What is the relationship between motility and structural violence?
In the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions
Doran Hanlon
11125411
Supervisor: Dr. Darshan Vigneswaran
Second reader: Dr. Polly Pallister-Wilkins
doransonmsn@hotmail.com
26/09/2016
University of Amsterdam
Abstract
This project is based upon the recognition that Kaufmann’s et al. (2004) theory of motility and Galtung’s (1969) conception of violence are both concerned with inequality, potential and actual mobility practices. Motility provides a comprehensive framework for assessing socio-spatial, actual and potential mobility. Galtung’s conception of violence provides a contextualising account of systemic inequality that produces potential – actual differences. These two approaches are employed together to provide a double reading of the OSCE report data documenting a variety of humanitarian issues in Ukraine to establish the most significant relationships between motility and structural violence. In addition to the direct casualties and infrastructural damage caused by the conflict, the mobility restrictions and emergency laws specifying the relocation of civilians no longer living in government controlled territory exacerbate the humanitarian issues in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Additionally, the annexation of Crimea has resulted in a significant loss of potential mobility to mainland Ukraine.
Contents Introduction………….. Page 5 Rationale……….. Page 6 Theory (1) ……… Page7
Literature review……. Page 11
Theory (2)…..………….. Page 25
Methodology…………. Page 30
Data analysis………….. Page 37
Section one……….. Page 39
Section two……….. Page 45
Section three………….. Page 47
Conclusion………. Page 51
Bibliography………. Page 56
Introduction
Mobility and inequality
Increasingly, mobility has been seen as a human right to the extent that it is now claimed to be a ‘general principle of modernity’ (Kesselring 2006 cited in Jensen 2011 p. 256). Recent explorations into mobility as a generator of social change have attempted to escape the traditional nationally and territorially bounded analysis of societal transformation (Bauman 2000, Manderscheid 2009, Urry 2000). Despite being overlooked for many years within the social sciences, the relationship between mobility and inequality has emerged as a key theme of what is known as ‘the mobilities turn’.
The mobilities turn
Urry (2007) cites Paul Virilio’s (2006) theory of ‘dromology’ and Bauman’s (2000) theory of ‘liquid modernity’ as mobilising a ‘mobility turn’ in the social sciences as a response to the conceptual shortcomings of existing mobility, power and inequality scholarship. Urry sees new mobility scholarship as spreading through the social sciences, mobilizing historically static analysis that is concerned with predominantly ‘a-spatial’ social structures. Rerat and Lees (2011) describe the work of Urry (2000, 2007), Kaufmann et al. (2004) and Bauman (2000) as attempting to reconceptualise mobility by urging researchers to consider a broader range of mobility potentials in contemporary globalised societies.
Similarly, Larsen et al. (2007) advocate that perspectives of ‘network capital’ should to be considered in mobility studies, conceptualising the ability to move, together with notions of power by stressing the links to inequality (Larsen et al. 2007 cited in Jensen 2011 p. 257). Similarly, Bauman (2000) explores the extent to which the power of mobility and ability to
be mobile can affect social change through the liquefaction of social structures. Such
approaches to mobility and power lie at the conceptual heart of the new mobility paradigm.
The insights of the mobilities turn have highlighted the limits of many current theoretical explanations of the mechanisms that reproduce socio-economic disparities. As merely referring to economic relations as the source of social inequality, traditional approaches to class, social mobility and inequality ignore the cultural factors in the reproduction of unequal life chances. Therefore such approaches provide ever decreasing analytic and interpretive power (Manderscheid 2009, p. 8). Even more reflexive approaches tend to focus upon the patterns in which human subjects interact together whilst ignoring the ‘physical or material infrastructures’ underlying these socio-economic and political patterns (Urry 2007, p. 19)
New approaches to mobility and conceptualisations of mobility as capital have been developed due to a recognition that social theory has failed to keep pace with the socio-economic polarizations, technologies and developments that are fundamentally
restructuring our social relations (Manderscheid 2009). Furthermore, we should study the relationship between mobility and inequality because certain theoretical additions of the mobilities turn provide a framework for understanding human relations and mobility practices far outside of the usual domain of mobility scholarship. Indeed this reason is one of the underlying motivations for undergoing this research endeavour. From the mobilities turn I intend to use the contribution of Kaufmann et al. (2004) and render it operational in order to study how motility, their refined concept of mobility capital has been distributed in Ukraine.
Rationale
The rationale for this project is based upon the recognition that Kaufmann’s et al. (2004) theory of motility and Galtung’s (1969) conception of violence are both concerned with inequality, potential and actual mobility practices. Motility suffers from a lack of systematic
operationalisation within the academic community due to its conceptual complexity and the number of theoretical sub categories used to describe the facets of mobility. Motility
provides a comprehensive framework for assessing socio-spatial and actual and potential mobility. Galtung’s conception of violence provides a contextualising account of systemic inequality that produces potential – actual differences. When employed together to provide a double reading, an assessment of the relationship between motility and structural
violence provides an apt theoretical approach for the analysis of OSCE report data documenting issues in the Ukrainian civil conflict.
Project overview
This study proceeds as follows. The first section outlines the theory of motility before providing a thorough review of the forms and degrees of engagement with motility in the literature revew. From there the issues with motility are identified and the rationale for and method in which to use Galtung’s (1969) concept of structural violence is substantiated. A discussion of a suitable empirical topic is followed by an overview of the OSCE mission in Ukraine. The data is then analysed using a double reading using Kaufmann et al. (2004) and Galtung (1969) before the conclusion discusses the motility – structural violence
relationships that have emerged in the data analysis.
Theory
This section will discuss the rationale for the development of motility, outline its constituent parts and describe what the theory has been designed to achieve.
Motility
The theory of motility was developed in the paper ‘Motility: Mobility as Capital’ in order to explore the dynamics of mobility in the social structures of modern societies. The authors define motility as ‘the capacity of entities (e.g. goods, information or persons) to be mobile in social and geographic space, or as the way in which entities access and appropriate the
capacity for socio-spatial mobility according to their circumstances’ (Kaufmann et al. 2004, p. 750).
What the theory of motility is trying to do is to synthesise both social and spatial concepts of mobility in order to establish the relationship between these mobilities in an attempt to conceptualise how the distribution of goods, people and information are interdependent with social structures. As such, motility sits at an interesting juncture in the literature of the mobilities turn in so far that it is a complex and multifaceted theory that deals with the usually separate notions of social and geographical (im)mobility. Drawing on the notion of ‘the social production of spatial forms’ introduced by Castells (1977), motility undertakes the ambitious theoretical task of bridging and navigating the conceptual gap between social and geographical mobility.
