GY100 Lecture Week 2 Notes:

Space can be characterized by (not defined by):

-​ Home to all things
-​ Dynamic and changing
-​ Perceived differently by each person
-​ Can be described using the language of opposites (left/right, centre/periphery, below/above)
-​ Can be measured along all four dimensions; height, depth, width and time

Most geographers nowadays reject the view of space as a background or a container, rather believe that space is made
through activity in the world and at the same time it actively makes the world. We can also think of time-space.

Ways of thinking of space are generally defined and explained by:

-​ Empirical space: space as it is measured or mapped. Fpr example, the way the london tube map is formatted and
illustrated allows various people to have differing conceptions of the city, i.e. people may judge the size of a city
or the distance between two places by the number of stops. Measurements of space are also constantly changing,
with the Egyptians using the Royal Cubit to measure for the pyramids, whereas now the International Bureau of
Weights and Measurements changed the definition of a kilo.
-​ Flow space: space is not terrain or relief, measuring obkjects of relative distance, rather it is a series of
connections or pathways that are often circular, e.g. movements of labour to and from home and flows of money
and commodities, with the end goal of mapping movements rather than start and end points.
-​ Representations of space: are just as important as space itself, with images helping us to underrstand space.

Spatial science emerged in the mid 20th century, with geography being accepted as a science, allowing researchers to
build general models of how the world works. Propelled by the rise of mathematical methods and statistical analysis and
positivist philosophies of knowledge. Greatly concerned with issues of distance, connections, and arrangements between
phenomena in space. Space conceptualized as a surface on which relationships between measurable phenomena are played
out. Produced a wide range of theories at the interface of economics and geography

The Von Thünen model is a predictive theory that explains how land use is determined by the cost of land and the cost of
transporting products to market. It was developed by Johann Heinrich von Thünen, a skilled farmer and economist, in
1826. The model is based on the idea that agricultural land use is formed in concentric circles around a central market
town.
The model's main assumptions are:
●​ The market is in a central location
●​ The land is homogeneous, meaning it is flat and without mountains or rivers
The model predicts that the most productive activities will be located closer to the central market, while less productive
activities will be located further away. For example, intensive farming will be located closer to the city center than forests.
Positivism is a philosophy that insists knowledge relies on observable or ‘positive’ data that can be measured, allowing
the production of law like statements or mathematical models. Positivist science relies on sampling as it is impossible to
fully characterize it, and therefore requires spatial assumptions. However the main critique of positivism is its assumptions
of rationality and the idea of the rational economics man, which marxist social scientists particularly disagree due to
positivism’s denial of alternative ways of knowing and social behaviour. Positivism has had strong effects on the field of
GIS.

Radical views on space believe that space plays an active role in the production of society, and these geograohers, such as
David Harvey, argue that space expresses the fundamental contradictions of capitalist economies. The production of space,
as theorised by Henry Lefebvre - one of the most influential spatial theorists, argued that space is produced under
conditions of capitalist inequality:
-​ The growth of a body in the world produces here/there. forward/backward.
-​ Unequal social relations create spaces that constrain & shape lives:
-​ Contemptorary architecture dictates that domestic labourers cook, clean and take care of children in
isolation rather than in shared communal spaces.
-​ Racist police enforcement dictate that city streets in minority neighbourhoods become subject to hyper
surveillance.
-​ In capitalist societies space is the result of capitalist relations of production (between capitalists and
workers) and how these relations transform raw materials to create profit.
-​ Space becomes a commodity: Commodification of space is the process of transforming public areas into
economic commodities, often for profit or control. This can involve packaging, theming, and commercializing
public spaces to create leisure experiences that are driven by profit.
-​ People have a right to create places as they see fit
Place was rediscovered via humanistic geography, whereby previously, spatial science ignored the emotional aspects of
human existence, however humanistic geography aimed to uncover people’s varying sense of place. Humanistic
geographers aimed to explore how places shape their residents’ sense of place, whereas ealry geographers considered the
boundaries as separating areas.

Yi-Fu Tuan:
-​ We know the world through our human perceptions & experiences of places.
-​ Topophilia = “the affective bond between people and place”.
-​ Space is an open arena of action and movement, while place is about stopping and engaging; it is about ‘value’
and ‘belonging’.

Critical geography challenged the notion of place as rooted in authenticity, and rather that places are socially constructed,
with places being threatened by the hypermobility of capital. Global flows have led to the hypermobility of capital and
thus can lead to the loss of a sense of place for locals, leading to social unrest and conflict in those areas, and these
struggles over place can appeal to parochial and exclusive politics (racism) as protecting usually involves distinguishing
between us and them, insiders and outsiders. In contrast to this, people are often characterised by their place of origin,
however place is porous and there can be many identities attached to that sense of place.

By the 1990s, globalization (economic, cultural) forced geographers to rethink the concept of ‘place.’ How can we talk
about ‘place’ in a world of increasingly interconnected global relationships?
-​ A mosaic (regional) view emphasizes borders and differences; it understands places as unique and distinct from
each other, each with a particular internally coherent identity. It can be used in arguments of ‘defensive localism’
in which new entrants to a place might be seen as a ‘threat’ to the ‘true character’ (authenticity) of that place.
-​ On the other hand, the globalization-as-homogenization view suggests that places are becoming the same.

A third way: We can think of how global processes impact specific places in different ways, and how each place also
uniquely impacts global forces and has varying degrees of power over those processes. The Global Financial System
impacts everyday banking practices in London and in Calcutta, but some locations are saddled exploitative loans while
others reap the benefits of easy credit. The “lottery of location” applies at all scales.

Conclusion
-​ Space is abstract, seemingly empty and measureable, yet at the same time full and less empirically concrete
than at first glance.
-​ Space is not just a container of action: it is also a shaper of activity – Geography Matters both physically
and relationally!
-​ Place is both particular yet porous and permeable. Places are both located in space whilst making up its
relational qualities, AND whilst being shaped by space.

