The Catch-22s of Mobility

Gerhard Kowař

Since its founding, KulturKontakt Austria has been dealing with the situation of mobility in Europe – its self-evidence and its ambivalence.

There are a number of aspects involved:
Today, more than ever, mobility is influencing the political, economic and social transformations of societies, and it is doing so on a global scale. Growing mobility also means positive net migration for almost all OECD countries. This, in turn, creates a tremendous need for change in the sectors of education and culture.
Mobility is a highly complex process. It is often disregarded, sometimes injudiciously simplified, and regularly instrumentalised. As a result of multi-layered social imputations and inappropriate political pragmatism, the discourse on this subject has become a highly charged, delicate balancing act. Time and again, concreteness and a sense of proportion have to be established or restored.
Historically, assessment patterns with respect to mobility and migration can also be considered relicts of the 20th-century threat scenarios. Together with the breakdown of the post-war order and the consequences of 9/11, they add up to an inauspicious ideological mix. Nevertheless, mobility remains an indispensable constant of history and of the future.
Populist demonisation and multicultural idealisation of immigration exist alongside the expedient optimism of neo-liberalism, which sees mobility solely as an instrument of development and of the (admittedly, inherently contradictory) regulation of the quantity and quality of human capital.
The assertions of national and supranational institutions with respect to the control of mobility are inconsistent. Whereas, on the one hand, the European mission of promoting cultural and educational exchange is aimed at achieving cultural diversity, EU integration, and professional as well as personal development, it reduces mobility, on the other hand, to an economic resources problem in the context of global competition.
Education and culture themselves are being used as arguments for or against mobility. It is important, therefore, not to limit the discussion to the technical implementation of requirements. More wide-reaching fundamental questions could include: To what extent does the way we influence and control art and culture correspond to the challenge of achieving social and cultural diversity? What do we need to do in order to adequately equip learning places for providing access to better education for all? Last, but certainly not least: What do we have to learn in order to deal pro-actively and productively with local, regional and global mobility?