The rationale for undertaking such an ambitious theoretical exercise was based on the identification of a lack of ‘cross-fertilization’ between different theoretical approaches to the topic of ‘fluidification’. They describe fluidification, specifically the fludification of societal structures as ‘based on the increasing mobility of goods, information and people’ (Kaufmann et al. 2004, p. 746). They claim that as differing theoretical approaches to ‘fluidification’ are often linked to a particular social theory, there is little acknowledgement of the potential contributions that alternate approaches could make. This lack of
acknowledgement thereby results in theoretically limitations approaches to fluidification. Kaufmann et al. (2004, p. 749) give the example of spatial mobility approaches that tend to focus on movement in space-time as opposed to ‘the interaction between actors, structures and context’. As such, they claim that larger societal processes will remain obscured if the geography of flows is considered only in isolation. Conversely, spatio-social mobility studies tend towards describing ‘actual and past fluidity’, which the authors see as insufficient for understanding the impact of certain social phenomenon.
Several parallels are identified in the domains of concern shared by studies of social and geographical mobility. They are both concerned with structural changes and social transformations whilst scholarship on both geographical and social mobility are centrally concerned with the preconditions and consequences of movement. By drawing on
approaches from both spatial and social mobility approaches, Kaufmann et al. (2004) argue that the debate on ‘fluidification’ concerns ‘all mobility potentials, constraints and margins for manoeuvre, and it includes a variety of social, cultural, political and economic aspects of mobility’ (p. 749). Based upon this approach to mobility, they view the concept of
‘fluidification’ as a central social scientific issue and one that has led to their reconceptualisation of space in relation to social mobility.
Based upon the critique of single approaches to mobility and drawing on approaches from both sides of the debate on ‘fluidification’, Kaufmann et al. (2004) propose the theory of motility as being conceptually valuable for several reasons. As previously stated, motility conceptualises both spatial and social mobility. But of equal significance is its theorisation of potential and actual movement. So unlike the spatio-social mobility studies previous
referred to, motility captures ‘the potential of movement’ and in doing so ‘will reveal new aspects of the mobility of people with regard to possibilities and constraints of their
manoeuvres’ (p. 749). Motility is described as a more ‘comprehensive’ form of mobility not limited to actual or past displacements. The authors consider motility as a form of capital that forms ‘theoretical and empirical links with, and can be exchanged for, other types of capital’. In summary, Kaufmann et al. (2004) describe motility on a meta-theoretical level as drawing together previously opposed epistemological approaches by acknowledging the multiple forms of movement and movement potentials.
As well as being a broad theory in terms of its conceptualisation of actual and potential mobility across physical and social space, motility is also extremely detailed in terms of its constituent elements. The constituent parts of the theory are ‘interdependent’ and can be divided into three sections. Access relates different forms and degrees of mobility,
competence is the recognition and usage of access and appropriation refers to the interpretation of an option or choice.
Specifically, access refers to the possible mobilities as dictated by place, time and all relevant contextual restraints. It is said to be ‘influenced by networks and dynamics within territories’ (Kaufmann et al. 2004, p. 750). Access is in turn constrained by options and conditions. Options refer to the possible means of transportation and communication and range of services and equipment available at a certain time. Conditions are the accessibility of options given the contextual constraints.
Competence relates to the skills and abilities that affect access and appropriation.
Competence is sub divided into a further three parts. Physical ability is the ability to move an entity within given constraints. Acquired skills are those relating to rules and regulations of movement (permits, licenses etc). Organizational skills relate to the planning of activities, the acquisition of information, abilities and skills. Competence is interdependent with both access and appropriation.
Finally, appropriation refers to how individuals, groups or institutions ‘interpret and act upon perceived or real access and skills’. It is shaped by ‘needs plans, aspirations and understandings of agents’ and subsequently affects ‘strategies, motives, value and habits’. More simply put, appropriation is how options are selected and decisions are made.
The theoretical sub elements of access, competence and appropriation are justified because they provide a ‘holistic’ perspective on inequality and provide different levels of theoretical abstraction. Examples of studies of social and spatial mobility operating on various empirical levels are provided. On a micro-level, both access and competence are said to provide insight into the ‘resource exchanges’ that are related to peoples’ (im)mobility such as time, money or information. On a meso-level the ‘association between social and spatial mobility’ can be studied in terms of networks and groups through collective decision making
(appropriation). On a macro-level, research on access could identify the differentiated affects of certain social and economic policies.
The array of subjects that motility can be used to study, in addition to the detailed
descriptions provided for the concepts of access, competence and appropriation indicate a significant degree of flexibility with regard to possible topics of application. The notion of ‘fluidification’ central to motility encompasses a broad array of the socio-cultural, political and economic facets of mobility. The detailed descriptions and varied levels of analysis possible (micro, meso, macro) indicate that motility is a powerful conceptual tool at the disposal of researchers from a variety of social scientific backgrounds.
Literature review
Given Kaufmann et al. (2004) claim to have successfully and ‘holistically’ drawn together insights and approaches to mobility from previously separate or opposing theories, the concept and impact of motility warrants further discussion. The authors have undertaken an ambitious and complex task and in turn produced a complex and comprehensive theory in response to the lack of ‘cross-fertilization’ between socio-spatial mobility approaches. As such, the claims made regarding the success of their endeavour and an evaluation of what motility achieves conceptually and empirically can be best achieved thorough an analysis of the literature that draws on motility. An identification of the theoretical points of reference, degree of empirical deployment and identification of the topics to which motility has been applied will highlight any theoretical strengths and operational issues that are likely to affect my utilisation of the theory.
All of the peer reviewed academic papers included in this literature review were generated by Google Scholar searches and have been referenced more than five times. It should be noted that all references to motility refer to the theory as developed by Kaufmann et al. (2004) and exclude the usage of the term in biology. The review of literature has been grouped into three sections that reflect the forms and degrees of engagement with motility.
The first form of engagement with motility occurs on a theoretical level. These papers generally include discussions of the literature comprising the mobilities turn and discuss the theoretical contribution made by motility. The second are papers that to greater or lesser extents draw on motility when applying it to specific empirical topics or through discussion of study results. Finally, there are several papers that make theoretical links and establish conceptual similarities between motility and other theories.
The literature review has been divided into these three sections in order to reflect the impact that the theory of motility has had on the academic community. As a conceptually sophisticated and detailed theory, I would assume that as synthesising (potential and actual) socio-spatial mobility, motility would be widely fairly operationalized in empirical studies and discussed in significant detail. However, as has become apparent from my analysis of the literature referencing the term, motility has clearly not made as bigger impact as the language used by Kaufmann et al. (2004) would suggest. As detailed below, despite having the potential to ‘add a new perspective to empirical studies of spatial and social mobility’ (p. 754), it has rarely been operationalized in full detail and has mostly been referenced to the extent that its constituent elements are omitted and the term motility used to refer to potential movement or social and spatial mobility.
