Theorising mobility justice

Abstract

Mobility justice is one of the crucial political and ethical issues of our day, when the entire world faces the urgent question of how to make the transition to more environmentally sustainable and socially just mobilities. All around the planet urban, regional, and international governing bodies are grappling with a series of crises related to how we move: an urban crisis of pollution and congestion, a global refugee crisis of borders and humanitarianism, and a climate crisis of global warming and decarbonisation. This article seeks to think across these crises showing how each is part of a wider disturbance in prevailing institutions concerned with the management of mobilities and immobilities. Mobility justice offers a new way to think across the micro and macro scale of transitioning toward more just mobilities.

Full text

Theorising mobility justice
Mimi Sheller*
Introduction
Mobility justice is one of the crucial political and ethical issues of our day, when the
entire world faces the urgent question of how to make the transition to more envi-
ronmentally sustainable and socially just mobilities. All around the world today, the
challenges of precarious access to mobility (and unsafe or risky mobilities) produce
the sharpest contours of uneven mobility. Urban, regional, and international govern-
ing bodies are grappling with a series of crises related to how we move: an urban crisis
of pollution and congestion, a global refugee crisis of borders and humanitarianism,
and a climate crisis of global warming and decarbonisation. ese concerns may look
quite dierent from the Global South than from the Global North, but the regions
are interconnected and the production of unjust mobilities is a transnational and
planetary problem that demands concerted eorts for social change.
Drawing on my forthcoming book Mobility justice (Verso, 2018), this article seeks
to think across these crises showing how each is part of a wider disturbance in pre-
vailing institutions concerned with the management of mobilities and immobilities,
circulation and borders, and mobilization as well as demobilization. Mobility justice
oers a new way to think across the micro, meso, and macro scales of transitioning
toward more just mobilities. I seek to situate debates over sustainable transportation
*Drexel University – Filadéla – Pensilvânia –Estados Unidos.

18 Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 30, n. 2
and low-carbon transitions in the context of wider unequal mobility regimes, includ-
ing consideration of the rights to cross-border mobility of refugees and migrants,
but also at issue are the larger macro-mobilities of a planetary scale and the smaller
micro-mobilities at the bodily scale (especially as inected by race, gender, disability,
and sexuality) and even at the nanoscale (for example, concerning viral mobilities,
chemical pollutants, or hunger, obesity and conversion of energy into fat).
Elite mobilities and refugee movements stand in some relation to each other,
and are also not separable from climate change and urban resilience, or the mo-
bilities of hunger and disease, military mobilities and global logistics chains, racial
segregation and gendered sexual policing of everyday bodily mobility, eviction and
homelessness. Current approaches to transport justice, environmental justice, and
even spatial justice have not spent enough time showing how embodied dierences
in class, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual identity and physical ability inu-
ence accessibility and interact with the mobility regimes and control systems that
reproduce uneven mobilities. Truly addressing the injustices of unequal mobilities
requires that we develop a deeper understanding of how uneven mobility relates not
only to how we move around cities, but also gendered and racialized colonial histories
and neocolonial presents; along with the geo-ecological and geo-political bases of
planetary mobilities in extractive industries such as mining and energy production.
The new mobilities paradigm beyond the Global North
Over the past een years a new interdisciplinary approach to the study of mobili-
ties has been emerging across the social sciences, as well as touching the humanities
and more “applied” elds of design, urban planning, and transport studies. For me
it began when John Urry and I organized the Alternative Mobility Futures confer-
ence at Lancaster University, .., in January 2004 and then launched the Centre
for Mobilities Research. e conference led to several publications that became
inuential in announcing “the new mobilities paradigm” (Sheller and Urry, 2006),
including my article with Urry which introduced the 2006 special issue of Society
& Space that we co-edited on “materialities and mobilities”. e conference also
involved a workshop on mobility and mobile media, which led to our edited col-
lection “Mobile technologies of the city”. And nally, it inuenced our decision to
launch the journal Mobilities, founded in 2005 along with co-editor Kevin Han-
nam, with its rst issue published in January 2006 with the editorial introduction
on “Mobilities, immobilities and moorings” (Hannam, Sheller and Urry, 2006).
At the same time, a number of cultural geographers in the U.K. had also been
gathering projects around concepts of mobility, especially involving the work led by
Theorising mobility justice, pp. 17-34

