The dynamics of (im)mobility in rural areas – literature review and some empirical comments

Abstract

The paper aims to provide a selective review of the literature on the ‘new mobilities paradigm’ and immobility research with a special empirical focus on rural (im)mobilities. It presents empirical evidence on (im)mobilities collected in different parts of Hungary in order to promote new agendas in Hungarian rural research. Although rural areas have often been described as rather immobile: a world of stability and stillness, rootedness, place-attachment, they are in fact shaped by diverse types of mobilities, which continually reconstruct the ‘rural’. Both mobility and immobility represent ways of participating in social life, and each individual act of (im)mobility is embedded in and intersects with spatial, geographic, economic, social and cultural structures, processes.

The ‘new mobilities paradigm’, conceptualised by John Urry, Mimi Sheller, Peter Adey, Tim Cresswell, and Vincent Kauffman, is part of a broader theoretical project, which aims to challenge ‘sedentarist’ approach and perspectives in social sciences. The novelty of this ‘paradigm’ is its incentive to understand mobility as a holistic and relational process. From this perspective, mobility and immobility are interconnected, in a constant dialogue with each other: mobility is possible and recognisable because of the simultaneous presence of stability and immobility.

The ability to be mobile or immobile is conceived as a resource whose availability varies by class position, age, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, health conditions, and power relations. Hence, it can be a source of spatial, economic, and social inequalities and inclusion/exclusion. The possibility and capability of being spatially and socially mobile or immobile is inextricably linked to the complex and dynamic interplay between structure and agency. The question is how structure and people’s aspirations and capabilities mutually constitute one another. Mobility as well as immobility can be voluntary or involuntary, free or forced, people aspire to be (im)mobile or not, and they are capable of being (im)mobile (in terms of having access to financial, cultural and social capitals or not).

The aspiration and ability model, developed by Jørgen Carling, Hein de Haas and Kerilyn Schewel provides a theoretical model to identify types of (voluntary, involuntary and acquiescent) immobilities. In addition, the question of why people aspire to stay can be answered by the introduction of some repelling, retaining factors and internal constraints which inextricably shape people’s decisions on leaving or staying.

Irrespective of whether people aspire to leave or to stay, mobility and immobility are attached by instrumental and intrinsic values, by culturally specific thoughts and feelings, which can be empirically identified in order to understand the dynamic and complex phenomena of (im)mobilites.