IntroductionModern societies have given rise to a number of technical artefacts, which havebecome paradigmatic duringthe time of their expansion. One of late modernity'smost recognised and contested objects is the automobile. In its current technicalformation,theautomobile has become theprime meansof transportationinmost oftheindustrialisedcountries. Itbothsignifiesadistinct wayof movinginspaceandtime, andhasgivenbirthtoaparticularmobilityparadigm. Automobilisationasamodernmobilityparadigm isinterwoveninto the tissueof contemporary society. Formanyofusitprovides`normal spatial mobility', thatis, thetypeofspatial mobilityroutinely exercised day after day. This paradigm, however, has produced a number ofanomalies that are often seen to threaten the further existence of automobilisation. Ortoputitinotherwords, automobilisationhasproducedrisksthathaveadisruptivecultural andecological effect, whichinturnthreatenthe veryfoundations of thismobilityparadigm. Thegrowthof suchautomobilisationrisks has causedsometoclaimthat wearenowwitnessingthe endof the car as weknowit (Canzler andKnie, 1994). Others argue that environmental degradationof all sorts willput a limitto the further expansion of the motorcar (Vester, 1990). This, however, has proven to bewishful thinking (Canzler and Knie, 1998). Automobilisation, I will argue in this paper,is not necessarily in danger of extinction. Automobilisation is rather in a constant stateof change, reacting to and reacting upon social transformations in a dialectic process.Against this background, my overall aim in this paper is twofold. First, I intend tomakeamoretheoretical contributiontoa`sociologyof transport andmobility' byexploringcontemporaryauto-scapesaswell asthesubjectsandobjectsthatliveandact in thesespaces. Second,I would like tocast some light on what could be termed`reflexive automobilisation' and, thus, show how automobilisation risks are defined anddealt with by both their subjects and their objects.Automobilitya social problem and theoretical conceptJo rg BeckmannDepartment of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Linne sgade 22, DK-1361 Copenhagen K,DenmarkReceived 18 August 1999; in revised form 30 December 2000Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2001, volume 19, pages 593 ^ 607Abstract. In this paper, I explore automobility as the dominant type of contemporary everyday mobility.I criticallyreviewrecentattemptstoconceptualisethesocial roleofcarsandsubsequentlysuggestathree-dimensional model to theorise automobility further as a modern mobility paradigm. This theory ofautomobilityassignscentral importancetothesubjects, thevehicles, andthespatiotemporalitiesthatare involved in, and produced by, the car-system. For the purpose of outlining the content and internaldependencies of this three-dimensional model, I make use of theoretical assumptions gleaned from trans-port geography, modernisation theory, as well as the sociology of technology. Furthermore, I argue that asomewhatorthodoxformofautomobilisationhasbecomereflexiveinthecourseofagrowingpublicrecognitionof theinherentthreatsof thecartocultureandnature. Underreflexiveautomobilisationalmost all `auto-subjects' are engaged in defining, interpreting, and responding to `auto-risks'. They do notnecessarily do this, however, in a self-critical fashion. Instead of fostering the rise of a different, postauto-motive mobility paradigm, their responses often merely lead to a reproduction of traditional `auto-scapes'.DOI:10.1068/d222t Current address: DanishTransport ResearchInstitute, Knuth-Winterfeldts Alle 116, DK-2800Lyngby, Denmark; e-mail: jb@dtf.dkMapping automobilisationScholars of the sociology of technology and anthropology, as well as transportengineers, planners, andgeographers, have toucheduponthe automobile andthestructureandmechanismsofitssocialandculturalembedding. They have drawn theattentionoftheiraudiencetotheostensiblesocial andeconomicbenefitsthatstemfrom theerection of an extensive road infrastructure network andfrom theprovisionof individual access totheautomobile. Indoingso, theyhavepraisedthe``joys ofautomobility'' (Weber, 1990, page 274) with both its `flexibility' and `efficiency' (Kaliski,1999). Inthese and similar writings the spaces producedby the car are seen asstaticentitiesasexceptional landscapesunalterableintheirfoundationonthecar.Theclaimmadeinsuchwritingsisthatthemoderncity, withitsurbansprawl andfragmentedtravel patterns, cannotexistwithoutmotorisedindividual transport. Forthefunctioningof citieslikeLosAngeles, London,orBerlin, thecarisseento beanecessity rather than an option. In the eyes of these scholars, engineering and planningcanonlybeauto-engineeringandauto-planning. Andit