19
May-Aug. 2018
Tim Cresswell, Peter Adey, Peter Merriman, and other geographers. eir work led
to a whole series of important publications that have made the concept of mobili-
ties central to the discipline of geography (see Cresswell 2006, 2011, 2012, 2014;
Adey et al., 2014; Adey, 2017). Meanwhile, historians involved in the International
Association for the History of Transport, Trac and Mobility (2) were like-
wise beginning to broaden the notion of transport history towards a more diverse
history of mobilities, which eventually led to the launch of the journal Transfers:
Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies, edited by Gijs Mom. More informal
research networks also began to emerge, including the Cosmobilities Network and
various other “mobilities networks” including a Mediterranean mobilities network,
a Pan-American mobilities network, and eventually an Aotearoa/New Zealand
Mobilities network and the recently launched Australian Mobilities Network, all
of which maintained electronic mail lists and organized occasional conferences
and workshops.
e eld of mobilities studies began with discussions of “automobility” as a
dominant system, but came to include research on the combined movements of
people, objects, and information in all of their complex relational dynamics in
many locations and across many scales. It involves new theoretical approaches and
methodological innovations for studying both mobilities and immobilities, speed
and barriers, as well as the representations and meanings attached to such movement
(Sheller and Urry, 2006; Sheller and Urry, 2016). Mobilities research focuses on
the constitutive role of movement within the workings of most social institutions
and social practices, and focuses on the organization of power around systems of
governing mobility and immobility at various scales. Such systems are culturally
shaped and politically governed by mobility regimes that govern who and what
can move (or stay put), when, where, how and under what conditions. Mobilities
research focuses not simply on movement per se, but on “the power of discourses,
practices and infrastructures of mobility in creating the eects of both movement
and stasis” (Sheller, 2011, p. 2).
Since it would be unwieldy to try review the eld as a whole, here I want to focus
especially on developments relating to issues of power, inequality, and justice. I would
argue that issues of uneven motility and of mobility rights, ethics and justice have
become crucial to the eld (Cresswell, 2006; Bergmann and Sager, 2008). ere has
been increasing attention to concepts such as “dierential mobility” (Frith, 2012),
“uneven mobilities” (Sheller, 2015), “motility” or potential mobility (Flamm and
Kaufmann, 2006; Kellerman, 2012), “mobility capabilities” (Kronlid, 2008), and
questions of power, justice and mobility rights (Bærenholdt, 2013; Faulconbridge
and Hui, 2016). Mobilities research also has a normative dimension: it engages not
Mimi Sheller

20 Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 30, n. 2
only in critical analysis of historical and existing mobility systems, but also models
future transitions that might help to bring about alternative cultures of mobility.
It asks how relations of mobility and immobility are culturally made within and
through social practices. What is the new mobilities paradigm?
1. A new way of thinking about social worlds as emergent from complex and multi-
scalar mobile relations, ows, circulations, and their temporary moorings (rather
than sedentary epistemologies and methodological nationalism).
2. Mobilities research provides insight into the social practices and material agen-
cies of contemporary mobile lives. It examines the complex interconnections
between physical, virtual, communicative, and imaginative mobilities, including
the movement of people, objects, information, capital, and resources – as well as
their immobilities.
3. We also focus on understanding how meanings, representations, and mobility
discourses frame phenomena as moving or still, fast or slow, mobile or immobile.
4. A method and collaborative site of action for experimenting with new mobilities,
exploring mobility ethics, and developing explicitly normative frames for insti-
gating mobility justice.
5. ere is a politics of mobility, organized around “constellations” of movement,
meaning and practice, as Tim Cresswell describes it (Cresswell, 2010). Mobilities
are uneven, dierential, and unequal, and come together through these combined
lived experiences that are both physical and meaningful.
Mobilities research therefore encompasses not only study of the corporeal
travel of people and the physical movement of objects (e.g., transportation sys-
tems), but also imaginative travel, virtual travel, and communicative travel (Urry,
2007), which are various kinds of mediated mobilities that involve the circulation
of images and representations, while also enabling and coercing (some) people to
live more “mobile lives” (Elliott and Urry, 2010). By bringing together studies of
migration, transportation, infrastructure, transnationalism, mobile communica-
tions, imaginative travel and tourism, these various new approaches to the study
of mobilities are especially able to highlight the relation between local and global
“power-geometries” (Massey, 1991). We can begin to see that uneven powers of
“motility” – meaning the capability for mobility and control over the mobility of
others – and dierential “accessibility” to various kinds of spaces and social goods
are not just the result of racial, gendered, classed, sexed, and other formations, but
are also productive of those hierarchical systems of dierentiation, through various
kinds of enablement and disablement.
Theorising mobility justice, pp. 17-34

