatial contiguity and social proximity – is gradually changing based on the mobility
of its inhabitants and actors [Ascher 1995]. This reality, however, is essential, obliging
us to revisit the theories and tools of urban sociology. A close reading of the urban
phenomenon indeed implies divesting ourselves of a number of ideas and static,
territorialized frameworks that are no longer valid.
To address these questions, the need for concepts that help us understand how
and why individual and collective actors move clearly arises. In other words, mobility
is becoming an essential analytical tool. However, in the scientific literature of the
1980s and 1990s, the concept of mobility – as used in the fields of geography and
economy – suffered several shortcomings [Gallez and Kaufmann 2009]:
a) It is strictly spatial and therefore does not allow for social change to be
thought of in conjunction with travel;
b) It focuses on actual travel and rarely looks at the mobility potential of actors;
c) It measures in a functional manner, using indicators relative to movement in
space and time (spatial scope, travel time budget, speed, motive, etc.), and does not
take into account the experience of mobility and its imaginaries;
d) It only applies to individuals, not collective actors (businesses, etc.).
Much of mobility’s richness (and interest) is, in fact, lost – be it in its social defi-
nition as change – its potential dimension as virtuality, its ideological aspect or its col-
lective nature. We find here the ideas of Georg Simmel, though at an angle different
from the one we just discussed regarding individual differentiation. In a Simmelian
vein, mobility is one of the keys for understanding the experience of modernity, in
particular with regard to its differentiation processes at the individual level [Simmel
1907]. As Alain Bourdin noted, one of the advantages of Simmel’s sociology is that it
links the dialectic of proximity and distance in social relationships with the potential
to move [Bourdin 2005]. From this standpoint – which is also ours – the sociology of
mobility is based on the observation that, in addition to individual differentiation, a
process of mobility that measures not only objective material distances but also “a set
of technical and cognitive skills to combine with relational distance and proximity”
[Bourdin Ibidem, 12] is developing.
Sociologica, 1/2014
5
x3. The Limits of Mobility Theory
As the preceding discussion illustrates, to advance in our knowledge of mobil-
ity, we need a comprehensive approach that incorporates its social and spatial dimen-
sions. How do we describe and understand a contemporary world in which mobility
is a complete social phenomenon (meaning a phenomenon in which the very found-
ations of society itself can be discerned) without concepts, methods, and methodo-
logies that allow us to grasp its principles and challenges? The pioneering works of
Michel Bassand are particularly enlightening in this endeavour.
In their work Mobilité spatiale, Michel Bassand and Marie-Claude Brulhardt
[1980] lay the foundations for such an approach. They define mobility as all move-
ment involving a change in the state of the actor or system in question. In this definition,
mobility has both spatial and social qualities, as such restoring its wealth. This meth-
odological approach also stresses the study of the interaction of different forms of
mobility. These interactions may consist in the strengthening, substituting or modi-
fying of the forms themselves. However, as stimulating as this may be, this approach
nonetheless has two limitations.
The first is relative to the links between movement and mobility. Their concep-
tion comes from the Chicago School: movement in physical space becomes mobility
when it also involves social change [Grafmeyer et Joseph 1979]. This is how Roderick
McKenzie [1927] distinguished between mobility – which for him was event-based
movement characterized by the fact that it marks the life history, identity or social
position of the person in question (migration, the purchase of a home, etc.) – and
fluidity, defined as movement with no particular impact on the individual’s life (buy-
ing bread, taking a walk, etc.) – in other words, the routine activities of daily life.
However, we believe that this should be taken one step further. Movement in
physical space and movement in social space are not the same and, more importantly,
are not necessarily simultaneous. Therefore, physical travel alone is not enough to
be mobile (if being mobile also means a change of state socially). More important-
ly, however, one can be mobile socially without any physical movement whatsoev-
er.
The second limitation has to do with complexity. Approaching mobility as a
system, like Bassand and Brulhardt, involves taking into account the effects of so
many interactions that it stands to render this approach ineffective. The principle
virtue of such a systemic approach is that it regards mobility as one phenomenon that
is likely to manifest itself in different ways.
