Mobility, immobility and a-mobility: to discuss Tourism in COVID-19 times

Abstract

Mobility has been revisited in recent years, associated with the themes of space, time, territory and place, but rarely involving Tourism, more directly. Analyzing Tourism under the mobility bias, broadens its theoretical scope, among others, by allowing to add to it the concepts of immobility and a-mobility. In these terms, this article aims to discuss the relations between Tourism and the triad Mobility, Immobility and A-mobility, reviewed against the backdrop of the Covid-19 Pandemic and the issues of social isolation associated with it. To this end, it introduces the concept of a-mobility, using the figure of the Paroptic as a metaphor. The investigation procedures resume a review carried out in databases, last June, using the terms <Tourism>, <Tourism>, <Coronavirus> and <Covid-19>, when the absence of the mobility issue was observed, in the corpus resulting from the initial review. At the present time, the question of mobility is taken up again. It is going that during the Pandemic and its immediate aftermath there was a crisis of and in mobility, dramatically affecting tourist practices. The crisis implies that displacements will gain new form and content in the near future, without abandoning mobility.

Keywords
Tourism; Mobility; Immobility; A-Mobility; COVID-19

Resumo

A Mobilidade tem sido revisitada em anos recentes, associada aos temas espaço, tempo, território e lugar, mas poucas vezes envolvendo o Turismo, mais diretamente. Analisar o Turismo sob o viés da Mobilidade amplia seu escopo teórico, entre outros ao permitir acrescentar a ele os conceitos imobilidade e a-mobilidade. Nesses termos, o presente artigo objetiva discutir as relações entre Turismo e a tríade Mobilidade, Imobilidade e A-mobilidade, revista tendo como pano de fundo a Pandemia da COVID-19 e as questões do isolamento social a ela associadas. Para tal introduz o conceito A-mobilidade, recorrendo a figura do panóptico como metáfora. Os procedimentos de investigação retomam revisão realizadas em bases de dados, em junho último, utilizando os termos <Turismo>, <Tourism>, <Coronavirus> e <Covid-19>, quando foi constatada a ausência da questão mobilidade, no corpus resultante da revisão inicial. No presente momento, retoma-se a questão conceito mobilidade. Encaminha-se que durante a Pandemia e no seu após imediato registrou-se uma crise da e na mobilidade, afetando de modo dramático as práticas turísticas. A crise insinua que os deslocamentos ganharão nova forma e conteúdo no futuro próximo, sem abandonarem a mobilidade.

Palavras-chave
Turismo; Mobilidade; Imobilidade; A-Mobilidade; COVID-19

Resumen

La Movilidad ha sido revisada en años recientes, asociada a los temas espacio, tiempo, territorio y lugar, pero pocas veces involucrando el Turismo, más directamente. Analizar el Turismo bajo el sesgo de la movilidad amplía su alcance teórico, entre otros al permitir añadir a él los conceptos inmovilidad y la-movilidad. En consecuencia, el presente artículo tiene por objeto debatir las relaciones entre Turismo y la triada Movilidad, Imovilidad y A-movilidad, revisada en el contexto de la pandemia de Covid-19 y las cuestiones de aislamiento social asociadas. Para ello introduce el concepto de movilidad, recurriendo a la figura del Panóptico como metáfora. Los procedimientos de investigación recogen revisiones realizadas en bases de datos, en junio pasado, utilizando los términos <Turismo>, <Tourism>, <Coronavirus> y <Covid-19>, cuando se constató la ausencia de la cuestión movilidad, en el corpus resultante de la revisión inicial. En la actualidad, se vuelve a plantear la cuestión del concepto de movilidad. Parece ser que durante la pandemia y después de ella se produjo una crisis de la y la movilidad, afectando de manera dramática a las prácticas turísticas. La crisis implica que los desplazamientos adquirirán nueva forma y contenido en un futuro próximo, sin abandonar la movilidad.

Palabras-chave
Turismo; Movilidad; Inmovilidad; A-Movilidad; COVID-19

1 INTRODUCTION

The human presence on the Planet is marked by displacements, in direct interaction with movements of Nature and cultural practices, these based on socio-ideological issues. These movements encouraged nomadism, in primeval times, later treated as travel, and finally as Tourism. As part of Nature's eco-systemic movement, viruses and bacteria spread more intensely in some periods, leading to diseases that, if generalized, can trigger outbreaks [sudden increase in the number of cases in a region], epidemics [outbreak that happens in several regions], or pandemics [epidemic that spreads globally] (Matsuki, n.d.). In terms of diseases, once established their patient zero, the displacement will be responsible for spreading them to other places, being significant examples the smallpox and other viral processes that plagued the Amerindian peoples in the sixteenth century, result of the European presence.

In their expansion, outbreak, epidemic, and pandemic affect the environment, economic structures, social relations and, thereafter, Tourism. Depending on the resilience of societal units to internal and/or external changes, pandemics will affect them to a greater or lesser degree. Positive and negative change include possible demographic impact and resulting effects on economic production systems, among them the productive chain of travel and of leisure.

In the current context, the Covid-19 Pandemic brings as a novelty not only its high lethality, but the speed of its circulation and contagion, with socio-cultural, political, and tourist impacts, due, among others, to globalization and mass consumption which generate large agglomerations. The resulting [i]mobility of people and the productive system present themselves simultaneously as a cause and a consequence of the social and economic impacts generated. In other words, it means that displacements, movements, and diseases have always been intrinsic to human processes, expressed in different terms, meanings, and emphases. This highlights the importance of analyzing issues associated with Mobility, considering concepts already established in the literature, as well as possible developments and inference from them.