21
May-Aug. 2018
However, over this decade it has also become clearer that we need both a deeper
historicizing of mobilities research in terms of colonial histories, global geographies,
and the global impacts of neoliberalism, as well as a deeper ecologizing of the mate-
rial resource bases of mobility in extractive industries (Sheller, 2014). On the one
hand, a great deal of mobilities research has focused on contemporary urban issues,
especially in the Global North, issues such as sustainable post-automobility mobility
transitions involving redesigning cities for bicycling , walking , and public transit; the
problematic growth of air travel and aeromobilities that promote mobile lifestyles
of “mobility pioneers”; or even concerns over crossing borders, whether by tourists,
travelers, or migrants. Some have called for greater attention to (im)mobilities in
the Global South, to questions of mobility in rural and “peripheral” areas, and to
the problems of coerced mobilities and displacement. On the other hand, the strong
issues in anthropocentric processes such as commuting , transport systems, traveling,
migration, or various leisure mobilities has kept the focus on micro-scale embod-
ied movement, meso-level patterns of mobility and immobility, and occasionally
the macro-level structures of governance of mobility regimes. But the ecological
problems of the Anthropocene may demand that we focus greater attention on the
non-human circulation of energy, metals, water, pollution, and waste. Rather than
focusing on how people move, we also need to think about how systems are mobility
are built, energized, and impact on larger planetary ecosystems.
Indeed, a focus on the Global South, on non-urban areas, and on ecological
concerns leads us to connect together issues of histories of colonialism and extrac-
tive industries with more immediate problems of urban life and forms of uneven
circulation in the world today, both locally and globally. It also suggests that we
might look more closely at the politics of mobility as an ongoing struggle to control
or disrupt the mobility regimes that shape power relations.
I began my career studying the “public sphere”, democracy formation, and
civic participation in post-slavery societies (in which I include my own home-city
of Philadelphia). My PhD dissertation and rst book, Democracy aer slavery:
black publics and peasant radicalism in Haiti and Jamaica (2000), examined how
“black publics” in post-emancipation Haiti and Jamaica struggled to build radical
democratic societies but were thwarted by liberal and then authoritarian govern-
ments. I was fascinated with the question how “subaltern publics” form and how
they participate politically. Aer I joined the Sociology Department at Lancaster
University, this led to my rst co-authored article with John Urry, “e city and
the car” (2000), in which we examined how the automobile was not simply a
technology of transport, but had transformed public space, public life, and demo-
cratic participation. is led to an interest in what I called “mobile publics” and
Mimi Sheller

22 Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 30, n. 2
the ways in which mobility transformed both private and public life, as well as the
conversations that led to what I have described above as the emergence of the “new
mobilities paradigm”.
At the same time, however, I was working on my second book, Consuming the
Caribbean (Sheller, 2003), which applied a mobilities theoretical lens to look at the
Caribbean as a mobile region, built out of the capitalist circulation and consumption
of bodies, labor, plants, commodities, representations, texts, and cultures. us my
own work on mobilities was always informed by a non-Western and postcolonial criti-
cal perspective, as well as eorts to understand the exploitative relations between East
and West, North and South. is would lead to my later book, Aluminum dreams:
the making of light modernity (Sheller, 2014), which traced those connections and
(im)mobilities through a material cultural history of the light metal, aluminum,
and its basis in bauxite mining around the world, but especially in the Caribbean.
I have increasingly tried to merge together my research interests in the Caribbean
and Latin America, which has its own conferences, dialogues, and interlocutors,
with my research interests in the eld of mobilities research, where the participants
have tended to be European. e emergence of an interest in “the new mobilities
paradigm” in Latin America has provided the perfect opportunity to try to advance
these projects on common ground.
Mobility justice and uneven mobilities
e specic trajectory of the eld and of my own work, described above, has led me
to my latest project: to think more precisely about how we might theorize justice in
relation to liberal and neoliberal power, global inequalities, and colonial histories
and postcolonial presents of uneven mobilities. In my forthcoming book, Mobility
justice, I theorize justice more specically in relation to concepts of distributive jus-
tice, deliberative justice, procedural justice, restorative justice and epistemic justice,
which I cannot fully review here. I also contrast concept of transport justice, which
I argue is too narrowly focused on transport alone, and spatial justice which is too
narrowly focused on the urban scale and is not very mobile. I draw on some ideas
from the climate justice literature (e.g., Schlosberg, 2012) and develop a capabili-
ties approach to think about diering capabilities for mobility. is leads to key
questions such as these:
• Who is able to exercise rights to mobility and who is not capable of mobility
within particular situations? Who is mobile or immobile and why?
• Who governs or controls mobility systems? How have sovereign control and
Theorising mobility justice, pp. 17-34