A sense of space requires a sense of place and vice versa

GY100 AT Week 3 Lecture notes:
There is no singular definition to landscape in geography, rather it is defined by a multitude of theoretical approaches to
the concept. The study of landscape was introduced by Carl Sauer to american geography in the 1920s:
-​ Against environmental determinism, Sauer argued that the collective human transformation of natural landscapes
produced ‘cultural landscapes’
-​ Landscape was the ‘unit concept of geography’
-​ Sauer had enormous influence on the study of landscape in American geography (the Berkeley School) for much
of the 20th century
Carl O. Sauer, a cultural geographer, believed that landscapes are the result of both human culture and the natural
landscape, and that they are constantly changing over time:

Cultural landscape
Sauer introduced the term "cultural landscape" to the English-speaking world in 1925. He believed that cultural
landscapes are shaped by human activity and have historical characteristics. Sauer's work helped to establish cultural
landscape as a central concept in cultural geography.
​
Landscape morphology
Sauer's approach to landscape, also known as "landscape morphology" or "cultural history", involved gathering facts
about the human impact on the landscape over time.
​
Anthropology, archaeology, and sociology
Sauer believed that geography was inseparable from human history, and that anthropology, archaeology, and sociology
were natural extensions of his geographic studies.
​
Landscape as a verb
Sauer's work helped to change the way people think about landscape, from a noun to a verb. He pointed out that
landscapes are not just material things, but also images, symbols, and signifiers

New Cultural Geography emerged in the UK during the 1980s and 1990s as a shift from traditional cultural geography,
focusing on broader cultural processes and meanings in relation to space, place, and identity. It was influenced by critical
theory and postmodern thought, drawing from cultural studies, anthropology, and sociology.

Key Features of New Cultural Geography:

1.​ Focus on Culture as Dynamic: Instead of viewing culture as static and tied to particular groups or regions, it
emphasizes how culture is constantly produced and reproduced through everyday practices and interactions.
2.​ Power, Identity, and Representation: This approach examines how culture is shaped by power relations, looking
at how certain identities (gender, race, class) are constructed and represented in spatial terms. It delves into how
spaces and places are socially constructed, often contesting dominant narratives.
3.​ Interest in Symbols and Meanings: New Cultural Geography is concerned with how landscapes, architecture,
and even mundane spaces carry cultural meanings and symbols, reflecting broader societal values.
4.​ Post-structuralism and Discourse: Heavily influenced by thinkers like Michel Foucault, this approach examines
the role of discourse and language in constructing geographic realities, questioning what is considered "normal" in
the production of space.
5.​ Engagement with the Everyday: A hallmark is its interest in how ordinary, everyday activities—such as walking
in a city or decorating a home—produce cultural spaces and reflect social inequalities or resistances.
In sum, the New Cultural Geography movement in the UK sought to challenge traditional views of space and culture by
integrating more critical, nuanced, and interdisciplinary perspectives.

Critical Geographical Approaches to Landscape: Feminist Geography

●​ Feminist Geography emerged in the 1970s as a critique of how landscapes are traditionally interpreted and
represented.

Key Arguments:

1.​ Gendered Landscapes:

○​ Feminist geographers argue that landscapes are not neutral; they are gendered.
○​ Landscapes play a role in constructing, legitimating, reproducing, and contesting gendered identities.
○​ Public and private spaces are often understood and organized along gender lines, reflecting broader
societal norms about masculinity and femininity.
2.​ Masculinist Approaches to Studying Landscapes:
○​ Gillian Rose highlighted that traditional studies of landscapes have been conducted in masculinist ways.
○​ This means that much of the scholarly work has centered male perspectives and experiences, often
marginalizing or overlooking the role of women and other gender identities in shaping and experiencing
landscapes.
○​ Masculine control over nature and space is a recurring theme in historical landscape representations,
especially in art and cultural practices.

Examples:

●​ Blunt (2003): Provided a critique of gendered landscape representation, particularly through historical images that
portray landscapes in a way that reflects the gendered order of society (e.g., the division between public,
male-dominated spaces and private, feminized spaces).

Race, Class, and Migration: Reading Contemporary Urban Landscapes

Case Study: Shaughnessy Heights, Vancouver

●​ Development as an Elite Neighbourhood:

○​ Shaughnessy Heights was developed in the early 20th century as an elite, exclusive
neighbourhood.
○​ The area was designed to reproduce 18th-century English landscapes, reflecting the social
status and aesthetic preferences of the upper class.
●​ Cultural Reproduction of the Elite:
○​ Over time, the landscape didn't just serve the elite; it became central to their cultural
reproduction. The landscape itself reinforced and symbolized their status and exclusivity.
○​ The environment created for the wealthy began to shape their identity, embodying notions of
class and privilege.
●​ Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Association:
○​ This association was established to maintain the exclusivity of the neighbourhood, often through
efforts to preserve its heritage and aesthetic character.
 ○​ Appeals to preserve the neighbourhood’s heritage reflect a desire to protect the socio-economic
makeup and visual identity of the area.
●​ Race and Class Dynamics from the 1990s:
○​ Starting in the 1990s, the social relations within Shaughnessy Heights shifted to include racial
dynamics alongside class.
○​ The neighbourhood became a site of tension and difference between the landscape aesthetics of
ethnic Anglo-Canadians and newer Chinese-Canadian residents.
○​ These differences in landscape preferences reflect broader issues of migration, race, and identity
in urban spaces.

Material Landscapes: Marxist Geography

Marxist Geography critiques the emphasis on symbolic or represented landscapes, urging a focus on the
material realities and social relations embedded in landscapes. The central argument is that landscapes should
be understood as products of labor and capitalist processes.

Key Concepts:

1.​ Critique of Represented Landscapes:

○​ Some scholars argue that geography places too much emphasis on represented or imagined
landscapes (the aesthetic, symbolic, or cultural meanings) without enough focus on the physical
and material aspects of landscapes.
○​ Don Mitchell (1996) particularly criticizes this, pointing out that traditional landscape analysis
overlooks the 'brute reality' of how landscapes are produced and maintained.
2.​ The Hidden Labor Behind Landscapes:
○​ For Marxist geographers, what is often hidden in landscape studies is the labor that produces the
landscape.
○​ Mitchell emphasizes that landscapes should be understood through the social relations involved
in their creation, particularly in how labor is exploited under capitalism.

Don Mitchell's Contributions:

●​ Landscape as 'Dead Labor':

○​ In capitalist societies, Mitchell argues, the landscape is the embodiment of “dead
labor”—meaning the physical landscape is the materialization of the work put into it by
laborers. However, the actual social relations (labor exploitation) behind its creation are often
invisible to the observer.
○​ This concept is based on Karl Marx's idea that commodities (and landscapes) conceal the labor
and social processes that produced them.
●​ Instruments of Production, Circulation, and Consumption:
○​ Landscapes as Instruments of Production: Much of the landscape, especially urban
infrastructure (factories, roads, etc.), is built as fixed capital—it’s a tool to facilitate production
and generate surplus value for capitalists.
 ○​ Landscapes as Circulatory Mechanisms: Some landscapes, such as transportation networks,
are designed to enable the circulation of capital by facilitating the movement of goods and
labor.
○​ Landscapes as Instruments of Consumption: Other parts of the landscape, like shopping malls
or residential areas, are constructed to enable social reproduction, meaning they help workers
reproduce their labor power by creating spaces for living, leisure, and consumption.

Understanding 'Dead Labor':

●​ Mitchell, following Marx, explains that when we observe a commodity (or landscape), we don't
immediately see the social relations and labor exploitation involved in its production.
●​ The physical landscape masks the complex labor processes that created it, hiding the often exploitative
and violent conditions under which it was built.
GY100 AT Week 4 Lecture Notes:
Class, gender, and race can all be seen as social structures that impact how society functions, and these are the topics we
will cover today. The discipline became interested in the importance of these categories following on the heels of social
movements.

Karl Marx's theory of class and capitalism emphasises the inherent conflict between two key groups in capitalist societies:
the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). According to Marx, the capitalist class owns the
means of production—factories, land, and resources—while the working class possesses only their labour, which they
must sell to survive. In this system, workers are paid wages, but those wages are kept low, and working hours are kept
long to maximise profit for the capitalists. Marx believed that this dynamic of wage exploitation and poor working
conditions causes instability in capitalist societies. The capitalist class extracts surplus value from the labour of workers,
denying them a fair share of the wealth they help create.

Marx viewed this imbalance as the foundation of class struggle, a constant tension between the capitalists’ need for profit
and the workers’ demand for better wages and conditions. Ultimately, he predicted that these contradictions within
capitalism would lead to its downfall and be replaced by a more equitable system, like socialism or communism, where
workers collectively own the means of
production.

Consumption contributes to this

exploitation, as the food, clothing and
shelter required for survival are all
produced by workers under unfair
conditions. In Marx’s time, this was
clearly visible in England, yet in
today’s world with the global division
of labour most of the food and
commodities in our lives are produced
in distant factories, making the reality
of exploitation even more invisible

Gentrification is a socio-economic
process in which middle- and
upper-income residents move into
traditionally low-income
neighbourhoods, often displacing the
original working-class inhabitants due
to rising property values and rent
increases. This process has deep roots
in the capitalist system, where
disinvested and neglected
working-class neighbourhoods
become targets for property
developers and landlords seeking
profit.
Neil Smith’s Rent Gap Theory explains gentrification as driven by the capitalist class seeking to maximise profits.
According to Smith, a "rent gap" is created when the actual rental income in a neighbourhood is significantly lower than
its potential income if the area were redeveloped or “upscaled.” Landlords and developers seize this gap to drive
gentrification, which results in the displacement of lower-income residents. Smith saw gentrification as a consequence of
class struggle, with urban spaces being restructured for profit rather than addressing cultural or consumer desires.
Gentrification is, thus, not just about changing neighbourhood demographics but also about how capitalist dynamics
exploit urban spaces, exacerbating inequality and class divisions.

Neil Smith’s research on New York’s Lower East Side in the 1980s showed how city administrators supported investment
in gentrification in the area by property-owning classes. They evicted the homeless and squatters who had claimed public
places such as Tompkins Square Park because doing so would increase property values.

Gender:
This section addresses the gendered division of labour, particularly the concept of reproductive labour, and its
relationship to capitalist patriarchy and modern feminist movements. Key points include:

●​ Reproductive labour, as understood by feminists, refers to unpaid household work such as cooking, cleaning,
and child-rearing. This labour has historically gone unrecognised because it produces people rather than
commodities, unlike the waged labour traditionally associated with factory or productive work.
●​ The concept of patriarchy is crucial in feminist theory, where it denotes a system in which men are collectively
deemed superior to women and hold authority over them. This patriarchal structure influences how labour is
divided between genders, especially within capitalist societies.
●​ Capitalist patriarchy connects the gendered division of labour with capitalist structures, wherein men are
expected to engage in paid, productive labour, while women are relegated to unpaid, reproductive labour. This
division reinforces social and economic inequality.
●​ Feminist geography explores how capitalism relies on both the private spaces (home) of reproductive labour
and public spaces (workplace) of productive labour. This reinforces the idea that women's unpaid labour in the
home supports and sustains capitalist economies.
●​ Despite changes spurred by feminist movements, much of this unequal division remains today. For example, the
UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated in 2016 that unpaid household service work in the UK was
worth £1.24 trillion, accounting for 63% of GDP, and women continued to do over twice as much household
work as men.
●​ The second shift: Women’s entry into the paid workforce has not alleviated their domestic responsibilities.
Instead, many women find themselves performing a "second shift" of unpaid labour after returning home from
waged work.
●​ Wages for housework: Feminist movements worldwide, including in India, have advocated for wages for
housework. A notable example was a 2012 bill in India, which would have required husbands to pay their wives a
portion of their wages for household labour.

Gender and space explores how social relations, particularly gender roles, are shaped by and expressed in different
spaces and scales. At the global scale, women from poorer countries often migrate to wealthier nations to work as
domestic workers. This reflects a gendered and exploitative labour system, where migrant women perform low-paid,
reproductive labour for wealthier families.

At the urban scale, cities are planned with gendered assumptions. Public spaces are seen as masculine, and women are
often viewed as "out of place" if they’re in public at certain times or in certain ways. This reinforces the idea that women
belong in the private sphere and contributes to victim-blaming in cases of harassment or violence.
At the home scale, women are traditionally associated with the private sphere, performing unpaid domestic work. While
this notion is widespread, it varies by culture. For example, early 20th-century Bengali feminists challenged practices like
Purdah, resisting women's seclusion.

At the body scale, women's bodies are often highly policed and controlled, especially regarding appearance, sexuality, and
reproduction. Patriarchal norms affect how both men and women present themselves, shaping their bodily performances in
accordance with societal expectations around gender. These scales show how gender roles and inequalities are spatially
constructed and maintained across different levels of society.

