NATIONAL, GLOBAL AND COSMOPOLITAN CITIZENSHIP: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOTBALL

FANDOM ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

RENAN PETERSEN-WAGNER

DURHAM UNIVERSITY (UK)

PAPER PRESENTED AT THE USTINOV SEMINAR ON GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

USTINOV COLLEGE

DURHAM UNIVERSITY

OCTOBER 2013

Hello everyone, I would just like to start my presentation by quoting Sir Peter Ustinov on the

Pitfalls of Patriotism, where he says that: [the idea of] Virginity, then, is an illusion. All nations,

even in their essence, are amalgams, the result of primeval jostling of tribes for better bits of

territory, for water, for forests, for high places. The patriotic gleam in the eye is the result of an

abstract concept, the fulfilling of some sort of human need by fantasy and make-believe

The paper I will present a paper today relates to my current doctoral research here at Durham

University, within the School of Applied Social Sciences, that looks broadly at the globalisation

of football fandom, or as I prefer, the cosmopolitanisation of football fandom. Later on on the

presentation I will explain what I mean by cosmopolitanisation and its differences to the concept of

globalisation, and also what I mean by football fandom. The title of todays presentation following

the theme of our seminar, and as mentioned before by the chair is national, global and

cosmopolitan citizenship: A critical analysis of football fandom academic discourse. To give you

all a brief initial idea on what I am basing my overarching argument in this paper I would like to

quote Ulrich Beck when he mentions that global risks tear down national boundaries and jumble

together the native and the foreign. The distant other is becoming the inclusive other[1]. But are

these distant others really becoming the inclusive other? How these distant others were

conceptualised in the first place? How are they conceptualised now? Even assuming that global

risks, or mobility, or cosmopolitanisation or globalisation at large are tearing down the national

boundaries are we really embracing the other as an inclusive we? So the idea of this paper is to look

at the academic discourse, and what I mean by academic discourse here are papers, books,

monographs, publications in general that are widely available in the core area of the sociology of

sport, on football fandom and in special the way these scholars conceptualised the real or

authentic fan. The aim of the paper then would be to expose the hegemonic academic discourse so

it would allow us to move beyond this dichotomy between real and plastic fans, avoiding and

rejecting any claims of cultural superiority between different groups or types of fans. In this token,

I will continue this presentation in the following way: first I will introduce Ulrich Becks notion of

cosmopolitanisation [1-3] and will focus on his critique of sociologys methodological nationalism

[1, 2, 4, 5]; second I will discuss the idea of the modern nation-state [6, 7] and how it relates to

modern sport and particularly football; third I will briefly introduce Edward Saids notion of

orientalism [8-10] and his use of Michel Foucaults discourse theory [11] and Antonio Gramscis

hegemony theory [12]; finally I will discuss how the hegemonic academic discourse on football

fandom evolved from the early papers on hooliganism in the 1970s to the later ones focusing on

globalisation in the 2000s, dividing them into three phases, and from this how we can think

prospectively in ways to avoid any claims of cultural superiority without erasing particularities.

Arguably we are living in a different set of conditions to our modern and pre-modern counterparts

on what is broadly called as postmodernity or the period after modernity. Different social

researchers conceptualise this new period in different ways, sometimes calling as late capitalism

[13], disorganised capitalism [14], network society [15], mobile society [16, 17], or reflexive

modernity or second modernity as Ulrich Beck and his collaborators [18-21] do. While

postmodernist scholars tended to share a pessimistic and dystopian vision of the future as well as

nostalgic to a romantic idealised past, the idea behind Becks reflexive modernisation is of

ambivalence, where both dystopia and utopia coexist. This point of ambivalence, of a both/and

approach instead of an either/or one is pervasive in Becks theorisations, and reflects the idea of this

presentations title: to avoid a confrontation between an either national or global citizenship by

focusing in a cosmopolitan citizenship. I will come back to this point at the end of my presentation.