istheabandonmentofthemotorcar that poses a threat to urban life rather than its increasing utilisation. Whereastheseperspectivesarerootedinagrowth-orientedconceptionoftransportplanning,othershaveaimedatbothunderstandingandalteringauto-spacesandauto-subjectsin a more critical fashion.Suchcritical contributions haveshownthat thesuccess of theautomobileas aprime means of transportation is interwoven with the social, technical, and economicchangesinlatemodernity. They haveilluminatedhowinfrastructureplanners,publicadministrators, and private organisations have paved the way for an increasing use ofthe motorcar. These actors fathered the car in that they erected `hard' infrastructures,suchasroads, bridges, andtunnels, andfacilitatedthe`softer' ones, suchasdrivingschools, automobile clubs, or rescue ambulances (Kuhm, 1997). An empirical sociologyof transport has concentrated on themobility needs and attitudes of particular socialgroups,suchasadolescents(Tully, 1999),women(Buhr, 1999),orcar-free households(ReutterandReutter, 1997). Othersexploredhowcarmanufacturershavefosteredaparticular technical formationof the car (Canzler andKnie, 1994). Or theyhavedepictedthe social role of automobile clubs (Kra mer-Badoni et al, 1972). Manyofthesecontributors haveprovidedaninsight intohowan``ideologyof automobility,whichclouds andmystifies social realities'' (FreundandMartin, 1993, page 93) isconstructedandcontinually reproduced in a somewhat `spiral process' (Kuhm, 1997).The commonviewthat runs throughandunites the various contributions is thatmobility and modernity are interwoven and equally dependent upon each other(Bon and Kesselring, 1999; Rammler, 1999; Urry, 2000). Modern cultures are movingcultures (Eyerman, 1999). Within this mobility ^ modernity nexus the automobile``isoftenviewedastheavatar ofmobility'' (Thrift, 1996, page 272)thatprovidesthemotorforspatial,cultural,andeconomicdevelopment. Itistheinternal combustionengine of late modernity itself.Still, tofindacomprehensive definitionof automobilisationgleanedfromavarietyof disciplines andsourceshas sofarbeenanunsatisfyingtask.Thefirstobstacle that researchin automobilisation is confronted withis that of terminology.Two terms areoften usedsynonymously:automobility and automobilisation.As faras it concerns this paper, I have predominantly chosen the term `automobilisation' asit better reflects and signifies the dynamic nature of this paradigmatic type ofmobility. The next obstacle is constitutedby the vagueness of the definitions inuse. Althoughautomobilisationisidentifiedas, forinstance, `animportantsocietalphenomenon' (Hagman and Tengstro m, 1991), the generic characteristics of thissocial phenomenon remain persistently unclear. To begin with, I will therefore focus594 J Beckmannonthose interpretations of the paradigmthat are closelylinkedtothe technicalartefact.One sociological category which draws upon the systemic character of theautomobile and carefully attempts to overcome a reductionistic understanding of auto-mobilisation as a synonym for `more cars on the road', is that of large technologicalsystems (LTS). Here, it is no longer the automobile as a single technical artefact thatisofinterest,butrathertheautomobile-relatedtransport system. Withtheredefini-tionofautomobilisationasalargetechnological system, thesocial functionoftheautomobileasameansoftrasportationshiftstowardsthecentreofasociologicalanalysis. Scholars taking this approach, point at the organisational and institutionalbodythat surrounds theautomobile. Furthermore, theylookat theimpact of theautomobile-related transport systemon the growing functional differentiation ofmodern societies. In such work the transport system in general, and automobilisationin particular, is understood as an infrastructural system``in so far as its mainfunction consists of enabling various specific activities of economic, political orsocial nature'' (Mayntz, 1993, page 100).Withtheinterpretationof automobilisationas alargetechnological system, theperspective is certainly broadened and the mobility paradigm is rendered into a socio-logical issue, but this approach still places the emphasis on`the technical'. Thisbecomesclearin theexpositionsofRenateMayntz(1993).Accordingto Mayntz, themodern transport system distinguishes itself from other functional subsystems (such astheeducational system) throughtheimportant rolethat technical innovations haveplayed for these large technological systems. She points out that the particular organ-isational andinstitutional formoflargetechnological systemsarebasedonspecifictechnologicalinterventions(1993, page 101). Inotherwords, thetechnical hasshapedand moulded the system.Apart from