Gendered urban planning and housing refers to the way urban spaces have historically been designed to reinforce
traditional gender roles. Linda McDowell (1983) critiqued postwar urban planning in the UK for being dominated by
male architects and designers who made decisions based on patriarchal assumptions. These planners often designed urban
areas with the expectation that men were the breadwinners who commuted to work, while women stayed home, limiting
their mobility and reinforcing their domestic roles.

This planning approach emerged after World War II, when women had gained autonomy by joining the workforce during
the war. However, postwar housing designs aimed to return to prewar gender norms, confining women to suburban homes.
The ‘Neighbourhood Principle’, which shaped new town developments like the Lansbury Estate in East London,
further isolated women by placing them in residential areas far from employment centres and transportation, leaving them
dependent on men’s access to mobility.
Suburban housing developments also followed gendered patterns, catering to nuclear families and reinforcing the idea that
men worked and women stayed home. This was compounded by transport systems designed primarily for men’s
commuting needs, often neglecting women’s localised travel patterns. Women’s reliance on public transport for tasks like
school runs and shopping was poorly served by transit systems focused on peak hours and city-bound routes, further
entrenching gender inequality in urban life.

Racism and Imperialism

The historical and systemic roots of racism, colonialism, and capitalism are deeply intertwined, particularly through the
lens of European dominance. Over centuries, European powers occupied and subjugated vast regions across the globe,
leading to a legacy that still shapes global economic dynamics. One of the most significant aspects of this legacy is forced
migration, particularly evident in the transatlantic slave trade, which forcibly displaced millions of Africans. Today, the
African diaspora is diverse, yet it remains profoundly affected by the long-lasting impacts of racism that emerged during
the era of slavery.

European colonialism systematically established control over most of the world, with notable exceptions such as Japan,
Korea, Thailand, and Liberia. The economic benefits derived from this colonial exploitation have had a lasting effect,
creating inequalities that persist in global power structures. These historical processes contributed to the wealth of
European nations and settler states, reinforcing a hierarchy that privileges those of European descent while marginalising
others.

The forced migration associated with the transatlantic slave trade has been extensively studied, highlighting the social and
economic disparities that African-descended populations continue to face. W.E.B. Du Bois, in his seminal work The Souls
of Black Folk (1903), argued that the legacy of slavery and systemic racism created a "double consciousness" among
African Americans, where they must navigate their identity within a society that devalues them. Similarly, the research by
Horton and Horton in Slavery and Other Forms of Forced Labor in Africa (2006) explores the impact of slavery on
African societies, detailing how the legacy of forced migration contributes to ongoing social and economic challenges.

In examining the relationship between race and economic systems, scholars like Omi and Winant in Racial Formation in
the United States (2014) highlight the structural nature of racism, framing white supremacy as a social system that
privileges white individuals. They argue that this system is deeply embedded within capitalist structures, illustrating how
economic advantages for white populations often stem from historical exploitation of marginalised groups. Additionally,
Walter Rodney’s How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (1972) emphasises that the wealth accumulated by European
nations is largely a result of imperial exploitation, drawing attention to how colonial practices stripped African nations of
their resources, which contributed to their underdevelopment.

The critique of capitalism further suggests that slavery, rather than wage labour, is central to understanding societal
inequalities. Scholar Seymour Drescher, in Capitalism and Antislavery (2010), argues that the profits derived from slavery
played a crucial role in the rise of capitalism in Europe, positioning plantations as primary sites of exploitation. This view
contrasts the traditional focus on industrial factories, asserting that the agricultural economy driven by enslaved labour
was foundational to European economic development.

Race itself is a social construct shaped by historical processes rather than biological realities. Nell Irvin Painter, in her
book The History of White People (2010), explores how the concept of race was invented and evolved, arguing that the
simplistic categorization of humans based on skin colour lacks scientific basis. Historical misconceptions about race, as
seen in 19th-century encyclopaedias, demonstrate the pseudoscientific origins of racial categories, which were often used
to justify colonial and racist ideologies.
Understanding the historical context of race, colonialism, and capitalism is essential for addressing contemporary issues of
inequality and systemic racism. Engaging with these topics through a critical lens fosters informed discussions about
social justice, reparations, and the necessity for systemic change. Ongoing scholarship continues to explore these complex
relationships, revealing pathways toward greater equity and inclusion in society.

Racism in the city

The discussion of racism in urban environments highlights the intersection of social justice and geography, focusing on
how environmental factors disproportionately affect minority populations. Environmental racism is a significant concern
for geographers, as it illustrates the broader issue of environmental injustice. This concept examines how environmental
degradation and pollution have a more severe impact on marginalised communities. For instance, research by Laura
Pulido in her article “Rethinking Environmental Racism” (2000) emphasises the role of white privilege in urban
development in Southern California, revealing how policies and practices have historically favoured white populations
while harming communities of colour.

Public monuments also serve as a reflection of societal values and the historical narratives that communities choose to
honour. Recent movements, such as the Black Lives Matter protests, have drawn attention to the presence of statues
commemorating former colonists and figures whose legacies include racism and oppression. For example, the statue of
Winston Churchill faced criticism for his disparaging comments about Indians and his role in the Bengal famine, where
millions died. Geographer Nuala Johnson has examined how the public's relationship to such monuments informs
collective memory and identity, raising questions about the kind of public spaces communities wish to create.

Racism in the home: Segregation

In the context of housing and segregation, historical practices have left lasting legacies that continue to shape urban
environments. In the United States, Jim Crow laws enforced racial segregation, dictating where Black individuals could sit
on buses, shop, or eat. These laws were not fully dismantled until 1965, yet their impact lingers in contemporary housing
policies, particularly through practices like redlining, which denied mortgages and insurance to residents in predominantly
Black neighbourhoods. Similarly, South Africa’s system of apartheid legally categorised individuals based on race,
determining their rights regarding residence and land ownership. This segregationist legal framework was only repealed in
1991, but the housing inequalities established during that era persist today.

Race and Intersectionality

The concept of intersectionality, introduced by Kimberly Crenshaw in her 1989 paper published in the University of
Chicago Legal Forum, critiques the tendency to view discrimination through a singular lens, such as race or gender.
Crenshaw argues that the experiences of marginalised individuals cannot be fully understood without considering the
overlapping nature of their identities. This perspective has been particularly influential in geography, where social
geographers are increasingly adopting intersectional approaches to study the diverse experiences of individuals based on
race, class, gender, and sexuality. Crenshaw, along with other key figures like bell hooks, Audre Lorde, and Patricia Hill
Collins, challenges mainstream feminism by emphasising that the experiences of white women do not encompass those of
Black women, many of whom navigate the complexities of race and class as they work in domestic roles.