Returning to the Mobility concept, it is clear that this concept-word has not been used with greater emphasis on themes associated with Tourism, until recent years (Kunz, 2015). Its introduction as an object of research in Social Sciences would refer to the last 20 years, which reinforces the relevance of research in and with Mobility, whether it is approached as a concept, as a practice and/or as a metaphor. John Urry (2016) recalls that, when he published “The tourist gaze”, in 1990, the world was just beginning to fully understand globalization, the Internet was a novelty and it would be difficult, at that moment, broadly imagine all its impacts on societal units. According to him, perhaps more importantly, the Internet “[...] transformed communications practices ‘on the move’ [...]”, which would lead to a “[...] remarkable ‘time-space compression’” (p. 142), changing perceptions and experience. Globalization leads to Post-Modernity as its cultural expression, which not only considers the new time-space relations, but also the acceleration in terms of movement (Jameson, 2001; 1998; 1997; 1995; 1992a; 1992b; Harvey, 1992).¹

In correlated or subsequent times, other authors bring Mobility under the conception of movement as freedom and frictionless speed, which would lead to qualify ways of life (Leed, 1991; Urry, 2007; Rosa & Scheuerman, 2009). In a 2006 text, Gastal already called attention to mobility as atavistic to human beings, since ancestral nomadism. She also emphasized that it is a constitutive element of Tourism, which, at the time of her writing, would still receive little attention in academic practices, that were centered on the receptive [destination planning] and the organization of demand for its more efficient commercialization. At that time, the researcher was following theorists such as Featherstone (1997), Ianni (1996), and Maffesoli (2001).

Dealing with an intensified, borderless and speed mobility, as present in the most recent studies [already mentioned] forwards its counterpart, the immobility, to be considered as a category of analysis. Which, in this context, raises two questions: [1] that mobility networks are reaffirmed between flow and fixed, prioritizing the first, but incorporating the second as an analysis to explain the constitution of place; and [2] that mobile ways of working, housing and, mainly, Tourism and being a tourist, are part of the theoretical extension of Mobility, in which they can be analyzed not as a derivation, but as particular objects of study (De Sá, 2020b). Still in this context, it is possible to comprise the a-mobility as a third category.

Considering such scenarios, this article aims to discuss the relations between Tourism and the triad: Mobility, Immobility, and A-mobility, reviewed considering as a background the COVID-19 Pandemic and the issues of social isolation associated with it. The investigation procedures return to research carried out in databases, last June, when it was found the absence of the word mobility or similar in articles published from the COVID-19 Pandemic (De Sá, 2020a). It is strange because, historically, “[...] pandemics are recurrent and diseases, more or less serious, always accompanied human displacement” (Gastal, 2020, p. 106). From the Black Death, through Spanish Flu and Ebola, and even in this young twenty-first century, diseases as SARS, MERS, and now Covid-19 were, if not generated, disseminated by displacements (Gössling, Scott & Hall, 2020).

Thus, this article is divided into five parts, approaching, after this Introduction, the theoretical-methodological procedures, then discussing theories about Mobility and its derivations. It follows the description of the relation between Mobility and the history of pandemics and Tourism, to finally propose the panoptic as a metaphor to introduce the discussion on the A-Mobility, before forwarding the non-final considerations, possible at the present moment.

2 RESEARCH PROCEDURES

Even if the previous procedures are not the focus of this article, especially because they are already public in the article entitled “Mobility of Scientific Production on Tourism and Covid-19” (De Sá, 2020a), it is considered important to take them up again, in order to support the arguments in unfolding, now developed. The bibliographic review carried out in June 2020 went through the databases: Scopus, Spell, Scielo, Science Direct and Taylor&Francis, using the terms <Turismo>, <Tourism>, <Coronavirus> and <Covid-19> that consolidated 194 results. Clipping to include only journals directed to Tourism and having the area in their keywords, 10 articles remained, with authors representing about twenty countries [Gössling, Scott & Hall, 2020; Hall, Scott & Gössling, 2020; Everingham & Chassagne, 2020; Wen, Wang, Kozak, Liu & Hou, 2020; Galvani, Lew & Sotelo Perez, 2020; Chen, Huang & Li, 2020; Brouder, Teoh, Salazar, Mostafanezhad, Pung, Lapointe, Desbiolles, Haywood, Hall & Clause, 2020; Dube, Nhamo & Chikodzi, 2020; Lew, Cheer, Haywood, Brouder & Salazar, 2020; Foo, Chin, Tan & Phuah, 2020] (De Sá, 2020a).

The same review found that, in addition to the terms <Covid-19>, <Pandemic> and <Tourism>, the keywords most present in the articles listed were sustainable, crisis, resilience, global, travel and future. It was possible to note, therefore, three situations: [1] Tourism studies do not prioritize investigating health issues, specifically the diseases and their relationship with travel; [2] in all articles, the approach focuses on reviewing pre-existing theories, seeking to fill the gaps imposed by the Pandemic; and [3] the word mobility or similar, are not cited, not even throughout the texts (De Sá, 2020a).

Based on the theoretical reviews – the previous and the one carried out in the scope of this article –, both allow us to infer that Tourism still lacks studies that understand Mobility as part of its social, cultural, and economic production and that, therefore, actively affects its structures, on the one hand reinforcing them, but on the other weakening them, as in pandemic cases of public health. Therefore, continuing the study now presented, Tourism and its relations with Mobility are analyzed, which leads to the discussion of the concepts of Immobility and A-Mobility as resulting. The current state of the art in studies on Mobility is raised as a scenario, to then introduce the panoptic as a metaphor for A-mobility, that is, the confinements imposed in times of pandemics, recurrent in human history.

