"Expect growing inequality: mobility will favour the wealthy, while others will be increasingly stuck"

On 25 October 2024, the distinguished British sociologist David Morley, who has five decades of experience and publications in academia, delivered the keynote lecture titled "Networks, Territories, and Borders: The Politics of (Im)mobility and (In)visibility" at the GAME conference, organized by the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). In his presentation, he explored how the early 21st-century promises of digital capitalism and market liberalism to foster unprecedented mobility have instead led to new border regimes and surveillance systems, reshaping European and global landscapes amid rising nationalism and restricted movement.

Morley is an Emeritus Professor at Goldsmiths, University of London, whose interdisciplinary work spans media audience studies, cultural geography, and globalization. A pioneer in audience/technology research, he contributed to foundational theories in media studies, including the influential encoding/decoding model with Stuart Hall at the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS). His notable works include Nationwide Audience (1978), Family Television (1986), Spaces of Identity (1996), and Communications and Mobility (2017), examining media consumption, identity and mobility within the context of global and digital transformations.

 

At the beginning of the 21st century, there was optimism that digital tech and market-driven capitalism would create a world of equal access. Why didn't this happen?

This idea, pushed by people like Thomas Friedman (in 2005), was silly from the start, because it overlooked deep socio-political differences worldwide. Sure, it sounded nice – everyone's equal, democratic, connected – but it was pure ideology, no serious evidence. I called it out in my 2000 book Home Territories: true equality and access were never achievable with tech alone. 

The reality? Unequal access to mobility and connectivity is now one of the most important dimensions of inequality. And there's a flaw in how we view digital technology. Many analyses are too tech-centric, like technological determinism – it's as if technology is driving everything. But I see tech as a symptom, not the cause. Think back to the '60s when workers had structured lives. They didn't need mobile phones. Today, in a chaotic world of zero-hours contracts, mobile phones help people navigate the instability. But digital tech didn't create this instability; it's just a tool we use to try to deal with it.

 

Nationalism was expected to fade, yet it's resurging. What do you think has contributed to this, especially in the digital age?

Nationalism never actually went away. It's rooted in basic human fears about difference and the tendency to stick with those like us. That's not driven by technology. In post-WWII Western Europe, things were unusually good, and media studies grew in this stable, affluent bubble. But that period was exotic, not a universal norm. Outside that context, the same media technology may have very different consequences.

 

What role do digital platforms have in this context?

Digital platforms play a role too. Look at India, for example. The BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party)'s funding came from the diaspora, which is often more nationalistic than those in the homeland. This dynamic, where the 'purest' national culture isn't even within the geographical space of the nation – like old British folk songs found in the Appalachian Mountains – reveals that nationalism often draws on idealized, distant pasts. There's much to explore in how tech supports these narratives.

 

How has digital technology shaped 'new border regimes' and the control of mobility?

Digital tech is just the tool for enforcing these border controls; it's not what drives them. The real push for these controls came from things like plane hijackings (9/11), which created a need for tight airport security. I mean, getting through Barcelona Airport took me three hours the other day because of security checks, but digital tech didn't cause that, it's just the medium. The real issue is the securitization itself, which stems from past incidents where planes were weaponized. The tech only operates at the end of that chain.

 

How do you see today's geopolitical landscape reshaping Europe's borders compared to the post-Iron Curtain era?

In one word: Putin. The idea of a world moving towards liberal democracy – like Francis Fukuyama's End of History – was naive. The West missed its chance with Gorbachov, a failure which Nelson Mandela criticized back in the 90s. Now we're seeing the 'revenge of history' with Putin reclaiming territories; Ukraine and Georgia may soon be absorbed, Moldova's at risk, and leaders like Viktor Orbán threaten the integrity of the EU from within. Europe might end up retreating into a rich enclave in the northwest, like a modern Hanseatic League, while letting regions like southern Italy go. I've seen friends in the Balkans view Europe as a dream, but by the time they're ready, it may no longer exist as they hoped.

 

How has the response to Middle Eastern refugees influenced European views on migration and identity?

