Sur le site Mobile Lives Forum on peut lire un débat très intéressant sur l’utilité et l’intérêt du concept de motilité pour rendre compte de l’action des individus dans notre société.
Ici nous en reproduisons l’introduction:
In the debate about economic and social integration, the possibilities and conditions related to geographical movement are becoming increasingly important. They are widely discussed, and people at home, at work, on holidays, etc must deal with their implementation. We hear it discussed on television, in political, economic and scientific debates, in museums, at school, and so on. In short, moving about now seems to be an important challenge in many aspects of our daily lives.
But what is the scope of mobility? Is it about rapid travel? Long-distance? Movement on a regular basis? Cheaper travel? Is it about being able to change these “mobility parameters” as required? Being able to adapt modes of transport according to the place or the situation? Being able to change one’s way of getting around to facilitate one’s changing lifestyle? Is it a choice? In short, is it the achievement of movement and therefore the skills it requires that’s important, or is it an increasing number of ways to get around? Is it the ability to master spatio-temporal flexibility as a lifestyle that matters, or the possibility of being able to meet geographical demands that are beyond us? And as a last resort, who is concerned with all these facets of mobility? Is it researchers or engineers, hauliers, politicians or passengers, etc?
A vast research field
Social science has tried to respond to these questions by carrying out research about “mobility”. The research field is vast. It is also full of questions. The first one is about the nature of mobility and defining its outline: is it a resource or a potential? If so, can we envisage it in terms of “mobility capital”?
The following two texts do not look at mobility and the questions it raises in the same way. Their aim is to enable the reader to share in the academic debate on the subject. And finally, by clarifying their position on the idea of “mobility” and “mobility capital”, they present a controversial view of what seems the most obvious and established fact: geographical mobility.