Describing "Staging Mobilities"

My current research project on Aalborg’s Route 100 is largely inspired by the framework established by Ole B. Jensen’s Staging Mobilities model. Rather than directly adopting this theoretical model, however, the research team selected to adapt and reconstruct this analytical approach. This choice was made as the Staging Mobilities model was created as an applicable framework with which to investigate the ‘situational mobilities’ of any given place or mobility experience. As this project aims to research and evaluate a specific mobilities project, the research team took the opportunity to develop a model precisely fitted to the materials and information the available on Route 100.

The reason for designing a new research framework was primarily an educational exercise for the research team. Engaging in the adaptation of Jensen’s framework required the research team to both develop a thorough understanding of the existing theoretical model as well as earnestly plan out the analysis of Route 100.

The new framework is tentatively titled the Linear Mobilities model, as it has been designed for application to a path, as opposed to a nodal or site-specific mobility project. Each part of the new framework is directly based on the components of the original Staging Mobilities model, with certain aspects receiving more attention and specificity.

In this blogpost, I will explore and describe the Staging Mobilities model. The following post, I will introduce and explain the Linear Mobilities model created for this current research project.

STAGING MOBILITIES FRAMEWORK

A fundamental notion of the Staging Mobilities framework and the publication by the same name is that “mobility is more than movement between points A and B.” (Jensen 2013:3) As Jensen writes, “mobilities do not ‘just happen’ or simply ‘take place’.” (Jensen 2013:5) This assertion is based on the idea that the movement people in a given setting cannot simply be though of as people moving from place to place. Rather, the movement of an individual person can be an experience rich with intentional practices, unintentional interactions, and myriad possible purposes. Jensen suggests that these movements and experiences are ‘staged’ by how people individually and collectively use the physical setting as well as how the governing body designs and plans a given space or mobility system.

The three central components of the Staging Mobilities framework, which are described below, are:

A. Physical Settings, Material Spaces, and Design

B. Social Interactions

C. Embodied Performances

In addition to these primary components, the framework describes the ‘mobilities situation’ by also considering the influences to the entire model ‘from above’ and ‘from below’. The last portion of the model is the ‘mobilities in situ’, which is placed in the center for the model and symbolizes the circumstances, experiences and conditions of the ‘mobilities situation’ created by all of the model’s components working in concert.

(11/09/2013 | Staging Mobilities Model | Credit: Ole B. Jensen)

Physical Settings, Material Spaces, and Design

This piece of the model recognizes both the tangible and intangible elements of physical settings concerning mobility. Using the vocabulary developed by Kevin Lynch, the path is the principle element in the mobile setting. The path may be though of as the tangible roadways and pathways, public and private transportation systems, bus stops and station areas, signage or street furniture, or even sewer lines and internet connectivity. It is along these physical infrastructural systems and transportation hubs that people congregate. (Jensen 2013:36) Although people are in transit, the intangible socio-cultural elements related to how, why, and when the physical setting is used. (Jensen 2013:39) The motions and practices people engage in are as important in creating the physical setting as the stationary structures, materiality, and design of the environment. (Lynch 1960:2)

Social Interactions

Subscribing to the notion that human beings are a part of the physical setting necessitates a consideration for how different individuals in a space interact with one another. Just as one must navigate around the fixed infrastructure in place, even the most cursory of movements might need to be adjusted to accommodate the presence of other human beings. Building on the theories of Erving Goffman, the Staging Mobilities framework develops the concept of the ‘mobile with’ to describe the other individuals or groups of individuals with whom one must share a given space with, for a brief or extended period of time.  (Jensen 2013:51; Goffman 1972:19) When riding a bicycle, for example, one’s ‘mobile with’ might be the other riders using the same path or drivers in cars adjacent to the bicycle lane. (Jensen 2013:54)