While the work of Bassand and Brülhardt has had few descendants, the need
to think about mobility has given rise to a profusion of theoretical research on the
Kaufmann, Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
6
subject over the past fifteen years. Sometimes assembled under the umbrella term
“the mobility turn,” they are actually extremely heterogeneous and sometimes fall
into certain traps, including:
1) Considering mobility as a broad, all-inclusive concept at the risk of diluting it.
That is how mobility becomes that of actors, as well as that of objects (sometimes
considered actors themselves by extension), ideas, and capital. Similarly, it is often
confused with telecommunications, and ends up being called virtual mobility. This
is for example the case of John Urry, who considers mobility a social and spatial
phenomenon, but includes objects, communication and ideas. If broadly defined,
mobility becomes an umbrella term and, for our purposes, loses its ability to describe
and grasp contemporary social and societal changes [Urry 2007].
2) Associating mobility with the shift from a post-structuralist society, making the
increase in travel flows a sign of the weakening of social structures and the unilateral rise
to power of individualization. In our opinion, there is a danger in associating mobility
with a specific school of thought in the social sciences, because it is a multi-faceted
phenomenon capable of dialoguing with a variety of literatures and epistemologies.
Thus, John Urry considers that in the different forms of mobility we find all social
relationships, and that these relationships are the organizing principle of the social
world, to the point of abandoning the notion of society as the subject of sociology
and replacing it with that of mobility. One of the great merits of this proposition
is that it truly brings space into sociology. Because ultimately, Urry’s main critique
is that, in sociology, society is a territory that is both poorly defined and poorly
thought out [Urry 2000]. Improving modes of transportation helps overcome spatial
distance, with credit providing the temporal stepping-stone for the “annihilation of
space by time.” This “improvement,” however, leaves its physical mark in the land-
scape (through infrastructure). These same forms of fixed capital are also superseded
and destroyed by capital’s need for endless expansion: “Capitalist development has to
negotiate a knife-edge path between preserving the values of past capital investments
in the built environment and destroying these investments in order to open up fresh
room for accumulation” [Harvey 2001, 247].
3) Measuring and prioritizing mobility based on the speed and spatial scope of
travel, and considering those who move fast, far and frequently as “highly” mobile.
Mobility is becoming increasingly important in our modern societies. This does not
mean, however, that it should be unequivocally considered a positive phenomenon
or be quantified based solely on speed and spatial scope. Mobility is ambivalent; it is
used differently by different ideologies. It is therefore important to consider it with
objectivity and detachment. It is more accurate to speak of injunctions to mobility
rather than a single injunction – injunctions that, moreover, are often contradictory
Sociologica, 1/2014
7
and therefore do not allow for a unilateral reading of the links between mobility
phenomena and contemporary societies.
x4. Mobility as a Tool
To give substance to the notion of mobility in response to the various short-
comings highlighted (and being mindful of the three traps mentioned above), over
the past decade or so we have developed a specific approach to mobility using the
work of Sorokin [1927] and the Chicago School [McKenzie 1927]. This approach
consists in defining mobility as “the intention and realization of an act of movement
in physical space that involves social change.” The originality of this approach lies in
shifting from this general definition to a focus on intentions relative to mobility and
the actual act of moving, more than on the movement itself. Thus, in this approach,
each person or group is characterized by a more or less marked inclination to move in
physical, economic and social space. Together these form a set of skills that we have
conceptualized by the notion of “motility” (in reference to the biological definition
of this term).
Motility is defined as all of the characteristics of a given actor that allow him/her/it
to be mobile (i.e. physical skills, income, aspirations (to move or be sedentary), the
social conditions of access to existing transportation and telecommunication systems,
and acquired skills (job training, a driver’s license, international English for travel, etc.)
Motility therefore refers to the social conditions of access (the conditions required
to use the offer in the broadest sense of the term), the knowledge and skills (those
required to make use of the offer), and mobility projects (the actual use of the offer
that makes it possible to realize them) [Kaufmann 2002].
Motility is inherently situated in and connected to space. Each territory offers
a specific range of possibilities in terms of mobility, thus defining its potential recep-
tiveness to mobility projects. While receptiveness that varies according to the project
and territory is not a new idea, what is new is the opportunity for individual or col-
lective actors to locate or relocate based on the many possibilities offered by both
transportation and telecommunication systems, and urban spaces’ receptiveness to
different projects [Kaufmann 2011]. What defines the scope and potential of this
receptiveness has largely to do with the capacity of their material systems. All action
takes place within a context; this action requires that the environment provide the
necessary footholds [Gibson 1979].
