4

Anthropology

It is not our feet that move us along- it is our minds. (Ancient Chinese proverb)

Noel B. Salazar

Mobility captures the common impression that our lifeworld is in constant flux. It is also one of the preferred concept-metaphors for social descriptions of both Self and Other. Examples that are popular in anthropological theorizing include Walter Benjamin's "flaneur," Michel de Certeau's "pedestrian," Edward Said's "exile" (forced migrant), and Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's "nomad." Anthropologists are mostly involved in unraveling the multiple meanings attached to various forms of movement, both for individuals and societies at large. The current interest in mobilities goes hand in hand with theoretical approaches that reject a "sedentarist metaphysics" (Malkki, 1992), questioning earlier taken-for-granted correspond­ences between peoples, places, and cultures, as well as critiquing "methodological national­ism" (Wimmer and Glick Schiller, 2003).

Anthropology's quest to dismantle concepts and theories that presume unitary cultures in fixed places has been important to both Marxian political economists (Wolf, 1982) and post­modernists (Gupta and Ferguson, 1997; Hannerz, 1996). Some scholars, however, have con­flated the excitement of so-calle:d "post-local" approaches and that of perceived new global developments, weakening the case for each. If older theoretical frameworks were unable to handle interconnection and mobility, this is a problem with the theories, not the mirror of an evolutionary global change. Anthropologists have also questioned the nature of mobility itself because "neglecting the practices that create the objects and processes of mobility leads analysts to miss alternative constructions that seriously challenge neat and teleological narra­tives of globalization" (Maurer, 2000, p. 688).

As the study of humanity (in all its diversity) remains the core business of the anthropol­ogists, this chapter focuses on the wide range of anthropological scholarship on human mobilities. I briefly sketch the genealogy of conceptualizations of mobility and mobile meth­ods in anthropology. Over the years, anthropologists have studied the most diverse forms of (im)mobility around the world and this is not an exhaustive review of all that work. Rather, I zoom in on key epistemological and methodological issues within social and cultural anthropology that have important repercussions for mobility studies as a whole.

55

Noel B. Salazar

A short history

Ideas of mobility have a long history in anthropology. They are already present in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century transcultural diffusionism, which understood the movement of people, objects, and ideas as an essential aspect of cultural life. Franz Boas, diffusionist and one of the discipline's founding fathers in North America, conducted his first fieldwork in 1883-4 on migration as a cause of cultural change in the life of the Baffin Island Inuit in Canada. Around the same time in Europe, French structuralists developed notions of movement more fully in their theorizing of exchange. Marcel Mauss, for instance, related the seasonal mobility of Inuit (to stay with the example) to their moral and religious life. Bronislaw Malinowski, a founding father in Europe, is credited for moving the discipline beyond armchair philosophizing and putting notions of migrancy at the heart of ethnographic practice (Wilding, 2007). Malinowski became famous for his 1915-16 field­work on the kula trading cycle of the Trobriand (now Kiriwina) Islands, which can be read as an early account of the interrelationships between diasporic people, objects, and mobility (Hage, 2005).

The mainstream study of colonized non-Western societies, however, was mostly based on models of homogeneity and continuity, reflecting colonial administrative policies and struc­tures. Sedentarism, which stresses bounded places as the basis of human experience, was deeply embedded in British structural-functional anthropology (e.g. the work of Edward Evans-Pritchard and Alfred Radcliffe-Brown). The ethnographic descriptions oflife in New Guinea by Margaret Mead in the late 1920s are also largely portraits of discrete and timeless cultures, unaffected by the outside world until the advent of the West (Brettell, 2003, p. ix). These and other classical monographs mostly confined their analyses of mobility to the areas of kinship (marriage mobility), politics (structure of nomadic peoples), and religion (pilgrimage).