The emergence of poststructural geography further complicates these discussions by challenging established narratives
that seek universal explanations for social phenomena, such as capitalism or patriarchy. In the 1980s, postmodern and
poststructural theories questioned the fixed notions of identity, arguing that identities are not inherent traits but rather
constructed through social interactions and contexts. This shift in understanding led geographers to explore the fluidity of
identity, recognizing that social categories are socially constructed and can be redefined and contested over time.
This new approach to geography emphasises the importance of recognizing multiple identities, including those related to
sexuality, ability, and age. Marxist feminists have studied economic restructuring and the feminization of labour, while
post structural feminists have examined the complexities of identity and how these identities are performed in various
social contexts. Together, these perspectives offer a nuanced understanding of how race, class, gender, and other social
categories interact to shape individual and collective experiences within urban landscapes.

Overall, the study of racism in the city encompasses a variety of themes, from environmental justice to the enduring
impacts of segregation, while incorporating contemporary theories that challenge traditional views of identity and social
structures. Understanding these intersections is crucial for addressing the systemic inequalities that persist in urban
environments today.
GY100 Week 5 Lecture Notes, Urbanism:

Lecture Notes on Defining the City and the Urban Context

Understanding "City" and "Urban": To define what constitutes a city, we can examine both its physical aspects and the
lifestyle it fosters. John Pacione (2009) suggests that cities can be understood through measurable criteria like population
size, economic base, and administrative frameworks, which help distinguish them from rural areas. These criteria give
cities their unique scale, economy, and governance structure.

Cities also represent a qualitative phenomenon, impacting how people live and interact. Sociologist Louis Wirth
observed that urban areas promote distinct ways of life shaped by social density and diversity, creating a lifestyle that
contrasts sharply with rural living. This urban way of life became prominent during the Industrial Revolution, which saw
Europe’s cities grow rapidly, transforming social norms and economies.

Urban Population Growth and the Industrial Revolution: The Industrial Revolution marked a turning point in urban
population growth, especially in the UK. Between 1801 and 1911, the urban population grew from 3.5 million to 32
million. London, the largest city globally by 1825, had nearly 6.5 million residents by 1900, while Manchester grew from
a small town to a manufacturing center with over 2 million inhabitants. Friedrich Engels famously described Manchester
as “the first manufacturing city of the world” but also a place of “filth and ruin,” reflecting both the economic power and
the social challenges of urbanization.

Distinctions Between Urban and Rural Life: Urban and rural areas differ not only in scale but in social dynamics.
Ferdinand Tönnies’ concepts of Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (association) underscore this distinction.
Rural life is typically marked by close, personal relationships, while urban areas promote impersonal, goal-driven
associations. Georg Simmel later argued that city dwellers develop a “blasé attitude” as a way to cope with the intense
stimuli of urban environments, becoming emotionally detached to manage the bustling urban experience. Louis Wirth
added that cities, by their size and diversity, encourage more independent, less personal interactions.

Urban Geography: Structure and Systems of Cities: Urban geography studies the layout, relationships, and internal
structures of cities. This field examines the distribution of towns and cities and the connections between them, considering
cities as parts of interconnected networks within larger economic, political, and social systems. Internally, urban
geography explores how residential, commercial, and industrial zones are organized, shaping urban life and experiences.
This framework allows us to see cities not just as isolated entities, but as dynamic systems influencing and influenced by
each other.

By examining both the measurable and experiential aspects of cities, urban geography provides a comprehensive view of
urbanism, helping to explain the organization and evolution of urban spaces within the modern world.

Urbanism Lecture Notes: The Chicago School and Urban Theory

Understanding the Urban: The Chicago School's Contribution

The Chicago School of Sociology emerged in the early 20th century at the University of Chicago and became central to
the study of urban life and social organization. Founded in 1913, the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at
Chicago pioneered theories about urban spaces, using an approach that combined elements of social Darwinism and
environmental determinism with in-depth ethnographic research. This blend aimed to understand how city environments
shape social behaviors, particularly in an era of rapid urbanization.
The Chicago School viewed cities as competitive ecosystems, where individuals and groups vied for control over
desirable areas. Those with higher socioeconomic status often occupied better locations, pushing marginalized groups to
less favorable areas. This competition contributed to distinct urban zones, each with its own social and economic function.

Key Concepts from the Chicago School:

●​ Urban Ecology: Cities are seen as dynamic ecosystems with varied zones, each shaped by specific social and
economic conditions.
●​ Zones of the City: These include areas such as ethnic enclaves, business districts, shopping areas, manufacturing
zones, affluent suburbs, and working-class ghettos, each serving a role in the city’s structure.
●​ Social Competition: Space within cities is shaped by competition, with the most successful groups occupying the
most valued areas.

Urban Structure Models: Mapping the City

The Chicago School and later theorists developed models to explain the spatial organization of cities. These models
conceptualized how different social groups and activities are distributed across urban areas.

1.​ Burgess' Concentric Zone Model (1925):

○​ Burgess described cities as organized in a series of concentric rings around a central business district
(CBD).
○​ Each ring represents a different land use, from the CBD outward to working-class housing, middle-class
zones, and affluent suburbs.
2.​ Hoyt’s Sector Model (1939):
○​ Hoyt proposed that urban areas develop in sectors rather than rings, with areas expanding outward from
the CBD along transportation lines.
○​ This model emphasizes the influence of transportation corridors, which shape where industrial,
commercial, and residential zones are located.
3.​ Harris and Ullman’s Multiple Nuclei Model (1945):
○​ Harris and Ullman argued that cities grow around multiple centers, or "nuclei," instead of a single central
district.
○​ Each nucleus serves a unique function (e.g., industrial, residential, commercial), reflecting the city’s
complexity and polycentric nature.

These models laid the groundwork

for understanding cities as structured,
organized spaces with distinct areas
that serve different roles. Together,
the concepts of urban ecology, social
competition, and spatial organization
reflect the Chicago School’s lasting
influence on urban studies.
Lecture Notes on David Harvey’s Contributions to Urban Geography

David Harvey and the Reinterpretation of Locational Theory​

In Explanation in Geography (1969), David Harvey revisited classical locational theories, such as those by Von Thünen
and Christaller, to build a foundation for more structured geographic modeling of urban patterns and processes. Harvey’s
approach aimed to explain how people and activities are distributed across urban spaces, with a particular focus on
understanding the spatial behaviors and decisions that shape cities.