23
May-Aug. 2018
disciplinary systems historically produced dierently marked bodies as unequal
mobile subjects?
• What modes of counter power and subversive mobilities might inform the kinds
of moves that can be made to resist, overturn, challenge, or escape these mobility
regimes?
• How can we support building greater mobility justice? How can people reclaim
the mobile commons?
• What do we mean by “uneven mobility”?
To use the categories that serve to organize the recent Routledge Handbook of
Mobilities Research, the unevenness of mobility may take the form of uneven qualities
of experience, uneven access to inastructure, uneven materialities, uneven subjects
of mobility, and uneven events or temporalities of stopping, going, passing, paus-
ing, and waiting (Adey et al., 2014). ese uneven terrains bring socio-technical
infrastructures to the social and political foreground, for they depend not only on
the design of the built environment but also on the social practices in which delay,
exclusion, turbulence, blockage, and disruption are an everyday experience for those
who must dwell in and move through marginalized spaces seeking livelihoods, pas-
sage, and asylum (e.g., Fischer, McCann and Auyero, 2014; Mountz, 2010; Graham,
2009). I nd these concepts very helpful for thinking about uneven mobility and
accessibility as productive of hierarchies of race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality
and disabilities or impairments via processes of control over dierential mobilities.
Uneven mobility, therefore, refers rst, to a terrain for movement in which there
are divergent pathways, dierential access, or partial connectivity; this refers then
to built environments, and the ways in which urban space and national space may
be splintered in ways that connect some places while disconnecting others. Second
it refers to means or modes of movement that have a greater or lesser degree of ease,
comfort, exibility, and safety, with more or less friction, noise, speed, or turbulence;
this is suggestive of segregated transportation systems, not just explicit rules as to
who can ride dierent modes, but also class-based exclusions that relegate the poor to
more dangerous and uncomfortable means of transport, longer distance commutes,
peripheral living spaces and perhaps even homelessness. ird, it refers to spatial
patterns, forms of mobility management, and control architectures that govern
relations of mobility and immobility, speed and slowness, comfort and discomfort
across many scales, including gates, walls, exclusionary regulations, detention cen-
ters and prisons. And fourth, it refers to local, regional, urban, national and global
systems for control over space, territory, communication, and speed, which produce
dierential mobility regimes; this means not only border controls, and passport,
Mimi Sheller

24 Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 30, n. 2
visas, or pass systems, but also control over logistics, energy infrastructure, and the
resources that enable more ecient mobility for the elite, and it should be said, for
military powers.
Uneven mobilities are crucial to deterritorializing processes and especially forms
of elite secession, which underwrite the mobile production of ongoing global in-
equalities. e right to mobility exists in relation to exclusions from national citizen-
ship and urban access, controlled via policing, fungible borders, gates, passes, and
surveillance systems, but also architecture, design and everyday practices that limit
the right to the city and to the protection of the state. Even for those within the
gates, fragmented public services, hostile policing, and gentried city centers push
the poor to the margins. In the glistening metropolises of densely packed corporate
sky scrapers, only the commodied tourism spaces of urban playscapes (Sheller and
Urry, 2004) and the exclusive zones of “elite mobilities” and cocooning (Birtchnell
and Caletrio, 2014) may occupy the best, cleanest, greenest locations and make use
of the newest, fastest infrastructures of transport and communication. Especially in
the urban centers of gentrifying global cities in the Global North, the practices of
conspicuous consumption and unfettered mobility of elites oen stand in obscene
contrast to those evicted to the margins and peripheries, unable to access the city,
which has increasingly become a staged spectacle of elite privilege and tourist con-
sumption. Such patterns may dier in the Global South, and it remains a crucial area
of research to understand the articulation between elite and subaltern mobilities in
diering spatial contexts.
The scales of justice
Next I want to turn to a more specic look at dierent scales of mobility justice, and
begin to propose more positive forms of advancing more just mobilities. e problem
of mobility injustice begins with our bodies, and the ways in which some bodies can
more easily move through space than others, due to restrictions on mobility relating
to gender, race, class, ethnicity, sexuality and physical abilities. Consider the spatial
restrictions on the mobility of wheelchair-users, or the limited mobility of racialized
minorities under police regimes of white supremacy, or the constrained mobility
of women under patriarchal systems of violent domination, or of sexual minorities
under heteronormative regimes.
Second, it concerns the shaping of built environments by infrastructures and
land use, including the forms of buildings, streets, vehicles, public transit, and other
forms of transport infrastructure that have long been part of the making of racially
segregated cities, sexually unsafe areas, or places of class exclusion. Consider the social
Theorising mobility justice, pp. 17-34