While material artefacts are central to the receptiveness that territories can po-
tentially offer projects, more fundamental still is recognizing how they act on the very
Kaufmann, Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
8
emergence and definition of these projects [Hommels 2005]. Acknowledging that the
diverse characteristics of urban forms (their aesthetics, their ambiance, how they are
inhabited, their price, etc.) all define a territory’s potential receptiveness is obvious.
Similarly, the potential access offered by transportation systems also contributes to
defining its receptiveness to mobility projects and movement therein. Cultural, sports,
and economic facilities also define a territory’s ability to accommodate projects.
A territory’s material artefacts likewise have an impact on the very presence and
nature of projects [Kaufmann 2011]. The existence of industrial wastelands in the
middle of the city, or derelict workshops, is likely to give rise to projects of reappro-
priation. The possibility of living without a car thanks to excellent public transport
service renders this lifestyle desirable and provides incentive to adopt it. The exis-
tence of numerous performance venues lends to the birth of festival projects. Such
examples are abundant, the point being, however, that a project cannot find foot-
ing just anywhere. Certain places are more receptive than others to certain projects,
depending on their morphological characteristics, the laws that govern them, their
accessibility, etc.
From this conception of mobility as change, whose expressions are organized in
the form of temporal interlocking, we can conceptualize three dimensions of analysis:
a) The field of possibilities. Each context offers a specific field of possibilities
with regard to mobility. This receptiveness is comprised of several ingredients, in-
cluding: 1) the available networks and their development, performance, and condi-
tions of access (road, highway and railroad networks, airport hubs, and regional tele-
communication equipment); 2) space and all of its territorial configurations (urban
layout, functional centralities, institutional territories, etc.); 3) the employment mar-
ket (possibilities for training/employment and the unemployment rate); 4) the insti-
tutions and laws that, in different ways, govern human activity (family policies, prop-
erty/housing assistance, immigration policies, etc.) – in short, all of the social rela-
tionships and models of success a society proposes and the trials to which it subjects
its various actors in order to succeed.
b) Aptitude for movement. Each person and collective actor is characterized
by its aptitude for movement in physical, economic and social space. This set of
skills is called motility. Motility is comprised of all those factors that determine an
actor’s potential to move or be mobile (i.e. physical ability, income, aspirations (to
move or be sedentary), technical systems (transportation and telecommunication) and
their accessibility, and skills acquired through training (driver’s license, international
English for travel, etc.). Motility is therefore comprised of factors relative to access
(the conditions by which it is possible to use the offer in the broadest sense of the
term), skills (those needed to utilize the offer, and appropriation (using the offer to
Sociologica, 1/2014
9
realize personal projects). Thus, motility is the way a person or group appropriates
and makes use of the field of possibilities (with regard to movement) and relates to
aspirations and plans.
c) Movement. This refers to movement in space. This travel can either be
planned (i.e. taking place between an origin and one or several destinations) or more
akin to wandering, with no real origin or destination. Let us note that movement
concerns not only individual and collective actors; goods, ideas and information in
general all move as well.
These three dimensions form a system, but not mechanistically. A field of possi-
bilities that offers highly-efficient networks and whose access is democratic is not au-
tomatically appropriated or used by the population. Similarly, a population with high-
ly-developed motility can use this to anchor itself in a territory, rather than change
status. Likewise, a population that moves a great deal does not necessarily have a field
of possibilities particularly favourable to travel, and so on.
The advantage of such a model lies primarily in the fact that it allows us to
work on the relationships that develop between the field of possibilities, motility and
movement, all the while putting actors, their constraints, aspirations, and skills at the
heart of the research process.
x5. What Does Motility Say About Western Societies?
The concept of motility and conception of mobility that we have just briefly
described have been extensively discussed and cited [Kesselring 2006; Söderström
and Crot 2010; Jensen 2006; Nowicka 2006; Sheller 2011; Merriman 2012].
The use of this definition has gone beyond the frontiers of sociology to question
anthropology [Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013], management [Sergot et al. 2012],
human geography [Lévy 2004; Kellerman 2006; 2012], history [Guigueno 2008], and
urban planning [Lord 2011; Chalas and Paulhiac 2008].
