New Media and Urban Motilities: A Territoriologic Point of View

Abstract

The paper aims to contribute to the study of new media technologies in urban environments. It unfolds at two levels, epistemological and substantive. First, it discusses the issue of the conceptual tools that we can deploy to understand new media, arguing in favour of notions and methods that enable research to capture the double nature, socio-technical and bio-political, of the new media in urban environments. In particular, the paper claims that new media can be seen as a continuation of the process of 'urbanisation of territory' described by Foucault, aimed at the creation of a flexibly controllable space of events. Secondly, it criticises substantively the technoenthusiast user-empowerment ideology that surrounds new media and addresses issues of inequality, control and resistance in and through new media in the city. The argument is that the augmented, hybrid or mixed urban reality of new media like personal and locative media is neither determinist nor unboundedly mobile. While the freedom of movement and the diverging styles of mobility are becoming a crucial factor of stratification, new tensions and struggles over the nature of urban 'events' are likely to take place. levels, which are presented one after the other for the sake of convenience, but are in fact intimately interwoven.The first line of enquiry is epistemological. It discusses the issue of the conceptual tools we can deploy to understand new media. My argument is that the notions of territory and visibility, understood as relational and 'evental' concepts, can provide us with useful

Immigrants and home in the making: thresholds of domesticity, commonality and publicness

“…4 Home-making across the private, the communal and the public In modern history, public space has been configured and conceived basically as a space of circulations which need to be governed (Brighenti 2012). This space forms an urban connective environment, which is constitutively both political and economic.…”

Introduction to Special Issue on ‘Mobilities and Foucault’

“…As far as the anglophone literature is concerned, this interaction is evidenced by published work on automobility (Böhm et al 2006;Dodge and Kitchin 2007;Huijbens and Benediktsson 2007;Merriman 2007;Paterson 2007;Seiler 2008), tourism (Molz 2006;Ek and Hultman 2008;Newmeyer 2008), cycling (Bonham and Cox 2010;Stehlin 2014), aeromobility (Adey 2007;Salter 2007), children's mobility (Barker 2009;Barker et al 2009) and international migration (Shamir 2005;Fortier and Lewis 2006;Gray 2006;Nowicka 2006;Frello 2008;Buscema 2011;Hammond 2011;Baerenholdt 2013;Salter 2013). Also relevant in this context is recent research on the production of physical spaces of movement through planning practices (Jensen and Richardson 2003;Huxley 2006;Jensen 2013), bodily movement (Turnbull 2002;Jensen 2011) and new media practices (Brighenti 2012), as well as the production of mobile bodies and subjects (Bonham 2006;D'Andrea 2006;Seiler 2008;Jensen 2009;Haverig 2011;Manderscheid 2014) and issues of state politics, borders, surveillance, security and terror (Amoore 2006;Molz 2006;Packer...…”

Measurement of Rural Residents’ Mobility in Western China: A Case Study of Qingyang, Gansu Province

“…In addition to explaining social mobility, Urry distinguished five different types of travel [15]. Brighenti proposed an environmental sociology of urban motilities comprising a threefold exploration-a dromology of displacement, a rhythm analysis of flow, and an affectology of travel [21]. By distinguishing daily and non-daily spatial mobility [22], Kellerman divided daily spatial mobility into two categories, namely, corporeal and virtual mobilities, in accordance with three intrinsic "push" factors (locomotion, proximity, and curiosity) and several external "pull" factors (employment, shopping, and entertainment) [23].…”