Nonetheless, scholars in both traditions share common interests in regard of what are the

characteristics of this new period, mostly by emphasising ideas of the compression of time and

space, and individualisation. These are in my view recurrent topics in recent discussions within

social theorisations. In a Beckian tradition [22], individualisation is not seem pessimistically but is

understood as a process that precariously allows individuals to bound together and socialise in

different ways than the traditional ones, specially the traditional nuclear family, class and

nationality. The compression of space and time can be regarded as a stronger emphasis on mobility

of people, goods and images as put by John Urry [16, 17], but it also means in a Beckian tradition

the idea of cosmopolitanisation. For Beck, globalisation should be understood as process that takes

place from outside, imposing a singular worldview on others, championing the idea of a single

world market and economy, or globalism [23]. On the other hand, cosmopolitanisation for Beck is a

process that takes place from within, multidimensionally in a way that both here and there coexist,

avoiding dualisms and accepting ambivalences as with the concepts of glocalisation from Roland

Robertson [24] and hybridisation from Nstor Canclini [25, 26]. These processes have changed the

way we experience our lives, and should also have changed the way social researchers theorise,

moving from a methodological nationalism point where dualisms exists and the traditional

categories are still operationalised, to a methodological cosmopolitanism that assumes

ambivalences and regards these traditional categories as being reflexive modernised. To put into a

nutshell, methodological nationalism takes for granted the nation-state and assumes that societies

are contained within the political borders of these nation-states [5].

One of these traditional categories that have a strong relationship with sport, and particularly

football, is of the modern nation-state. Thus, my focus would be on how the traditional nation-state

was conceptualised and how, as Beck [1, 2] puts, this concept blinded most of the sociological

theorisations so far to regard socialisation in an either national or global viewpoint. For instance,

Eric Hobsbawm [6, 7] conceptualises the invention of what we understand of being the modern

nation-state and modern nationalism in three different ages, being it the Age of Revolution

(1789-1848), the Age of Capital (1848-1875) and the Age of Empire (1875-1914). This final stage

in the invention of the modern nation-state and nationalism is of particular relevance, as it were at

the same period that not only sociology as a discipline but also football as a sport were

created [27]. The nation at that period stood for a strong conception of national self-determination

as the basis of an imperial nation-state, where at the same time it stood against the presence and

influence of aliens within the nation. Also, Hobsbawm [7] understands that nations in relation to the

world played a zero-sum game, where imperial competition between nation-states and an

increasing opposition between nationalism and internationalism (or cosmopolitanism) took place.

Here we can see the strong reliance on this either/or approach. If you think of how the modern

Olympic Games and also the football World Cup or any major sport international event are

organised in a way to foster these inter-national competitions, we can see the resemblance to what

nationalism stood for at that period. If that was the spillover on the invention of sport,

methodological nationalism was the one in the newly founded science of sociology. Sociology, as

early ethnology and anthropology, were designed to study different societies that coincided with

the pre-conceptualised political borders of these nation-states, and what these early studies tried to

prove were the differences between societies and the superiority of some over the others.

As mentioned in the beginning of my presentation, I am drawing from Edward Saids [8-10] notion

of orientalism to critically analyse the hegemonic discourse on football fandom. Said was interested

in understanding how the other, specially in his case the oriental, was portrayed by the occident.

Not only he approached the texts as a way of showing how these orientals were or behaved, but

specially he focused on how the oriental was made oriental in the first place. For Said, early

orientalists sought to create an image of difference between the orientals under study and westerner

studying them. The scientific and authoritative discourse, and here comes Foucaults influence on

Said, found about these orientals normally were a confirmation of the primitiveness,

backwardness, exoticness, and mysteriousness of their essence [28]. In this regard, orientalists

when going to the field for their research went already with preconceptions and expectations of

finding differences and not similarities, which at the end were reified in their scientific discourses.

This hegemonic, and here lies Gramscis influence on Said, discourse by the West about the orient

served to create this idea that the Western model was the yardstick for measurement, and anything

found different in other places were to be compared to this yardstick. The apparent neutrality of

the Western yardstick as the model inherently creates forms of cultural superiority and inferiority,

which a cosmopolitan sociology should and must fight against.