At this point of the research, the study focuses on theories already established by the fields of Sociology (Urry, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2004; Sheller, 2014), Geography (Cresswell, 2010; Haesbaert, 1995, 2007, 2014), and Tourism (Allis, 2016; Kunz, 2015; Freire-Medeiros & Telles; Allis, 2018). In each field of study, Mobility is analyzed in its transversalities and its specific theoretical and methodological characterizations. The several approaches lead to believe that the study of Mobility stands out by its importance and prominence in the first decades of the twenty-first century, as previously mentioned. For the present study, the treatment given by Sociology and Geography will be emphasized, without disregarding other views on the theme, but prioritizing those that discuss Tourism or have in their context related concepts. In Tourism, authors who discuss aspects of Mobility turn to Urry, Sheller, and Cresswell, which is why, for the purpose of this theoretical rescue, these are prioritized, to the detriment of others that could also pertinently integrate the current moment of research.

3 THEORETICAL SCENARIO: MOBILITY

“E pur si muove!”.

Legend has it that this would be the phrase murmured by Galileo, after renouncing his theories about heliocentrism towards the Inquisition Court, in the first half of the seventeenth century. Since then, and especially from various contemporary theorizations in different areas of knowledge, the movement is not reduced to that of the celestial bodies, being possible to state that even internally on Planet Earth, everything is in motion. Fast or slow, intense or moderate, visible or invisible, the movement unfolds. Considering the theory of complexity as proposed by Morin (2005), we are part of the universal, terrestrial, biological, community and familiar movement. We walk, we move, we de[re]territorialize, we tour. Without movement, but mainly without displacement, we would not have Tourism [even recognizing that, to constitute itself, the phenomenon involves other aspects]. Considering movement as a conception prior to displacement, puts the conceptual discussions about Tourism at another theoretical level.

Displacement, from the Latin des-locare – put out of place – presupposes the action of movement/moving to another place, different from the current one, whether being a tourist attraction, a city, a country, which can be given by specifications in the form of travel, nomadism or migration, among others (Cresswell, 2006). Displacement can be designed as the daily practice of movement, loaded with meaning and significance, which induce the subject to put himself out of the place where he is. Another situation imbricated to displacement is the sign of the place, an issue linked to sedentarism and all that are fixed in space, denoting socio-cultural connection and belonging.

Displacement leads to mobility, as successors of movement. Movement presupposes the passage of time and the transversality of space, but it is in displacement that the connectivity between two places is in fact connoted by space and time (Cresswell, 2006). For Cresswell, movement involves the concept of displacement, however, abstracted from power and meaning; on the other hand, displacement would be the loaded act with strategy and social implications, which leads to mobility. In other words, movement precedes displacement, which in turn precedes mobility; yet, the first two are considered essential to understand what follows.

Questioning mobility, it is searched once again for etymological origins in Latin in mobilis, which means to be in motion or what can be moved, displaced, that is, in a somewhat sense passive; and movere, meaning to dislocate, to put oneself in mobility, motu proprio. Etymologically, it forwards the possibility of subjects and structures being mobile, im-mobile, or a-mobile.

In this context, being in movement and being in displacement are categories of Mobility for Tourism. Being in movement is related to being in and at the flow, where apparently everything moves and produces in a certain layer tourism relations, whether the connectivity with the place or with the local economy. Sennett (2019), without necessarily sticking to Tourism, but using it to exemplify his thought about consumption, writes that “[...] the tourist travelling from one cloned city to another, visiting the same shops, where they buy in the same products [...] the point is that they have travelled: for the consumer, the stimulus is in the process of movement itself” (p. 137, emphasis added). In other words, the subject in movement and in displacement is also producing flows, connectivity, and relations, even if it is consumption by simple consumption.

In the relationship between movement and displacement, Kaufmann (2004) says that the ease of movement is associated with motility, that is, the capacity and ease of entities [people, companies, objects] to move in the social and geographic space or the way in which entities access and appropriate the capacity of socio-spatial mobility. Thus, mobility is beyond displacement to and from, being motility that facility, even if it presupposes other dynamics.

Due to the complexity of the issues involved, Sheller and Urry (2006) and Cresswell (2006)² see Mobility as an epistemological and paradigmatic change of techniques, practices, and methods, which occur within the Social Sciences. Mobility, seen through this bias, is concerned with mapping and understanding both large-scale movements of people, objects, capital, and information around the world, as well as the local processes of daily transportation, movement through public space and materialized travel within the scope of everyday life (Sheller & Urry, 2006).

The study of Mobility converges with the concepts of space, territory and place, time and movement, in the sedentary and nomadic dichotomies (Sheller & Urry, 2006). In this dialogic, not only the territorial and sedentary landmarks are being questioned, but also the nomadic and flow fundamentals, to think about contemporaneity. The discussion of fragmentation and spatiotemporal disengagement, united in the networks of power and control, poses itself as “[...] what used to be part of one here and now combined, starts to dissociate spatially.” (Haesbaert, 2014, p. 156). Spatiality and temporality “[...] do not represent movement, but can only be represented in movement [...]” (Jameson, 2006, p. 40, emphasis in original). Questioning such concepts is at the core of the discussion of the new mobility paradigm, according to the aforementioned theorists. That, in this interweaving, allows associating Mobility with theoretical and practical aspects experienced and conceived in contemporary times.

Moving forward in the present discussion, for Urry (2000)Mobility is in the fluid, but also in the static, because, for example, even inside a building, which would be a seemingly immobile place, there are energies and flows passing through it. That is, everything is in movement, at all times, even if it is not recognizable to our senses. Analyzing from this perspective, allows us to associate that "[...] one type of mobility always has an impact on the other." (Lemos, 2009, p. 29), that is, mobility, immobility, and a-mobility are in tension in each movement/displacement performed. A-mobility, unlike mobility and immobility, does not constitute itself as a mooring or a stop in a flow of movement. The stop, in the movement [im-mobility], remains impregnated with the imaginary, the discourse and the mobile practice, which is valid for Tourism.