the influential role of technical innovations for the genesis of LTS, it isalsotheir technological foundationthat determines the growthdynamics of thesesystems. Mayntz argues that the expansion of the transport systems follows a techno-logic, inwhichthetrajectoryof thesesystemsisdefinedbywhat istechnologicallyfeasible. This `technology push' is crucial for the understanding of large technologicalsystems. It represents the main criterion in distinguishing an LTS from other functionalsubsystems.For the case of the auto-LTSit is Klaus Kuhm(1997) whoprovides abetterunderstanding of the `technology push' that reinforces the expansion of the automobilesystem. By employing systems theory, Kuhm shows how the provision of both techni-cal and organisational infrastructure has moulded the expansion and utilisation of theautomobile. In doing so, he unfolds the structural changes on which automobilisationrests. The auto-LTS is, thus, defined by what he calls a `spiral dynamic'. According toKuhm, the dominance of the automobile-based transport systemin industrialisedcountriescan beregardedastheresult of aspiralandself-organisedprocess.Inthisprocess, the automobileturns intoastructural prerequisitefor theorganisationofeveryday life, while at the same time the variety of forms of everyday action becomesthe structural prerequisite for the expansion of the automobile. It is partly this inherentcompulsiontowards continuationanecessitytoincreaseindividual mobilitythatdefines the growth dynamics of automobilisation. The mobilisation of the self assuresits ownreproduction bycreatingsocial,spatiotemporal,andtechnologicalconditionsthat restrict the genesis of any other mobility paradigms.Although this auto-LTS has been shaken by a number of crises, it appears as stableas ever. The stability of a particular type of vehicle is not a unique event in the historyof sociotechnical systems.Theprocessof thegenesis, expansion, andnormalisationAutomobilitya social problem and theoretical concept 595ofsuchsystemsbasedonanartefactcanbeexplainedbymeansofnotionssuchas`controversy' and`closure' (BijkerandPinch, 1987). Althoughthegenesisofasocio-technical system, like that surrounding the automobile, is based on opposing views andinterests of the engaged agencies, the further expansion of such a system is determinedby anincreasinghomogenisationof interests controversiesare reduced. The flatten-ing of conflicts eventually results in a`closure', which is accompaniedby furtherinstitutional buildingandamanifestationof the organisations involved. After theclosure, potential threats to this systemdo not cause any essential alterations inthe foundations of the sociotechnical system. But they may, nevertheless, inducesomeminorchangesintheformationofthetechnical artefactsuchas, forinstance,the introduction of the seat belt as a result of an increasing concern with traffic safety(Adams, 1995).Suchaperspective conceives of technologyas sociallyconstructed. The socialconstructionoftechnology(SCOT)offers``several advantagesinanalysingtheusersas agents of technological change'' (Kline and Pinch, 1999, page 113). SCOT certainlyopens upalens throughwhichtolookat automobilisationbyacknowledging an`interpretative flexibility' of the car (Kline andPinch, 1999). Thus, the car meansdifferentthingstodifferentpeople, andthisconstructionandalterationofmeaningcontinuesthroughouttheevolutionoftheautomobile. Formenandwomen, driversandpedestrians, automobileclubs andenvironmental movements, thecar certainlyfacilitates a variety of meanings.SCOT's apparent import is that it assigns greater relevance to the ways in which aparticular machinein this case the caris used. It also illustrates how conflicts arisefrom the opposing meanings that spread over the communities of car users, part-timeusers,andnonusers.However,infocusing onhowmeaningisconstrued,SCOT runsthe risk of bracketing out the social structure upon which technological change unfolds.Nevertheless, amore social constructivist programme is of interest because of theattention it pays towards the various subjects of automobilisation. Consequently, I willreturntoamoreactors-orientedpointof viewlaterinthispaper, whenIshall lookat the relationship between thesubjects and objects of automobilisationmoreclosely.For this purposeit will be, first andforemost, BrunoLatour's work(1993), whichprovidesanotherperspectiveonauto-objectsandauto-subjectsasquasi-subjectsandquasi-objects.To summarise, the advantage of a social scientific programme, such as thatrepresentedinalargetechnological system, liesinitssociality, thatis, initsrepre-sentationoftechnologyasanobjectembeddedinsocial structure. Nevertheless, itemphasises the technical andviews it