Theoretical discussions of motility
This first section discusses the articles that reference motility in theoretical discussions. Motiltiy is not necessarily included in such discussion in order to deploy it empirically, but rather is included in the preliminary theoretical discussions that are relevant to the topic of investigation. This section of the literature review has been included in order to establish the reasons behind referencing motility. As a conceptually broad or bridging theory, there may be several reasons for this. The conceptual strengths or shortcomings of motility will be identified here by seeing how the theory is situated in theoretical literature.
In ‘LGBT Neighbourhoods and ‘New Mobilities’: Towards Understanding Transformations in Sexual and Gendered Urban Landscapes’, Nash and Gorman-Murray (2014) discuss the application of several insights from the mobilities turn to changing sexual and gendered landscapes in North America and Australia (Cresswell 2010, Jensen 2011 and Kaufmann et al. 2004). Their central argument is that by drawing on new mobilities approaches they can avoid ‘binary analysis’ that argues LGBT people are simply leaving traditional gay
neighbourhoods. Instead they propose a more nuanced narrative that highlights the networks between more established gay village locations and newer neighbourhoods that are largely overlooked in existing scholarship (Nash and Gorman-Murray 2014, p. 761).
Nash and Gorman-Murray (2014, p. 763) introduce motility in the sub section ‘Motilities – politics and power relations’ because it is able to ‘conceptualize the entwined relationship between mobilities, power relations and spatiality’. Nash and Gorman-Murray (2014) define the concept of motility as ‘the potential, ability and capacity for movement’ and describe the term as encapsulating a ‘way of thinking through what is possible for both individuals and groups’ (Nash and Gorman-Murray 2014, p. 763). Although they elude to the analytical potential of the sub categories of access, competence and appropriation in their definition of motility and discussion of motility and other mobilities approaches, the remainder of their usage of the term motility is to describe potential mobility. For Nash and Gorman-Murray (2014) potential movement is perhaps the most significant conceptual facet of the theory.
In ‘Mobility, Space and Power: On the Multiplicities of Seeing Mobility’ Jensen (2011) describes her work as discussing the ‘diverse ways of seeing mobility’ and the benefits that widening the language used for engaging with questions of mobility have on political and social reality. In short, her paper is a series of discussions on theoretical approaches to conceptualising mobility and discusses approaches developing out of the mobilities turn as well as the foucauldian notion of governmentality. Jensen first introduces motility because it ‘bridges the gap’ between spatial and social mobility. ‘Motility captures the potential
movement and its dependence on individual and collective capacities, and backed by a mobility capital, motility integrates a mastery of complex mobilities and mobility systems’ (Jensen 2011, p. 256). Jensen goes on to state that because motility includes social mobility and mobility capital, it deals with ‘questions of social inequality’ and can thus be linked to the work of Urry (2007). Jensen (2011) describes motility as theoretically significant due to it bridging conceptual gaps and providing a complete framework from which to study entire social systems.
In ‘Mobility, Space and Social Structuration in the Second Modernity and Beyond’ Nowicka (2006) critiques recent theories on ‘social structuration’ that speak about liquefaction. The relevant part of her critique occurs when she argues against the ‘questionable distinction between social and geographical space’. She therefore introduces the work of Kaufmann et al. (2004) only to criticise it and other theories that attempt to ‘bridge the gap’ previously described by Jensen (2011).
In ‘Read ten thousand books, walk ten thousand miles: geographical mobility and capital accumulation among Chinese scholars’ Leung’s (2013) paper investigates the impact that relatively recent professional mobility has had on Chinese scholars who have conducted research visits to Germany. In the theoretical section Leung (2013) introduces her conceptualisation of mobility as a form of capital through reference to the theory of motility. Although her study requires a theoretical approach that includes both spatial and geographical mobility within its scope, Leung (2013) discusses the notion of mobility capital as the most significant aspect of motility.
Rerat and Lees (2011) (re)theorise the notion of locational advantage from gentrification literature as spatial capital in their paper ‘Spatial capital, gentrification and mobility: evidence from Swiss core cities’. Their study focuses on the mobility practices of new-build gentrifiers in several Swiss cities. They introduce the theory of motility when discussing sophisticated approaches to mobility that are capable of conceptualising potential
movement, and form (exchangeable) ‘spatial capital’. Motility has been referenced in this paper because it is deals with notions of potential mobility and integrates this concept into the theory as a whole.
In the paper ‘Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?’ Lucas (2012) discusses the core theories and definitions which underpin studies of social exclusion and how these are reflected in terms of transport reinforcing social exclusion. In the theoretical sub section ‘Social capital and capability perspectives’, motility is first defined as ‘the potential and ability to move’ and is then outlined in full detail (access, competence and appropriation). Motility is included in the theoretical discussion here as it deals with potential mobility which is relevant to transport (im)mobility and because motility is an exchangeable form of capital. Therefore motility is discussed alongside the similar notion of ‘network capital’ Urry (2007).
De Vos et al. (2013) in ‘Travel and Subjective Wellbeing: A Focus on Findings, Methods and Future Research Needs’ provide an overview of studies on travel and wellbeing
relationships. Their engagement with motility comes because it conceptualises potentiality and their discussion of previous travel-wellbeing studies includes those of potential travel. They outline the three elements of motility and claim access has been shown to be ‘related to both hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing’.
Summary of theoretical discussions of motility
Rerat and Lees (2011), Lucas (2012) and Leung (2013) include motility in their respective theoretical discussions because they all see the most valuable contribution of motility in it being an exchangeable form of mobility capital. The discussion of motility by Nash and Gorman-Murray (2014) demonstrates that they see the strength of motility as lying in its scope of conceptualising the relationships between mobility and power relations as well as that of potential movement. This latter point of conceptual strength regarding potentiality is
evidenced by their repeated deployment of the term motility when describing possible mobility that did not occur.
For Jensen (2011), the strengths of motility lie in the fact that motility is defined as being a type of exchangeable capital and that the theory deals with social inequalities. Unlike Rerat and Lees (2011) and De Vos et al. (2013) who reference motility specifically because one of the conceptual ‘bridges’ made is between actual and potential movement, Jensen sees the strength of motility as it being a ‘complete framework’ to study entire social systems. Nowicka (2006) references motility for the same reason as Jensen (2011) in so far as it conceptualises both social and geographic space. However, the reference by Nowicka (2006) to Kaufmann et al. (2004) is entirely negative as she consistently argues against dealing with or conceptualising social and geographic space together.
Empirical engagement with motility
This second section of the literature review establishes the extent to which motility has been operationalized in previous articles. The works included here engage in empirical studies that are related in various ways to social or geographic mobility. However, not all of the paper will operationalize motility for the purposes of gathering primary data. Similarly to the previous section, some papers with less conceptual engagement may briefly reference motility in the section relating to their theoretical approach or in the discussion of results. The latter half of this section contains papers that operationalize or substantially deploy the concept when discussing their findings. An analysis of the way these works in particular have engaged with motility will provide valuable insight into both the possibilities and limitations of using motility in empirical investigations.