For a better understanding, it is necessary to return to the space-time relationship, the territory, and the place, revisited as imbricated questions. Mobility is not disassociated from space and time, because they function as agents of its social production (Cresswell, 2006). Harvey (1992) explains that “[...] space and time are basic categories of human existence. Yet, we rarely debate their meanings; we tend to take them for granted and give them common-sense or self-evident attributions.” (p. 187). That is, common sense tends to see space and time as natural when, in fact, both are cultural constructions. As cultural constructions, it is important to highlight that each era [sensitivity] creates its relationship with the concepts, which also imposes that Mobility is impregnated with speeches and associated practices.

If power relations and meaning are part of the Mobility process, they will also affect the mobility, immobility, and a-mobility triad. The spatiotemporal relation united to the territory and the place requires analyzing them through their flows and fixed, which reconstruct associations, previously modern. In other words, immobility [im-mobile] derives from the concept of movement stagnation and statization, associated with materially fixed places, such as airports, bus stations, railroads, homes, buildings, etc., causing fixation in places [fixed-subjects]. Immobility means movement against movement. A-mobility [a-mobile], on the other hand, presents itself as removal and separation of movement and counter-movement, not impeding mobility. It is a strange and unknown context for movement and displacement. For a-mobile to resume movement and displacement, it will need to expand temporally and spatially.

In this perspective, Tourism is not just a form of Mobility like any other form, since it intrinsically constitutes Tourism. As said by Hannam, Butler and Paris (2014), “[...] mobilities involve movement of people, the movement of a whole range of material things, and the movement of more intangible thoughts and fantasies.” (p. 172), therefore, Tourism Mobilities are not theoretically different from what is already incorporated into the concepts of Tourism, but they can redirect it. Based on this assumption, the Mobility analyzed as a theoretical object of Tourism needs the incorporation of macro and micro politics through displacement, positioned in power relations [appropriation and domination] to which subjects are submitted. Power relations are defining of and for displacement, as they dictate which mobility systems will be necessary for this to occur. As Sheller (2018) explains, “[…] systems are culturally shaped and politically governed by mobility regimes that govern who and what can move (or stay put), when, where, how and under what conditions.” (p. 19).

In this relation two specific situations are added, which Tourism has theoretically already incorporated: [1] the imaginary, as process and production from the collective to the individual, which [re]creates the structured power relations to become institutionalized and dominant power structures that determine the discourse and the practice of movement and displacement; [2] the [infra and super] structures that model societal units create the effect of the imaginary, starting from the power of discourse and practice, but incorporating not only mobility, but also immobility and a-mobility, because analyzing pure movement is not accompanied by significant relationships.

To sum up, conceptually, being on the move would be inherent to the subject of Tourism, the stranger who enters new territories and [de][re]territorializes his daily practices. On the other hand, being in mobility can be associated with displacement and movement, but emphasizing the power relations [domination and appropriation] that are intrinsic, as well as being stagnant in a place temporarily [immobility] or, even, being away, separated from movement and displacement, for a long period [a-mobility]. Immobility is part of the mobility process; a-mobility moves away and detaches from it. Therefore, to analyze Tourism and its relation with Mobility in times of crisis, it is necessary to bring the concepts of immobility to the discussion and, beyond it, to consider a-mobility. At this point, it is important to refer the diseases that have historically been present in human movements [and in their interruption], to then return to the panoptic as a metaphor for confinement in times of pandemic, questioning in these terms whether it is immobility or a-mobility.

4 MOBILITY AND PANDEMICS

Tourism presents a very fine tuning with social and/or economic facts. Such syntony was quite explicit, to take just one example, after 9/11, which affected the activity and practice, to the point of immobilizing tourists for some time, not only in the United States, but in the world (Korstanje & Tarlow, 2012; Korstanje & Clayton, 2012; Steiner, 2007; Bonham, Edmonds, & Mak, 2006; Edmonds & Mak, 2006). Sum and So (2004) recall that after the 9/11 impact on Tourism and global logic, SARS, first detected in southern China, was related to the barrier imposed on Tourism as a ‘no-go area’, in which mobility practices were [re]viewed and the discourses, although discriminatory, fed some imaginary of fear of the population. A broader look could demonstrate how other crises, diseases, and disasters i-mobilized travelers and Tourism practices, whatever was the mobility format practiced in simultaneously periods.

In terms of disease, Faraldo and Rodriguez-López (2013) remember Otsi as the proto-European traveler. The mummified body, dating back thousands of years, allowed archaeologists to study the clothes used by him, what he had eaten before his death, as well as his diseases, which traveled with him (Gastal, 2020). According to the same author, in the Middle Ages pilgrims to Compostela carried the Black Death in their bodies and clothing. In another moment, "[...] Cholera had major outbreaks in the first half of the nineteenth century, spreading itself as long as transport such as the train and the steamboat accelerated the number and the speed of travel." (p. 106). Already Smallpox had its propagation map associated with the great navigations of the sixteenth century, and the Spanish Flu, to stay only in some cases, arrived in Brazil “[...] on board the ship Demerara, where people had died during the trip.” (p. 107).

Like the Americas, Europe has had its history shaped by diseases and pests (Zenker & Kock, 2020), by causing huge demographic impacts, challenging the effects of production systems and the ability of societal units to adapt and regenerate in the presence of uncontrollable external changes (Hall, Scott, & Gössling, 2020). In the examples brought by Gastal (2020), there are implicit nomadic/sedentary relationships by three biases: [1] the nomad, in his traditional version, carried possible diseases, symptomatic or asymptomatic, through his movement and displacement creating eco-systemic impacts wherever he passed through; [2] the pilgrims, who through pain and suffering, sought in the immobility of the shrines the purification for their illnesses, often due to the sedentarism and the a-mobility of subjects in the medieval urban space; [3] the train, the ship, and then the plane, in increasingly sophisticated and rapid modalities, transform social production and time-space relations, extending the understanding of mobility, but also of a-mobility, in the temporal and spatial expansion that induce subjects.

