12 The movement of individuals from one place to another sets more things in motion than the mere movement itself. It affects the places and people left behind and it triggers experiences, interactions and confrontations with people and places along the way and at the destinations. Moreover, mobility generates discourses. Movement is not perceived as a neutral action, but often has positive or negative associations. Depending on the type of mobility, people will have ideas about whether that type of mobility is desirable or undesirable. Contemporary discourses often relate to the (perceived) effects of mobility, rather than to the act of moving itself. For example, favourable or unfavourable ideas on ‘migration’ focus on the economic, social, demographic or cultural effects of the settling of new people in a land that the representatives of the discourse perceive as their own. Whenever discourses on a type of mobility are unfavourable, they imply that the discourse community thinks that people should to stay in the same place. In other words, discourses on mobility, also imply value judgements on immobility. These discourses reflect values, ideals and fears that people feel strongly about and which are deeply ingrained in the way people think. They reflect, for example, ideas about the perceived connection between place and identity, ideals of economic prosperity (and ideas on how to achieve this) or concerns for human rights. In these discourses, it matters who travels, for what purposes, and how long people will stay in particular places. Aside from prevalent discourses on migration, recent health and climate concerns have prompted new discourses on mobility. A heightened concern for the causes and effects of climate change gave rise to heated debates on the desirability or undesirability of particular means of transport, such as travelling by train versus plane or car. Discourses reflecting environmental and climate concerns exist alongside opposing discourses on the same means of transport, but reflecting the prioritisation of leisure or speed, economic concerns, or the denial or playing down of climate concerns. Mobility became even more a topic of controversy in the COVID-19 pandemic, during which this thesis was largely written. One view that was prominent around the globe was that people should not leave their country of residence, their cities, neighbourhoods or even homes. In this context, discourses on the desirability or undesirability of (im)mobility reflected (global) health concerns.1 These reflections on contemporary discourses on mobility and immobility teach us multiple things that will inform the inquiry in this dissertation: 1) The movement of people and its effects are often not perceived as a neutral phenomenon; conversely, this is also true for its opposite, immobility 2) There exists a plurality of discourses on mobility 3) Many factors of mobility play a part in these discourses: it matters, for example, who moves, why they move, how they move, what they do at their destination and how long they (intend to) stay at a new place 1 For a discussing of discourses on mobility in this context, see e.g., Cresswell (2021).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw