Abstract
The paper refers to the new mobilities paradigm as a perspective of describing contemporary social phenomena related to mobility and movement. It points to the interdependence between new forms of action taken by social actors and technological development. Three dimensions of the relationships between technology, mobility and social significance are described: the understanding of space, the understanding of time and identity of an individual and an agency. The most important assumption of the paper is that mobility is socially defined. Based on the results of a qualitative empirical research, several ways of social understanding of mobility are identified: portability, accessibility, internet connectivity, comparison with analogue/stationary systems. As a result, mobility has not been shown as a permanent social characteristic, but as a potentiality.References
Büscher, M., Urry, J., Witchger, K. (2011), Introduction. Mobile methods, [w:] Büscher, M., Urry, J., Witchger, K. (red.), Mobile Methods, New York: 1–19.
Castells, M. (2013), Sieci oburzenia i nadziei, tłum. O. Siara, Warszawa.
Dholakia, N., Reyes, I., Bonoff, J. (2015), Mobile media: from legato to staccato, isochronal consumptionscapes, Consumption Markets & Culture 18(1): 10–24.
Frith, J. (2012), Splintered space: hybrid spaces and differential mobility, Mobilities 7(1): 131–149.
Giddens, A. (2006), Nowoczesność i tożsamość. Ja i społeczeństwo w epoce późnej nowoczesności, tłum. A. Szulżycka, Warszawa.
Hemment, D., The Mobile Effect, Convergence 11(2): 32–40.
Hosokawa, S. (1984), The Walkman Effect, Popular Music 4: 165 –180.
Khunou (2012), Making love possible: cell phones and intimate relationships, African Identities 10(2): 169–179.
Ling, R., Donner,J. (2012), Komórka. Komunikacja mobilna, tłum. T. Płudowski, Warszawa.
Mörtberg, Ch. (2003), Heterogeneous images of (mobile) technologies and services: a feminist contribution, NORA 11(3): 158–169.
Nightingale, V. (2007), The cameraphone and online image sharing, Continuum: Journal of Media & Culture 21(2): 289–301.
Postman, N. (1995), Technopol. Triumf techniki nad kulturą, tłum. A. Tanalska-Dulęba, Warszawa.
Raine, L., Wellman, B. (2012), Networked. The New Social Operating System, Cambridge, London.
Rhue, L., Sundararajan, A. (2014), Digital access, political networks and the diffusion of democracy, Social Networks 36: 40–53.
Rogowski, Ł. (2016), Wideozwiedzanie. Badania miasta w perspektywie paradygmatu mobilności, Kultura i Społeczeństwo 91(3): 123–144.
Scheller, M., Urry, J. (2006), The new mobilites paradigm, Environment and Planning A 38: 207–226.
Sutko, D.M., de Souza e Silva, A. (2010), Location-aware mobile media and urban sociability, New Media & Society 13(5): 807–823.
Takhteyev, Y., Gruzd, A., Wellman, B. (2012), Geography of Twitter networks, Social Networks 34: 73–81.
Urry, J. (2012), Socjologia mobilności, tłum. J. Stawiński, Warszawa.
License
Copyright (c) 2018 WPiA UAM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.