Less empirical engagement
In ‘Exploring the Social Face of Urban Mobility: Daily Mobility as Part of the Social Structure in Spain’ Camarero and Oliva (2008) consider the ‘social aspects of daily mobility’ based on
family and other social practices. The field work for this study comprised 14 in-depth
household studies and fifteen extended interviews around the Pamplona metropolitan area in order to establish ‘how family mobility strategies tie in with different sociological
profiles’. In spite the apparent suitability of the theory of motility for framing the data collection, particularly the interviews, the only reference to motility comes in the ‘The social meanings of daily mobility’ section. Camarero and Oliva (2008) only briefly discuss ‘the proposal’ for seeing mobility as an exchangeable form of social capital that can be ‘analysed as if it were a set of unequal social positions linked to the social structure’ Camarero and Oliva (2008, p. 346).
The article ‘Corporate Ecologies of Business Travel in Professional Service Firms: Working towards a research agenda’ reviews the literature on the role of business travel and white collar international labour mobility in the professional service economy. Similarly to Camarero and Oliva (2008), motility has not been operationalized or interpreted and conveyed in the 120 interviews of professional service people that comprise the bulk of primary data collected by Faulconbridge et al. (2009). The references to motility in this paper come in the section discussing business travel and the ‘ecology of mobility’ more broadly. Proceeding the introduction of Putnam’s conception of ‘social capital’, motility is introduced in full detail. Potentiality is emphasised because Faulconbridge et al. (2009, p. 299) want to study the advantages of potential mobility to professional firms and staff.
Schiller & Salazar (2013) use their paper ‘Regimes of Mobility Across the Globe’ to critique previous studies of mobility. They use the article to challenge concepts built upon binaries and opposites, specifically the interrelationship between mobility and stasis which frames the concept of native and foreigner. Surprisingly, given Schiller & Salazar (2013) are
concerned with mobility and stasis, and particularly avoiding binary approaches to mobility, motility is first referenced in the conclusion. The only discussion of the concept comes when the concept of ‘mobility potential’ is referenced to Kaufmann et al. (2004).
The article ‘Social Integration Faced with Commuting’ by Viry et al. (2009) explores the ‘transformation of social anchoring through spatial mobility’, specifically the weakening of local relationships and the reconstruction of more decentralized integration caused by longer distance travel to work. Their study is based upon a Swiss data set and they discuss the new geography of social integration using the ‘concept of motility’. The data was gathered prior to the conception of the article so there is no operationalization of the concept. Only the summarised results of their analysis are discussed using motility. Viry et al. (2009, p. 22) deploy the term motility when describing how agents appropriate ‘the field of possibilities relative to movement’. Unfortunately there is little useful or transferable information regarding the operationalization of the concept in this paper despite repeated reference to the theory.
The paper ‘Mobility Innovation in the Urban Margins: Medellin Metrocables’ by Brand and Dávila (2011) discusses the social effects of connecting several dense, low income informal settlements with the centre of the city via ski-slope areal cable-car technology in Medellin, Columbia. The aim of this project was to integrate these settlements physically and socially into the fabric of the city. The operationalization of motility occurred before the discussion of Brand and Dávila’s (2011) primary data set. However, they systematically apply all elements of motility to discuss their case study and expectations regarding improved mobility. As such they have provided a valuable and relatively detailed indication of the applicability of the theory as a whole. Brand and Dávila (2011) note that issues with access were less important than they expected due to a widespread availability of low cost public transport. However, the logistic of using the cable car system are more sophisticated than that of buses. Therefore, the local authorities had to make ‘considerable effort’ in training locals (developing competencies). Regarding appropriation Brand and Dávila (2011, p. 653) describe probable differentiated levels of appropriation. Workers from more formal sectors enjoying the ‘infrastructural articulation to formal urban life’ whereas the appropriation of poorer residents was expected to be much lower. What I have understood from their discussion of appropriation is that given the definition given by Kaufmann et al. (2004),
assessing levels appropriation is an imprecise task that requires substantial amounts of speculation. However, Brand and Dávila (2011) noted that they were careful to understand the ‘cultural and socio spatial’ context in order to make the most informed judgements regarding how this particular transport option would be appropriated by different sections of the community.
Significant empirical engagement
The paper ‘Operationalising the Concept of Motility: A Qualitative Study’ by Flamm and Kaufmann (2006) collected data from 44 focuses interviews. The aim of these interviews was to establish the circumstances of the interviewees’ residential history, motivations for making residential choices, perception of transport modes and general financial priorities. This entire exercise was conducted in order to render motility operational. Flamm and Kaufmann (2006, p. 177) attempt to ‘explain the factors defining an individual’s potential to be mobile within a geographic space in the perspective of the organisation of daily life’. The operationalization of motility here has been very much helped by the fact the extended interview were structured in such a way that the component parts of motility could be easily applied directly to the data. Indeed the topic of investigation was selected and entire study was conducted to generate data designed to be a ‘best fit’ for analysis using motility. As such, this work doesn’t provide much insight into adapting or meaningfully operationalizing motility to study an already existing data set or separate topic.
In ‘Motility and family dynamics: Current issues and research agendas’ Kaufmann and Widmer (2006) consider the effects that family structures have on the acquisition of motility. The rationale for this project is generated by the notion that contrary to the assumption that motility is an individual asset, motility is often acquired at home through
‘negotiation and the transfer of resources between parents and children’ Kaufmann and Widmer (2006, p. 114). An example of the acquisition of motility is provided in the case of a child’s home environment (p. 113). For a child, although motorised transport is likely to be seen a symbol of freedom, they can only access it as passengers, therefore their early developmental appropriation takes place through play. Later the case of a young adult learning to drive represents the acquiring of skills (competence). However, the generation and transfer of motility are only discussed using various examples of traditional nuclear families rather than existing cases studies. Yet the extent to which this is done indicates that Kaufmann and Widmer’s operationalization of motility could be repeated with primary data.
In ‘Travel and Subjective Wellbeing: A Focus on Findings, Methods and Future Research Needs’ De Vos et al. (2013) provide an overview of the literature concerning travel and wellbeing in order to find highlight gaps in present research. The relevant aspect of their argument regards how travel behaviour affects wellbeing and how it concerns potential travel. One of their central claims is that access has been shown to be related to hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. Interestingly however, although they specify the three elements of access, competence and appropriation, De Vos et al. (2013) define motility purely at the potential to move, ignoring its conceptualisation of actual movement. Motility is applied to the summarised results and trends of the transport literature cited in this study. This paper includes the most advanced discussions of appropriation contained within this literature review. Levels and types of appropriation are discussed according to the category of traveller. Furthermore, access, competence and appropriation are discussed individually or in combination when describing transport routines of certain sections of a population.