As Tsing states, this classical type of anthropology constituted cultures "as essentially immobile or as possessing a mobility that is cyclical and repetitive .. . Those with culture are expected to have a regular, delimited occupation of territory. If they move, they must do so cyclically, like transhumant pastoralists or kula-ring sailors" (1993, p. 123). Indeed, mobility was too often limited to being a defining characteristic of groups such as hunter-gatherers or traveler-gypsies. It was used as a concept describing physical or abstract movement, not as something implying in and of itself social or cultural change (Farnell, 1999). As always, there were exceptions to the rule. For the Manchester School (and its Rhodes-Livingstone Institute in what is now Zambia), for example, labor migration was an important and recurring theme of research. Importantly, these scholars documented the long pre-colonial urban tradition in some African regions linked to trade and movement. Even here, though, the study of mobility remained subsumed under broad concepts such as class, social structure, kinship, or geo­graphic space.

In the 1960s, Victor Turner started studying the symbolic aspects of mobility in life (particularly rites of passage). There is a remarkable parallel between his studies of pilgrimage and more recent concerns with the geography and sociality of mobility (Basu and Coleman, 2008). Marc Auge's (1995) "non-places," where people pass through while traveling, are strikingly similar to Turner's (1967, pp. 93-111) liminal "as if'' stage in rituals, when people are "betwixt and between." This work left its mark on migration studies, where transna­tional migrants are frequently represented as liminal, and temporary migration in certain contexts has been interpreted as an almost mandatory rite of passage. In addition, the earlier (but related) anthropological work on threshold rites by Arnold van Gennep is being recycled

56

---------------- ·-·- ------

Anthropology

these days to understand the dynamics of transnational borders. In the 1970s and 1980s, scholars such as Eric Wolf (1982) were instrumental in demonstrating that non-Europeans had always been deeply implicated in border-crossing mobilities (e.g. slave trades).

While classical anthropology tended to ignore or regard border-crossing movements as deviations from normative place-bound communities, cultural homogeneity, and social inte­gration, discourses of globalization and cosmopolitanism (that became dominant after the end of the Cold War) shifted the pendulum in the opposite direction. In the 1990s, globalization -largely theorized in terms of trans-border "flows"- was often being promoted as normality, and too much place attachment a digression or resistance against globalizing forces. Mobility became predominantly a characteristic of the modern globalized world. This led to a new focus on transnational mobilities that deterritorialize identity. Arjun Appa­durai's (1996) provoking notion of"ethnoscapes," for instance, privileges mobile groups and individuals, such as immigrants, exiles, tourists, and guest workers. As Aihwa Ong explains, "Trans denotes both moving through space or across lines, as well as changing the nature of something" (1999, p. 4).

By the turn of the millennium, there were already serious cracks in the master narrative of unfettered mobility, which accompanied the discourse of the benefits and necessity of (economic) globalization. According to Engseng Ho, who studied the movement of an old diaspora across the Indian Ocean over the past five hundred years, "the new anthropol­ogy of mobility has reintroduced a teleology of progress that had previously been derided and, so it seemed, discarded ... Yet societies, cultures, and religions have been mobile for a long time" (2006, p. 10). The language of mobilities has inadvertently distracted attention from how the fluidity of markets shapes flexibility in modes of control. Especially since 9/11, barriers to border-crossing movements have increased dramatically, accompanied by the counter-narrative of securitization. In fact, critically engaged anthropologists were among the first to point out that modern forms of mobility need not signify privilege (Amit, 2007). Not all mobilities are valued equally positively and the very processes that produce global movements also result in immobility and exclusion (Cunningham and Heyman, 2004; Salazar and Smart, 2011).