Key Concepts Introduced by Harvey:

●​ Laws of Interaction and Movement: Harvey emphasized the importance of "friction of distance" in shaping
human movement and interaction. This principle, central to gravity models, suggests that people are more likely to
interact with and move towards closer destinations than distant ones.
●​ Settlement Classifications and Urban Hierarchies: Using concepts like the rank-size rule and distance decay,
Harvey categorized settlements into hierarchies. These frameworks help explain why cities of different sizes
emerge and how they relate to one another within regional networks.
●​ Economic Rationality in Human Behavior: Drawing from economic theories, Harvey’s models assumed that
individuals act rationally, making decisions based on utility maximization (i.e., choosing options that provide the
most benefit or least cost).

Refining the Chicago School’s Urban Ecology Approach: Harvey further developed the Chicago School’s ideas on
urban ecology by incorporating quantitative data into his models. He used information on land use, migration patterns, and
rental values to create detailed models of urban land use and social dynamics. This allowed for a more complex
understanding of how economic factors and human behavior jointly shape the internal structure of cities.

Harvey’s work thus provided urban geography with a powerful toolkit for analyzing urban patterns, emphasizing both the
physical distances that shape behavior and the economic motives that drive individuals’ choices in urban settings.
Lecture Notes on Marxism and Urban Geography

Critique of Spatial Science and the Shift to Marxist Perspectives​

Spatial science, which gained prominence in mid-20th century geography, focused on identifying spatial patterns in
human activity. However, this approach was criticized for merely describing patterns without exploring the social or
economic causes behind them, limiting its potential to address or resolve social issues. Critics argued that without
examining root causes, spatial science could not contribute to progressive social change.

Marxist Foundations and Structural Approaches in Geography​

Drawing on Karl Marx’s work, structural approaches in geography view societies as fundamentally shaped by their modes
of production—in modern times, by capitalism. Although Marx himself did not focus extensively on cities, his analysis of
capitalism as a system of production, inequality, and power became influential for urban geographers in the 1970s who
began to apply his ideas to urban spaces.

Rise of Marxist Geography in the 1970s​

In the 1970s, urban geographers rediscovered Marxist theories, bringing cities to the forefront of discussions on economic
and social inequalities. Within Marxist geography, cities are seen as environments that facilitate capitalist accumulation,
making them central to the processes of production, profit, and reinvestment. As a result, cities undergo continuous
transformation to support capitalist interests, leading to phenomena like:

●​ Urban Land Market: The buying, selling, and development of land in cities is influenced by capitalist forces,
often favoring profit over social needs.
●​ Urban Redevelopment: Investments in certain areas lead to the redevelopment of urban spaces, often displacing
lower-income residents to make way for wealthier groups.
●​ Gentrification: Originally working-class neighborhoods become desirable for higher-income residents, raising
property values and altering the social fabric of the area.

This Marxist perspective emphasizes that the urban landscape is shaped by economic forces aimed at maximizing profit,
and it critiques the way capitalist accumulation impacts social equity within cities

Lecture Notes on Manuel Castells and David Harvey's Contributions to Urban Theory

Understanding the Role of Space in Capitalist Accumulation​

Manuel Castells and David Harvey, two key figures in Marxist-inspired urban theory, examined how space and cities are
integral to the process of capitalist accumulation and to stabilizing or "fixing" crises within the capitalist system. Their
work laid the foundation for understanding urban areas not merely as physical places but as economic mechanisms within
capitalism.

Key Contributions:

●​ Manuel Castells - "The Urban Question" (1977):​

Castells viewed the city as a critical site for both production and "social reproduction," introducing the concept of
collective consumption—the essential services and infrastructures (like housing, education, transportation) that
support the daily lives of urban residents. For Castells, cities play a dual role in supporting capitalist production
while also providing the necessary social structures that maintain the workforce.
●​ David Harvey - "The Limits to Capital" (1982):​
Harvey focused on the built environment as a source of profit within capitalist cycles. He introduced the idea of
spatial fix, where capital shifts between "liquid" (movable) and "fixed" (immovable, invested in infrastructure
 and buildings) forms. These shifts help absorb surplus capital, but they also lead to periodic changes in urban
landscapes as capital seeks new areas of investment to sustain profitability.

Marxist Basis for Urban Theory:​

Both Castells and Harvey argue that modern urban development is inextricably tied to capitalist processes. For
Marxist-inspired theorists, understanding cities and urban change requires examining how capitalism shapes and reshapes
the urban landscape in its pursuit of profit and crisis avoidance.

This perspective emphasizes that cities are not only centers of social life but also critical instruments in the ongoing cycles
of investment, profit, and social control inherent in capitalism.

Summary: New Kinds of Cities and Postmodern Urbanism

1. The Changing Shape of Cities​

In a post-Fordist, post-industrial era, cities have transformed into "doughnut" forms—often centerless, sprawling, and
oriented more toward consumption than traditional industry. Urban landscapes are now defined by spaces like malls,
cafes, restaurants, and entertainment venues, reflecting a shift to consumption-based economies. City dwellers
increasingly identify through their roles as consumers, marking a new phase in urban life.

2. Rise of Postmodern, Poststructural, and Postcolonial Theories​

As postmodern and poststructural perspectives gained traction, critics argued that older, class-focused approaches were
too rigid and often centered on Western, industrialized cities. These newer theories emphasize diversity and the
importance of considering different social identities, especially in a globalizing world.

Postmodern Urbanism and the LA School​

Postmodern geographies, such as those described by Ed Soja, capture the fragmented and complex nature of contemporary
cities. Los Angeles, for example, is a model of postmodern urbanism, featuring diverse zones like high-tech hubs, cultural
centers, and entertainment districts, but also areas of intense social segregation. "Edge cities" and post-suburban
developments reflect decentralized growth patterns.

Fragmentation and Polarization​

Postmodern urbanism highlights social polarization, often reinforced by segregating, "paranoid" architectures like gated
communities. Soja and other LA School theorists view this fragmentation as a defining feature, though David Harvey
notes that this "chaotic" urban form is shaped by "flexible accumulation"—where businesses continually innovate to
capitalize on profitable urban landscapes, often with eclectic, pastiche architectural styles.