Summary of empirical engagements with motility
The most useful insights into the deployment of motility come from Brand and Dávila (2011), Kaufmann and Widmer (2006) and De Vos et al. (2013). Brand and Dávila (2011) and
Kaufmann and Widmer (2006) both discuss access, competence and appropriation in significant detail through discussion of potential scenarios. As previously stated, the only drawbacks are that Kaufmann and Widmer (2006) only discuss exemplary material and Brand and Dávila (2011) deploy motility in a speculative analysis before the data analysis proper.
The most important point taken away from Brand and Dávila’s (2011) case is that to make the most educated decision when identifying how an option would be appropriated, as much effort to appreciate the socio-spatial context of the decision needs to be made as possible. This is because appropriation is the most subjective and hard to measure of the elements of motility. De Vos et al. (2013) and Kaufmann and Widmer’s (2006) discussions of the interrelationship between the elements of motility represent the most synthetic
deployments of the concept. The usage of motility by De Vos et al. (2013) specifically
illustrates that all elements of motility can be brought into analysis individually, or discussed in combination depending on the topic.
Links between motility and other theories
This final section briefly identifies authors who have drawn theoretical and conceptual links between motility and other theories. This final aspect of the literature indicates which theoretical elements of motility scholars have found useful for creating a theoretical framework (Witte et al. 2013) or conceptually linked with another theory (Manderscheid 2009).
In ‘Linking modal choice to motility: a comprehensive review’ De Witte et al. (2013) propose to define modal choice (between modes of transport) as being influenced by the ‘socio-psychological factors’ of motility described by access, competence and appropriation. De Witte et al. (2013) argue that ‘socio-demographic’ and ‘journey characteristic’ factors are subject to the influence of factors described by access and competence and the ‘socio-psychological’ factors are described by appropriation. The authors here draw on the
conceptual facets of motility in order to describe a variety of spatial, social and
psychological factors relating to choosing a method of transport. A further engagement with the psychological aspect of motility comes from Manderscheid (2009) who equates the concept of appropriation and to Bourdieu’s ‘habitus’ as both meaning how people consider, evaluate and select specific options.
Assessing the impact of motility
Kaufmann et al. (2004) have tried to devise a theory capable of establishing the relationship between social and spatial mobility in order to conceptualise how the distribution of objects and information are interdependent with social structures. No academic has yet managed to deploy motility to that end. However, in ‘Motility: Mobility as Capital’ the theory is
presented as successfully providing a ‘holistic perspective’ and as representing a synthetic theory that accounts for social, spatial, actual and potential movement whilst forming an exchangeable form of capital. If judged solely by the references to motility located in the theoretical sections of the literature review, Kaufmann et al. (2004) appear more successful.
Jensen (2011), Leung (2013) and Rerat and Lees (2011) all discuss motility specifically because it bridges conceptual gaps. Nash and Gorman-Murray (2014) and Lucas (2012) emphasise one conceptual facet of motility in particular, while Nowicka (2006) is critical of the very conceptual bridges Kaufmann et al. (2004) are attempting to build. Indeed a significant number of mobility scholars only reference motility in passing, while several authors do not draw on motility significantly, despite its apparent suitability for usage in their respective studies (Camarero and Oliva 2008, Faulconbridge et al. 2009). Based upon my overall analysis of the reviewed literature and evidenced by the references to a
particular conceptual element of the theory (potentiality, or socio-spatial), it appears that motility is for the most part too complex and multifaceted for complete and systematic internationalization.
There are a few papers that deploy motility either directly (De Vos et al. 2013),
hypothetically (Kaufmann and Widmer2006) or indirectly to discuss the overall research scenario (Brand and Dávila 2011). Additionally, although not operationalization per se, another notable empirical development relating to motility is the modal choice-motility framework developed by De Witte et al. (2013). By using the categories of motility as a conceptual framework to describe spatial, social and psychological factors affecting transport choice, De Witte et al. (2013) have drawn on the descriptive and conceptual attributes of motility. WhenDe Witte et al. (2013) drew on motility to create their framework, they recognised a shared conceptual focus between the factors influencing modal choice and access, competence and appropriation. These works have demonstrated that motility has the potential to meaningfully conceptualise and analyse socio-spatial mobility. What they have also illustrated however, is that although detailed, motility is a largely descriptive, rather than explanatory theory. This too may be a factor in explaining its lack of empirical impact.
Refining motility
Although only one of the three sections of the literature review covers works that deploy motility empirically, some of the most useful points on operationalization have come from authors that identify a key element within motility and those who identify a shared
conceptual focus with another theory (Manderscheid 2009, Witte et al. 2013). I will be adopting a dual strategy to best deploy motility based on a similar strategy. Firstly, I will identify what I believe to be the most significant concept within the framework of motility. Secondly, to provide a measure of refinement and clarity, I will then identify a theory that provides contextualisation and explanation of this theoretical concept.
Like Nash and Gorman-Murray (2014), Rerat and Lees (2011) and De Vos et al. (2013), I view potentiality as the most significant yet least emphasised component of motility. It is this ability to conceptualise immobility that gives motility the tools to provide ‘a holistic
perspective of inequality’. Unlike De Witte et al. (2013) I am not aiming to synthesise an entire framework using motility and another theory. This is because by itself motility provides an extremely detailed and comprehensive device capable of empirical
investigation. However, I believe that the notion of a lack of potential mobility (immobility) could be further developed in terms of the explanatory and interpretive content in order to full appreciate the structural inequality Kaufmann et al. (2004) claim motility is designed to study. Therefore, I have attempted to identify a theory that, like motility, deals with
potentiality when investigating inequality and unequal social relations.
After some unsuccessful preliminary inquiries I discovered the work of Johan Galtung (1969) who outlines his theory of violence in the article ‘Violence, Peace and Peace Research’. The key to Galtung’s (1969) conception of violence is the following definition; ‘Violence is here defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is’ Galtung (1969, p. 169). Furthermore, the ‘general formula’ behind systemic (structural) violence is inequality and unequal social and power relations. As will be discussed in the following section, Galtung’s theory of violence deals with
potential and actual phenomena. Crucially however, Galtung’s theory offers interpretation and explanation of the difference between the potential and actual through his framework of violence.
Developing a research question
Although I will not be providing a wholesale synthesis of motility and violence, I will be using Galtung’s concept of violence to explain the significance of the difference between potential and actual mobility practices. This is important because although described in terms of systemic or structural violence, Galtung (1969) is conceptualising unequal social relations. Inequality was also the primary concern of Kaufmann et al. (2004) when they were
developing motility. I propose that structural violence should therefore be used to explain the significance of the potential-actual gap. Structural violence provides a broader and more
contextualized perspective on the social structures and stratification within which motility is distributed and utilized than motility does alone. Indeed, my motility-violence frame will provide more complete analysis than previous attempts to operationalize motility have achieved thus far.