as the driving force for a somewhat self-reproducing entity. For exploring the unfolding of automobilisation as a socioculturalphenomenon, such a perspective runs the riskof disguising aspects other thanthe technical. These are, for instance, the relevance of modern spatiotemporalpatterns, the gains of individual freedom that are ostensibly connected to car usage,andthe creationof meaningbasedon`objects of mobility' like the automobile.SCOT, despiteits partial structural blindness, pays moretributetotheseaspects.Nevertheless, bothapproaches have their limits if utilisedfor the explorationofautomobilisation. Surely, the automobile is atechnical artefact; it certainlygaverisetoalargetechnological systemandit, nodoubt, generatesdifferent meaningsamongst different social groups. But, automobilisation is a mobility paradigm that isjust asmuchabouttheovercomingof distanceasit isabout atechnical artefact.Thus, neither the notion of large technological systems nor the social construction oftechnologyisinitselfsufficient enoughtounfoldthemechanismsbehindthislatemodernmobility paradigm.596 J BeckmannIn order to fill the notion of automobilisation with more substantial content, I willtakeacloserlookatthreeofitspivotal dimensions. Iwill scrutinise, (a) thespatio-temporal context inwhichit is situated, (b) the subjects of automobilisation, and,(c) its vehicles. Indoing so, I will drawuponthe considerations andconclusionsmadebydifferentauthorsandtherebygraduallybuildupa `model ofautomobilisa-tion'. Thismodelresultsfroma genuine understanding of spatialmobility asasocialactionduringwhicha personovercomes geographicaldistanceandtakes uptime bymeans of some technical or organisational device. In this model, spatial mobility is theprerequisite for, and the consequence of, social interaction. It both enables and followssociality. The purpose of sucha definitionis first andforemost toovercome thepredominant and purely quantitative understanding of spatial mobility as `the numberof trips per person and per day' that is often used in transport planning. It is a definition,though, that reveals little or nothing about the social ties of automobilisation.Auto-scapesthe spatiotemporalities of automobilisationFortwopeopletobesimultaneouslyatthesameplaceisimpossible. Neitherisitfeasible for one person tobe simultaneously at twoplaces (Ha gerstrand, 1976).Consequently, for any sort of interaction physical space needs to be overcome.Throughout humanhistorytheways, means, andpurposesofandforovercomingspace have changedand with themthe formation and meaning of both timeand space (Schivelbusch, 1977).It is because of the generic spatiality of transportation that issues revolving aroundmovement and mobility have lent themselves to one particular academic discipline, thatis, totransport geography. However, withinthis discipline, thespatiotemporalityofmobility was oftentoucheduponandfilteredthroughapersistent economic biasamongst most scholars. It seems that transport economics hadinfiltratedmuchofwhatwentonwithintransportgeography(Kagermeier, 2000). Until todayeconomicmodels, suchas cost ^ benefit analysis, serveas explanatoryattempts tounfoldthecomplex interactions betweentransport networks andgeographic development. Inline with thisnarrow conception of mobility, thenotion of`distance' has a particularmeaning. It is genuinely seen as `tyrannical' (Hoyle and Knowles, 1998), as restrictingmobility,andasthusdeceleratingeconomicdevelopment.Normativetransportgeog-raphy predominantly seeks to overcome distance and reduce the friction between twoplaces. Possible `virtues' of distance or potential `benefits' of spatial barriers are seldomrecognised.It is only during the recent past that transport geographers have turned away fromsomeoftheirformer axioms. Inthecourseofanincreasingacademicdebateontheambivalent character of mobility, transport geographers have added a number of socio-logical categoriestotheirtheoretical andmethodological toolbox. Inparticular, thesocial dilemma of auto-based urban transport has caused some transport geographerstopostulatea turningpointinbothtrafficandthediscipline'sstyleofresearchingit(Hesse, 1993). Triggered by the growing risks of automobility, an employment of behav-iouralsciences,lifestyleapproaches, orculturalstudies bytransport geographershadled tonewinterpretationsof thequestionsandproblemsthat thediscipline has beenconcerned with.Againstthisbackground, itisnowcommonknowledgethattheautomobile, likeany new transportation technology, has changed the `lived' spaces and times of humanactivity.Instead of merely alteringthemeans bywhich one travels between A andB,automobilisation has introduced new spatiotemporalities. It has