The (Im)Mobility Turn and the COVID‐19 Pandemic

The COVID‐19 pandemic brought much of the world to a standstill, but not all mobility stopped. Despite restrictions reducing tourism and other forms of movement, some people, including migrant workers in agriculture, continued to travel out of necessity. However, since societies reopened, non-essential mobility has bounced back without controversy, while labor migration faces growing scrutiny. This raises an important question: is non-essential mobility widely accepted at a time when the migration of essential workers has become increasingly problematized?

Since the late twentieth century, mobility has been expanding in scope and intensity, driven by short-duration tourism and longer-term labor migration, alongside other forms of movement outside traditional migration frameworks, such as the circulation of international students. These developments can be seen as aspects of what scholars like Sheller and Urry (2006) have described as a ‘mobility turn,’ defined as a somewhat self-evident expansion of travel possibilities, and more tacitly, a rethinking of how and why people move across borders.

In evaluating this situation, while some people personally benefited from expanded tourism opportunities, broader societal gains can be harder to identify. In fact, expanded levels of circulation contributed to the overheating of housing markets, with huge numbers of visitors disrupting life in places ill-equipped to host them, not to mention the negative environmental impact of the increased use of aviation. At the same time, labor migration continued to take place while populist politicians in some countries criticized it, despite the essential social and economic contribution made by many of these workers.

These observations suggest that the ‘mobility turn’ brought with it a kind of disconnect: leisure-focused and environmentally detrimental forms of movement came to be valued, while forms of travel linked to vital economic and social functions were seen as a problem.

COVID‐19 Pandemic and the Immobility Turn in Portugal

The expansion of mobility – or mobilities (Urry, 2007) – continued until the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This event triggered a reassessment of the need to travel, establishing a temporary distinction between essential and non-essential movement based on societal rather than individual needs.

We have explored this issue in a book entitled ‘The Immobility Turn’ (Cairns and Clemente, 2023), based on research conducted after the start of the pandemic in the early months of 2020. However, this work is also a continuation of research we have conducted in Portugal on various forms of mobility and migration prior to this point, observing how meanings change over time. For example, we have noted that, for the most part, and unlike many other countries, labor migration has not been considered problematic in Portugal, perhaps due to its position as a second-tier destination in Western Europe for incoming workers.

At national level, political discourse even recognized the societal contributions of labor migrants, including their role in supporting social protection systems in a demographically aging society. As a result, Portugal offered foreign workers relatively favorable access compared to other European countries. Tourism, and to some extent student mobility, were also seen as beneficial, or at least harmless, despite the potential negative impact on local communities made by expanded visitor numbers.

Management of the shutdown of society and restrictions on international travel at the start of the pandemic reflected this approach to a certain extent, as exceptions were made for some essential forms of travel. As a result, labor migrants continued to move, especially within the country, responding to their own economic needs and the demands of the national economy, particularly in agriculture, which relied heavily on their skills. This explains why immobility was not absolute during the pandemic, even during the most stringent lockdowns, a pattern also observed in other European contexts (González-Leonardo et al, 2022; Stawarz et al, 2022).

In simpler terms, labor migration was justified in political discourse by aligning it with national financial interests, as well as the obvious need to feed the population. In doing so, Portugal was also distancing itself from populist border security narratives seen elsewhere in Europe during the pandemic, where such forms of migration were framed as a threat to public health, rather than a societal necessity.

Mobility After the Immobility Turn

Most travel restrictions were lifted in Portugal in spring 2022, and non-essential mobilities quickly returned to prominence. However, it is interesting to note that student mobility and international tourism have not only rebounded but perhaps increased in popularity. In fact, after decades of delay, Lisbon is finally moving forward with plans to build a new airport to accommodate growing visitor numbers.

These developments suggest that the country may be experiencing a new, more intense mobility turn, focused on maximizing numbers of non-essential arrivals, primarily to benefit the tourism industry. But at the same time, other forms of travel have started to be questioned, suggesting a shift in the meaning of mobility and migration. Anti-immigration rhetoric has become part of mainstream Portuguese politics, while non-essential travel, especially tourism, despite its highly disruptive effects on the most heavily visited communities, passes largely unchallenged by policymakers.

Ironically, it is migration, including the movement of people making positive social and economic contributions, rather than the actually disruptive non-essential mobilities, that is problematized, reversing the pre-pandemic order and exposing a major disconnect between policy discourse and reality. This shift raises important questions about how migration and mobility are perceived and managed at the highest levels, to the detriment of Portuguese society.

All this suggests a need to pay closer attention to the meanings attached to different mobility and migration experiences, taking into account a wide nexus of experiences, not just labor migration or tourism in isolation, even if there are tendencies among researchers and policymakers to focus only on one or the other.

David Cairns is the Principal Researcher at the Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology, ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon. Mara Clemente is an Integrated Researcher at the Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology, ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon.

References:

–Cairns, D. & Clemente, M. (2023). The Immobility Turn: Mobility and Migration during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
–González-Leonardo, M., López-Gay, A., Newsham, N., Recaño, J. & Rowe, F. (2022). Understanding patterns of internal migration during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. Population, Space and Place, 28(6): 1-13.
–Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.
–Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2): 207-226.
–Stawarz, N., Rosenbaum-Feldbrügge, M., Sander, N., Sulak, H. & Knobloch, V. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on internal migration in Germany: A descriptive analysis. Population, Space and Place, 28: e2566.

This blog contribution is part of a series on « Vulnerabilization of Migrant Workers During Crises. »