Following the publication of the book Re-thinking Mobility in 2002 [Kaufmann
2002], this approach was the object of theoretical [Kaufmann et al. 2004; Canzler et
al. 2008; Ohnmacht et al. 2009] and methodological insights that would allow it to
be applied to individual and collective actors [Kaufmann 2011]. We also sought to
utilize motility for qualitative research on various specific topics, such as the appro-
priation of travel time [Vincent-Geslin and Kaufmann 2012], the use of time in sub-
way stations [Tillous 2009], social inequalities [Maksim 2011], and family dynamics
[Kaufmann and Widmer 2006]. Motility has also been used qualitatively, for instance
as part of the Job Mobilities and Family Lives in Europe research program [Kaufmann,
Kaufmann, Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
10
Viry and Widmer 2010], which analyzed the links between travel practices and the
spatialization of social networks [Viry 2011], and in an inquiry on the logics of action
underlying modal practices in Santiago de Chile [Witter 2012]. While they remain
exploratory – insofar as they have not led to the adoption of a validated method of
measurement – they nonetheless highlight several types of skills for moving that are
differentiated in both social and spatial terms, but that are also weakly associated
with revenue and education level.
Meanwhile, researchers have appropriated the notion to conduct empirical re-
search on a variety of topics, including the non-use of rights in social access poli-
cies [Féré 2011], social inequalities [Ureta 2008; Oliva 2010], the routines of daily
life [Belton 2009; Buhler 2012], social innovation [Brand and Dävila 2011], the rela-
tionship with public space [Jirón 2010], transportation modal choice [Vincent 2008;
Rocci 2007; Rivere 2009; Fouillé 2010; Kellerman 2012; De Witte et al. 2013], mul-
tiple residences and identity [Halfacree 2012], and business travel [Faulconbridge
et al. 2009].
What have these works contributed to knowledge in regard to the changes tak-
ing place within contemporary societies? One aspect in particular stands out: with
the gradual development of opportunities relative to travel and mobility, the ability
to move is becoming increasingly important for social and economic inclusion. This
change, coupled with a growing demand for flexibility, socially speaking, strengthens
the importance of motility as a resource for social inclusion. Luc Boltanski and Eve
Chiapello denounce this change as a new ideology of domination in “The New Spirit
of Capitalism,” arguing the fact that it challenges statutory hierarchies and that, as
a result, social mobility is expressed in terms of constantly evolving projects. The
challenge of progressing in a professional career has likewise changed: it is no longer
a question of merely “climbing the ladder” within the hierarchical structure, but of
being able to “rebound,” glide from one project to the next and “surf” from one en-
viable position to another in a changing environment [Boltanski and Chiapello 1999,
445-446]. Building on Boltanski and Chiapello’s analysis, we would like to argue that
many of these recent societal transformations have resulted in individuals’ ability to
move (their motility) becoming a means of social integration, and even constituting
a form of capital that is not simply a question of their income, education and social
networks. Motility seems to be a particularly indispensable resource for overcoming
the spatial and temporal friction we experience in our daily lives. Individuals can
have little motility or a great deal of it, and, most importantly, can have it in differ-
ent ways. The quality of our lives and chances of improving our social status often
depend on it.
Sociologica, 1/2014
11
The question of the nature of this resource and its workings thus arises. Is it
a new form of “capital,” as defined by Bourdieu? Or is it a resource that depends
entirely on one’s income or the scope of one’s social network? Is it an essentially
cognitive skill?
Hanja Maksim [2011] showed that low-income individuals develop highly spe-
cialized forms of motility to compensate for their economic handicap. However, these
forms do not correspond to the dominant model of the “valued” mobile person, (i.e.
responsive to the demand for flexibility) that characterizes contemporary Western
societies. Thus there are “valued” motilities that contribute to social success, and
others that do not.
Mobility as a paradoxical ideology is not new. In the 1950s, for instance, in the
analysis of intergenerational social mobility tables, social reproduction was often seen
as an indicator of a “block” in society, while mobility was considered a sign of social
fluidity [Cuin 1983]. From the beginning, industrial society has valued social mobility
because it helped to establish the collective dynamics of growth based on individuals’
desire to improve their own socio-economic status. Everyone invests in work in the
hopes of improving his or her living conditions or social status on the basis of merit.