The overarching research question guiding my investigation must be flexible enough to allow me primarily to deploy motility as the overarching conceptual and descriptive
theoretical framework and to draw on Galtung’s (1969) explanation and interpretive insights on potential-actual differences. Given these requirements, I have attempted to formulate a relatively loose question formula that brings in motility and Galtung’s violence as the primary and secondary theoretical elements respectively. Theoretical question; What is the relationship between motility and structural violence?
Theory
The theory of motility accounts for potential as well as actual mobility. Galtung’s (1969) concept of violence is defined as the ‘cause of the difference’ between the potential and the actual. I am not proposing that these theories are forms or types of each other that can be synthesised into a single framework or approach. However, there are useful analogies between the two that are provided by Kaufmann’s et al. (2004) categorisation and
description of socio-spatial (im)mobility and Galtung’s (1969) contextualising-explanatory framework of violence. Galtung’s relevant typologies of violence are detailed below.
A typology of violence
As illustrated in the diagram below, there are numerous types of violence proposed by Galtung. This section will introduce the basic conception of violence, its most significant variants and provide several of the examples given in the article ‘Violence, Peace and Peace Research’.
For Galtung (1969, p. 168) there are many types of violence. The guiding principle behind his theory is that any concept of violence must be broad enough to capture the most significant dimensions of violence, yet ‘specific enough to serve as a basis for action’. Underlying all the typologies of violence is the notion that violence is present when humans are influenced so their ‘actual somatic and mental realizations’ are below their potential realizations. This broad conception is opposed to the more traditional notions of violence, e.g. injury or killing at the hands of someone intending these consequences. Galtung’s official definition of violence is as follows; ‘Violence is here defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is. Violence is that which increases the distance between the potential and the actual, and that which impedes the decrease of this distance’ (Galtung 1969, p. 168). Galtung provides the example of someone who died from tuberculosis in the eighteenth century. For him, this would not constitute a violent event as it was quite unavoidable given the medical knowledge at the time.
However, if that person were to die today with all of the medical resources available, then violence would be present.
Violence where there are clear actors involved is referred to as ‘personal or direct’ and where there are no such actors, ‘structural or indirect’. Like my identification of the significance of potential mobility in the theory of motility, it is this notion of structural violence that I wish to focus on and deploy to better understand differences in actual and potential mobility. Galtung describes structural violence as potentially manifesting itself as unequal power relations, unequal life chances, unequal resource distribution or as decision making powers being skewed in favour of a certain group. Galtung (1969, p. 175) sees ‘the science of social structure, and particularly of stratification’ as indispensable for
understanding structural violence. The following quote outlines Galtung’s thinking on structural violence; ‘In a society where life expectancy is twice as high in the upper as in the lower classes, violence is exercised even if there are no concrete actors one can point to directly attacking others, as when one person kills another’ (Galtung 1969, p. 171).
The second significant distinction is between physical and psychological violence. Physical violence hurts people somatically ‘to the point of killing’. Within this category a further distinction must be made between ‘biological violence’ which ‘reduces somatic capability’ in the traditional sense of violence, and ‘physical violence as such’ which increases constraints on human movement. Galtung’s examples of ‘physical violence as such’ extend beyond imprisonment to extremely unevenly distributed transport modes. Psychological violence on the other hand can be divided into positive and negative approaches to influence. Negative psychological violence would entail the influencer punishing a person when they do
something considered wrong. Conversely, positive psychological influence would reward someone when they do something the influencer considers right. To Galtung, (1969, p. 170) these are both forms of violence ‘because the net result may still be that a human beings are effectively prevented from realizing their potentialities’.
The final distinction that needs to be made for the purposes of this research is between ‘manifest’ and ‘latent’ violence. Manifest violence is described as being observable while latent violence is something which although not there, may easily come about (Galtung, 1969 p. 172). Latent violence in particular is a potentially useful language in which to describe the threat of violence (as broadly defined by Galtung).
Both the theories of Kaufmann et al. (2004) and Galtung (1969) are concerned with inequality. For Kaufmann et al. (2004) this is manifested in differing motility, with more affluent people enjoying greater actual and potential motility (socio-spatial mobility). For Galtung, the concept of structural violence is framed and explained in the language of an inequality of power and social relations. Furthermore, the example of ‘physical violence as such’ expressly mentions an inequality in the distribution of transport modes. Not only does the work of Kaufmann et al. (2004) and Galtung (1969) share the theoretical notion of the ‘actual’ and potentiality, but the language used by Galtung regarding unequal access to transportation suggests a genuine compatibility of both theories given their overlapping domains of empirical concern . While both motility and violence use similar language, motility aptly classifies and describes (im)mobility whilst Galtung contextualises social inequalities, including those related to (im)mobility in terms of structural violence and inequality.
The diagram below illustrates my how Galtung’s conception of violence is useful when applied to understand the potential-actual gap.
Figure 2. Motility-violence approach
Whether potential, actual, social or spatial mobility, motility is detailed enough to study the inequalities in mobility practices within its framework. However, the cause of the difference between actual and potential mobility is significant because it too results from social inequality. Galtung (1969) will be used to understand the conceptual potential-actual gap left by Kaufmann’s et al. (2004) otherwise comprehensive theory.
Motility
Potential mobility, (mobility capital)
Access:
options, conditions
Competence:
physical ability, acquired skills,
organizational skills
Structural violence Physical violence:
Biological violence ‘physical violence as such’
Psychological violence positive( influence) negative (influence) Motility Actual mobility, Access: options, conditions Competence:
physical ability, acquired skills,
Potential mobility Potential-actual difference.
(Galtung’s concept of violence is required to interpret this.
Actual mobility practices
Working (theoretical) research question; What is the relationship between motility and structural violence?
When applied empirically, my research question will not investigate the theoretical relationship between motility and structural violence per se. Rather I explore the
distribution of motility in my empirical case whilst using Galtung to the extent that his ideas aid my understanding of differences in potential and actual mobility practices. When there is a significant gap between potential and actual mobility practices, Galtung’s framework of violence will explore the significance of the gap in terms of inequality.
The empirical focus of this research will be introduced after the discussion of my
methodological approach to the operationalization of Kaufmann et al. (2004) and Galtung (1969). Outlining my methodological strategy is particularly important given my approach is relatively flexible when compared to a more systematic and rigid framework like that devised by De Witte et al. (2013).
