12.07.2015 Views

Inštitut za slovensko izseljenstvo in migracije ZRC SAZU

Inštitut za slovensko izseljenstvo in migracije ZRC SAZU

Inštitut za slovensko izseljenstvo in migracije ZRC SAZU

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Nataša ROGELJACONCLUSION: MARGINALITY OR LUXURY?I have attempted to present an ethnography of liveaboards <strong>in</strong> the Mediterranean, to explore overlapsand discrepancies with lifestyle migration studies and to place maritime lifestyle migration <strong>in</strong> a contextof <strong>in</strong>creased mobility and late capitalism. My understand<strong>in</strong>g came out of talk<strong>in</strong>g and liv<strong>in</strong>g with liveaboardswho articulated how and why they choose this way of life. Their personal experiences vary to agreat extent from luxury to marg<strong>in</strong>ality, yet the surround<strong>in</strong>g context of their lives is the commonnes ofglobal modernity, which produces new researchable entities demand<strong>in</strong>g fresh theoretical and methodologicalreflection. A central paradox of these emerg<strong>in</strong>g lifestyles is that they spr<strong>in</strong>g from the commonalitiesof our era, but their action subverts this very same reality. The common denom<strong>in</strong>ator forthese emergent forms of mobile lives is that they are closely related to time- and space-compress<strong>in</strong>gcommunication technology (Urry 2004), yet people choose this way of life <strong>in</strong> order to enlarge the spaceand to make time irrelevant. The emergence of these new researchable entities also challenges thetraditional boundaries between migrants/tourists/lifestyle migrants (Amit, Rapport 2002) and br<strong>in</strong>gsto the fore the fact observed also by Juntunen et al. (2013) that the notion of the immigrant-other hasup to the present muted a critical debate on the relation between human mobility and neoliberal economicpolicies. Together with John Urry and Mimi Sheller (2006), I also argue that although mobility isa historical phenomenon and not a unique characteristic of the modern world, today we are mov<strong>in</strong>gand liv<strong>in</strong>g, as Sheller (2011: 1) states: “differently and <strong>in</strong> more dynamic, complex and trackable ways asever before”. We are also liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a world of pluralized opportunities and mass <strong>in</strong>formation that forcepeople to choose and reflect on their lives and their positions. We are be<strong>in</strong>g bombarded with stories ofsuccess and the good life, yet we face a different sort of reality, a reality which is many times <strong>in</strong>compatiblewith the promises of the advertisements. All this produces tension, <strong>in</strong>dividual crisis and reflectionon our choices.The story of liveaboards has to be understood <strong>in</strong> this context and seen from two angles. To be aliveaboard is a luxury; Westerners enjoy great freedom of global mobility and rema<strong>in</strong> outside of publicdebates on migration, mobility and citizenship, whereas people from outside the West are perceivedas the central constituents of the immigration problem (cf. Juntunen et al. 2013); liveaboards use thesymbolic capital connected to the nautical tourism and the sea; and they hold passports that entitlethem to many benefits. However, to understand the liveaboard phenomenon fully we also have to take<strong>in</strong>to account marg<strong>in</strong>ality. It is a story of people who chose to be mobile because they want to be old andactive <strong>in</strong>stead of treated with disda<strong>in</strong>, they want to be parents with time for their children, they do notwant to feel useless, redundant or immoral <strong>in</strong> their everyday work or they just want to f<strong>in</strong>d moor<strong>in</strong>gsto their sense of self. Paradoxically they search for it <strong>in</strong> perpetual mobility on the wide open sea. Eventhough their social world is marked by disorder – by constant and loosely patterned nomadic travel atsea – their problems, wishes, chances, choices and solutions are set with<strong>in</strong> the normality of global modernity,where the subversive has become an everyday necessity.REFERENCESActon, Thomas (1981). Gypsylorism <strong>in</strong> the Far East. Newsletter of the Gypsy Lore Society 4/1, 2–6.Amit, Vered, Rapport, Nigel (2002). The Trouble with Community. Antrhopological Reflections on Movement,Identity and Collectivity. London: Pluto Press.Bauman, Zygmunt. (1998). Globalisation: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press.Benson, Michaela (2009). The Context and trajectories of lifestyle migration. European Societies 12/1,45–64.Benson, Michaela, O’Reilly, Karen (eds.) (2009a). Lifestyle Migration: Expectations, Aspirations and Experiences.Burl<strong>in</strong>gton: Ashgate Publish<strong>in</strong>g.128

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!