Methodology and epistemology

From Malinowski's pioneering fieldwork onward, the notion of ethnographers as itinerant and "going somewhere"- traditionally from the West to non-Western cultures- has been reinforced and reproduced, a; has been the notion of"being there" (in a fixed place), even if only for a short period of time (hereby reasserting the implicit connection between culture and place). Although the whole history of ethnography is intertwined with (technologies of) travel, Claude Levi-Strauss (1961 (1955)) famously argued this has no place in the work of anthropologists; travel merely serves as a method to gather the necessary ethnographic mate­rial. James Clifford (1997), however, advocates traveling as a way of doing ethnography and argues that anthropologists need to leave behind their preoccupation with discovering the "roots" of socio-cultural forms and identities and instead trace the "routes" that (re)produce them. Malinowksi 's work on the kula ring, for instance, illustrates how in Melanesia people move through the places (i.e. things) that they cause to travel (Strathern, 1991, p. 117).

I concur with Jo Vergunst that "ethnography is an excellent way to get at important aspects of human movement, especially in relating its experiential and sensory qualities to social and environmental contexts" (2011, p. 203). Observational and participative modes of fieldwork through places constitute insightful ways to investigate mobility. Focusing on

57

Noel B. Salazar

movement as a way of understanding social spaces offers a means to get beyond biases inherent in the social science of space (Kirby, 2009). The development of field diaries and monographs, with subtle differences from the genre of travel writing, has been an interesting way to narrate physical as well as cultural mobility undertaken by anthropologists in search for otherness. Some ethnographies have even been written in a style "borrowed" from the cultural practices of the mobile people under study (e.g. Rethmann, 2001).

Ethnographers have always been concerned with the movements of their informants. As Marianne Lien (2003) points out, anthropologists' unease in relation to rapidly changing global connectivities clearly may be understood as a result of the way their discipline has traditionally delineated its object of study in time (synchronic studies, ethnographic present) and in space (a community, a small-scale society): a science which builds its epistemology on immersing oneself in a single place (over a period of a year or more) is hardly well-suited for dealing with transnational connectivities and flows. Epistemologies that treat society as a given, a contained entity, have problems explaining the increased interconnectedness of objects and subjects (Robbins and Bamford, 1997). David Coplan (2001), for example, focuses on rural (rather than urban) contexts of the cultures of mobility that accrue with migrancy in South Africa, using his empirical data to show that as much passes for custom and practice "on the road" than "in the village/homelands" (cf. Masquelier, 2002). There is also anthro­pological research on how (im)mobility impacts on people's identities (Mathers, 2010; Salazar, 2010a) or even creates new ones (D'Andrea, 2007).

The single-sited methodology, its sensibility, and epistemological presuppositions are felt by many to no longer be adequate for examining the realities of an increasingly mobile, shifting, and interconnected world (Ong, 1999). This explains the popularity of"multi-sited ethnography" (Marcus, 1998). According to George Marcus (1998), multi-sited ethnogra­phies may focus on persons, things, metaphors, stories, allegories, or biographies. Tsing, for instance, abandons the fixed locale of the village to follow her informants, whose communi­ties can be understood only "within the context of ... mobility - from daily visits to annual field movements to long-term trajectories across the landscape" (1993, p. 124). However, as Matei Candea rightly points out, traditional ethnography also "gave rise in practice to works which were as mobile and, in some senses, 'multi-sited' as the Argonauts of the Western Pacific or those arising from the Manchester School's 'extended case method"' (2007, pp. 169-170).

Susan Frohlick (2006) has challenged notions of multi-sited methodology as a matter of systematically following the circulation of people, objects, or practices within globalized worlds. Rather than her simply following mobile informants, the latter follow (or bump into) her in contexts away from her conventional field, leading her to develop very new under­standings of them. Lien (2003) suggests a complementary approach to the field based on multi-temporality. Instead of juxtaposing field-sites that differ in space, she juxtaposes the configurations of a single field-site as it differs over time. Indeed, mobility has spatial! geographic, temporal/local, and historical as well as symbolic features (Long, 2000). Michaela Benson (2011) revisits the centrality of mobility in fieldwork methodologies used to investi­gate mobile formations. She proposes a multi-faceted approach that embraces innovative thinking and flexible ways ofbuilding rapport with the subjects by engaging in mutual forms of everyday-life mobilities. Informed by the inductive tradition that constitutes the research canon in anthropology, Benson argues that alternative fieldwork strategies for mobilities studies, while sensitive to mobility, must not be determined or bound by it as an a priori category.

