Introduction: Ontology of Movement as a Framework for the Mobility Studies
DOI.
An Interview
By.
Taehee Kim
Pages.
96 - 103
Date.
31. Jan. 2023
Abstract
It has been almost two decades since “a whole new kinetic paradigm" or “a new paradigm defined by motion,” mentioned in the epigraph quoted above, was brought to light in the name of the "new mobilities paradigm" (Sheller and Urry 207). This inauguration of the paradigm was arguably the result of "an almost/not quite ontology which is gradually gathering momentum around the key trope of 'mobility'" (Thrift 258).
Needless to say, there has been no lack of criticism and resistance to this paradigm. For instance, critics discerned that "if mobility is everything," as is often assumed to be the case in this paradigm, "then it is nothing," since the difference between mobility and immobility and among diverse types of mobility cannot be discerned and, consequently, mobility has no explanatory power (Adey 75). More radically, it was criticised that every vocabulary of this research program's name, "new mobilities paradigm," qualifying it as “new,” focussing on “mobilities,” and designating it as a “paradigm,” was problematic (Cresswell, "Towards a Politics of Mobility" 18).
Needless to say, there has been no lack of criticism and resistance to this paradigm. For instance, critics discerned that "if mobility is everything," as is often assumed to be the case in this paradigm, "then it is nothing," since the difference between mobility and immobility and among diverse types of mobility cannot be discerned and, consequently, mobility has no explanatory power (Adey 75). More radically, it was criticised that every vocabulary of this research program's name, "new mobilities paradigm," qualifying it as “new,” focussing on “mobilities,” and designating it as a “paradigm,” was problematic (Cresswell, "Towards a Politics of Mobility" 18).