Contemporary Urban Geography: Key Themes and Theories

Contemporary urban geography examines the dynamic and interconnected forces shaping cities today. With globalization,
neoliberal policies, financialization, urban politics, and Southern urbanism, geographers have developed nuanced
frameworks to understand cities as complex, interconnected nodes in a global network.

World Cities and Global Networks

Saskia Sassen’s influential concept of “world cities” (1991) posits New York, London, and Tokyo as essential “command
and control” centers that drive the global economy. These cities facilitate the flows of capital, information, and services
that sustain globalization. Building on this, the Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC) further
classifies cities based on their business service connections, creating a hierarchical system of urban interconnectivity that
reflects the scale and diversity of urban relationships across the world. This approach underscores that world cities are not
isolated entities but function as hubs in a complex, global web of economic and cultural exchange.

Neoliberalism and the City

Since the 1980s, cities have been reshaped by neoliberal policies that favor deregulation, free markets, and reduced
government intervention. As state welfare systems receded, new urban policies emerged, often emphasizing privatized
redevelopment in central cities, as documented by Fields (2017) in her study on financialization. This shift has led to
gentrification and the displacement of low-income populations, prompting researchers to study the resulting
transformations in urban landscapes and social structures.

Urban Politics and Social Injustice

Urban politics increasingly focus on issues of justice and spatial inequality, as illustrated by Mustafa Dikeç’s studies on
the 2005 Paris banlieues riots. The concept of “spatiality of injustice” explores how marginalized suburban areas face both
material deprivation and symbolic devaluation, with the state often responding through heightened policing and
repression. Dikeç’s work underscores the racial and social divides within urban spaces, particularly as these dynamics play
out in France’s post-colonial context, reflecting a broader struggle over urban space and identity.

Southern Urbanism and Global South Perspectives

A growing body of urban geography, led by scholars such as Susan Parnell and Jennifer Robinson, challenges the
Eurocentric focus of traditional urban theory. Southern urbanism examines the unique developmental trajectories of cities
in the Global South, such as rapid urbanization without corresponding industrialization in parts of Africa. These cities
often operate within informal economies, shaped by colonial legacies and unique state-market relationships. This
approach argues for a re-theorization of urban geography that includes diverse experiences and conditions, rather than
applying a one-size-fits-all model based on Western cities.

In summary, contemporary urban geography engages with the shifting dynamics of global city networks, neoliberal
influences, social and spatial inequalities, and the unique challenges faced by cities in the Global South. These
frameworks highlight the need for inclusive, diversified theories that reflect the complexities of urban life in a globalized
world.
GY100 AT Week 7 Lecture - Mobility:

Mobility: Definitions and Broader Themes in Human Geography

Mobility, a central concept in human geography, refers to the movement and circulation of people, goods, and information
across spatial scales. It encompasses everything from individual migrations and daily commutes to the global flow of
commodities and data. Scholars use mobility as a lens to explore interconnected processes that shape economic systems,
cultural exchanges, and political structures, emphasizing its multidimensional and dynamic nature. At its core, mobility
reveals the interplay between local and global geographies, highlighting both opportunities and inequalities in an
increasingly interconnected world.

One critical dimension of mobility is its role in globalization, where advancements in transportation and communication
technologies have made the world more interconnected. The rapid movement of goods through global supply chains and
the ease of international travel have compressed space and time, allowing for unprecedented levels of interaction.
However, this same process has created uneven geographies, as some regions and populations benefit from increased
access and connectivity, while others are excluded or exploited. These disparities demonstrate how mobility is both a
product of and a contributor to global power dynamics.

Another important theme is the politics of mobility, which examines how movement is regulated, restricted, and
facilitated. Borders, migration policies, and citizenship laws govern who can move and where they can go, often
privileging certain groups while marginalizing others. Similarly, access to mobility infrastructure, such as reliable public
transportation or digital networks, is unevenly distributed, reinforcing existing social and economic inequalities. In urban
and rural contexts alike, mobility is a reflection of systemic power structures, influencing who can participate in
economic, social, and political life.

The concept of mobility also connects deeply with identity and belonging, as movement reshapes cultural landscapes and
individual experiences of place. Migrants, refugees, and diasporic communities embody the tensions between rootedness
and mobility, challenging static notions of home and nationhood. Tourism and leisure travel, meanwhile, illustrate how
mobility facilitates cultural exchange while also commodifying places and experiences. In these contexts, mobility is not
just about physical movement but about the shifting meanings of place, culture, and identity in an interconnected world.

Finally, the environmental and sustainability implications of mobility cannot be overlooked. Transportation systems are
significant contributors to global carbon emissions, linking mobility directly to climate change. At the same time, the need
for sustainable mobility solutions, such as public transit systems, cycling infrastructure, and greener logistics networks, is
becoming increasingly urgent. These efforts reflect broader concerns about balancing the benefits of mobility with its
social and environmental costs.

In sum, mobility in human geography is far more than the act of moving from one place to another. It is a
framework for understanding how societies organize, interact, and change. By examining the diverse forms, scales,
and impacts of mobility, geographers reveal the complex relationships between movement, power, identity, and
sustainability, offering valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of an increasingly mobile world.

Mobility Theory:

Tim Cresswell (2010) argues that mobility is inherently political, raising crucial geographical questions about access,
experience, and inequality. While we live in an increasingly interconnected world, the ways people experience mobility
vary widely, often reflecting broader societal power structures. For some, movement is voluntary and liberating, tied to
privilege and opportunity, while for others, it is forced and fraught with precarity. This duality highlights how mobility is
not just about physical movement but also about the social and political contexts that enable or constrain it.

Cresswell draws on Zygmunt Bauman’s concept of the kinetic hierarchy to illustrate these disparities. Those at the top
enjoy freedom and luxury in their movement, welcomed and facilitated at their destinations. In contrast, those at the
bottom—such as refugees or undocumented migrants—experience mobility as a painful necessity, often met with
exclusion or hostility upon arrival. These contrasting experiences reveal how mobility is deeply intertwined with issues of
privilege, power, and inequality, challenging geographers to critically examine the structures governing movement in the
contemporary world.