This conception assumes two principles: the first affirms individual freedom in the
defining and carrying out of a statutory project. The second, in principle, calls for
equality of individuals so that the “status of origin” can no longer be an obstacle
to social ascension. Paradoxically, in competition, it is a question of maintaining an
egalitarian rhetoric for statuses that are a priori unequal. The paradox is generally
raised by the implementing of procedures which seek to ensure a level playing field
for the different actors.
Works on motility suggest that our modern-day valorisation of mobility is built
on the same logic; when it is fast and far away, it embodies the idea of freedom.
Through it, the individual will be free to make the contacts he or she wishes without
spatial or temporal obstacles. This rhetoric suggests that those most likely to occupy
the more enviable social statuses are also those ready to accept a logic of unfettered
flexibility. Thus the particularity of the modern conception of mobility is to assume –
through a shift in meaning – that the spatial dimension of mobility inevitably favours
the fair distribution of individuals on the social ladder. Thus, starting now, we should
facilitate access in order to favour an egalitarian social game. Yet it appears that those
who travel the most – in general economically well-endowed – are often obliged to do
so by their professional or social situation, juggling their activities in time and space
in a complex manner. When they have a choice, it is not rare for them to choose a
stroll in the city to an overseas flight.
Kaufmann, Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
12
The society that offers the greatest freedom of movement is not one that man-
dates the use of modes of rapid transport like the car or low cost flight, but rather
one that allows for the development of a multitude of mobility projects (local rooting
or cosmopolitanism, career or investment in leisure activities, a life with or without
children, a home in the city or in the suburbs, social inclusion via proximity or via
connectivity, etc.).
Contemporary valorisation of mobility in fact continues to make individuals
bear the brunt of the responsibility for their future, negating the fact that social
structures are also at work in travel behaviour.
Other research shows that mobility itself is the bearer of its own differentiations.
Playing with these through the intermediary of motility (meaning in terms of domin-
ant values) may permit the acquisition of social status. Conversely, neglecting it or
using it in opposition to dominant values can lead to a loss of status. In a world where
flexibility is an economic imperative and where the future is therefore uncertain, in-
dividual actors tend to broaden their mobility potential to the greatest extent possible
in order to compensate for all of the undesired changes in their socio-economic con-
ditions. Thus, today, people choose their living place first – not their place of work –
even if it means having to travel far to get there [Vincent-Geslin and Kaufmann 2012].
Given the uncertainty as regards job insecurity and the obligation to be increasingly
mobile, residential sedentarity attests to individuals’ desire to maintain control over
what little they can still control in their lives.
References
Ascher, F.
1995 Métapolis ou l’Avenir des Villes. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Bassand, M., and Brulhardt, M.C.
1980 Mobilité Spatiale. St-Saphorin (Lavaux): Georgi.
Belton, L.
2009 Mobilités et Lien Social. Sphères Privées et Professionnelle à l’Épreuve du Quotidien. Uni-
versité de Paris Est: Doctoral thesis.
Brand, P., and Dävila, J.D.
2011 “Mobility Innovation at the Urban Margins: Medellin’s Metrocables.” City 15(6): 647-661
Boltanski, L., and Chiapello, E.
1999 Le Nouvel Esprit du Capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.
Sociologica, 1/2014
13
Bourdin, A.
2005 “Les Mobilités et le Programme de la Sociologie.” Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie
1(118): 5-21.
Buhler, T.
2012 Eléments pour la Prise en Compte de l’Habitude dans les Pratiques de Déplacements
Urbains. ENSA (Lyon): Doctoral thesis.
Canzler, W., Kaufmann, V., and Kesselring S., (eds.)
2008 Tracing Mobilities. Burlington: Ashgate.
Chalas, Y., and Paulhiac, F.
2008 La Mobilité qui Fait la Ville. Lyon: CERTU Editions.
Cuin, C.H.
1983 Les Sociologues et la Mobilité Sociale. Paris: PUF.
De Witte, A., Hollevoet, J., Dobruszkes, F., Hubert, M., Macharis, C.
