Teoría de la Resolución de Problemas de George Pólya

Before describing the different elements of a practice-based approach it is important to consider the question why people travel in the first place. While it is easy to understand that people travel to perform activities at certain locations, it is vital to consider that these activities are often socially inferred. Therefore, in this section we will focus on the ‘social bases’ of travel in order to better understand why people meet and come together at specific locations. The word ‘social’, in this respect, should be considered in its broadest sense. The purpose of grocery shopping is more than just acquiring the goods you need as fast and convenient as possible. Similarly, the purpose of non-daily shopping for clothes and furniture has not merely a utilitarian function but has many social elements as well. Hence, the term ‘fun-shopping’ which has been introduced to indicate that the ‘purpose’ of this type of shopping is as much about undertaking a leisure activity (relaxing, looking around, experiencing new stores, and being together with family or friends) as it is about acquiring a new product.

According to John Urry (2002), geographers and transport experts have insufficiently focused on the social bases of corporeal travel. Transport researchers, so Urry claims, have treated mobility as a black box in which the demand for movement is taken for granted. Understanding the connectivity of social life should not begin with the types and forms of transport as they are mostly a means to socially patterned activities (Urry, 2003b, p. 156). Therefore, Urry asks the question why

people travel physically in the first place: ‘why bother with the risks, uncertainties and frustrations of corporeal movement’ (Urry, 2002, p. 256). The answer for the desire to travel has to be found in the significance of corporeal co-presence (ibid.). This is in line with the sociology of Anthony Giddens who states that ‘in the course of their daily activities individuals encounter each other in situated contexts of interaction – interaction with others who are physically co-present67_’

(Giddens, 1984, p. 64). So even though social life, due to the importance of internet and mobile communication, is increasingly becoming virtual and mediated by network, physical co-presence is still a central, constitutive feature of social life (Urry, 2003b; Collins, 2004).

Giddens uses a multitude of concepts, many of them derived from Goffman’s typology of interaction, to discuss the meaning of co-presence. Gatherings refer to assemblages of people in contexts of co-presence. Context in this respect includes on the one hand the strips of time-space within which the gathering takes place, and on the other hand the physical environment (or ‘locale’) of interaction with its associated norms and values (Giddens, 1984, p. 71). Social occasions are formalized contexts in which gatherings occur; they can be said to provide the structuring social contexts of gatherings. So, while gatherings may have a very loose form with barely any social interaction, social occasions typically have a specific pattern of conduct (the work day at the office is a good example of a social occasion). Simultaneously, the same physical space can be the site of several social occasions. During gatherings and social occasions interaction between individuals may occur. This interaction comes in the form of focused and unfocused interaction. It is especially focused interaction which is important, not only because individuals coordinate their activities through facial expression and talk, but also because it introduces an enclosure of those involved from those not involved (ibid., p. 72). A ‘unit’ of focused interaction is called an encounter. It are these encounters, sustained by talk, as Giddens explains, which form the guiding threads of social interaction.

Giddens adds to the work of Goffman that most encounters occur as routines with a rather complex structure. What might seem at first sight to be an insignificant interaction is actually very substantial but hidden from view by routinization: ‘what is striking about the interaction skills that actors display in the production and reproduction of encounters is their anchoring in practical consciousness’ (ibid., p. 75). That is, most of the time all participants of a face-to-face encounter make use of the same collectively shared rules indicating the appropriateness of talk and behaviour in a specific context. These interaction skills are taken for granted and used in an ‘automatic’ way. When investigating these interactions in detail, they turn out to be guided by a rather complex configuration of rules and resources which actors draw upon to make the practice happen. The smooth, routine-like reproduction of social practices is essential for creating and maintaining trust of people in other people, in technologies, and more general their socio-physical surrounding.

Like Giddens, Urry (2002, 2003b) draws upon Goffman to indicate that travel is rooted in the demand for physical proximity to other people, places and events. Social life (of work, family, education and leisure) thus involves continuous processes of shifting between being present with 67 _{Both Urry and Giddens make extensive use of the term co-presence as it is originally employed by Goffman.}

The full conditions of co-presence are found whenever agents sense that they are close enough to be perceived in whatever they are doing, including their experiencing of others, and close enough to be perceived in this sensing of being perceived (Gofmann, 1963, in Giddens, 1984).

certain people, places and events and with being distant (Urry, 2007, p. 47). Urry defines five social bases of travel which generate the necessity for proximity (Urry, 2003b, p. 163). First, travel for legal, economic and familial obligations involves proximity to people for formal obligations such as travel to work, weddings, court, etc. Second, social obligations involve less formal meetings with family and friends which are associated with spending quality time. This can also involve travelling to specific locations away from the normal patterns of everyday work and family life. Third, object obligations involve travel in which persons come together for a specific object, for instance, to work on an object or text which has a specific location. Fourth, co-presence for place obligations involves travel to sense a place directly, to experience a leisure place (ibid.). While the first three social bases of travel are face-to-face, this social base is ‘face-the-place’ (Urry, 2002). For instance, while cities have always been places of work and habitation, increasingly cities are also perceived, and indeed marketed, as centres of consumption: ‘they are places in which advertising, shopping, and entertainment are incorporated into every aspect of urban life’ (Hannigan, 1998, p. 65). Mommaas (2000) emphasizes the strategic dual character of the media and leisure industry in shaping the experiences of places. Both are mediators of experiences, the media because it digitalizes and broadcasts the experiences, and the leisure industry because it attracts people physically to the location of experiences. As such, there is an increasing integration between the global media-industry and the local physical world of leisure (ibid.). Finally, event obligations are about experiencing a particular event. As these events occur at a specific moment in time they are also labelled ‘face-the-moment’ (Urry, 2002).