Displacements tend to turn diseases into pandemics when new territories are invaded, breaking down barriers and building, in mobility, a new means of social production. Thus, diseases affect structures, social relations, and societal units, as well as Tourism. Faraldo and Rodríguez-López (2013) associate diseases and travel not only in the expansion of illnesses, but also when displacements are motivated by the pursuit of health. They report to the Romans of the Classical Age, passing through the pleasures and benefits of the thermal waters rediscovered in the Middle Ages and, later, in the French hydromineral resorts. In the latter case, it is possible to remember tuberculosis, which took patients to what can be characterized as a-mobility, in sanatoriums and health homes, where they remained for long periods, isolated from the outside world³.

Another situation posed by Faraldo and Rodríguez-López (2013) is the hygienism, as an alternative to im-mobility of urban structures that prevented good sanitary practices. Thus, the escape to places close to nature, to the thermal and mineral waters, to the countryside and to the mountains, practices often elitist, because it did not allow access to a large part of the population, is a bias that only recently began to receive more attention in academic studies. Such reflections bring important contributions to rethink Tourism practice during and/or after the contemporary pandemic. Historically, the elite has the possibility to remain mobile even in crisis situations, while the periphery [metaphorical and empirical] is placed in im-mobility at the first moment. If the pandemic is prolonged, the periphery may become a-mobilized in its isolation, being allowed the displacement and the movement only when for some urgency (Vieira & Gastal, 2018).

Therefore, it is considered that if the Covid-19 Pandemic, on the one hand, is part of a historical series, and on the other hand, it presents as a novelty the global and widespread strength of its impacts, immobilizing societal units, the economy and, with greater virulence, culture, and Tourism. The spread was so rapid that Gössling, Scott, and Hall (2020) raise the suspicion that it would have occurred in a single day. The mobility, accelerated and intense, had as impact the a-mobility of subjects and societal units. Thus, what in 2019 was called overtourism and/or tourismphobia, is now replaced by non-Tourism (Gössling, Scott, & Hall, 2020). Or, as it is possible to indicate, in the bias of a-Tourism as the denial and momentary deprivation of in-person Tourism, to demand new concepts or revisiting established concepts for full understanding of the Covid-19 moment.

5 A-MOBILITY: PANOPTICON AS A METAPHOR

Foucault (1987, 1999) searches the architectural project of the Bentham’s Panoptic Prison [Figure 1] for the image to discuss visibility, invisibility, and violence. In this prison, the imposed relation is that of control of the inmates from a central tower, the glazed cells distributed circularly around them, as an instrument of discipline and control. The philosopher describes it, saying that: “The following, according to an order published at the end of the seventeenth century, were the measures to be taken when the plague appeared in a town.” (p. 219). When establishing the connection between the city passing through pestilence and the panoptic, Foucault (1999) highlights the cut-out space as “[...] immobile, frozen space. Each individual is fixed in his place. And, if he moves, he does so at the risk of his life, contagion or punishment [death penalty]” (p. 219).

Figure 1
Bentham Panoptic

The city, submitted to the quarantine regime [isolation and/or detachment] during some epidemic, induces the exclusion and banishment of the disease and of those who carry it. As today, there are subjects imprisoned in their homes, in a cut-out, immobile and fixed space, deprived of their physical mobility. The place becomes the prison, im-mobile, so that discipline and order [power relations] are established for the good of the subject, in order to avoid possible perpetual immobility of the body. Leaving the house, barely allowed, was supervised and reported to the syndic, who passed from house to house, communicating through the windows with the inhabitants, to know about the inner situation. Possible deaths, complaints, and irregularities were passed on, until they reached the mayor, with a permanent record of activities.

This relation between city, epidemic and movement can be seen in the Covid-19 Pandemic, as the virus domination force that disseminates and spreads without distinction among victims, imprisoning the subjects in their homes. In this context, the house as an immobile structure becomes:

[...] enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded, in which an uninterrupted work of writing links the center and periphery, in which power is exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is constantly located, examined and distributed among the living beings, the sick and the dead — all this constitutes a compact model of the disciplinary mechanism.

(Foucault, 1999, p. 221).

Dwelling is modified by the imposition of the pest that determines the subject's conditions, place, and possible relations. Mobility is impeded by not completely immobilizing the subjects but the extension of pandemic time transforming immobility into a-mobility. The interior of dwelling isolates itself, regardless of the mobility that happens as a synonym for disease. Short displacements and, even more, the long journeys are prevented, dominating and subduing subjects, travelers, tourists (Foucault, 1999).

The author also says that the panopticon tends to function as a “[...]machine for dissociating thesee/being dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen.” (Foucault, 1999, p. 225). Bringing this Foucault’s relations to the current pandemic, it can be inferred that the subjects are in the periphery [the cells], in the fixed place, in the residence, deprived of seeing and even being seen, not being able to establish face-to-face social relationships with other subjects and structures. In the contemporary version, the only way to see/be seen are the allegorical windows established by and in cybernetic territory. Socialization without physical presence is mediated by lives, social networks, role-players, video calls, etc. In other words, contact between people is not through direct communication, but mediated by it; in mediation and by mediation, it is created the distance between the interlocutors, their isolation (Gastal, 2006). In this way that central tower [Internet] sees everything, is never seen, only foreseen, imposing and disciplining the subjects who, in it, want to see/be seen.