2013 “Linking Modal Choice to Motility: A Comprehensive Review.” Transportation Research
Part A, Vol. 49: 329-341
Faulconbridge, J.R., Beaverstock, J.V., Derudder, B., Witlox, F.
2009 “Corporate Ecologies of Business Travel in Professional Service Firms: Working towards
a Research Agenda.” European Urban and Regional Studies 16(3): 295-308
Féré, C.
2011 Concilier Accès à la Mobilité pour Tous et Mobilité Durable. Université de Lyon 2. Institut
d’Urbanisme de Lyon: Thèse de doctorat.
Fouillé, L.
2010 L’Attachement Automobile mis à l’Épreuve. Etude des Dispositifs de Détachement et de
Recomposition des Mobilités. Université de Rennes 2: Doctoral thesis.
Gallez, C., and Kaufmann, V.
2009“ Histoire et Sociologie face à la Mobilité.” In Histoire de la Mobilité, edited by M. Flonneau
and V. Guigueno. Rennes: PUR.
Gibson, J.J.
1979 The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Glick Schiller, N., and Salazar, N.
2013 “Regimes of Mobility across the Globe.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39(2):
183-200.
Grafmeyer, Y., and Joseph, I.
1979 L’École de Chicago. Naissance de l’Écologie Urbaine. Paris: Champs Flammarion.
Guigueno, V.
2008 “Building a High-Speed Society: France and the Aérotrain, 1962-1974.” Technology and
Culture 49(1): 21-40
Halbwachs, M.
1970 Morphologie Sociale. Paris: Armand Colin.
Kaufmann, Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
14
Halfacree, K.
2012 “Heterolocal Identities? Counter-Urbanisation, Second Homes, and Rural Consumption
in the Era of Mobilities.” Population, Space and Place 18(2): 209-224.
Harvey, D.
2001 Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography. New York: Routledge.
Hommels, A.
2005 Unbuilding Cities. Obduracy in Urban Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.
Jensen, O.B.
2006 “‘Facework’, Flow and the City: Simmel, Goffman, and Mobility in the Contemporary
City.” Mobilities 2: 143-165
Jirón, P.
2010 “Mobile Borders in Urban Daily Mobility Practices in Santiago de Chile.” International
Political Sociology 4: 66-79.
Kaufmann, V.
2002 Re-thinking Mobility. Burlington: Ashgate.
2011 Rethinking the City. London and Lausanne: Routledge and EPFL Press.
Kaufmann, V., Bergman, M., and Joye, D.
2004 “Motility: Mobility as Capital.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
28(4): 745-756.
Kaufmann, V., Viry, G., and Widmer, E.
2010 “Motility.” Pp. 95-112 in Mobile Living across Europe II. Causes and Determinants of Job
Mobility and Their Individual and Societal Consequences, edited by N. Schneider and B.
Collet. Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Kaufmann, V. and Widmer, E.
2006 “Motility and Family Dynamics: Current Issues and Research Agendas.” Zeitschrift für
Familienforschung 1: 111-129.
Kellerman, A.
2006 Personal Mobilities. London: Taylor & Francis.
2012 “Potential Mobilities.” Mobilities 7(1): 171-183.
Kesselring, S.
2006 “Pioneering Mobilities: New Patterns of Movement and Motility in a Mobile World.”
Environment and Planning A. 38: 269-279.
Lévy, J.
2004 “Les Essences du Mouvement.” Pp. 298-307 in Les Sens du Mouvement. Modernité et
Mobilités dans les Sociétés Urbaines Contemporaines, edited by S. Allemand, F. Ascher,
J. Lévy. Paris: Belin.
Lord, S.
2011 “Le Choix de Vieillir à Domicile: l’Inévitable Adaptation des Modes de Vie. Évolution
de la Mobilité Quotidienne d’un Groupe d’Aînés de Banlieue Pavillonnaire.” Retraite
et Société 60(1): 197-213.
Sociologica, 1/2014
15
Maksim, H.
2011 Potentiels de Mobilité et Inégalités Sociales: La Matérialisation des Politiques Publiques
dans Quatre Agglomérations en Suisse et en France. EPFL: Doctoral thesis n. 4922.
McKenzie, R.D.
1927 “Spatial Distance and Community Organization Pattern.” Social Forces 5(4): 623-627.
Merriman, P.
2012 Mobility, Space and Culture. London & New York: Routledge.
Nowicka, M.
