From Internal to Transnational Mobilities. An Introduction

The chapter introduces the collective and interdisciplianry volume by arguing that migration scholarship should transcend the division between internal and international migration theories and methodologies. From a phenomenological point of view, in many cases internal migration, which often relies on kin, religious or ethnic networks, gives rise to organisational solutions that prove crucial for transnational mobility.The same capability to use movement and space as a resource seems to connect both neighbouring and remote areas and is often transmitted from one generation to the next, thereby creating a “culture of migration and mobility” . Furthermore, the protagonists of internal migration may be former transnational migrants and seemingly cosmopolitan transnationals may eventually end up in small, remote, rural areas. Cross-fertilization between the two perspectives is important from a methodological and conceptual point of view, as well. For instance, after carrying out multi-sited ethnography of international migration some ethnographer adopted the same perspective towards internal migration within one country. various issues addressed in the course of studying the impact of international migration, such as paths of integration into the labour market and rural-urban relations as well as multicultural identity politics or urban transformation, concern both international and internal migration alike. Furthermore, today’s social sciences abound with discussion of what has been called the “mobility turn”. To avoid treating stability as the natural state of affairs, migration should constitute a “subset” of mobility studies. Indeed, as can be seen in the transnational perspective from the 90s to the present, these notions essentially arise from a criticism of sedentaristic notions of culture and society that equate cultural phenomena with spatial or territorial entities. However, one of the most widely appreciated aspects of this perspective is the inter-connection it asserts between different kinds of mobility, such as internal, regional and transnational, but also spatial and social mobilities, which can be seen as linked even if they do not connect mechanically. Indeed, it is right that we be sceptical towards a ready equation of mobility with freedom; instead, movement should be examined not only as connection, but also as an aspect of new forms of exploitation. Mobility is about actual physical movement as much as it is about imaginaries affecting non-mobile people in a specific locality of origin, transit or destination. For many individuals mobility is primarily experienced in its absence, as the unavailability of departure. Immobility at home, a feeling of being stuck or a concrete inability to move (due to economic, social or political factors), may provide the initial driving force for individuals to move away. For many, however, the actual move may never occur due to a scarcity of resources or lack of opportunity. Nonetheless, this does not prevent the development of a “culture of mobility” that involves migrant and non-migrants in equal measure. New forms of migration are similar to older ones in many ways, or have been developed out of these older trajectories. This is yet another reason why time plays an important role in affecting migratory development and an historical perspective helps in framing the interconnection between internal and transnational mobilities. Together with history, a broader interdisciplinary perspective constitutes a fruitful approach for understanding contemporary social transformations and the multiple connections between internal and transnational mobilities.