Given that I will be drawing on two theoretical approaches to analyse my data set, I will be employing a strategy of ‘double reading’. Shay (2005, p. 675) describes double reading as an iterative movement between two modes of knowledge. Double reading approaches in the social sciences can be traced back to Bourdieu’s ‘double truth’ notion of objective and subjective knowledge as constituting all information in the social world (Bourdieu &
Wacuant 1992 cited in Shay 2005, p. 675). However, Kopans (2000, p. 721) describes double reading more generally as providing a ‘double interpretation’ while Morton (2005, p. 441) notes how it can highlight ‘alternate effects of a text’. The first reading of my analysis will use Kaufmann et al. (2004) to analyse the distribution of motility in my case and the second reading will use Galtung’s notion of structural violence to interpret the significance of the potential-actual motility gap. This double reading approach will benefit from the detailed classifications and categorisations of motility as well as the contextualising perspective of Galtung to fill the conceptual space (the cause of the potential-actual difference) left by Kaufmann et al. (2004).
Possibility of wider empirical application
The literature review has revealed that in certain respects, the range of empirical cases that motility has been used to explore are quite limited. Although significant variations do exist, the topics can be summarised as occurring within unfragmented, uncontested spaces within and across polities. The study by Faulconbridge et al. (2009) uses data from business
Brand and Dávila (2011), Viry et al. (2009) and Flamm and Kaufmann (2006) concern domestic mobility practices of people operating within national boundaries.
The language used to describe access and competence need not be interpreted in a way that limits the applications of motility to analysing conventional mobility related topics like assessing transport options (e.g. Viry et al. 2009). Access is subject to the ‘contextual restraints’ detailed by options and conditions. The category of options is particularly broad as it refers to the entire range of transport, communication, equipment and significantly, ‘range of services’ accessible. As such, these other services can include wider government or municipal provisions (healthcare, education, housing etc). Conditions refer to the
accessibility of options and are dictated by costs, logistics and ‘other constraints’. This reference to other constraints similarly throws this category wide open in terms of what these constraints might be. An example of the sort of issues that limit accessibility in a conflict could be a curfew, proximity to ongoing fighting or the damaged infrastructure etc. The classifications of competence are similarly broad. Physical ability is the ability to move a person or object from one place to another ‘within given constraints’. Extreme constraints could include imprisonment for example. Acquired skills refer to ‘rules and regulations of movement’ and include licenses and permits. In many contested or deterritorialized spaces, people’s mobility might be restricted by travel permit or documentation requirements.
As a departure from previous studies, my investigation will focus on a situation in which active conflict has impacted the distribution of people’s socio-spatial mobility (motility). Unlike previous attempts to render motility operational, such a case will involve conflicting territorial claims. Adhikari (2012) describes the current conflicts that have the significant impacts on people’s mobility as almost exclusively of an intrastate, deterritorialized nature (albeit often with internationalized elements). Given the conceptual suitability of Kaufmann et al. (2004), the possibility of establishing how an intrastate conflict has affected the distribution of motility warrants a concerted research effort. Through such an investigation I aim to demonstrate the benefits of analysing the affects of a civil conflict through studying
the impacts of (im)mobility. For this reason my case would be described by Gerring (2002, pp. 97 – 98) as being motivated by a ‘diverse case’ selection strategy. Such a case selection is based upon the want to ‘achieve maximum variance along relevant dimensions’ (Gerring 2002, pp. 97 – 98). For my purposes this variance refers to a conflict that has produced a range of constraints on people’s social and spatial mobility.
Issues with initial empirical research
Research into a suitable case directed my empirical focus towards the ongoing border dispute of the rival administrations in Azad Kashmir (Pakistan) and Jammu Kashmir (India). In such a case multiple actors (Indian and Pakistani occupying forces) have imposed
movement regimes that restrict the spatial mobility of Kashmiri’s. Additionally,
governmental decrees such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Acts have had dramatic impacts on social mobility. Therefore the ongoing border conflict in Kashmir represents a case that contained sufficient variance along the relevant socio-spatial dimensions to warrant further investigation.
Despite the availability of numerous situational reports generated by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the information contained in these documents focused largely on the human rights abuses and other violent practices of the Indian, Pakistani and
insurgent forces. An investigation into the relationship between motility and structural violence using these reports would have been possible. However, due to the focus of reporting being on the violent practices of the occupying and administrative forces, the conceptual contribution of motility regarding social and spatial mobility and potential movement would have been under-deployed. The more relevant data regarding the administration of the Line of Control and movement regimes of the Indian and Pakistani administrations was only available through direct correspondence with the relevant local authorities. As such, given the time frame for conducting my empirical research and
potential difficulties regarding translation and timely correspondence, I took the decision to abandon this particular direction.
The conflict in Ukraine
Given previous difficulties, my research refocused towards the selection of an intrastate conflict that has been more systematically documented by a single organisation. This strategy was designed to help mitigate potential issues with the quality and reliability of data or any disparities in data format and presentation.
Since the onset of the conflict in 2014, Ukraine has seen the emergence of two breakaway ‘separatist republics’, the involvement of regular Russian armed forces in combat and significant changes in constellations of territorial control. The UNHCHR ‘Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 August to 15 November 2015’ notes that aside from a multitude of ‘serious human rights abuses’ against the civilian population, a ‘conservative’ estimate for the total casualties among civilians, Ukrainian and separatist armed forces from the period of mid-April 2014 to 15th November 2015 is around 29,830. This makes the Ukrainian conflict the most deadly to occur outside the Middle East during this time period. The military Anti Terrorist Operation (ATO) and decrees issued by the Ukrainian government have had drastic impacts on the social and spatial mobility of Ukrainian citizens and civilians living in non-governmentally controlled territory. As such, the conflict in Ukraine contains all of the required variance to make it a suitable ‘diverse case’.
OSCE reporting on Ukraine
In response to the ongoing conflict, deteriorating humanitarian and security situation, The Permanent Council of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) as ‘committed to upholding the principles as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act’ took the decision to establish the Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine.
Operating under conditions of impartiality and transparency the OSCE deployed an SMM of unarmed civilian observers to Ukraine on 21st March 2014. The aims of the SMM were to gather information to report on the security situation and to establish and report the facts relating to specific incidents on the ground. The Mission monitors talked to various
community, civil society, ethnic and religious groups plus local and regional authorities (OSCE 2015, p. 1). The mission covers the entire territory of Ukraine and has published a series of reports relating to specific thematic issues. The data was generated from a combination of field observations, interviews and other correspondence with the
organisations and actors specified above. Based upon the many instances in which people’s spatial and social mobility has been restricted, SMM reporting on this ‘diverse case’ has produced a varied data set suitable for analysis.
OSCE report data
Information contained within the following reports has been included for analysis.
‘Protection of Civilians and their Freedom of Movement in the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions’ (OSCE, 2015).
‘Internal displacement in Ukraine’ (OSCE, 2014).
‘Access to water in conflict-affected areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions’ (OSCE, 2015).