Europe's view on refugees is shaped by old fears – the historical 'Orient' as a longstanding enemy. Seeing refugees can feel like facing ancient 'demons' again. In 2015, when migrants walked through the Balkans, it was like a medieval pilgrimage. Then a British paper showed refugees with mobile phones, and suddenly people questioned if they were 'real' refugees. But a smartphone is essential for migrants; it's how they find routes, connect with family, and access food. This paradox reveals Europe's struggle: refugees are both feared as foreign 'others' and as a mysterious force, almost like figures from a horror movie.

 

How has Brexit influenced mobility and national identity in the UK and Europe?

Brexit shifted the UK's stance on migration and Europe dramatically to the right. Now, anything less than hostility toward foreigners is seen as 'woolly liberalism'. The Labour Party avoids pro-European policies, fearing backlash from working-class voters. A recent attempt to rejoin a European mobility agreement for young people was dropped over these fears. It's tragic, as Erasmus – a program Umberto Eco praised for 'breeding Europeans' – is exactly what Britain needs to stay connected. Brexit has blocked the UK from crucial schemes, shifting debates on race and culture further right.

 

How do socioeconomic conditions in post-industrial regions fuel the appeal of nationalist populism?

In declining regions where manufacturing left due to globalization, generations have faced joblessness and frustration. Men, once family breadwinners, feel abandoned and scorned, labelled by liberals as racist or homophobic. It's not a politics of rational calculation; it's anger and resentment – a desire to disrupt. Trump in the US and figures like Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson in the UK tap into this sentiment, making people feel heard. For all his faults, books like J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Elegy do help to show why many poor people are so disillusioned with mainstream politics and attracted to populist voices.

 

What ethical or societal issues do you see with increasing digital surveillance?

Privacy is nearly impossible to maintain in today's digital economy. To access basic services, we're forced to give up personal data, from cookies to medical records. Few have the time or energy to protect themselves from this extractive system. For instance, if you need medical treatment, you may well have to consent to share all your medical records with private companies who may exploit them for profit. It feels wrong, but it's ingrained in every transaction now.

 

What can be done to change this situation?

Reversing this would require rewriting international law, but tech companies have enormous power. Imagine asking Elon Musk for your data back if he's running things with Donald Trump – unlikely! The problem is massive, and I honestly don't know how we can start fixing it.

 

Can Europe balance security and border control with openness and freedom of movement?

We need more than just values; we need resources. The British National Health Service (NHS), for example, was set up for a stable population that contributed to it throughout their lives. Large-scale migration disrupts this balance, leading to resentment from locals who feel newcomers are taking resources without contributing. One solution could be identity cards, offering free healthcare to citizens while migrants might be asked to contribute more to health costs. But Britain resists identity cards, viewing them as restrictive. The 1945 welfare model doesn't work today. Addressing these welfare challenges could ease resentments and improve the system, but it's a daunting, often avoided issue.

 

Where do you see the future of connectivity and mobility heading?

Expect growing inequality. Wealthier, well-connected people will have more freedom of movement, while the disadvantaged will be increasingly stuck. Michael Winterbottom's film Code 46, about a future where only the rich live in secure city-states, captures this trend. Governments push digital solutions, like Britain's plan to give everyone a smartphone to navigate health services, but for the poor, these 'innovations' often fail. This may simply be because they do not have a good enough credit record to get access to that technology at all, or because they are unable to afford sufficient phone credits to wait 'on hold' while the busy government department they're ringing gets around to answering their call.

 

Will this have an impact on sustainability?

On a larger scale, data centres consume massive amounts of electricity, for instance in Ireland, where they are already taking up 20% of the total supply, likely rising to 30%. Eventually, governments may face hard choices about energy distribution. All this 'modern' paperless tech comes with unseen costs. In Ibn Khaldun's words, predicting the future is a fool's errand, but current trends point to a deepening divide in access and mobility.

Communications and Mobility (2016), en las que examina el consumo de medios, la identidad y la movilidad en el contexto de las transformaciones globales y digitales.