Moving to the core of my presentation, I followed Norman Faircloughs [29] four stage

methodology for a critical discourse analysis. The first stage is to focus on a social wrong, in this

case the academic discourse of plastic vs. real fan. The second stage is to identify obstacles to

address this social wrong, which in my point of view and as presented before lies on assuming one

form of nation-state and being blinded by it (methodological nationalism). The third stage is to

consider if the social order needs the social wrong, in this case by assuming the existence of

plastic fans we would be automatically denying them access and considering them inferiors. The

fourth stage is to identify possible ways past the obstacles, which in this presentation I believe could

be achieved by denaturalising the nation-state and thus moving to a cosmopolitan sociology that

would permit us to avoid the trap of using a certain example as yardstick and thus treating others as

different and inferiors.

Through this critical discourse analysis I would like to propose a three phases genealogy on how the

hegemonic discourse on football fandom within sociology, and in particular about the geographical

other, existed during time. First these others were treated as hierarchically inferior, second the other

was acknowledge as existing and empirically researched through a stamp collector sociology, and

third an initial epistemological and methodological shift occurred where the other became to be

regarded both as equal and different.

Because of time constraints, I will just briefly show how I theorised these three phases, and will

give you some examples of how the other appeared in the academic discourse on football fandom.

The first phase, where the other was treated as inferior, was in my opinion influenced by a heavily

interest in academia, and in especial the British one, to questions of hooliganism. In this phase

researchers were interested in analysing one type of fan that differed in just one characteristic to

the perceived normal (yardstick) one, who was homogeneously: male, white, from a working class

background, and most importantly local. The hooligan in this case shared all these same

characteristics, but differed by his violent behaviour, which then became the centre for sociological

analysis. But by arguing that hooligans were different just because of being violent, the sociological

discourse about fan in general started to assume that they were an homogenous group with the sort

of characteristics I mentioned before. Anyone else failing to meet one of these characteristics were

understood to be plastic fan, or not a real fan. It should not be assumed that all the works in this

tradition explicitly characterised these individuals as the real fans, but by not discussing and

theorising other forms of fandom, or giving voice to others as Spivak [30] would say, this notion

started to be perpetuated within academia. Just to give a brief example of the academic discourse

falling in this genealogical stage I would cite Richard Giulianottis [31] taxonomy and Anthony

Kings [32] the lads paper. The first would be an example were the others were explicitly regarded

as inferiors as by arguing that the real custodian of the game would be the local working-class

white man (the supporter) who would be threatened and squeezed out of the game by the flneur,

with his/her cool market-oriented type of fandom that inhabits the virtual arena and window shop

for the most successful club. King [32] for instance is an example of how the other was silenced, by

exclusively focusing his analysis on the lads, which the word already indicates are a group of local

man that support the local side. King [32] does not explicitly characterise these others as inferiors,

but by theorising these lads as the traditional fan he ends doing so implicitly. For both Giualianotti

[31] and King [32] these new fans that were squeezing the traditional and real fan out of the

game were attracted by money and success and not loyalty, and here we can see how the notion of

the nation-state operates in their sociological discourse. Other authors that could be mentioned

within this phase are Christian Bromberger [33], Ian Taylor [34], Eric Dunning [35] and

collaborators [36, 37].

The second stage in the genealogy of the hegemonic discourse on football fandom is of the stamp

collector sociologist [2]. Again, as with the previous phase, I understand that there was an

overarching interest in the British academia to questions of globalisation and commercialisation

after the introduction of the EPL in 1992. This brought together a curiosity about how football

existed in different places and thus numerous comparative studies started to be published.

Nevertheless, as a stamp collector, these studies assumed that by crossing the political borders of a

nation-state, differences would and should be found. At the same time, we can see the Western, and

most specifically the British and even sometimes the English model serving as the yardstick for

comparison. As mentioned before, this yardstick was considered the natural and thus everything

else would be a deviant form to that model. Examples of this stage can be found mostly in the

edited books Football in Africa and Fear and Loathing in World Football by Gary Armstrong &

Richard Giulianotti [38, 39] and Adam Browns Fanatics! Power, Identity & Fandom in Football

[40], but also in different papers by Gary Armstrong [41], Alan Bairner [42], Francis Lee [43], Ben-

Porat [44], and Hans Hognestad [45] to cite a few. When these authors speak about different fan

practices and highlight their exoticness to the British model as witchcraft and juju in Africa [46],

but praying and superstition being considered normal, the carnivalesque aspect as with the Scottish

[47] and Irish [48] fans, but then the violence of English fans being considered the normal, the

Norwegian sportsmanship [49] in contrast to the English one, or the use of the British model as a

rhetoric for comparison as in the case of Northern Ireland football rivalry [50] these are all

examples stamp collector sociology. Moreover, just by noticing the titles of these works where the

different nation-states are always mentioned as a form of distinction the idea of this stamp collector

sociology becomes even stronger.

