552 Mobility Lauria-Perriceli, A. (1989). A study in historical and critical anthropology: The making of The People of Puerto Rico (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New School for Social Research, New York. Palmie, S. (2005). Ackee and saltfish vs. amala con quimbomb6: A note on Sidney Mintz' contribution to the historical anthropology of African American cultures. Journal de Ia Societe des Americanistes, 91 (2), 89- 122. Peace, W (2008 ). Columbia University and the Mundial Upheaval Society: A study in academic networking. In D. M. Wax (Ed. ), Anthropology at the dawn of the Cold War: The influence of foundations, McCarthyism, and the CIA {pp. 143-165). London, UK: Pluto Press. Scott, D. (2004). Modernity that predated the modern: Sidney Mintz's Caribbean. History Workshop Journal, 58, 191- 210. Silverman, S. (Ed.). (2 011 ). The Puerto Rico project: Reflections sixty years later. [Special issue, guest edited] . Global Studies in Culture and Power, 18(3). MOBILITY Mobility-a complex assemblage of movement, representation, and practice- appears self-evidently central to globalization, as a key process and as a fundamental metaphor capturing the common impression that our lifeworld is in constant flux. The current anthropological interest in human mobility, from daily home-to-work movements to more permanent transnational migration, goes hand in hand with theoretical approaches that question earlier taken-for-granted correspondences between peoples, places, and cultures. This follows the critique by James Clifford in the 1990s that anthropology needs to leave behind its preoccupation with discovering the "roots" of sociocultural forms and instead trace the "routes" that (re)produce them. Over the years, anthropologists have studied the most diverse forms of mobility across the globe. This entry examines key issues related to the concept of mobility that have repercussions for the discipline as a whole. Although anthropologists have been slow to react to the alleged "mobility turn" in the social sciences (as propagated by geographers and sociologists), ideas of mobility have a long history in anthropology. They are already present in transcultural diffusionism (Franz Boas) and in French theories of gift exchange systems (Marcel Mauss). Archaeological and (ethno)historical records show that humankind has always been characterized by movemeni and that certain groups were more mobile in the past than they are now. For a long time, however. mainstream anthropology mostly confined its analyses of boundary-crossing movements to the area of kinship (marriage mobility), politics (structure of nomadic peoples), and religion (pilgrimage). Moreover, mobility was often limited as a defining characteristic of groups such as hunter-gatherers or traveler gypsies. It was used as a concept describing physical or abstract motion, not as something implying in and of itself social or cultural change. While classical anthropology tended to ignore or regard boundary-crossing movements as deviations from normative place-bound communities, cultural homogeneity, and social integration, discourses of globalization and cosmopolitanism (which have become dominant since the end of the Cold War) shifted the pendulum in the opposite direction. In the 1990s, globalization- largely theorized in terms of transborder "flows"- was often being promoted as normality, and too much place attachment was seen as a local resistance against globalizing forces. Mobility became a predominant characteristic of anthropological analyses of the globalized world. This led to "multi-sited ethnography" (George Marcus), to capture the transnational flows that "deterritorialize identity" (Arjun Appadurai) and lead to "creolization" (Ulf Hannerz). By the turn of the millennium, however, there were already serious cracks in the discourse of unfettered mobility that accompanied the master narrative of the benefits and necessity of (economic) globalization. The overly optimistic language of mobility had inadvertently distracted attention from how the fluidity of markets shapes flexibility in modes of control (see the work of Anna Tsing and Aihwa Ong). The movement of people may, and often does, create or reinforce difference and inequality, as well as blending or erasing such differences (Nina Glick Schiller). Despite the overly general celebration and romanticization, the ability to move (and the freedom not to move) is spread unevenly within countries and across the planet. Border-crossing journeys as a form of human experience are the exception rather than the norm. Anthropologists were among the first to point out that the very processes that produce cross-border movements and global linkages also promote immobility, exclusion, and Modernism disconnection (see the work of Hilary Cunningham, Josiah Heyman, and James Ferguson). Stated differently, mobility and immobility always go together. The boundaries people face in mobility are related to factors such as social class, gender, age, lifestyle, ethnicity, nationality, and disability (all of which have been addressed by anthropological research in 50me way or the other). Geographical mobility is made meaningful by being linked with the accumulation of economic material resources), social (relational networks), or cultural (the embodied dispositions and competencies of cosmopolitanism) capital (Pierre Bourdieu}. Although there often is a contradiction between this dominant ideology of mobility and the barriers faced in trying to realize it, mobilities and boundaries are not antithetical. Physical borders, for instance, have themselves been historically mobile, and as they move, people's previous daily connections suddenly become cross-border mobility. The first stages of rhe Industrial Revolution were marked by states rrying to contain their labor within their borders. As more people began to move, states attempted to maintain authority over the sociocultural meaning at is attributed to these movements (Pal Nyiri). Consideration of the interconnectedness of mobili·es and moorings focuses research on the politicalonornic processes by which people are bounded, !IDplaced, and allowed or forced to move. Such a - us shows how mobility is materially grounded han Lindquist). To assess the extent or nature of vement, or, indeed, even observe it sometimes, e needs to spend a lot of time studying the things t stand still (or change at a much slower pace). Mobility research directs new questions toward ditional anthropological topics. Many earlier ceptualizations blinded scholars to the fact that bility is variable and multidimensional. People moving all the time, but not all movements are :-nally meaningful and life shaping (for both those move and those who stay put}. Mobility gains ·ng through its embeddedness within societculture, politics, and histories (which are them' to a certain extent, mobile). Alongside gender, race, ethnicity, age, nationality, language, ·on, lifestyle, disability, and geopolitical groupmobility has become a key difference- and ess-producing machine, involving significant lities of speed, risk, rights, and status, with mobile and immobile people being engaged in 55 3 the construction of complex politics of location and movement. The critical questions for an anthropology of (im) mobility are not so much about the overall rise or decline of mobility but about 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. The cultural assumptions, meanings, and values attached to (im)mobility need to be empirically problematized rather than assumed. Contemporary anthropology is well equipped to challenge the (Western) assumptions embedded within many interdisciplinary mobility studies. Founding fathers such as Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski, while missing the extent to which their own epistemological projects were predicated on their own mobility, showed how the liminal positioning of anthropologists among the humanities and social sciences, with constant methodological and theoretical boundary crossings, offers promise for a fruitful holistic and. grounded ethnographic analysis of the various forms of human mobility. Noel B. Salazar See also Appadurai, Arjun; Boas, Franz; Clifford, James; Globalization Theory; Marcus, George; Mauss, Marcel Further Readings Barnard, H., & Wendrich, W. (Eds.). (2008). The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism. Los Angeles: UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and translation in the late twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Salazar, N. B. (2010) . Towards an anthropology of cultural mobilities. Crossings: Journal of Migration and Culture, 1(1), 53-68. Salazar, N. B., & Smart, A. (Eds.). (2011). Anthropological takes on (im)mobility. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 18(5). MODERNISM Modernism can generally be defined as a broad movement or set of movements, primarily though