Foucault (1999) still highlights the principle of the inverted dungeon, that is, of locking, depriving of light and hiding. In the panopticon as a metaphor for the contemporary, the subjects lock themselves – depriving themselves of mobility – in their private prisons, establishing possible relations in a glass life⁴ not physically presential, but by and in the cyber territory. If deprived of physical mobility, the subjects create their virtual mobilities, which, in other words, leads to the erasure of social relations in their traditional and face-to-face form.

Depriving of light can be understood as a-mobility, in which subjects are prevented from going outside, however, they carry the searchlight of the central tower [Internet] with them as the only way to, when seeing, be seen [and watched] in their glass life. When away from their face-to-face social relations, the a-mobilized subjects establish links in the cybernetic territory, with other subjects.

In this bias, the paradigmatic turn of mobility is amplified, because if before the pandemic it had been reviewed through new practices, now it presents other dynamics. In other words, mobility theorized as social production is apparently a-mobilized, deprived of movement and displacement in the global logic. Because the enhancement of the cybernetic territory turns mobility into an online social production, in which the peripheral cells relocate and transport the subjects to the central tower searchlight, that hypnotizes them, [de][re]territorializes and creates multi-territoriality. The central tower, on the other hand, functions as the disciplinary scheme, in which it creates a means to support, discipline and inter-lace the a-mobilized subjects, implying that this would not be the deprivation of liberty, but its opposite. Herrera (2006) also adds that, in what he calls video surveillance technology, the reach of the electronic eyes is much more penetrating and ubiquitous, allowing the identification and the active location of people. Unlike Bentham, “[...] our panopticon is ‘uno’ and presents itself as an asset in every sense.” (p. 7).

In the presence of pandemics, other types of mobility [currently, videographic] are triggered, to evade im-mobility. There would be those, on the other hand, who accept it and even see it as a good thing, voluntarily becoming a-mobile. For the a-mobilized subject, the highlights and new appropriations of the virtual as a form of mobility can be perceived as a comfort zone. For Tourism, virtual mobility still lacks appropriation and new perspectives, allowing to question how Tourism will react to this new paradigm

6 NON-FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

From the point of view of the subject who is a-mobilized in his dwelling, mobility takes place in the cybernetic territory, where he travels and moves. This territory works as a certain escape from the empirical daily life that even imposing other panoptic ways of domination, contradictorily puts confinement as an escape.

In the a-mobility caused by the pandemic, the place of dwelling is challenged [1] by the wandering impulse of nomadism that activates in the a-mobilized subject the desire to leave, to escape, to relate; [2] by the subject's sedentarism, imprisoned and a-mobilized in his total comfort and territorialized. In these views, the nomadic subject is a-mobilized in the existential place of his dwelling, place from which he can de-territorialize himself only virtually. On the other hand, the sedentary subject is in the place that, for him, is of extreme comfort and territorialization, subjectively fixed/rooted in his immobility.

Nomadism has migrated to cybernetic territory, as well as the moment of encounter. This dynamic, already present in pre-pandemic times, seems to have been amplified, or even enhanced by the new relations imposed. Ways of inhabiting cybernetic territory and occupying time belong to mobility actions, but also the ways to escape from that territory to inter-lace it with other possible territories. It is important to consider that cybernetic territory, as characteristic, carries inequalities and it is also subject to power relations. This question, however, needs further theoretical study.

In this view, a-Tourism is resumed, as the denial and the momentary deprivation of presential Tourism, which requires seeing the activity in the reverse way that it was treated, before this moment. If post-pandemic Tourism continues to be examined, executed, and developed through a sedentary approach and im-mobility of its attractions, equipment, and modals, it will remain hostage to previous practices associated with capitalism, patriarchy, and colonialism (Gastal, 2020). And, in a pessimistic view, to indicate that in perhaps not too distant time, we will refer again to tourismphobia and overtourism.

The end of the Covid-19 Pandemic seems far from complete, ending its devastating circuit (Zenker & Kock, 2020). After all, human contact and proximity are part of humanization, even in the presence of the virus, assuming that as soon as possible, the displacement and movement of subjects will return. At the present moment, Tourism should not be thought through the bias of immobility or stagnation, because, in this way, it will not rise so easily in the possible post-pandemic moment. After all, cybernetic territory still allows ways of Tourism, even if not the traditional ones, but imposing new visions, new techniques, and practices. Maybe this way, Tourism will resume mobility as its genesis, with greater flows than before Covid-19, but mobilizing less capital volume. The fixed tourist may be in cybernetic territory, in the structure that supports it and allows the movement of subjects and information. Even without empirical displacements, there will be mobility of the subject through new cybernetic territories, creating new paths there for new meeting places.

• 1
  Dates of these references, centered in the 1990s, reinforce the period when discussions about movement, via studies associated with Post-Modernity, arrived in Brazil.
• 2
  It is emphasized here that the theoretical bases of many authors, such as Tim Coles, Colin Hall, Scott Cohen and even Kevin Hannam derive from Sheller and Urry, analyzing Mobility as a paradigmatic change, among other discussions. And, therefore, some of them are not present in this review.
• 3
  The a-mobility created by Tuberculosis, in the sanatoriums, is brilliantly treated by Thomas Mann, in the book “A Montanha Mágica” [The Magic Mountain] (São Paulo: Companhia da Letras, 2016).
• 4
  See “A Day made of Glass” (2011), available in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA8dZ-i3xIo.
• How to cite: De Sá, F. Z.; Gastal, S. A. (2021). Mobility, immobility and a-mobility: to discuss tourism in COVID-19 times. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, São Paulo, 15 (1), 2144. http://dx.doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v15i1.2144

• Note

  Translated by Bruna Tronca.

