Search

The article portrays, first, the basic human requirements of physical and virtual spaces. Second, the article attempts to examine the relationships among the several basic human requirements of physical space, as well as the relationships between the requirements of physical space and those of virtual space. Third, the article suggests that the basic spatial requirements of individuals be examined in light of human spatial pulses, which include each person's fixed origin, a movement, and a fixed destination, with implications for people, their activities, and places. Discussions begin with the basic human requirements of physical space, fixity and mobility, and the human needs, which they present. This is followed by assessments of the relationships between these requirements, turning next to virtual space, attempting to expose the two human basic requirements of virtual space, access and connectivity, and the relationships between these two basic requirements. This is followed by an assessment of the relationships between the human requirements of physical and virtual spaces, and their implications for human activity. Finally, a joint interpretation of human spatial requirements and their activities, through the notion of human spatial impulses, is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article suggests that a partial contradiction between mobility and immobility was true for prepandemic physical mobility only and that, currently, the distinction between mobile and immobile individuals has turned fully relational. Fixity constitutes a voluntary condition, whereas immobility is perceived as an imposed one. The major dimensions for physical immobility are restraints for work and travel. Digital–virtual immobility can be measured via network capital, which includes access to networks and communications, leading to location-free information. Mobile communications are now globally ubiquitous, so that absolute digital immobility is currently almost nonexistent, thus turning digital (im)mobility into a continuum. Coronavirus lockdowns restricted individuals' physical mobility for commuting and other travel while turning physical immobility into a medical benefit, whereas being physically mobile involved risk. Lockdowns further involved "immobile mobility," with people being highly engaged in digital mobilities while being simultaneously situated in physical immobility. Once physical mobility is fully restored, individuals might prefer some partial and rather voluntary physical immobilities because of coronavirus habitual changes, for both work and travel, coupled with semi-imposed physical immobilities by employers. Thus, physical immobility might gain also a positive connotation, side by side with digital (im)mobility still being a continuum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the explosive growth of mobilities research, much sociospatial theory continues to be rooted in a sedentarist perspective, failing to incorporate the insights of this burgeoning field. Mobilities research, in contrast, often considers a variety of sociospatial relations, yet stops short of coherent integration with other dimensions of sociospatiality. In this article, we examine the mobilities turn in light of Jessop, Brenner, and Jones's (2008) TPSN framework, which recognizes the polymorphic nature of sociospatial relations. We discuss the interrelationships between mobility and the four distinct sociospatialities identified by Jessop, Brenner, and Jones: territory (T), place (P), scale (S), and networks (N). Each of these sociospatialities is coimplicated with mobility: Territory concerns the malleable areal and bordered structure of the state and the uneven freedoms granted, and constraints imposed on, objects and bodies as they attempt to move through and across political jurisdictions; place emphasizes the embedded and performative nature of mobility and considers place-appropriate and place-transgressive activity; scale concerns movement associated with the tangled and politicized processes of scale production and examines how mobility is affected by the uneven scaling of power, resources, opportunity, and identity; networks address flows of bodies, objects, and knowledge across space, through specific channels. To illustrate the coimplicated relationships among mobility and territory, place, scale, and networks, we examine the practice of automobility, stressing the ontological contingency of mobility: Neither mobility nor fixity can be assumed. Mobility is, rather, a social, cultural, and political achievement, inherently power-laden and recursively bound up in the production of territory, place, scale, and networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been argued that the ‘mobility turn’ is overcelebratory regarding human movement across space. Yet, critical studies of mobilities have emerged that refute this, demonstrating how various forms and aspects of mobility are bound up with unequal power relations. This paper engages with debates over migration and mobility through an in-depth analysis of three life history interviews recorded in England in 2011. The subjects of the interviews are all men in their fifties and sixties of South Asian heritage, who moved to England as minors, and who, as adults, worked in factories for at least three years. The stories in all their affectivity and sensuousness disrupt standard tropes regarding migration and contribute to our understanding of the relations between mobility, fixity, ‘race’, and class. The built-in historical perspective shows how, looking back, someone who may once have migrated across inte rnational borders does not necessarily see that as the most significant moment in their life; how someone's past moves within a nation-state may have greater significance to them than their moves into it; how people who move at one point can also be stuck, reluctantly immobile, at another; and how both the representations and materiality of mobility and fixity are imbued with, and reproduce, class inequality and racisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on recent interest in fixities within mobilities studies, this article analyzes the ‘production of fixities’ in Japanese inns, or ryokan. I describe the complex ways that different scales and regimes of mobility interact on the bodies, personal lives, careers, and aspirations of inn employees. I show how the daily grind of producing fixity for tourists engenders ambivalence toward both movement and stasis, mediated through gender, age, and other circumstances. Ultimately, I argue that mobility and fixity should not be seen as opposites, but as mutually constitutive conditions that intermingle in nuanced ways in the everyday lives of individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Recent work within mobilities studies has pointed to the ways in which mobility shapes people's identities and everyday lives. Mobility is also inherently geographical in nature, not only in the sense that movements of people and objects transcend space but that the ubiquity of mobility within society raises important questions about the fixities of place. Much of the recent geographical scholarship on mobilities has focused on the city, with ‘the urban’ constructed as the archetypal space of hyper-mobility. Less attention has been given to mobilities in the context of rural spaces and places. In this paper, we suggest that mobility represents an equally important constituent of rural lifestyles and rural places. Our contention is that the stabilities of rurality, associated with senses of belonging, tradition and stasis, are both reliant on and undermined by rather complex forms of mobility. We draw on empirical materials from a recent community study in rural Wales to reveal the nature of these mobilities, including the diverse range of movements of people to, from and through rural places, the difficulties associated with practising everyday mobilities in rural settings, the increasing significance of virtual forms of mobility associated with the roll-out of digital technologies across rural spaces, and the complicated relationship between rural mobilities, immobilities and fixities. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]