Naoki Yoshihara: The Future of Mobility in the Post-COVID Era

The COVID-19 pandemic continues, but it appears to have settled down somewhat recently. In this context, looking toward the arrival of the post-COVID era, it has become an urgent task to conceive social designs for a transition/transformation period that connects the "now" to the "future," and to establish "Transition Cities" based on those designs.

To do so, we must first ask how to perceive the "now" of the pandemic in relation to globalization. This brings to mind the discussion once held between Markus Gabriel and Manfred B. Steger. Gabriel argued that globalization ended with the pandemic and that nation-states were being revived. In contrast, Steger argued that while the movement of people certainly appeared stagnant, it was not the end of globalization, but rather that globalization was entering a "multidimensional social process." In that process, he emphasized the situation where information, in particular, moves across borders at high speed.

Come to think of it, while it has been said that the de-bordering and de-localization of society have progressed alongside globalization, recent discussions have suggested that de-territorialization and de-localization are actually leading to re-territorialization and re-localization. This is occurring amid a growing focus on the "glocal attractor" (John Urry)—a parallel process where deepening globalization leads to deepening localization, which in turn further deepens globalization.

I believe these discussions converged on the idea that the nation-state is not over, but neither is it continuing as the "single cohesive society" it once was. What I find noteworthy, along with these arguments, is the growing recognition that the movement of people, goods, and things is shifting from linear to non-linear as globalization progresses (regardless of the historical stage).

Here, I would like to point out that the pandemic exists alongside the mobility shift described above and is synonymous with "global" in that respect. Furthermore, I want to highlight that the "now" of the pandemic we are witnessing cannot be considered outside of a digital context. To put it simply, the position occupied by digital technology in the pandemic has become extremely significant.

By the way, if we view the digitalization accompanying the pandemic as a social condition, what emerges is a situation where society is managed by mobility surveillance technologies—represented by contact-confirming apps (COCOA)—and cities are perfectly covered by a "digital-scape" consisting of small, unmanned media and platforms.

Under the call to "Stay Home, Stay Safe," remote work, online shopping, and online learning—which spread particularly in the early stages of the pandemic—were fully integrated into this digital-scape. Many commentators now point out that beneath this scape, "social sorting" (Oscar H. Gandy Jr.) and social exclusion progressed, and a succession of "COVID-vulnerable" people who lost their social foundations emerged.

Certainly, it cannot be denied that telework forced a major shift in work systems and styles, online shopping created consumption habits directly linking producers and consumers, and online learning held the potential to expand opportunities for self-study. At the same time, however, there is a persistent opinion around us that these ultimately reproduced and reinforced the conventional discriminatory social division of labor that contains asymmetry. Some even suggest that such reproduction/reinforcement exposed the "vulnerability" of existing society in a more acute form.

While there are nuances in the arguments, they ultimately lead to a problem structure of how to perceive the "now" of globalization in relation to the penetration of a surveillance culture called the "coronopticon" (The Economist, March 28, 2020), an evolved form of the panopticon. One thing that can be said for certain is that even if the pandemic is overwriting existing society, it is by no means a return to the pre-COVID "normal."

Returning to what I mentioned earlier, the pandemic is "global," but the question is how to view the fact that it is accompanied by a massive transformation of the nation-state. What is notable about the surveillance in the coronopticon is that it does not rely on vision as in the past, but is carried out through data. It is also noteworthy that this coronopticon is progressing under the collaboration between the state and so-called platform companies like Google, in a way that undermines traditional governance structures. There, one can acutely observe the survival of microscopic power, often described by the modifier "biopolitical." It is highly oppressive, but at the same time, it fosters social processes that are not entirely captured by such systems.

So far, we have looked at a state of society regarding mobility, described in terms of surveillance alongside the pandemic. At the same time, by approaching what this apocalypse implies, another path leading to the "future" becomes visible. This involves the task of exploring what Urry calls "unknown unknowns," which also means re-perceiving highly oppressive biopolitics from a different perspective. In that process, above all, in the process where information moves multi-directionally and without borders, it is necessary to look toward the formation of "connected things" (bonds) between people, fostered through the alignment and sharing of industries for survival and the maintenance of the natural environment—that is, things that are sustainable and essential.

By doing so, the tyrannical runaway of data can be avoided, and a path can be seen to prevent people from being pushed into a "disposable" state. Then, we can envision that the previously mentioned remote work, online shopping, and online learning will not just be embedded in the digital-scape as "objects," but will constitute a primary place of sharing (commons) for truly facing others, literally becoming a precious lifeline.

Incidentally, "social distance," which was talked about in the early stages of the pandemic, is strictly speaking a misnomer for "physical distance," but this misuse is interesting as it actually reflects the state of mobility under the pandemic. If understood normally, the pandemic restricted daily human interaction and increased the physical distance between people by stopping movement. However, if we re-read it as "social distance," the distance arising between people was brought about by the tracking (surveillance) of movement through digital technology, and it can be interpreted as something that actually filled the gap between people. In other words, movement did not disappear here; rather, the management of movement (accompanied by differentiation) came to the fore. The function of this "in-between" arose inevitably from the fact that the pandemic is "global" = "viral," but in any case, it can be said that the idea that the pandemic stopped movement is now nothing more than a popular myth.

So, what will happen to the function of this "in-between" in the "future"? Assuming that digitalization will progress even further, the "in-between" seen "now" will likely become more flexible as the mobility shift mentioned earlier progresses. Whether this will come to guarantee the "connected things" that link people as seen before cannot be stated here, but it is certain that a Transition City that closes off such possibilities is no longer conceivable.

How the "now" of the pandemic will be carried over into the post-COVID era will likely be largely determined by digitalization as a social process. Therefore, we cannot take our eyes off the ambiguity of new digital technologies and the state of mobility deeply rooted therein. Furthermore, the trends in the collaboration between the state and platform companies, which direct such things as a broad framework, cannot be ignored.

This seems subtly different from what was said in the context of the expansion of the state's role (= "re-municipalization") discussed in the early stages of the pandemic. Rather, the collaboration being pointed out seems to be strengthening a gaze toward a certain kind of "common" rather than the "public." If that is the case, it will be necessary to release this gaze on the common from the loop of the aforementioned collaboration and guide it toward the "global commons" consisting of the industries and natural environment that humans share for survival.

It goes without saying that the "future" aimed for by Transition Cities is not a mere extension of the "now." However, it is also undeniable that it lies upon the digital "keynote" that runs through both the "now" and the "future." Casting a deep shadow there is the mobility shift we have seen. It is extremely complex. Therefore, it must be said that it is a daunting task to present a Transition City with a clear image in such a situation. It exists as a "City on the Move," keeping a distance from optimism based on absolute faith in technology while reaching for the door to the "future."