reinforced, for instance,the acceleratedexpansionof suburbanspaces, whichhaddevelopedalongside theprovision of street cars and metropolitan rail systems during the second half ofAutomobilitya social problem and theoretical concept 597the 19th century. Not only did the car foster the parcelisation of the urban fringe, butit gradually contributedto what couldbecalledafragmentationof space. Withindi-vidual use of the automobile, space has become ever more fragmented and dispersed,in that specific activities are tied to a particular place. The modern city is sliced up intoshoppingareas, housingareas,leisureparks, businessdistricts,andsoforth. Humanactivities are no longer bundled in a particular spatiotemporality, but spread over spaceand time. The accessibility of such functions is assured by means of the automobile andits complementary infrastructure (La pple, 1997).Inthiscontext, thecar-systemhasfurtherstratifiedsocietiesandpolarisedgeog-raphies. To access and use certain areas in and outside the city, the car is often crucial.Only if I own and drive an automobile can I conquer the `car-only-sights' of suburbanshoppingmallsandperipheral themeparks. Atthesametimethatthecarprovidesaccess to certain spaces, it prohibits nondrivers from taking part in different spatiallybound activities. As a`feet-only-user', I amexcluded fromdrive-in cinemas andfacesevererestrictions inmyuseof roads andneighbourhoods. For thosewithoutmotorisedmeans of individual transportation``thehometerritorybegins toerode''(Engwicht, 1999, page 15)themoreheorshegetspushedontothesidewalkorintothe residual places that are left blankbythe roadnetwork. Insuchurbanareas,walking places have acquired a `reservation status', where protected walking has turnedfrom a form of transportation into a recreational activity or an eccentric sport. In suchcar-based cities, walking as one way of getting from A to B has vanished from publicconceptions of mobility. Here, the car determines both the use of the city as well as thatof the human mind.Modern individuals, apart from interacting in living spaces, sleeping spaces, work-ingtimes, andfreetimes, nowencounter eachother indrivingspaces anddrivingtimes. Itseemsthatroadspaceandhighwaylaneswhicharenotjustproducedoralteredbytheautomobile, butexclusivelyoccupiedbyandreservedforitarenowspaces where humans meet (in `love' or in `anger'). Parking lots as red light districts andhighways as combat fields have provided an alternative meaning of what was once seenmerelyasroadinfrastructure. Roadusenowadaysencompassesactivitiesotherthansimplydriving. Withroadragethestreetsarerenderedintogroundsforbattle. Thedriveras thesignificant other is apotential enemy, athreat toone's privatespacewithin the metal cocoon.``Whenothercar/driversinvadeourspace, appeartoputusindanger, whentheytouch our hybrid bodies with their own or yell at us, our sense of being in a privatespacewithina publicspaceisviolated. Nolongercocoonedinoursecureworld,separateandautonomous, webecomedrawnintohostilerelations withothers''(Lupton, 1999, page 70).On the one hand thecar signifies security and protection to its driverit reduces therisk of being injured if hit by another car. On the other hand, as a private space withinthe wider public auto-scapes, it threatens others just as muchas theythreatenit.Highways, onceasymbol of freedom,denotingpathwaysto a better lifeand offering``achancetorecast thediceof life''(EyermanandLo fgren, 1995,page 53)havenowbecomethegroundswherehatereplaceshope. Here,theJanus-faceofautomobilisa-tion appears. Whereas automobilisation has opened up the urban fabric and freed theindividual fromsomeofhisorherformerphysical boundaries, ithasalsosimulta-neously mouldedanother, more dangerous anddisperse structure that continuallyforces people and goods to maintain their movement.Besides the dangerous times and dispersed spaces, the spatiotemporalities of the carare `compressed' to argue along the lines of David Harvey (1990). According to Harvey,theexpansionof transportationtechnologiessuchasthecarhasaccompanieda598 J Beckmannprocessof intense`time ^ spacecompression'. Thishadadisorientinganddisruptiveimpact on cultural and social life and changed the prevailing conceptions of space andtime. The consequence is an acceleration in the pace of life. The time horizons of privateand public decisionmaking have shrunk because the acceleration of transport has madeitincreasinglypossibletospreadthesedecisionsoveraneverwiderandfragmentedspace. Theresult of this time ^ spacecompressionfor thetransport patterns of theindividual isnotadecreaseinmobility, butratheranaccelerationandenlargement:we are not moving less, but rather faster and further in order to cope