‘Findings on Formerly State-Financed Institutions in the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions’ (OSCE, 2015).
‘Freedom of movement across the administrative boundary line with Crimea’ (OSCE, 2015).
In accordance with the reflexive theoretical research question formulation, the empirical component must also be broad enough to allow for a range of investigations into motility-structural violence relationships. Because the OSCE report data will dictate the specific issue areas to be investigated, the empirical part of the research question will simply specify the geographical areas of concern. Therefore the full title of this research paper guiding my empirical investigation is; ‘What is the relationship between motility and structural violence? In the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions’.
Assessing the value added by motility
The OSCE reporting has detailed an extensive range of administrative, humanitarian and logistical issues. If these reports were to be analysed whilst paying no attention to the concept of motility one would still be able to appreciate both the extent of the
humanitarian crises and the multitude of hardships facing civilians in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. However, the rationale behind my deployment of motility to study this case is based on the conflict having a hugely significant impact on people’s social and spatial mobility. Some events have reduced people’s mobility whilst others have simultaneously resulted in widespread involuntary movements. Furthermore the conflict has dramatically increased what were already large socio-economic disparities in Ukraine (UNHDR 2015). Given the theory of motility is concerned with social and spatial (im)mobility, inequality (manifested in unequal distributions of motility) and is comprised of sub categories capable of classifying the impacts of the conflict (movement restrictions, displacement, infrastructural destruction etc), an analysis using motility provides a consistent language and framework in which these relationships can be understood. Referencing a broad chronology or overview of events concerning the situation in Ukraine without such a unifying perspective would make it extremely difficult to conceptualise relationships between the disparate issues detailed by the OSCE. It is my belief that a unifying perspective that conceptualises (im)mobility within a single approach is necessary to better understand the processes at work in Ukraine.
Analysis using motility alone
Analysis of the Ukrainian conflict using motility alone would benefit from a consistent language and detailed framework capable of conceptualising the war’s impacts on mobility. However, as previously identified, motility is a largely descriptive rather than an explanatory or interpretive theory. As such, motility alone lacks the means to contextualise the
inequality produced by and manifested in an unequal distribution of motilities. Therefore, given the shared goal of theorising about relational inequality and the shared conceptual focus on differences in the potential-actual, supplementing motility with Galtung’s concept of violence is a useful way of understanding potential-actual disparities.
Report data format
The length of the OSCE reports makes the inclusion of all sections impossible. Therefore only the sections that describe processes and events that significantly impact on potential or actual motility have been included for analysis. For example, in the report on ‘Access to water in conflict-affected areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions’ the sections on
‘International standards’ , ‘SMM Dialogue facilitation efforts’ and ‘Recommendations’ have been omitted because they don’t specifically document issues related to social or spatial mobility . The section providing an ‘Executive summary’, ‘Examples of water shortages in Donetsk and Luhansk regions’, describing ‘Targeting or collateral damage of already ageing water installations’, ‘Power shortages impacting the functionality of the water pumps’, ‘Access issues due to the presence of armed groups, landmines or unexploded ordnance’ and ‘Restrictions limiting freedom of movement and supply of goods and water’ have been included. These sections contain information that can be classified in terms of options, conditions and acquired skills and analysed through a synthetic discussion of potential and actual mobility.
Due to the word count limit (and with the exception of direct quotes), the sections of the OSCE reports included for analyses have been condensed. A systematic approach to
condensing and presenting the information in the reports has been employed to avoid any misrepresentation or altering of the data. The descriptive terminology remains the same and any paraphrasing relates mainly to connective words. Khrismawan (2013) describes this method of paraphrasing to preserve syntax as the best way to ensure semantic equivalence.
Data analysis
This section provides a brief overview of events in the Ukraine conflict and further explains the rationale for applying my motility-violence approach to the OSCE data before the three data sections are presented and analysed.
Background to the Ukrainian conflict
The historic demonstrations that came to be known as the ‘EuroMaidan’ protests began in Kyiv’s Independence Square in late November 2013. The demonstrations were a response to the decision of the then president Viktor Yanukovych to abruptly suspend a trade pact and political association agreement between Ukraine and the EU (Traynor and Grytsenko 2013). Although triggered by a single event, the protest represented wider demands for closer alignment to the EU and an end to ‘rampant’ government corruption (Van Metre et al. 2015). Protest continued to escalate to the extent that by the 22nd February 2014 the government of President Viktor Yanukovych had been overthrown (Cybriwsky 2015).
Unlike the majority of countries who engaged in accession and association talks with the EU, Ukraine has not enjoyed a national consensus in favour of a European turn, with a
significant portion of the population seeking to retain links with Russia (Sakwa 2015). Katchanovski (2014) traces the ‘significant regional divisions’ over foreign policy and
geopolitical orientation back past the Maidan protests and the ‘Orange Revolution’ of 2004 to independence in 1991. The alienation and dissatisfaction of many citizens in Eastern Ukraine has been the catalyst for the de facto establishment of Russian backed separatist movements in the Dontesk and Luthansk regions (Giuliano 2015). What followed in Ukraine
was seen by Russian leader Vladamir Putin as an opportunity to increase Russian influence through the exacerbation of ‘indigenous instability’ (Van Metre et al. 2015). Despite demonstrations promoting greater devolution being held in several cities in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, it was only the regions of Luhansk and Dontesk in which Russian backed activists formed ‘self-styled people’s republics’ (Giuliano 2015).
Applying the theoretical approach to the Ukraine case
The OSCE reports constitute a comprehensive database of empirical material that describes a wide array of phenomena relating to the humanitarian effects of the Ukrainian conflict. There is an abundance of empirical material available documenting forced mobility and immobilities in Ukraine. However, as purely empirical and descriptive, the language of the reports fails to capture the range of social and spatial mobility restrictions conceptualised by motility (described under access, competence and appropriation) or to draw links between them. What viewing the case through motility does is to provide a framework capable of categorising all of the empirical material. With the conceptual and linguistic tools provided by Kaufmann et al. (2004), the relationships between restrictions on mobility and the humanitarian crises can be analysed. Galtung’s insights on structural violence (structural inequality) should be seen as filling in the potential-actual gap left in the otherwise
comprehensive framework of motility. Applying motility to understand the Ukrainian case will produce a synthetic discussion of how the conflict has produced a variety of
(im)mobilities and inequalities. Applying Galtung’s concept of violence to motility will in turn provide an interpretation of these inequalities.
Viewing this material through the lens of motility has led me towards a re-division,
presentation and analysis of the data according to ‘theoretical classes’. Berg (2006, p. 316) defines ‘theoretical classes’ as those that emerge throughout the course of analysing data. These classes are based upon my assessment of certain processes and events that have most significantly restricted people’s motility. From my preliminary analysis of the report