The last stage in the genealogy of the hegemonic discourse is where the other become to be treated

as both similar and different. Here for me lies the strength of using the cosmopolitan sociology

developed by Beck and collaborators, in especial by avoiding the contradictions of universalism

[51]. When approached by a global sociology, the other ceases to exist and is thought to be

homogenised, and the ones who are not willing to abandon their position of otherness are

excluded [51]. The works in this phase not only started to regard the other as a possible real

fan, but especially started to question why in the first place the real fan was once theorised as

man, white, working class, and local. There is not only a strong link to an emerging cosmopolitan

sociology within these papers as in the multiple works by Richard Giulianotti & Roland Robertson

[52-56] and the ones by Peter Millward [57-61], but also to a somehow older feminist tradition

within academia which can be seen in the recent works of Stacey Pope [62, 63] and the edited book

by Toffoletti & Mewett [64]. The latter is a perfect example on how the assumed white, man, local,

working class real fan conceptualisation was challenged in academia, while the former we can see

the denaturalisation of what John Urry theorised as sociologys metaphysical of presence [65],

where real relationships, communities, or even fandom, assumed a necessity for face to face

interactions.

I hope that I have provided a compelling argument in respect of the genealogy of the academic

discourse on the real fan and also how I believe a cosmopolitan sociology could help and equips

new theorisations in denaturalising the old dichotomies between national and global and thus of

how the real fan is or should be conceptualised.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Beck, U., The Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological Nationalism Fails. Theory, Culture & Society, 2007. 24(7-8): p. 286-290.

2. Beck, U., Cosmopolitan Vision. 3rd ed2010, Cambridge: Polity. 201.3. Beck, U., The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity. British

Journal of Sociology, 2000. 51(1): p. 79-105.4. Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim, Global Generations and the Trap of Methodological

Nationalism For a Cosmopolitan Turn in the Sociology of Youth and Generation. European Sociological Review, 2008. 25(1): p. 25-36.

5. Beck, U. and N. Sznaider, Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a research agenda. British Journal of Sociology, 2006. 57(1): p. 1-23.

6. Hobsbawm, E., Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality. 2nd ed1992, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7. Hobsbawm, E., The Age of Empire: 1875-19141987, London: Abacus.8. Said, E.W., Culture and Imperialism. 2nd ed1994, London: Vintage Books.9. Said, E.W., Orientalism. 5th ed. Modern Classics2003, London: Penguin Books.10. Said, E.W., Representing the Colonized: Anthropology's Interlocutors. Critical Inquiry,

1989. 15(2): p. 205-225.11. Foucault, M., L'Archeologie du Savoir1969, Paris: Gallimard.12. Gramsci, A., Selections from the Prison Notebooks. 12nd ed2007, London: Lawrence and

Wishart.13. Jameson, F., Postmodernism: or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism1992, Durham, NC:

Duke University Press. 449.14. Lash, S. and J. Urry, The End of Organized Capitalism. 4th ed1993, Cambridge: Polity

Press. 383.15. Castells, M., Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British Journal of

Sociology, 2000. 51(1): p. 5-24.16. Urry, J., Mobile Sociology. British Journal of Sociology, 2000. 51(1): p. 185-203.17. Urry, J., Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. 1st ed2000,

London: Routledge.18. Beck, U., The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization, in

Reflexive Modernization, U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, Editors. 1994, Polity Press: Cambridge. p. 1-55.

19. Beck, U. and C. Lau, Second modernity as a research agenda: theoretical and empirical explorations in the meta-change of modern society. British Journal of Sociology, 2005. 56(4): p. 525-557.