Under many circumstances, the individuals may not directly interact with one another but Goffman suggests that they engage in ‘civil inattention’. This concept highlights that individuals tend to be acutely aware of the actions and movements of their ‘mobile with’, though staring and obvious focused attention is generally avoided. (Jensen 2013:52; Goffman 1963:84) This ‘civil inattention’ is not an expression of voyeurism. Rather it is a means of enabling a safer co-presence and practical negotiation of the shared setting. How this negotiation takes place and the level to which individuals interact with their ‘mobile withs’ is quite dependent on the cultural frames and the traffic laws and social codes that govern the physical setting. (Jensen 2013:56) Proximity is also an important determinant of how and if interactions take place. Generally speaking, physical proximity affords the highest potential for communication and a greatest degree interaction. Networked technologies, however, have altered this truth and people are now able to be in contact with other individuals across the world. Where digital connections are available through wireless internet or smartphone networks, the definition of one’s ‘mobile with’ is extended and the type of interactions had with people near and far to one another are transformed. (Jensen 2013:57)

Embodied Performances

Beyond appreciating the social interactions, the notion of embodied performances aims to epitomize the infinite movements, practices, and activities that might occur in a given setting. The work of James Gibson is a great use in discussing how people use, or perform, in the physical environment. How the physical environment is used and what activities occur in a given setting are a result of the ‘affordances’ that the individual perceives are possible. (Gibson 1986:127) The particular niche that an animal fills influences what the environment affords and how it is perceived, or what ‘set of affordances’ they possess. (Gibson 1986:128) Human beings enjoy the ability to modify landscapes and can therefore design their own ‘mobile affordances’. (Jensen 2013:63; Gibson 1986:129) The access to technological innovation and instruments has the power to enhance man’s ‘mobile affordances’, as perception of the environment is altered and a greater capacity to remake the mobile setting is afforded. (Jensen 2013:64-65; Ihde 1990:75)

People might engage in myriad and varied performances in the physical setting depending on their needs, cleverness, cultural frames, or resources at a given time. Generally speaking, these performances will take the form of walking, running, bicycling, driving, or as passengers of single occupancy vehicles or public transportation systems. (Jensen 2013:67-77) An individual’s choice to utilize any of these modes of transportation is a function not only of their personal ‘mobility affordances’, but also of their ‘mobility aesthetics’ and ‘mobile kinesthetic’.  In addition to the way in which the mind perceives the environment, the body also develops its own understanding for how to navigate, orientate, and physically move about in different ‘mobile situations’. (Jensen 2013:77-78) This embodied performance, this ‘mobilities choreography’, takes into consideration how individuals move their bodies in order to negotiate the physical setting along side their ‘mobile with’. (Jensen 2013:78)

Forces External to Model

In addition to the three components of the Staging Mobilities model, the framework acknowledges that forces external to the model are involved in the staging of all ‘mobile situations’. The inclusion of these external forces in the model is recognition of the fact that the physical setting, social interactions, and embodied performances are influenced by ‘from above’ as well as ‘from below’. While neither force is defined in explicit detail, a general discussion of each is explored throughout Jensen’s book. In study of Nytorv in Aalborg, Denmark, Jensen coins and utilizes the metaphors the ‘river’ and the ‘ballet’ to describe the ‘look down’ and ‘eye level’ perspectives of the site. (Jensen 2010:394) Very much analogous with the concept of ‘staging from above’, he suggests that the ‘river’ is the design of the space, the geography, and the facilities in the urban environment. (Jensen 2010:394) The term ‘ballet’ was first used by Jane Jacobs to describe the “seeming disorder” that users of the city sidewalk engage in every day. (Jacobs 1961:50) This complicated dance is comprised of the different tactics and interactions individuals choose to engage in order to traverse a given setting. (Jensen 2010:394-395; Jacobs 1961:50-54) As the ‘river’ can be related to ‘staging from above’, the notion of the ‘ballet’ can be paralleled with ‘staging from below’. (Jensen 2013:20)