25
May-Aug. 2018
movements that have advocated for desegregation of transportation, for transporta-
tion justice, for the “right to the city” of the poor, or for women’s or  rights
to public space.
ird, mobility justice pertains to entire urban forms, or what I call, following
Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid (2014), “planetary urbanization”, including the
spatial formation of suburban sprawl, fossil fuel extraction and pipelines, and toxi-
cally polluted peripheries. ese global structures of uneven mobility are of course
shaped by militarization and the control of land, air, and sea as logistical spaces
for the movement of troops and weaponry, but also by the power of multinational
capital to move around the world and take resources (Brenner, 2014; Cowen, 2014).
Fourth, mobility justice concerns the scale of the nation state, and the control of
borders, migration, refugee, and citizenship. It includes visas and passports, inter-
ception, securitization, detention, deportation, and wall building, which we have
seen in full force recently under the guise of the “refugee crisis” around the world.
As more and more people are displaced around the world, both by warfare and
scarcities of food and water exacerbated by climate change, these mobility injustices
become ever more urgent.
Lastly, mobility justice issues are crucial to understanding the uneven impacts
of climate change in relation to spatial injustices and uneven mobilities. Environ-
mental injustices and mobility injustices are two faces of the same problem, each
contributing to the other, and they are intertwined with the uneven distribution of
access to transport, energy, and the fundamental life requirements of clean air, water,
food and shelter. e circulation of waste, pollution, and toxic materials overows
any boundaries, with plastics lling the ocean, electronic waste traveling to dumps
around the world, and greenhouse gases changing the composition of the Earth’s
atmosphere.
Bodily scale
Beginning with the bodily scale, Elliott and Urry describe network capital as a com-
bination of capacities to be mobile, including appropriate documents, money and
qualications; access to networks at-a-distance; physical capacities for movement;
location-free information and contact points; access to communication devices and
secure meeting places; access to vehicles and infrastructures; and time and other
resources for coordination (Elliott and Urry, 2010, pp. 10-11). ere is an uneven
distribution of these capacities for potential movement in relation to the surround-
ing physical, social, and political aordances for movement. We can think of this
as dierent degrees of ‘motility’, which can be dened as ‘the manner in which an
Mimi Sheller

26 Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 30, n. 2
individual or group appropriates the eld of possibilities relative to movement and
uses them’ (Kaufmann and Montulet, 2008, p. 45); it concerns the potential for
mobility. Elites accumulate network capital, while relegating others to situations
of slow, encumbered, or vulnerable mobility.
At the scale of the body, we can posit that all people have a right to freedom of
bodily movement, without undue constraint imposed from outside. Along with the
basic idea of freedom of movement, I propose the following principles of mobility
justice that have been (or should be) legally protected at the bodily scale, yet are
very much in jeopardy today:
• Habeas corpus: the right to appear before a court of law and have due process if
constrained by the state.
• Each individual’s mobility shall be constrained by the rule of mutuality: i.e., not
trampling, endangering, or depriving others of their capability for mobility.
• Individual mobility shall not be involuntarily restricted by threats of violence,
including enforced forms of clothing , segregated means of movement, or unevenly
applying temporal or spatial limits.
• Gender and sexual identity shall not be used as the basis for restricting mobility
or exclusion from public space.
• Racial, ethnic, or national proling shall not be used to police entire groups or
stop particular individuals from exercising freedom of movement.
Street scale
Second, mobility justice concerns the shaping of built environments and land use in-
cluding buildings, streets, vehicles, public transit, and other transport infrastructure
that have long been part of the making of racially segregated, automobile dependent
cities, as well as creating places of class, gender, sexual, and physical exclusion. Here
we can build on the eld of transportation justice the following principles:
• Public systems of transport shall not arbitrarily deny access to some groups as
against others by physical barriers or denial of service by race, gender, ability etc.
• Public investments in transport systems shall not aord mobility to some groups
by imposing undue burdens, externalities, or limitations on others who do not
benet.
• Cities shall ensure equitable provision of public transit and communication in-
frastructure through a social benet analysis based on population-level measures
of social exclusion and minimum thresholds of accessibility (Martens).
Theorising mobility justice, pp. 17-34

27
May-Aug. 2018
• Complete Streets policies (which promote greater design attention to all modes
of transport and accessibility, including non-motorized modes and public transit)
shall be developed to ensure that all modes of moving are aorded space and that
streets are not dominated by one mode such as cars.
Extended Urban Scale
ird, mobility justice pertains to entire “extended” urban forms, their architecture
and infrastructure, including the spatial formation of suburban sprawl, fossil fuel
extraction and pipelines, mines, power plants and toxically polluted peripheries.
“What might it mean”, Deborah Cowen asks, “to ground citizenship in the material
architectures and social relations of alternative infrastructure, instead of the gate/
ways of corporations and nation states? Could repairing infrastructure be a means
of repairing political life more broadly?” (Cowen, 2017).
When we imagine the resilience of cities and mobility systems in the future, we
need to consider the problem of automobility as not just one of congestion and
pollution, but also as concerned with the spatial “secession” [i.e., to secede, to break
away] of elites who are able to provide for their own mobility, security and safety
through privatized corridors and special facilities for ease of movement. “Secession-
ist mobility” may be as simple as moving to the automobilized space of the suburbs
(Henderson, 2006), or as elaborate as owning a private island, using oshore banks,
and ying in private jets (Sheller, 2009a; Sheller, 2009b). When carbon-hungry
kinetic elites resort to the private jet, the helicopter, the high speed train, the yacht,
the cocooned limousine, or the semi-militarized sport utility vehicle, they externalize
the environmental impacts of high-carbon lifestyles onto others, while also deter-
mining spatial development to support gated enclaves, high-rise towers, sanitized
pseudo-urban tourist zones, all-inclusive resorts with private beaches, spectacles of
consumer capitalism, and eco-resorts that are o limits to locals (Birtchnell and
Caletrio, 2014).
National Scale
Fourth, mobility justice concerns the control of borders, migration, refugee policy,
and citizenship. It includes all forms of visas and passports, interception, securiti-
zation, detention, deportation, and wall building, which we have seen in full force
recently in new forms of “border work” and “mobile borders” (Vukov and Sheller,
2013). Tamara Vukov describes the political implications of this struggle for mobil-
ity justice, and oers some ideas towards a vision of mobility justice, including rst,
Mimi Sheller