20. Beck, U. and E. Grande, Varieties of Second Modernity: The cosmopolitan turn in social and political theory and researc. British Journal of Sociology, 2010. 61(3): p. 409-443.

21. Beck, U., W. Bonss, and C. Lau, The Theory of Reflexive Modernization: problematic, hypothesis and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society, 2003. 20(2): p. 1-33.

22. Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim, Individualization. Theory, Culture & Society, ed. M. Featherstone2002, London: Sage. 221.

23. Beck, U., Cosmopolitical Realism: On the distinction between cosmopolitanism in philosophy and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2004. 4(2): p. 131-156.

24. Robertson, R., Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity, in Global Modernities, M. Featherstone, S. Lash, and R. Robertson, Editors. 1995, Sage: London. p. 25-44.

25. Canclini, N.G., Diferentes, Desiguales y Desconectados: Mapas de la Interculturalidad. 1st ed2004, Barcelona: Gedisa.

26. Canclini, N.G., Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. 1st ed1995, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

27. Hobsbawm, E., Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870-1914, in The Invention of Tradition, E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, Editors. 1983, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. p. 263-307.

28. Ashcroft, B. and P. Ahluwalia, Edward Said. 1st ed. Routledge Critical Thinkers: Essential guides for literary studies, ed. R. Eaglestone1999, London: Routledge.

29. Fairclough, N., Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. 2nd ed2010, Harlow: Longman.

30. Spivak, G.C., Can the Subaltern Speak?, in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, Editors. 1988, University of Illinois Press: Champaign, Illionois. p. 271-313.

31. Giulianotti, R., Supporters, Followers, Fans, and Flaneurs: A Taxonomy of Spectator Identities in Football. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 2002. 26(1): p. 25-46.

32. King, A., The Lads: Masculinity and the New Consumption of Football. Sociology, 1997. 31(2): p. 329-346.

33. Bromberger, C., Le Match de Football: Ethnologie d'une passion partisane Marseille, Naples et Turin. 3rd ed. Collections Ethnologie de la France Regards sur l'Europe, ed. C. Langlois2001, Paris: ditions de la Maison des ciences de l'homme.

34. Taylor, I., 'Football Mad' - a speculative sociology of soccer hooliganism, in The Sociology of Sport, E. Dunning, Editor 1971, Cass: London. p. 352-377.

35. Dunning, E., The social roots of football hooliganism A reply to the critics of the Leicester School, in Football, Violence and Social Identiy, R. Giulianotti, N. Bonney, and M. Hepworth, Editors. 1994, Routledge: London. p. 123-151.

36. Dunning, E., P. Murphy, and I. Waddington, Anthropological versus sociological approaches to the study of soccer hooliganism: some critical notes. The Sociological Review, 1991. 39(3): p. 459-478.

37. Dunning, E., et al., Football Hooliganism in Britain before the First World War. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 1984. 19(3/4): p. 215-240.

38. Armstrong, G. and R. Giulianotti, eds. Fear and Loathing in World Footbal. 2001, Berg Publications: Oxford. 318.

39. Armstrong, G. and R. Giulianotti, eds. Football in Africa: Conflict, Conciliation and Community. 2004, Palgrave Macmillan: London.

40. Brown, A., ed. Fanatics! Power, identity & fandom in football. 1998, Routledge: London.

41. Armstrong, G., The Global Footballer and the Local war-zone: George Weah and Transnational Networks in Liberia, West Africa. Global Networks, 2007. 7(2): p. 230-247.

42. Bairner, A., Soccer, Masculinity, and Violence in Northern Ireland: Between Hooliganism and Terrorism. Men and Masculinities, 1999. 1(3): p. 284-301.

43. Lee, F.L.F., Spectacle and Fandom: Media Discourse in Two Soccer Events in Hong Kong. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2005. 22(2): p. 194-213.

44. Ben-Porat, A., Overseas Sweetheart: Israeli Fans of English Football. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 2000. 24(4): p. 344-350.

45. Hognestad, H.K., Transnational Passions: A Statistical Study of Norwegian Football Supporters. Soccer & Society, 2006. 7(4): p. 439-462.