Using the idea of ‘scenography’ as a metaphor, Jensen suggests that staging ‘from above’ is in line with the idea that scenes are planned and choreographed settings. (Jensen 2013:8) With this metaphor in mind, ‘from above’ refers to the controlled, planned, or programmatic elements of any ‘mobilities situation’. Staging ‘from above’ may take the form of local or national laws and economic regulations, site-specific and municipal planning documents, or design manuals and development codes. In practice, these types of administrative documents and policies dictate the implementation of infrastructure. This includes the determination of where and how pavement is installed, signage is placed, and connectivity is offered. (Jensen 2013:10) The ticketing systems and timetables created for public transportation service as well as the timing of traffic light cycles for along city streets are also very much ‘staged from above’. (Jensen 2013:102) Moreover, prescribed traffic rules and gestures that individuals must follow and employ in order to safely navigate traffic—such as the established hand signals bicyclists use to indicate their turning movements—are also be considered ‘staging from above’.

The notion of ‘staging from below’ is reflective of the various interactions and maneuvers that people in motion have and make use of as they navigate the physical setting. (Jensen 2013:9-10) ‘Staging from above’ aims to orchestrate the functions of the environment, but it is the practices and perceptions of individuals that determine how the infrastructure and facilities are used ‘from below’. (Jensen 2013:78) Regulations for roadway and station-area signage, for example, are intended to provide a coherent system that people can use to orientate themselves. It is individual’s interpretation of the semiotics, however, that determines the legibility of a space. (Jensen 2013:42) That said, regardless of how well an individual understands the environment, access to smartphones and other modern technologies can greatly reduce how much one must rely on their ability to read a particular setting. (Jensen 2013:128)

Beyond individual perception and access to technology, larger cultural frames strongly affect how people interact with the environment and their ‘mobile withs’. (Jensen 2013:130) The fashion with which individuals employ the prescribed signaling gestures or whether passengers boarding public transportation yield to alighting passengers largely depends on the social norms practiced by a given population in a given place. (Jensen 2013:102) Likewise, what rules and infrastructural systems an administration puts in place is a result of the accepted and agreed upon approach to govern and manage the public landscape.

Jensen does not suggest whether ‘staging from above’ or ‘staging from below’ is more impactful to the Staging Mobilities model. That said, the text and visual representation of the framework implies that ‘staging from above’ most impacts the physical setting, and it is the ‘staging from below’ that has a greater significance to the social interactions and embodied performances that occur in the setting.

NOTE: In previous blogposts I have referred to this model, but have recently realized that my research partner and myself had a slight misunderstanding of the framework. I have referred to "embodied performers/users", under the misguided assumption that this component of the model was mean to describe the motions of people. Luckily, the exercise of describing Jensen's model for the purposes of creating our own new research framework resulted in my finding this error.

Coming Tomorrow…

Now that we have established a nuanced understanding of the Staging Mobilities model and have provided a detailed explanation of the framework…we are ready to describe and justify the new Linear Mobilities model that myself and my research partner have created. My next post will describe this model and connect it back to the components of Jensen's model. 

After this next post, I will return to my analysis of the results of the survey of Route 100 users that we deployed last year. As is the process of may research projects, the way that I am organizing this analysis has been redeveloped and updated according to our new, more informed research approach.

Bibliography

Gibson, J. J. (1986) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, New York: Psychology Press.
Goffman, E. (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organisation of Gatherings , New York:
The Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1972) Relations in Public. Micro Studies of the Public Order, New York: Harper & Row.
Ihde, D. (1990) Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Vintage Books.
Jensen, O. B. (2010) ‘Negotiation in Motion: Unpacking a Geography of Mobility’, Space and Culture , vol.
13 (4), pp. 389-402.
Jensen, O. B. (2013) Staging Mobilities, Abingdon and New York: Routledge. (Note: Page numbers indicated relate to a non-print-layout portable document format of the book, provided through a course at Aalborg University.)