Face-to-face encounters are important because they contribute to the establishment and confirmation of trust. Social talk is an important part of establishing trust, and this can seemingly be conducted without being co-present. However, during face-to-face encounters individuals can literally look each other in the eye while discussing a variety of topics and trying to correct possible misunderstandings (Urry, 2007, p. 236). Indeed, some conversations and decisions are only possible, or at least deemed appropriate, in physical co-presence68_{: ‘trust is something that gets}

worked at and involves a joint performance by those in such co-present conversations’ (Urry, 2002, p. 260). It is this joint performance which Giddens emphasizes when he notes that the interaction skills that actors display in the production and reproduction of encounters are anchored in practical consciousness. In contrast to face-to-face encounters, face-less commitments and communications are characterized as being more functional and task-oriented, less rich and multi-faceted. They are in some respects less effective in establishing long-term trust relations (Urry, 2003, p. 170). In a similar vein, Randall Collins in his theory of Interaction Rituals states that co-presence and mutual focus are key factors in bringing about a process of collective effervescence. People travel along interaction ritual chains in order to meet, look each other in the eye, get ‘excited’ and become energized with ‘emotional energy’ (Collins, 2004; Spaargaren, 2011).

The social bases of travel must be considered as highly relevant for the study of sustainable mobility. For instance they are part of the social context in which mobility innovations have to be embedded. The importance of this becomes clear when looking at, for instance, the question to 68 _{For example, while it can be considered appropriate to notify a person by phone of a positive outcome of}

a job interview, reversely, it is often considered highly inappropriate to tell the same person he/she is fired via this same medium.

what extent virtual travel can become a substitute for physical travel. Geels and Smit (2000) have labelled the neglect of social aspects in technological trajectories a form of ‘narrow functional thinking’ which helps explain the numerous failed technology forecasts in the mobility sector. They ask the question why so many images about technology futures, such as the envisioned impacts of ICT on traffic and transportation, were wrong. Famous examples are the promise of a reduction of business travel due to teleconferencing, a reduction of commuting due to teleworking, and a reduction of shopping travel due to virtual or internet shopping. Geels and Smit note that purely functional thinking about shopping activities in which virtual shopping substitutes for physical shopping neglects the social aspects that are involved, such as elderly shoppers who like to talk with retailers, neighbours and acquaintances they encounter in the shop (ibid.). Illustrative too in this respect is research with regard to teleworking in the Netherlands (Walrave & De Bie, 2005). While 77% of the non-teleworkers is interested in teleworking, many of them feel that the job is not feasible for teleworking because they need frequent face-to-face contact with colleagues (38%) or face-to-face contact with customers (28%). Furthermore, while according to 50% of the teleworkers the productivity of their work has increased due to working from a distance of the office, 60% of the teleworkers claim that the alternative work-type has a negative effect on their promotional opportunities. Both teleworkers and non-teleworkers strongly belief that teleworking has a negative effect on the social contacts with colleagues and that one becomes less involved in corporate activities, and one experiences a lack of company information. While managers of non-teleworking companies fear a lack of control and high ICT-costs, managers of teleworking companies are much more positive about these aspects (ibid.). So, considering the abovementioned role of trust in face-to-face meetings, it is therefore no coincidence that lack of possibilities for trust-performances is one of the greatest obstacles for the introduction of teleworking in non- teleworking companies. As Geels and Smit (2000, p. 876) remark: ‘the process of the societal embedding of teleworking does not proceed automatically and smoothly. Instead, all kinds of practices need to be adjusted and changed’.

Because of the social bases of travel the prophesized death of distance (see Cairncross, 1997; Makimoto & Manners, 1997) remains improbable. These remarks are not suggesting that virtual travel and virtual co-presence can never simulate (to use Urry’s terms) some forms of physical travel. On the contrary, activities such as teleshopping, telecommuting and teleconferencing have increased tremendously in recent years and might indeed on the long run substitute for certain trips. Indeed, the main message of the research by Walrave and De Bie (2005) is that many teleworkers are very enthusiastic about the possibilities of teleworking. In an increasingly networked society there are clearly significant opportunities for virtual travel to ‘simulate’ some social bases for physical proximity, while simultaneously there are many other social bases for which virtual proximity is no substitute (Urry, 2002, p. 269). Instead of ‘eliminating’ distance, it is more likely that transport and communication technologies are becoming ‘travel partners’. According to Urry (2007, p. 179) this leads to processes in which new information and communication technologies co-evolve with extensive forms of physical travel.

The specific mobility practices and their characteristics, which we have shown to be based on patterns of social occasions and encounters, are described in the next section.