28 Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 30, n. 2
“the building of a world in which safe, accessible, and just forms of movement and
dwelling are open and available to all”. Secondly, she calls for “an end to the many
macro and micro forms of forced mobility and displacement (from colonial and
war-based displacements to deportation and evictions due to gentrication)”. And
nally, she also calls for “e dismantling of imposed forms of immobility, including
detention, incarceration, the legacy of colonial connement (such as reservations)
and separation walls and barriers” (Vukov, 2015). Existing social movements have
already made these scale-jumping connections, from the prison justice movement
to the migrant rights, refugee protection, and anti-border-wall protests.
At this scale of the nation and transnational movements, we can add these di-
mensions of mobility justice:
• All people shall enjoy a right to exit and re-enter the territory from which they
originate.
• ere is a right to refuge for those eeing violence, persecution, and loss of do-
micile by war.
• People displaced by climate change shall have a right to resettlement in other
countries, especially in those countries that contributed most to climate change.
• ere is a right to freedom of movement across borders for any temporary purposes
dened by law (tourism, education, temporary work etc.)
• No one should be detained or deported without due process.
• Immigration law shall not be used to exclude entire categories of persons on the
basis of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, or health status.
Planetary Scale
Lastly, I suggest that global environmental injustices and mobility injustices are
two faces of the same problem, each contributing to the other, and they are inter-
twined with the uneven distribution of access and harms of logistical space, energy
infrastructure, and the fundamental life requirements of clean air, water, food, and
shelter. Access to energy, and the minerals and metals that make up transportation
systems, are a crucial dimension of such elite mobilities. e potential for mobility
is grounded in where energy for transportation is sourced, where it is exported,
and who uses most of it. Kinetic elites are monopolizing control over energy, water,
and mineral rights, using their power to control global resources that are becoming
increasingly scarce. As populations nd themselves vulnerable to a changing climate
and threatened with loss of access to water, energy, or food, issues of security will
increasingly come to the fore – including the potential for political unrest and
Theorising mobility justice, pp. 17-34

29
May-Aug. 2018
state securitization brought on by climate change and associated urban disasters, as
Stephen Graham has explored in his work on Disrupted cities (Graham, 2009). As
mobility becomes rationed or far more highly priced due to the politics surrounding
the unsustainability of current mobility systems, the inequalities of network capital
will be thrown into sharper relief. Ultimately these elite mobilities are drivers of
uneven global topographies, which are linked to deeper geo -ecologies of energy use
and resource extraction. At this planetary scale:
• Principles of climate justice and environmental justice suggest that mobility con-
sumed in one place should not externalize waste or pollution on other regions
without legitimately agreed upon reparations but also protection of non-human
entities.
• ose industries and countries that have contributed the most to greenhouse
gases and other forms of pollution shall have a responsibility of reparative justice
to limit the impacts of their actions on others and to restore the atmosphere and
environments as far as possible.
• ose displaced by climate change shall have a right to resettlement in other coun-
tries, and especially in those countries that contributed most to climate change.
• Protection of the planetary commons (oceans, seaoor, air, Antarctica, and extra-
planetary bodies) shall outweigh any rights to global free trade or private rights
to resource extraction.
• All states shall be party to world forums at which carbon budgets are agreed upon
and reductions in greenhouse gases regularly measured and met.
• A global trust fund shall be established into which polluters pay in order to meet
the costs of urgent global climate change mitigation.
Each of these aspects of mobility injustice calls for greater attention to the longer
histories of colonial, racial, imperial, and military mobility that inform contempo-
rary global economies; and to the deeper geo-ecologies of resource extraction and
energy use that support their infrastructures. We need to do a better job of tracing
the historical patterns informing today’s uneven mobilities, including their military,
colonial, and racial histories.
Conclusion: a manifesto for mobility justice
If we seek to abide by the principles of mobility justice, what kind of built forms,
social practices, infrastructures, and narratives will support a more just mobility?
Where should we direct our attention in building more just mobility cultures and
Mimi Sheller