REFERÊNCIAS

• Allis, T. (2016). Em busca das mobilidades turísticas. Plural – Revista de Ciências Sociais, 23(2), p. 94-117. http://www.revistas.usp.br/plural/article/view/125112
  » http://www.revistas.usp.br/plural/article/view/125112
• Bonham, C., Edmonds, C., & Mak, J. (2006). The impact of 9/11 and other terrible global events on tourism in the United States and Hawaii.Journal of Travel Research,45(1), p. 99-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0047287506288812
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0047287506288812
• Brouder, P., Teoh, S., Salazar, N., Mostafanezhad, M., Pung, J., Lapointe, D., Desbiolles, F., Haywood, M., Hall, C. M. & Clausen, H. B. (2020). Reflections and discussions: tourism matters in the new normal post COVID-19. Tourism Geographies – An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1770325
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1770325
• Chen, H., Huang, X., & Li, Z. (2020). A content analysis of Chinese news coverage on Covid-19 and tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, p. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1763269
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1763269
• Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern Western World. Routledge.
• Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(2), p. 17-31. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/d11407
  » https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/d11407
• De Sá, F. Z. (2020a). Mobilidade da produção científica sobre Turismo e Covid-19. Revista Rosa dos Ventos – Turismo e Hospitalidade, 12(3), p. 1-12. Recuperado de http://www.ucs.br/etc/revistas/index.php/rosadosventos/article/view/8858/pdf
  » http://www.ucs.br/etc/revistas/index.php/rosadosventos/article/view/8858/pdf
• De Sá, F. Z. (2020b). A Mobilidade do quarteto instrumental Yangos: Dos fluxos às redes. Turismo, Território e Música. [Dissertação de Mestrado em Turismo e Hospitalidade, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Turismo e Hospitalidade, Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Brasil].
• Dube, K., Nhamo, G., & Chikodzi, D. (2020). Covid-19 cripples global restaurant and hospitality industry. Current Issues in Tourism, p. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1773416
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1773416
• Edmonds, C. M., & Mak, J. (2006). Terrorism and tourism in the Asia Pacific region: is travel and tourism in a new world after 9/11?. Recuperado de: https://www.eastwestcenter.org/system/tdf/private/ECONwp086.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=32107
  » https://www.eastwestcenter.org/system/tdf/private/ECONwp086.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=32107
• Everingham, P., & Chassagne, N. (2020). Post Covid-19 ecological and social reset: moving away from capitalist growth models towards tourism as Buen Vivir. Tourism Geographies – An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, p. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1762119
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1762119
• Faraldo, & Rodríguez-López, (2013). Introducción a la história del turismo Alianza Editorial.
• Featherstone, M. (1997). O Desmanche da cultura: globalização, pós-modernismo e identidade. Studio Nobel, Sesc.
• Freire-Medeiros, B., Telles, F., & Allis, T. (2018). Por uma teoria social on the move Revista Tempo Social, 30(2), p. 1-16. Recuperado de: https://www.revistas.usp.br/ts/article/view/142654/142048
  » https://www.revistas.usp.br/ts/article/view/142654/142048
• Foucault, M. (1999). Vigiar e Punir: História da violência nas prisões. (27 ed.) Vozes.
• Foo, L-P., Chin, M-Y., Tan, K-L., & Phuah, K-T. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on tourism industry in Malaysia. Current Issues in Tourism, p. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1777951
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1777951
• Galvani, A., Lew, A., & Perez, M. S. (2020). COVID-19 is expanding global consciousness and the sustainability of travel and tourism. Tourism Geographies – An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, p. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1760924
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1760924
• Gastal, S. A. (2006). Alegorias Urbanas: O passado como subterfúgio. Papirus.
• Gastal, S. A. (2020). Turismo em tempos de COVID-19: Perguntas fortes, respostas fracas. Cenário – Revista Interdisciplinar em Turismo e Território, 8(14), p. 101-109. https://doi.org/10.26512/revistacenario.v8i14.32167
  » https://doi.org/10.26512/revistacenario.v8i14.32167
• Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, p. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
• Hall, C. M. Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2020). Pandemics, transformations and tourism: be careful what you wish for. Tourism Geographies – An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, p. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131
• Haesbaert, R. (1995). “Gaúchos” no Nordeste: Modernidade, des-territorialização e identidade. 1995. 387f. Tese (Doutorado em Geografia) – Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
• Haesbaert, R. (2007). Território e multiterritorialidade: Um debate. Revista GEOgraphia, 9(17), p. 19-46. http://periodicos.uff.br/geographia/article/view/13531/8731
  » http://periodicos.uff.br/geographia/article/view/13531/8731
• Haesbaert, R. (2014). O mito da desterritorialização: do “fim dos territórios” à multiterritorialidade. (8. ed.). Bertrand.
• Hannam, K., Butler, G., & Paris, C. M. (2014). Developments and key issues in tourism mobilities. Annals of Tourism Research, 44(1), p. 171-185. Recuperado de: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/17470/1/Pre-Proof%20Draft%20Developments%20and%20Key%20Issues%20in%20Tourism%20Mobilities-%20Annals%20of%20Tourism%20Research.pdf
  » https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/17470/1/Pre-Proof%20Draft%20Developments%20and%20Key%20Issues%20in%20Tourism%20Mobilities-%20Annals%20of%20Tourism%20Research.pdf
• Harvey, D. (1992). A condição pós-moderna Loyola.
• Herrera, C. G. (2006). El panóptico moderno.Revista de filosofía - A Parte Rei,46, p. 1-11. Recuperado de: http://serbal.pntic.mec.es/~cmunoz11/godina46.pdf