Mobility and Global Migration:

Global migration in the 19th and 20th centuries saw diverse patterns influenced by colonialism, industrialization, and
global conflicts. Major flows included North-North migration, with 59 million Europeans moving to the Americas,
Australia, and New Zealand between 1846 and 1939, and South-South migration, such as Indian and Chinese indentured
laborers to European colonies. North-South migration also characterized this period, with Europeans settling in colonial
territories. After World War II, migration patterns shifted with the end of colonial rule, the collapse of the USSR, and
reduced mobility restrictions. This led to a rise in South-North migration—evidenced by significant emigration from
Latin America to the U.S.—and increased South-South migration, reflecting growing diversification in migrant origins
and destinations.

The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw additional complexities, including significant undocumented migration, with
50 million estimated undocumented migrants in 2010 and Europe becoming a key entry point, particularly via Greece
during the 2015 refugee crisis. The feminization of migration also emerged, driven by demand for women in the global
service economy, with women accounting for 48% of global migrants by 2015. Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
(IDPs) became a growing
concern, with 35.3 million
refugees and 62.5 million
IDPs worldwide in 2022.
Conflicts in Syria,
Ukraine, and Afghanistan
were among the leading
causes, and Turkey
became the largest host
country, sheltering 3.6
million refugees. These
trends illustrate the
evolving nature of global
migration, shaped by
political, economic, and
social forces.
Geography, Migration, and Mobility

Historically, analyses of migration in geography were dominated by sedentarist perspectives, such as Ravenstein’s Laws
(1885), which focused on patterns of movement tied to proximity and gradual diffusion. These understandings were
further shaped by neoclassical economic theories, which framed migration as a rational response to wage differentials
between sending and receiving areas. The push-pull model emerged from this tradition, explaining migration as an
equilibrium-driven process in which individuals move to maximize economic opportunities and resolve regional
imbalances in labor supply and demand. However, this framework often portrayed migrants as atomized decision-makers
and failed to capture the structural and cultural dimensions of migration.

Structural and Cultural Approaches

Critiques of the push-pull model gave rise to structural-historical approaches that emphasized how migration is
embedded in and perpetuates global inequalities. From this perspective, migration is not merely an economic adjustment
but a process that reflects and reinforces systemic disparities. For instance, the global demand for cheap labor often
mobilizes workers in ways that benefit capital while exacerbating inequalities, as seen in phenomena such as the brain
drain from developing to developed regions. Migration, in this view, is intertwined with structures of spatial inequality,
highlighting how mobility is shaped by historical and geopolitical contexts.

More recently, cultural approaches have brought attention to individual agency and the lived experiences of migration.
This shift is part of the broader “mobilities turn” in the social sciences, which emphasizes the relational and embodied
nature of mobility. Geographers now explore how migration shapes, and is shaped by, identity, belonging, and cultural
exchange, focusing on routes, displacement, and personal narratives. This approach recognizes migration as more than a
functional process; it is a dynamic phenomenon that redefines places, relationships, and cultural landscapes.

The Mobilities Turn

The mobilities turn has reshaped geography’s understanding of movement. While mobility is inherently geographical,
early spatial science often treated it as an anomaly, focusing instead on static phenomena or modeling movement as a
functional exchange between fixed points. This view neglected the everyday flows of people, goods, and information that
characterize contemporary life. By contrast, the mobilities turn emphasizes the diverse and interconnected forms of
movement, including documented labor migration, undocumented flows, tourism, and forced displacement. It also
highlights how mobility is experienced unevenly, influenced by factors such as immigration policies, socioeconomic
status, and geopolitical power.

Changing Patterns of Mobility and Migration

Since the 1970s, shifts in migration policy have further complicated

mobility. Economic nationalism and xenophobia led many Western
governments to restrict documented labor migration, redirecting
flows within regions such as Asia or from Asia to the Middle East.
Simultaneously, points-based immigration systems in Canada,
Australia, and the UK prioritized young, skilled, and educated
migrants, reflecting a global competition for talent. These systems
favor mobility for certain demographics while limiting
opportunities for others, illustrating the interplay between mobility
and immobility.
Intersecting Mobilities in a Globalized World

Hannam, Sheller, and Urry (2006) describe the modern world as increasingly “criss-crossed” by intersecting mobilities,
from tourists and workers to asylum-seekers and scholars. These flows produce a networked global order that impacts
even those who remain immobile. For example, economic and social life is shaped by global migration systems, whether
through remittances, transnational labor networks, or cultural exchanges. However, representations of mobility—such as
the bridges and gateways on the euro or the anti-immigration rhetoric of figures like Nigel Farage during the Brexit
campaign—illustrate the tensions and contradictions surrounding mobility in the contemporary world. These narratives
reveal how mobility is both celebrated and contested, reflecting broader struggles over identity, sovereignty, and
belonging.

In sum, the study of migration and mobility in geography has evolved from sedentarist and economic-centered
frameworks to more nuanced approaches that incorporate structural, cultural, and experiential dimensions. This shift
reflects the complexity of movement in a globalized world, where mobility is both a source of opportunity and a site of
inequality.

Migration and Transnationalism

The changing nature of global mobility has enabled migrants to live transnationally, maintaining connections to multiple
places through advances in transportation and communication. These developments allow migrants to travel regularly,
preserve relationships across distances, send remittances, and engage in transnational business and work. For example,
large diasporas, such as the Chinese and Indian communities, exemplify the global scale of transnational living. More
Chinese people live outside of mainland China than French people reside in France, while 22 million people of Indian
origin are spread across every inhabited continent. This highlights not only the movement of people but also the mobility
of goods, culture, and ideas associated with migration.

The Philippines illustrates how states can actively participate in fostering transnationalism. Since the 1970s, the Philippine
government has promoted labor migration as an economic strategy, encouraging citizens to work abroad in sectors such as
domestic labor, nursing, and seafaring. This strategy has created a vast Filipino diaspora, with 8.7 million people—around
10% of the population—living abroad by 2010. Their remittances are a critical part of the Philippine economy, reaching
$33 billion by 2017, making the country one of the top remittance recipients globally. These flows of money and goods
connect migrants to their places of origin, reinforcing transnational ties.

This transnational perspective marks a shift from earlier understandings of migration as a response to static differences
between places. The “mobilities turn” places greater emphasis on the dynamics of movement itself, recognizing mobility
as a central feature of urbanization and globalization. Migration is no longer simply about moving to a new place but
about maintaining fluid, multi-scalar connections that transform both sending and receiving communities. This new lens
highlights the role of migration in creating not only economic opportunities but also cultural and social transformations.