In his "anthropology of movement," Alain Tarrius (2000) proposes a "methodological paradigm of mobility" articulated around the space-time-identity triad, along with four

58

Anthropology

distinct levels of space-time relations, indicating the circulatory process of migratory move­ments whereby spatial mobility is linked to other types of mobility (informational, cognitive, technological, and economic). What he describes as "circulatory territories" are new spaces of movement that "encompass the networks defined by the mobility of populations whose status derives from their circulation know-how" (Tarrius, 2000, p. 124). This notion indicates that geographical movement is always invested with social meaning. Discussing the concept of social navigation, Henrik Vigh nicely illustrates the analytical advantages of mobility-related concept-metaphors. As both process and practice, social navigation "joins two separate social scientific perspectives on movement, that is, the movement and change of social formations and societies, and the movement and practice of agents within social formations" (Vigh, 2009, p. 426). Such an approach reveals that social environments are not as solid as they are often presented as being and that this influences the way people move

within them. The use of mobile technologies, especially for recording, is well established in anthropol­

ogy. In the 1950s, for instance, the portable film camera reshaped ethnography's ongoing investigation and recording of exotic peoples (e.g. the influential work of Jean Rouch). Film can approach the mobility of ordinary movement and provide a way of creating ethno­graphic data collaboratively. Anthropological methods in general have had a significant impact on mobility studies (D'Andrea, Ciolfi, and Gray, 2011). While direct participation in analyzing mobile practices is not at all new in anthropological research, what emerges in the more recent scholarship on mobilities is a concern with mobility as an assemblage of phe­nomena of its own kind, requiring specific methodologies and conceptual frameworks. Despite the long tradition, "the impact of movement (and motility) upon a researcher's own research remains largely unproblematized at the level of analytical representation" (D'Andrea, et al., 2011, P: 154).

Anthropology has a long-established tradition of research on (semi-)nomadic people, and the latest research includes the use of GPS and other mobile technologies (Aporta and Higgs, 2005). Even this traditional field of study contributes to a more general understanding of mobility. Take, for example, the work ofJoachim Habeck, who proposes to shift the perspec­tive from the potential of movement (also called motility) to mobility "acted out" in order to "obtain more nuanced insights into how nomads and transhumant herders see the world that surrounds them and how they interact with the surroundings while doing their work" (Habeck, 2006, p. 138). There is some excellent ethnographic work on everyday mobile practices (Wolch and Rowe, 1992} and the actual processes of movement rather than the systems of mobility Om.i'rnal for the Anthropological Study of Human Movement (http:// jashm.press.illinois.edu); Ingold and Vergunst, 2008). Tim Ingold, for instance, has not only written extensively on the comparative anthropology of hunter-gatherer and pastoral socie­ties, but also offers a more grounded approach to human movement, sensitive to embodied skills offootwork (Ingold, 2004). Mobility infrastructure is more and more seen not as "non­places" (Auge, 1995), but as "the ideal place where an anthropologist can perceive, study, and even touch the various dynamic transnational and fluid sociocultural formations, literally in the making, from both below and above, and on the move" (Dalakoglou, 2010, p. 146).