  » http://serbal.pntic.mec.es/~cmunoz11/godina46.pdf
• Incott, P. (02 de outubro de 2017). Panoptismo: Reflexões atuais sobre vigilância e controle. Canal Ciências Criminais Recuperado de: https://canalcienciascriminais.com.br/panotpismo-vigilancia-controle/
  » https://canalcienciascriminais.com.br/panotpismo-vigilancia-controle/
• Jameson, F. (1992). O inconsciente político: a narrativa como ato socialmente simbólico. Ática.
• Jameson, F. (1995). As marcas do visível Graal.
• Jameson, F. (1997). Sementes do tempo Ática.
• Jameson, F. et al (1998). Estudios Culturales Reflexiones sobre el multiculturalismo. Paidós.
• Jameson, F. (2001). Cultura do dinheiro Vozes.
• Kaufmann, V., Bergman, M. M., & Joye, D. (2004). Motility: mobility as capital. Internacional Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4), p. 745-756. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00549.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00549.x
• Korstanje, M. E., & Clayton, A. (2012). Tourism and terrorism: conflicts and commonalities.Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 4(1), p. 8-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554211211198552
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/17554211211198552
• Korstanje, M. E., & Tarlow, P. (2012). Being lost: tourism, risk and vulnerability in the post-‘9/11’entertainment industry.Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change,10(1), p. 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2011.639455
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2011.639455
• Kunz, J. G. (2015). As mobilidades turísticas como objeto de pesquisa: Um panorama dos periódicos estrangeiros (2000-2014). Revista Rosa dos Ventos – Turismo e Hospitalidade, 7(3), p. 377-391. Recuperado de: http://www.ucs.br/etc/revistas/index.php/rosadosventos/article/view/3665
  » http://www.ucs.br/etc/revistas/index.php/rosadosventos/article/view/3665
• Leed, E. J. (1991). The Mind of the Traveler: From Gilgamesh to Global Tourism. Basic Books.
• Lemos, A. (2009). Cultura da mobilidade. Revista FAMECOS – mídia, cultura e tecnologia, 16(40), p. 28-35.
• Lew, A., Cheer, J., Haywood, M., Brouder, P., & Salazar, N. (2020). Visions of travel and tourism after the global Covid-19 transformation of 2020. Tourism Geographies – An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, p. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1770326
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1770326
• Maffesoli, M. (2008). Michel Maffesoli: o imaginário é uma realidade. Revista FAMECOS, 8(15), p. 74-82. https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-3729.2001.15.3123
  » https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-3729.2001.15.3123
• Matsuki, E. (s.d.). Surto, epidemia, pandemia e endemia - entenda qual é a diferença entre eles. Educação UOL Recuperado de: https://educacao.uol.com.br/disciplinas/geografia/surto-epidemia-pandemia-e-endemia-entenda-qual-e-a-diferenca-entre-eles.htm
  » https://educacao.uol.com.br/disciplinas/geografia/surto-epidemia-pandemia-e-endemia-entenda-qual-e-a-diferenca-entre-eles.htm
• Morin, E. (2005). Ciência com consciência Tradução de Maria Alexandre e Maria Dória. (8. ed.) Bertrand.
• Rosa, H., & William, E. S. (2009). High-speed Society: Social Acceleration, Power and Modernity. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Sennett, R. (2006). A cultura do novo capitalismo Record.
• Sheller, M. (2014). The new mobilities paradigma for a live sociology. Current Sociology Review, 62(6), p. 789-811.
• Sheller, M. (2018). Theorizing mobility justice. Revista Tempo Social, 30(2), p. 17-34. https://www.scielo.br/pdf/ts/v30n2/1809-4554-ts-30-02-17.pdf
  » https://www.scielo.br/pdf/ts/v30n2/1809-4554-ts-30-02-17.pdf
• Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(1), p. 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1068/2Fa37268
  » https://doi.org/10.1068/2Fa37268
• Steiner, C. (2007). Political instability, transnational tourist companies and destination recovery in the Middle East after 9/11.Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development,4(3), p. 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790530701733421
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14790530701733421
• Sum, N.-L., & So, M.-C. (2004). The paradox of a tourist centre: Hong Kong as a site of play and a place of fear. In: Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2004). Tourism Mobilities: Places to play, places in play. Routledge.
• Urry, J. (1995). Consuming places Routledge.
• Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century Routledge.
• Urry, J. (2001). O olhar do turista: lazer e viagem nas sociedades contemporâneas. Studio Nobel.
• Urry, J. (2004). The ‘system’ of automobility. Theory, Culture and Society, 21(1), p. 25-39.
• Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities Polity Press.
• Urry, J. (2016). Globalizando o olhar do turista. Plural,23(2), p. 142-155. https://www.revistas.usp.br/plural/article/download/125105/122178/237284
  » https://www.revistas.usp.br/plural/article/download/125105/122178/237284
• Vieira, J. P., & Gastal, S. A. (03 a 06 de setembro de 2018). Turismo, cidades e periferia: Interfaces. VI Colóquio Internacional sobre Comércio e Cidade, Porto Alegre. Recuperado de: http://www.labcom.fau.usp.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ANAIS_26Julho_yuri2-1.pdf
  » http://www.labcom.fau.usp.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ANAIS_26Julho_yuri2-1.pdf
• Wen, J., Wang, W., Kozak, M., Liu, X., & Hou, H. (2020). Many brains are better than one: the importance of interdisciplinary studies on COVID-19 in and beyond tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, p. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1761120
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1761120
• Zenker, S. & Kock, F. (2020). The Coronavirus pandemic – A critical discussion of a tourism research agenda. Tourism Management, 81, p. 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104164
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104164

Edited by

Editor:

Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  19 Mar 2021
• Date of issue
  Jan-Apr 2021

History

• Received
  29 July 2020
• Accepted
  04 Dec 2020