with the demandsthat stem from capitalism's structural changes. Thus, Harvey argues, ``as time horizonsshorten to the point where the present is all there is (the world of the schizophrenic), sowe have to learn how to cope with an overwhelming sense of compression of our spatialand temporal worlds'' (1990, page 240).Harvey'snotionof time ^ spacecompressionandtheaccelerationof everyday lifeis basedonthe binarydistinctionbetween`slower' and`faster' times. Bydrawinguponthis `temporaldivide',Harveypicturesthedistopicconsequencesof suchaccel-erationprocessesinaratherundifferentiatedfashion. Hedisguisesthevariationsoftime ^ spacesthatexistincontemporarysocietiesandtowhichautomobilisationhascontributed. Onecould argue that thecompression of the spatial and temporal worldof theindividual is part of anymodernisationprocess. Theautomobilefosters thiscompression by substituting one `time ^ space-ordering device', (Giddens, 1990), that oftrain timetables, for that of another. With the expansion of the automobile, this processis far fromending. It is continuedbythefurther technological innovations withintelecommunication and transportation.WhereasHarveyinhisconceptofspace ^ timecompressionviewstransportationtechnologiesasthedrivingforcebehindtheaccelerationof everyday life, ScottLashand John Urry (1994) detect twovariations of late modern times. One of thesevariations, instantaneous time, extends the present into the past and future, andtherebymatcheswithHarvey'sspace ^ timecompression. Andanother, evolutionarytime, emergesfromagrowingawarenessofthethreatsposedbytheaccelerationofeveryday life. Evolutionarytime, forinstance, givesrisetolongertimehorizonsasaresult of the recognitionof the degradingeffects of anacceleratedovercomingoftime andspaceon theenvironment. This has ledmany agencies to developstrategiesto slow-down rather than to speed-up life in late modern times. ``Attempts are made toremake spaces as sites for `strolling' and `livingin', not merely for passing through asfast as possible'' (Lashand Urry, 1994, page 249). Hence, late moderntimes areambivalent. In contrast to Harvey's conception of human life as empty and compressed,thesevariationsenablebothaspeed-upandaslow-downofeverydayconduct. Theysimultaneously create places in transition, that is to say, places merely to pass through,and true localities, that is, places to remain in. Consequently, the destructive effects ofinstantaneoustime(beingthetypeoftemporalityfosteredby automobilisation)haveproduced different reactions. In some casesand these are the cases that Ulrich Beck(1994)woulddefineasreflexiveithascausedaself-critical responseandpromotedattempts to counterbalance the disruptive results of the speed-up by means of a slow-down. Inother cases, it has ledtocollective andindividual reactions that hardlychallenge the side effects of automobilisation.Integrated and disintegrated auto-subjectsTheembeddingof theautomobileintheeverydaylifeof modernpeoplehasgivenrise to a number of sociological associations, such as the above-mentioned car culture,or,alternatively, MimiSheller'sandJohnUrry's `civil society of automobility' (2000).Automobilitya social problem and theoretical concept 599Sheller andUrrysuggest that moderncivil societies are reconstructedaroundtheunique everyday mobilities that are fostered by the car and its use. From this view``automobility constitutesa civil society of hybridised `car-drivers' and not of`pure'human subjects. They enter the public sphere in their mobility, dwelling-within-theircars.Socialconflictsareimportantly structuredaroundthesemobilitiesandtheirprofound temporal and spatial consequences'' (Urry, 1999, page 18).Withinthiscivil societyofhybridisedcar ^ drivers, theuserasthecoresubjectof automobilisation seeks freedomby means of his or her vehicle. Against thisbackground, theautomobilehascertainlyenabledmodernindividualstoovercomesome of the existingspatiotemporal restrictions of pre-automobilisedtimes, andhascontributedtotheflexibilityoflatemodernlifestyles. Automobilisationalloweditssubjects to overcome the rigid `time ^ space ordering device' (Giddens, 1990) of traintimetables, ``whichpermitthecomplexcoordinationoftrainsandtheirpassengersand freight across large tracts of time ^ space'' (page 20). With the private car,however, anew`time ^ spaceorderingdevice'wasestablished, whichcontinuedthedisembedding of social systems, in which social relations become `lifted-out' of localcontextsof interactionandarerestructuredacrossindefinitespansoftime ^ space(page 21).At the same time as automobilisation creates independence and liberates its subjectfromspatiotemporal constraints, it alsoformulatesnewdependencies. Or, inUrry'swords: ``Themovingcarforcespeopletoorchestrateincomplexandheterogeneousways theirmobilitiesandsocialitiesacross very significant distances''(1999,page 10).Thisorchestrationofpeople'smobilitiesandsocialities, onecanargue, iscontrolledandsupervisedby expert systems. Ingeneral,notverymany aspectsof theeverydaylife of people are so highly endowed with expert systems and expert knowledge as thefieldoftransportation. ItisagainAnthonyGiddenswhohaschosentodrawuponthe automobile in order to exemplify the increasing influence of expert systems on oureveryday action. Giddens states that,``when I go out of the house and get into a car, I enter settings which are thoroughlypermeatedbyexpertknowledgeinvolvingthedesignandconstructionof auto-mobiles, highways, intersections, traffic lights, andmanyother items. Everyoneknows that drivingacarisa dangerousactivity,entailingtherisk of accident.Inchoosingtogoout inthe car, I accept that risk, but relyonthe aforesaidtoguaranteethatitisminimisedasfaraspossible. Ihaveverylittleknowledgeofhow the car works and could only carry out minor repairs upon it myself should itgowrong. I haveminimal knowledgeabout thetechnicalities of modes of roadbuilding, the maintaining of the road surfaces, or the computers which help controlthe movement of the traffic'' (1990, page 28).According to Giddens, the evolution of expert systems in modern societies, such asthe one surrounding the automobile, has contributed to a process of disembedding andreembedding. He claims that, ``the very means of transportation which help to dissolvethe connection between locality and kinship provide the possibility for reembedding, bymaking it easy to visit `close' relatives who are far away now'' (1990, page 142). If thenotion of disembedding or individualisation and reintegration or reembedding isimposed on automobilisation, one will find that particular expert systems within trans-port alsoleadtoaprocess inwhichthe hybrid`car ^ driver' is disembeddedandreembedded. Any technological interventionthat has subsequentlybeenimplantedintotheindividual car, Iclaim, hashadpreciselythispurpose. Expertsystemssuchas theestablishedradio-broadcastedtrafficreports or thesatellite-basednavigationsystemsdisregardingwhethertheyaresuccessful inpraxisor notaresuchinter-ventions. Theyweremeant to free thesingle driver fromtheever-growingconstraints600 J Beckmannposed upon them by the tragedy of thecommon, that is, themass utilisation of cars.Hopes to avoid the tragedy, however, have resulted in a farce. The ostensible advantagesof anever-growingprovisionof trafficinformationareconsumedas growth benefits.So-called intelligent transportation systems have proven to be wishful thinking. Ratherthansolvingtransportationproblemsthey seemonlytoshiftconstraintsintimeandspace. Thus, the disembedding andreembedding of theindividual driver by meansofonboardcomputers is reducedtotheinstance. Intheverymoment that heor shereceives the information it appears to be outdated. Although freed from the constraintin the one minute, the driver has to cope with another problem in the next. No matterwhether suchsystems eventuallywork(inthe sensethat theyindeedallowonetooutsmart the jam), they will lead to ever-new rounds of disembedding and reembedding,andbeyondtherisk of failureitis preciselythetrust ininformationandcommu-nication systems that enables the disembedding of the driver and, simultaneously, causeshis or her reembedding.In the same way as the automobile has freed the modern individual fromaspatiotemporal structure, ithasensuredthereembeddingofitsusers(andnonusers)intoanother, highlymobile, wayoflife. Automobilisation, inotherwords, hassus-tained itself and ensured the institutionalisation and standardisation of ways of livingwhicharebasedonanacceleratedovercomingof ever morespace. It is Beckwhoemphasisesthisstandardisationandinstitutionalisationofwaysoflifeasaresultofindividualisation when he points out that ``individualism does not signify the beginningof the self-creation of the world by the resurrected individual. Instead it accompaniestendenciestowardtheinstitutionalisationandstandardisationofwaysoflife'' (1994,page 90).Nowhere else thaninthe dailyrushhour does this become morevisible: it isprecisely in the periodically reoccurring traffic jam, withits vast columns of vehicles,that public space has been turned into an individual sphere limited by the metal skin ofthe private automobile. It is `the jam' that provides a meaningful metaphor to challengea positivistic understanding of individualisationso common among the advocates ofindividual transport. If the automobile individualises, it does so only until it capturesandlocks the individual againinthejam. Thegridlocksignifies