2006 Transnational Professionals and their Cosmopolitan Universes. Frankfurt: Campus.
Ohnmacht, T., Maksim, H., and Bergman, M., (eds.)
2009 Mobilities and Inequality. Farnham: Ashgate.
Oliva, J.
2010 “Rural Melting-pots, Mobilities and Fragilities: Reflections on the Spanish Case.” Soci-
ologia Ruralis 50: 277-295.
Rivere, M.
2009 Socio-histoire du Vélo dans l’Espace Urbain. D’une Écologie Politique à une Économie
Médiatique… Toulouse, Genève, Saragosse. Université de Toulouse-Le Mirai: Doctoral
thesis.
Rocci, A.
2007 De l’Automobilité à la Multimodalité? Analyse Sociologique des Freins et Leviers au
Changement de Comportements vers une Réduction de l’Usage de la Voiture. Le Cas de la
Région Parisienne et Perspective Internationale. Université de Paris 5: Doctoral thesis.
Sergot, B., Chabault, D. and Loubaresse, E.
2012 “Mobilités Spatiales et Dynamiques Organisationnelles.” Revue Française de Gestion
38(226): 77-90.
Sheller M.
2011 Mobility. ISA (Editorial Arrangement of sociopedia.isa.) Downloadable at http://
www.sagepub.net/isa/resources/pdf/Mobility.pdf
Simmel, G.
1978 The Philosophy of Money. London: Routledge (or. ed. 1907).
Söderström, O., and Crot, L.
2010 The Mobile Constitution of the Society: Rethinking the Mobility Society Nexus. Université
de Neuchâtel: Working Paper.
Sorokin, P.
1927 Social Mobility. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Stébé, J.M. and Marchal, H.
2011 La Sociologie Urbaine. Paris: PUF.
Tillous, M.
2009 Le Voyageur au Sein des Espaces de Mobilité. Université de Paris 1: Doctoral thesis.
Kaufmann, Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
16
Ureta, S.
2008 “To Move or Not to Move? Social Exclusion, Accessibility and Daily Mobility among
the Low-income Population in Santiago, Chile.” Mobilities 4: 269-289.
Urry, J.
2000 Sociology Beyond Societies. Mobilities for the Twentyfirst Century. London: Routledge.
2007 Mobilities. London: Polity.
Veltz, P.
1996 Mondialisation, Villes et Territoires. Paris: PUF.
Vincent, S.
2008 Les “Altermobilités”: Analyse Sociologique d’Usages de Déplacements Alternatifs à la Voit-
ure Individuelle. Des Pratiques en Émergence? Université de Paris 5: Doctoral thesis.
Vincent-Geslin, S., and Kaufmann, V.
2012 Mobilité Sans Racines. Paris: Descartes.
Viry, G.
2011 Mobilités Spatiales, Réseaux Sociaux et Familiaux: Quels Mécanismes d’Intégration à
l’Épreuve de la Mobilité? Université de Genève: Doctoral thesis.
Wiel, M.
1999 La Transition Urbaine. Spirmont: Margada éditions.
Witter, R.
2012 Public Urban Transport, Mobility Competences and Social Exclusion. The Case of Santiago
de Chile. EPFL: Doctoral thesis.
Sociologica, 1/2014
17
Mobility as a Tool for Sociology
Abstract: Mobility is a broad, polysemic concept. However, despite its linguistic richness, its
multitude of meanings can also present an obstacle to knowledge. In other words, when peo-
ple talk about mobility, we do not always know exactly what they mean. In this paper I pro-
pose discussing the challenges posed by the concept of mobility for sociology, and offer an
approach based on mobility potential, of which individual and collective actors are carriers.
This work is based in particular on a critical review of theoretical literature on the concept of
mobility.
Keywords: Mobility, Motility, City, Social Theory, Action.
Vincent Kaufmann is associate professor of urban sociology and mobility at Ecole Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). After a master degree in sociology (University of Geneva) he did his
Ph.D. at EPFL on rationalities underlying transport modal practices. He has been invited lecturer at
Lancaster University (2000) and Ecole Des Ponts et Chaussées (2001). His fields of research are: mobility
and urban life styles, links between social and spatial mobility, public policies of land planning and
transportation.