Borders and boundaries

The movement of people may, and often does, create or reinforce difference and inequality, as well as blend or erase such differences (Salazar, 2010a). Despite the overly general celebra­tion and romanticization, the ability to move is spread very unevenly within countries and

59

---

Noel B. Salazar

across the planet. This presents a serious cnticism to the overgeneralized discourse assumes "without any research to support it that the whole world is on the move, or at that never have so many people, things and so on been moving across international hr.r,.,••r<·

(Friedman, 2002, p. 33). Border-crossing mobilities as a form of human experience are the exception rather than the norm. Even the incessant socio-cultural mobility that is seen these days as characteristic of contemporary life is only one part of the story l'-"""·•uoo:•

and Nyamnjoh, 2000). For the very processes that produce movement and global .... , ... 1;-.o1

also promote immobility, exclusion, and disconnection. The boundaries people are with in mobility can also be related to social class, gender, age, lifestyle, ethnicity, ""'·'v'""'-

1

ity, and disability (all of which have been addressed by anthropological research in some way or another).

In anthropology there is a persistent tension between structural, political-economy views and a postmodern attention to hybridity and cultural creativity along borders (Alvarez, 1995; Bruner, 2005). Although there often is a contradiction between the expectation of mobility and barriers in front of it (Nyiri, 2010), mobilities and borders are not antithetical. As Brenda Chalfin reminds us, "This is not a world without borders but a world in which all borders operate according to uniform terms that make mobility their priority" (2008, p. 525). Historically borders have been mobile and, as they move, people's previous daily connections suddenly become cross-border mobility. Actually, the first stages of the industrial revolution were marked by states trying to contain their labor within borders. As more people begin to move, states attempt to maintain authority over the interpretation of their movement (Nyiri, 2010).

Consideration of these themes focuses attention on the political-economic processes by which people are bounded, emplaced, and allowed or forced to move (Cunningham and Heyman, 2004; De Genova and Peutz, 2010). Such studies show how mobility is materially grounded. The physical movement of people entails not only a measure of economic, social, and cultural mobility, but also a corresponding evolution of institutions and well-determined "circuits of human mobility" (Lindquist, 2009, p. 7). Importantly, the substance of such cir­cuits is "the movement of people (and money, goods, and news, but primarily people) as well as the relative immobility of people who do not travel the circuit" (Rockefeller, 2010, p. 222). To assess the extent or nature of movement, or, indeed, even "observe" it sometimes, one needs to spend a lot of time studying things that stand still (or change at a much slower pace).

The future is mobile

Mobilities research directs new questions towards traditional anthropological topics. People are moving all the time, but not all movements are equally meaningful and life-shaping (for both those who move and those who stay put). Mobility gains meaning through its embed­dedness within societies, culture, politics, and histories (which are themselves, to a certain extent, mobile). Alongside gender, class, race, ethnicity, age, nationality, language, religion, lifestyle, disability, and geopolitical groupings, mobility has become a key difference- and otherness-producing machine, involving significant inequalities of speed, risk, rights, and status, with both mobile and immobile people being engaged in the construction of complex politics of location and movement (Salazar and Smart, 2011). The question is not so much about the overall rise or decline of mobility, but how various mobilities are formed, regulated, and distributed across the globe, and how the formation, regulation, and distribution of these mobilities are shaped and patterned by existing social, political, and economic structures.

60

Anthropology

Mobility studies urgently needs "methodological tools and paradigms which can respond

to modern systems of mobility but do not in themselves necessarily reify such systems"

(Vergunst, 2011, p. 204). Indeed, the cultural assumptions, meanings, and values attached to

(im)mobility need to be empirically problematized rather than assumed (Lubkemann, 2008;

Salazar, 2010b). Contemporary anthropology is well-equipped to challenge the (Western)

assumptions embedded within much mobility studies. Anthropology's liminal positioning is

well-attuned to the complex and rapidly changing world in which we live. Founding fathers

such as Boas and Malinowski already showed how this in-betweenness, with constant

methodological and theoretical boundary crossings, offers a fruitful level of grounded ethno­

graphic analysis. Anthropologists should therefore engage more actively in the current

debate by detailing how human (im)mobility is a contested ideological construct involving

much more than mere physical movement.