30 Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 30, n. 2
forms of governance across multiple scales at once? I have argued that in thinking
about bodily space, street space, urban space, national space, and even planetary
space as racialized, gendered, and uneven, we can extend the insights of mobilities
research not only into understanding micro-level interactions, and meso-level ur-
ban politics, but also macro-level global relations of unequal mobility. A combined
transition toward sustainable mobility and mobility justice therefore requires more
than changing how much energy we use in everyday life; it more fundamentally
requires greater equity in the distribution of network capital and capabilities for
motility, locally and globally.
It is incumbent upon us to expose more thoroughly the relation between such
unequal mobility systems and uneven spatialities not only as forms of biopolitical
governance of mobility but also as sites of potential resistance. e multi-scalar
approach to mobility justice that I have summarized here includes a multi-layered
politics of mobility that we could sum up as a kind of Manifesto to take action in
a wide range of domains:
• Struggles over everyday embodied relations of racialization, gender, age, disability,
sexuality, etc. which inform uneven freedoms of mobility and unequal capabilities
for motility;
• Struggles for the right to the city and the public sphere, oen with a politics of
occupation and presence in public space that disrupts normalized mobility spaces
and oers epistemic alternatives;
• Struggles over ethical spaces for contesting borders, migration, and other kinds
of transnational mobility – slavery, tracking, deportation, refugees etc. – in
contested contexts of securitization and militarization;
• Struggles over the just circulation of goods, resources, energy, etc. in a global
capitalist system that lacks procedural justice in the distribution of planetary
matter and in the logistics infrastructures that move that stu.
In conclusion, a more robust and comprehensive theory of mobility justice can
help us address the combined “crises” of climate change, sustainable urban transi-
tions, resource depletion and global migrations. ese “crises” are part of a common
phenomenon, which shares its origins with other uneven mobilities that impact
everyday life. However, one aim is to shi away from the language of crisis towards
a more productive way of framing these dilemmas and proposing how to deal with
them. Mobility justice is an overarching concept for thinking about how power and
inequality inform the governance and control of movement, shaping the patterns
of unequal mobility and immobility in the circulation of people, resources, and
Theorising mobility justice, pp. 17-34

31
May-Aug. 2018
information. We can think about mobility justice occurring at dierent scales, from
micro-level embodied interpersonal relations, to meso-level issues of urban trans-
portation justice and the “right to the city”, to macro-level transnational relations
of travel and borders, and ultimately global resources ows and energy circulation.
Ultimately I argue that we urgently need to connect these scales of the body, street,
city, nation, and planet into one overarching theory of mobility justice.
Bibliographic References
A, P. (2017), Mobility. New revised edition. London, Routledge.
A, P.et al. (2014), e routledge handbook of mobilities. London, Routledge.
B, J. O. (2013), “Governmobility : e powers of mobility”. Mobilities, 8 (1): 20-34.
B, S. & S, T. (eds.). (2008), e ethics of mobilities: rethinking place, exclusion,
eedom and environment. Aldershot, Ashgate.
B, T. & C, J. (eds.). (2014), Elite mobilities. London, Routledge.
B, N. (ed.). (2014), Implosions/explosions: towards a study of planetary urbanization.
Berlin, Jovis.
B, N. & S, C. (2014), “Planetary urbanization”. In: B, N. Implosions/
explosions: towards a study of planetary urbanization. Berlin, Jovis.
C, D. (2014), e deadly life of logistics: mapping violence in global trade. Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota Press.
C, D. (2017), “Disrupt the ows: war ag ainst  and planetary annihilation”. Available
in: https://itsgoingdown.org/disrupt-ows-war-dapl-planetary-annihilation/, consulted
on: 6/12/2016.
C, T. (2006), On the move: mobility in the modern western world. London, Routledge.
C, T. (January 2010), “Towards a politics of mobility”. Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space. 28 (1): 17-31.
C, T. (2011), “Mobilities : catching up”. Progress in Human Geography. 35 (4): 550-8.
C, T. (2012), “Mobilities : still”. Progress in Human Geography. 36 (5): 645-653.
C, T. (2014), “Mobilities : moving on”. Progress in Human Geography. 38 (5):
712-21.
E, A. & U, J. (2010), Mobile lives. London, Routledge.
F, J. & H, A. (2016), “Traces of a mobile eld: ten years of mobilities Re-
search”. Mobilities, 11 (1): 1-14.
F, B. et al. (eds.). (2014), Cities om scratch: poverty and informality in urban Latin
America. Durham, Duke University Press.
F, M. & K, V. (2006), “Operationalising the concept of motility: a qualitative
study”. Mobilities. 1 (2): 167-89.
Mimi Sheller

