Mobility and the Middle Kingdom

K. Cohen Tan

doi:10.1007/978-981-19-0124-9_11

Mobility and the Middle Kingdom

K. Cohen Tan

Research output: Chapter in Book/Conference proceeding › Book Chapter › peer-review

Abstract

This article looks at the difference between global digital nomadism as a disruptive form of mobile sociality within the space of flows and Chinese lifestyle migration as a sedentarist form of lifestyle mobility. Mobile sociality is understood as the ability to remain connected with home despite being on the move while lifestyle mobility is understood as the need to make and unmake homes while on the move. The use of mobilities paradigm as a theoretical lens demonstrates the fundamental difference between the two lies in their orientation towards territority as a homing desire. The article concludes that Chinese lifestyle mobility has yet to achieve the mobile sociality of global digital nomads, despite both being equally imbricated within the state of constant connectivity.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Palgrave Series in Asia and Pacific Studies
Publisher	Springer
Pages	291-310
Number of pages	20
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0124-9_11
Publication status	Published - 2022

Publication series

Name	Palgrave Series in Asia and Pacific Studies
ISSN (Print)	2662-7922
ISSN (Electronic)	2662-7930

Keywords

China
Constant connectivity
Digital nomad
Lifestyle mobility
Mobile sociality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Development
Sociology and Political Science
Political Science and International Relations

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1007/978-981-19-0124-9_11

Cite this

@inbook{578879cceb1347529b1a01236f27336e,

title = "Mobility and the Middle Kingdom",

abstract = "This article looks at the difference between global digital nomadism as a disruptive form of mobile sociality within the space of flows and Chinese lifestyle migration as a sedentarist form of lifestyle mobility. Mobile sociality is understood as the ability to remain connected with home despite being on the move while lifestyle mobility is understood as the need to make and unmake homes while on the move. The use of mobilities paradigm as a theoretical lens demonstrates the fundamental difference between the two lies in their orientation towards territority as a homing desire. The article concludes that Chinese lifestyle mobility has yet to achieve the mobile sociality of global digital nomads, despite both being equally imbricated within the state of constant connectivity.",

keywords = "China, Constant connectivity, Digital nomad, Lifestyle mobility, Mobile sociality",

author = "Tan, {K. Cohen}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s).",

year = "2022",

doi = "10.1007/978-981-19-0124-9_11",

language = "English",

series = "Palgrave Series in Asia and Pacific Studies",

publisher = "Springer",

pages = "291--310",

booktitle = "Palgrave Series in Asia and Pacific Studies",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Mobility and the Middle Kingdom

AU - Tan, K. Cohen

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - This article looks at the difference between global digital nomadism as a disruptive form of mobile sociality within the space of flows and Chinese lifestyle migration as a sedentarist form of lifestyle mobility. Mobile sociality is understood as the ability to remain connected with home despite being on the move while lifestyle mobility is understood as the need to make and unmake homes while on the move. The use of mobilities paradigm as a theoretical lens demonstrates the fundamental difference between the two lies in their orientation towards territority as a homing desire. The article concludes that Chinese lifestyle mobility has yet to achieve the mobile sociality of global digital nomads, despite both being equally imbricated within the state of constant connectivity.

AB - This article looks at the difference between global digital nomadism as a disruptive form of mobile sociality within the space of flows and Chinese lifestyle migration as a sedentarist form of lifestyle mobility. Mobile sociality is understood as the ability to remain connected with home despite being on the move while lifestyle mobility is understood as the need to make and unmake homes while on the move. The use of mobilities paradigm as a theoretical lens demonstrates the fundamental difference between the two lies in their orientation towards territority as a homing desire. The article concludes that Chinese lifestyle mobility has yet to achieve the mobile sociality of global digital nomads, despite both being equally imbricated within the state of constant connectivity.

KW - China

KW - Constant connectivity

KW - Digital nomad

KW - Lifestyle mobility

KW - Mobile sociality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132379635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-981-19-0124-9_11

DO - 10.1007/978-981-19-0124-9_11

M3 - Book Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85132379635

T3 - Palgrave Series in Asia and Pacific Studies

SP - 291

EP - 310

BT - Palgrave Series in Asia and Pacific Studies

PB - Springer

ER -

Mobility and the Middle Kingdom

Abstract

Publication series

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this