References

Alvarez, R. R . (1995). "The Mexican-US border: The making of an anthropology ofborderlands." Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 447-470.

Amit, V. (ed.) (2007). Goingfirst class? New approaches to privileged travel and movement. Oxford: Berghahn. Aporta, C . and Higgs, E. (2005). "Satellite culture: Global positioning systems, Inuit way finding, and

the need for a new account of technology." Current Anthropology, 46(5), 729-753. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cr~ltural dimensions of globaliz ation. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press. Auge, M. (1995). Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of st~permodernity Q. Howe, trans.). London:

Verso. Basu, P. and Coleman, S. (2008). "Migrant worlds, material cultures." Mobilities, 3(3), 313-330. Benson, M. (2011). "The movement beyond (lifestyle) migration: Mobile practices and the constitution

of a better way oflife." Mobilities, 6(2), 221-235. Brettell, C . (2003). Anthropology and migration: Essays on transnationalism, etlmicity, and identity. Walnut

Creek: AltaMira. Bruner, E . M. (2005). Culture on tollr: Ethnographies of travel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Candea, M. (2007). "Arbitrary locations: In defence of the bounded field-site." journal of the Royal

Anthropological Institute, 13(1), 167-184. Chalfin, B. (2008). "Sovereigns and citizens in close encounter: Airport anthropology and customs

regimes in neoliberal Ghana." American Ethnologist, 35(4), 519-538. Clifford, ]. (1997). Routes: Travel and translation in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press. Coplan, D. B. (2001). "You have left me wandering about: Basotho women and the culture of

mobility." In D. L. Hodgsen and S. A. McCurdy (eds), "Wicked" women and the reconfiguration of gender in Africa (188-211). Exeter: Heinemann.

Cunningham, H . and Heyman,]. (2004). "Introduction: Mobilities and enclosures at borders." Identi­ties: Global Studies in Cultrm and Power, 11(3), 289-302.

Dalakoglou, D. (2010). "The road: An ethnography of the Albanian-Greek cross-border motorway." American Ethnologist, 37(1), 132-149.

D'Andrea, A. (2007). Global nomads: Techno and New Age as transnational counterwltures in Ibiza and Goa. London: Routledge.

D 'Andrea, A., Ciolfi, L. and Gray, B. (2011) . "Methodological challenges and innovations in mobilities research." Mobilities, 6(2), 149-160.

De Genova, N . and Peutz, N. M. (eds) (2010). The deportation regime: Sovereignty, space, and the freedom of movement. Durham: Duke University Press.

Farnell, B. (1999). "Moving bodies, acting selves." Annrwl Review of Anthropology, 28, 341-373. Friedman,]. (2002). "From roots to routes: Tropes for trippers." Anthropological Theory, 2(1), 21-36. Frohlick, S. (2006). "Rendering and gendering mobile subjects: Placing ourselves between local eth-

nography and global worlds." InS. Coleman and P. Collins (eds), Locating the field: Space, place and context in anthropology (87-104). Oxford: Berg.

61

Noel B. Salazar

Geschiere, P. and Nyamnjoh, F. (2000). "Capitalism and autochthony: The seesaw of mobility and belonging." Public Culture, 12(2), 423-452.

Gupta, A. and Ferguson,]. (eds) (1997). Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds cif a field science. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Habeck,]. 0. (2006). "Experience, movement and mobility: Komi reindeer herders' perception of the environment." Nomadic Peoples, 10(2), 123-141.

Hage, G. (2005). "A not so multi-sited ethnography of a not so imagined community." Anthropological Theory, 5(4), 463-475.

Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. New York: Routledge. Ho, E. (2006). The graves of Tarim: Genealogy and mobility across the Indian Ocean. Berkeley: University of

California Press. Ingold, T. (2004). "Culture on the ground: The world perceived through the feet." journal of Material

Culture, 9(3), 315-340. Ingold, T. and Vergunst,]. L. (eds) (2008). Ways cif walking: Ethnography and practice on foot. Aldershot:

Ashgate. Kirby, P. W. (ed.) (2009). Boundless worlds: An anthropological approach to mo~ement. New York: Berghahn

Books. Levi-Strauss, C. (1961 (1955)). Tristes tropiques U. Russell, trans.). New York: Criterion Books. Lien, M . E. (2003). "Shilling boundaries of a coastal community: Tracing changes on the margin."

InT. H. Eriksen (ed.), Globalisation: Str1dies in anthropology (vi, 236). London: Pluto Press. Lindquist, J. A. (2009). The anxieties cif mobility: Migration and tourism in the Indonesian borderlands.

Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press. Long, L. (2000). "Towards an anthropology of mobility." In E. Gozdziak and D. Shandy (eds), Rethink­

ing rifugees and displacement: Selected papers on rifugees and immigrants (3, 322-342). Arlington: The American Anthropological Association.

Lubkemann, S. C. (2008). "Involuntary immobility: On a theoretical invisibility in forced migration studies." journal cif Rifugee Studies, 21(4), 454-475. .

Malkki, L. H. (1992). "National Geographic: The rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees." Culwral Anthropology, 7(1), 24-44.

Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Masquelier, A. (2002). "Road mythographies: Space, mobility, and the historical imagination in post­

colonial Niger." American Ethnologist, 29(4), 829-856. Mathers, K. F. (2010). Travel, humanitarianism, and becoming American in Africa. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan. Maurer, B. (2000). "A fish story: Rethinking globalization on Virgin Gorda, British Virgin Islands."

American Ethnologist, 27(3), 670-701. Nyiri, P. (2010). Mobility and cultural authority in contemporary China. Seattle: University ofWashington

Press. Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics cif transnationality. Durham: Duke University Press. Rethmann, P. (2001). 7imdra Passages: History and gender in the Russian Far East. University Park: Penn­

sylvania State University Press. Robbins,]. and Bamford, S. (eds) (1997). Fieldwork revisited: Clwnging contexts cif etlznographic practice in the

era cif globalization. Theme issue, Anthropology and Humanism, 22(1). Rockefeller, S. A. (2010). Starting from Quirpini: The travels and places cif a Bolivian people. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press. Salazar, N. B. (2010a). Envisioning Eden: Mobilizing imaginaries in tourism and beyond. Oxford: Berghahn. Salazar, N. B. (2010b). "Towards an anthropology of cultural mobilities." Crossings: jor1rnal of Migration

and Cultrm, 1(1), 53-68. Salazar, N. B. and Smart, A. (eds) (2011). Anthropological takes on (im)mobility. Theme issue, Identities:

Global Studies in Culture and Power, 18(6). Strathern, M. (1991). Partial connections. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield. Tarrius, A. (2000). Les Nor1veaux cosmopolitismes: Mobilites, identites, territoires. Paris: Editions de I 'Aube. Tsing, A. L. (1993). In the realm cif the diamond queen: Marginality in an out-of-the-way place. Princeton:

Princeton University Press. Turner, V. W. (1967). The forest cif symbols. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Vergunst, J. (2011). "Technology and technique in a useful ethnography of movement." Mobilities, 6(2),

203-219.

62

Anthropology

Vigh, H . (2009). "Motion squared: A second look at the concept of social navigation." Anthropological Theory, 9(4), 419-438.

Wilding, R . (2007). "Transnational ethnographies and anthropological imaginings of migrancy." Journal ofEtlmic and Migration Studies, 33(2}, 331-348.

Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller, N. (2003). "Methodological nationalism, the social sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology." International Migration Review, 37(7), 576-610.

Wolch,]. R. and Rowe, S. (1992). "On the streets: Mobility paths of the urban homeless." City & Society, 6(2), 115-140.

Wolf, E. R . (1982). Europe and the people without history. Berkeley: University of California Press.

63