32 Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 30, n. 2
F, J. (2012), “Splintered space: the smartphone as the screen to the city”. Mobilities, 7
(1): 131-149.
G, S. (ed.). (2009), Disrupted cities: when inastructure fails. New York and London,
Routledge.
H, K. et al. (2006), “Mobilities, immobilities, and moorings”. Mobilities, 1 (1): 1-22.
H, J. (2006), “Secessionist automobility: racism, anti-urbanism, and the politics of
automobility in Atlanta, Georgia”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
30 (2): 293-307.
K, V. & M, B. (2008), “Between social and spatial mobilities: the issue
of social uidity”. In: C, W.; K, V. & K, S. (eds.). Tracing
mobilities: towards a cosmopolitan perspective. Farnham, Ashgate, pp. 37-56.
K, A. (2012), “Potential mobilities”. Mobilities, 7 (1): 171-83.
K, D. (2008), “Mobility as capability”. In: U, T. P. & C, T. (eds).
Gendered mobilities. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 15-34.
M, D. (1991), “A global sense of place”. Marxism Today, 35 (6): 24-29.
M, A. (2010), Seeking asylum: human smuggling and bureaucracy at the border. Min-
neapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
S, D. (2012), “Climate Justice and capabilities: a framework for adaptation polic y”.
Ethics and International Aairs, 26 (4): 445-461.
S, M. (2000), Democracy aer slavery: black publics and peasant radicalism in Haiti and
Jamaica. London and Basingstoke, Macmillan Caribbean.
S, M. (2003), Consuming the Caribbean: om Arawaks to Zombies. London and New
York, Routledge.
S, M. (2009a), “Infrastructures of the Imagined island: soware, mobilities and the
architecture of Caribbean Paradise”. Environment and Planning A, 41: 1386-1403.
S, M. (2009b), “e New Caribbean complexity: mobility systems, tourism and the
re-scaling of development”. e Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 30: 189-203.
S, M. (2011), “Mobility”. Sociopedia. International Sociological Association.
S, M. (2014), Aluminum dreams: the making of light modernity. Cambridge, , 
Press.
S, M. & U, J. (2000), “e city and the car”. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 24: 737-57.
S, M. & U, J. (2003), “Mobile transformations of ‘public’ and ‘private’ life”. eory,
Culture and Society, 20 (3): 107-125.
S, M. & U, J. (2006), “e New Mobilities Paradigm”. Environment and Planning
A, 38 (2): 207-26.
S, M. & U, J. (2016), “Mobilising the new mobilities paradigm”. Applied Mobili-
ties, 1 (1).
Theorising mobility justice, pp. 17-34

33
May-Aug. 2018
S, M. & U, J. (eds.). (2004), Tourism mobilities: places to play, places in play. Lon-
don, Routledge.
S, M. & U, J. (eds.). (2006), Mobile technologies of the city. London, Routledge.
U, J. (2007), Mobilities. Cambridge, Polity Press.
V, T. (2015), “Strange moves: speculations and propositions on mobility justice”. In:
M & W (eds.). Mobile desires: the politics and erotics of mobility justice.
Palgrave Macmillan.
V, T. & S, M. (2013), “Border work: surveillant assemblages, virtual fences, and
tactical counter-media”. Social Semiotics, 23 (2): 225-41.
Abstract
Theorising mobility justice
Mobility justice is one of the crucial political and ethical issues of our day, when the entire world
faces the urgent question of how to make the transition to more environmentally sustainable
and socially just mobilities. All around the planet urban, regional, and international governing
bodies are grappling with a series of crises related to how we move: an urban crisis of pollution
and congestion, a global refugee crisis of borders and humanitarianism, and a climate crisis of
global warming and decarbonisation. is article seeks to think across these crises showing how
each is part of a wider disturbance in prevailing institutions concerned with the management
of mobilities and immobilities. Mobility justice oers a new way to think across the micro and
macro scale of transitioning toward more just mobilities.
Keywords: Mobility; Justice; Urban crisis; Borders; Climate change.
Resumo
Teorizando sobre “mobilidades justas”
“Mobilidades justas” conguram uma das questões políticas e éticas cruciais de nossos dias, quando
o mundo enfrenta a questão urgente de como fazer a transição para mobilidades ambientalmente
mais sustentáveis e socialmente mais justas. Em todo o planeta, órgãos governamentais urbanos,
regionais e internacionais estão lidando com uma série de crises relacionadas aos deslocamentos:
uma crise urbana em torno da poluição e do congestionamento, uma crise global de fronteiras
e de humanitarismo face aos refugiados, e uma crise climática imposta pelo aquecimento global
e pela necessidade de descarbonização. Este artigo busca pensar sobre tais crises, mostrando
como cada uma faz parte de distúrbios mais amplos nas instituições responsáveis pela gestão de
mobilidades e imobilidades. Na interface entre mobilidade, equidade e justiça, ergue-se uma nova
maneira de pensar, desde a escala micro à macro, sobre a transição para mobilidades mais justas.
Palavras-chave: Mobilidade; Justiça; Crise urbana; Fronteiras; Mudança climática.
Mimi Sheller

34 Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, v. 30, n. 2
Texto recebido em 29/1/2018 e aprovado em 1/2/2018.
: 10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2018.142763
  é professora de sociologia na Drexel University (), diretora do Center for
Mobilities Research and Policy (Reino Unido), e presidente do T2M.org. E-mail: m imi.sheller@
drexel.edu.
Theorising mobility justice, pp. 17-34