46. Giulianotti, R. and G. Armstrong, Drama, Fields and Metaphors: An introduction to Football in Africa, in Football in Africa: Conflict, Conciliation and Community, G. Armstrong and R. Giulianotti, Editors. 2004, Pallgrave Macmillan: London. p. 1-24.

47. Finn, G.P.T. and R. Giulianotti, Scottish fans, not English hooligans!: Scots, Scottishness and Scottish football, in Fanatics! Power, identity and fandom in football, A. Brown, Editor 1998, Routledge: London. p. 189-202.

48. Free, M., 'Angels' with drunken faces?: Travelling Republic of Ireland supporters and the construction of Irish migrant identity in England, in Fanatics! Power, identity and fandom in football, A. Brown, Editor 1998, Routledge: London. p. 219-232.

49. Hognestad, H.K., Viking and Farmer Armies: The Stavanger-Bryne Norwegian Football Rivalry, in Fear and Loathing in World Football, G. Armstrong and R. Giulianotti, Editors. 2001, Berg: Oxford. p. 159-172.

50. Bairner, A. and P. Shirlow, Real and Imagined: Reflections on Football Rivalry in Northern Ireland, in Fear and Loathing in World Football, G. Armstrong and R. Giulianotti, Editors. 2001, Berg: Oxford. p. 43-59.

51. Beck, U. and E. Grande, Cosmopolitan Europe2008, Cambridge: Polity.52. Giulianotti, R. and R. Robertson, Globalization & Football. 1st ed. Theory, Culture &

Society, ed. M. Featherstone2009, London: Sage.53. Giulianotti, R. and R. Robertson, Forms of Glocalization: Globalization and the Migration

Strategies of Scottish Football Fans in North America. Sociology, 2007. 41(1): p. 133-152.54. Giulianotti, R. and R. Robertson, Recovering the social: globalization, football and

transnationalism. Global Networks, 2007. 7(2): p. 144-186.55. Giulianotti, R. and R. Robertson, Sport and globalization: transnational dimensions. Global

Networks, 2007. 7(2): p. 107-112.56. Giulianotti, R. and R. Robertson, The globalization of football: a study in the glocalization

of the 'serious life'. British Journal of Sociology, 2004. 55(4): p. 545-568.57. Millward, P., Getting IntoEurope: Identification, Prejudice and Politics in English Football

Culture2009, Saarbrucken: Verlag.58. Millward, P., Reclaiming the Kop? Analysing Liverpool Supoorters' Twenty-first Century

Mobilizations. Sociology, 2012 (in press). XXX(XX): p. 1-16.59. Millward, P., Spatial Mobilities, Football Players and the World Cup: Evidence from the

English Premier League. Soccer & Society, 2013. XX(XX): p. 1-17.60. Millward, P., The Global Football League: Transnational Networks, Social Movements and

Sport in the New Media Age. 1st ed. Global Culture and Sport, ed. S. Wagg and D. Andrews2011, New York: Palgrave. 220.

61. David, M. and P. Millward, Digital Reterriotorialization, Contradictions in the Transnational Coverage of Sport and the Sociology of Alternative Football Broadcasts. British Journal of Sociology, forthcoming. XX(XX): p. 3-29.

62. Pope, S., 'Like pulling down Durham Cathedral and building a brothel': Women as 'new consumer' fans? International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 2011. 46(4): p. 471-487.

63. Pope, S., The Meaning of Sport in the Lives of 'Hot' and 'Cool' Female Fans of Football and Rugby Union, in Sport and Its Female Fans, K. Toffoletti and P. Mewett, Editors. 2012, Routledge: London. p. 81-98.

64. Toffoletti, K. and P. Mewett, eds. Sport and Its Female Fans. 1st ed. Routledge Research in Sport, Culture and Society2012, Routledge: London.

65. Urry, J., Moving on the Mobility Turn, in Tracing Mobilities: Towards a Cosmopolitan Perspective, W. Canzler, V. Kaufmann, and S. Kesselring, Editors. 2008, Ashgate: Aldershot. p. 13-23.