illustrativelyhowindividualisation is bound up with institutionalisationhow, again, individual freedomiseatenupbynewinstitutionssurroundingthecar ^ driver.Toilluminatethisoncemore through another example: instead of writing the history of the motorcar as a taleof individualisation, it must be interpreted as a story of increasing standardisation andinstitutionalisation. Onceamotoriseddesperadowho, inthebest of all cases, onlyscared the horses, cyclists, and pedestrians of the roads (Sachs, 1992), the automobilistis now a neatly institutionalised actorwell guarded by the automobile owners' clubs,drivingschools, andtraffic regulations. The onlyindividualitythat is possible is asuperficial onethatwhichisreadintothefeaturesthatareontheverysurfaceofone's own and someone else's car.This reinstitutionalisation of the individual car ^ driver, however, does not underminethe isolation of the person behind the steering wheel or on the back seat. Encapsulatedbytheauto-institution, humansbecomephysicallyisolatedas TheodorAdornoandMaxHorkheimerclaimsoillustrativelyalreadyinDialecticofEnlightenment (1979).TheEinfamilienwagenreduces ``acquaintance-shipsmadeduringjourneystocontactswithhitchhikerswhichmay even bedangerous. Mentravelonrubbertiresincom-pleteisolationfromeachother. Theconversationsarealwaysidenticalandregulatedbypractical interests'' (AdornoandHorkheimer, 1979, page 223). Althoughwrittenin1944, these sentences couldcertainlyrefer toadvancedcommunicationtechnol-ogiessuchasthemobiletelephone, onboardtelevision, orcar-basedInternetaccess.Automobilitya social problem and theoretical concept 601Still, despite increasing possibilities for electronic communication with partners outsidethe car, the question remains whether these devices have actually changed the `identical'and `regulated' conversations of yesterday's car passengers.Inanycase, I wouldarguethat automobilityis just as muchabout tyingthesubjecttoonesocial contextasitisaboutfreeingthesubjectfromanother. Thus,automobilisationlikeanyother modernisationprocess has ambiguous andpoten-tially contradictory consequences. As a result, the subject of automobilisationbecomes its object. Rather than a self-determined subject, the car ^ driver is subjectedto theexpert systemsframingthis hybrid,which graduallyturnhimor herinto theobject of this very mobility paradigm. Thus, the essence of automobilisation is that itdestroys theliberatingeffects of spatial mobilitytheverymoment that it createsthem.Vehicles as moving hybridsWhat arethemainfeatures of peoplemovers, of thevehicles for spatial mobility?According to Weert Canzler (1996), the automobile in its current form equals: a vehiclewith an internal combustion engine, built to transport four or more people at a ratherhighspeedandacceleration, overadistanceofatleastfivehundredkilometres. Nomatter whether the car is used for short inner-city trips or journeys to distant holidayresorts, for slow and relaxing trips along a rural road, or for high-speed business travelonthefreeway, thesameconceptofvehicleapplies. Canzlerarguesthatthishistor-ically dominantandstillprevailingtechnicalformationof theautomobileisfatheredby a triassic network: that is, the car manufacturer, the user, andthe legal andregulatory bodies that frame the genesis and expansion of the automobile.This trinity of agencies, one could further argue, has coped with increasing problemsstemmingfromthevehiclesinaninstructivemanner. Inthecaseoftheautomobile,various `technical solutions' to the problems of automobilisation have subsequently beenfitted into the vehicle and have thus sustained its survival. Both the car manufacturersand the legal and regulatory bodies have fostered these strategies of technological fixes:the car manufacturers by internal agreements, for instance, to reduce fuel consumption,andthe legal and regulatorybodies bygradually tightening emissionrestrictions.Furthermore, thestabilisationof theautomobile canalsobelinkedtoacontinualhomogenisationwithin the industry. Today, almost all car manufacturers produceautomobiles coveringthewholerangeof models availableonthemarket. Theydothis to the extent that former niche products, such as `pick-ups', have become essentials.Althoughtheconsumerisfacinganincreasingvarietyoftypes, thedifferentmodelsthat are introducedtothe market byeachcar manufacturer stemfromthe sameplatformtheirengineandchassisareoftenastonishinglysimilartothoseofothermodels.Apart from the changes within the production and distribution of automobiles thatfurther stabilise the mobility paradigmof automobilisation itself, each individualvehicle has recently become the object of a massive progression in technological equip-ment. These developments can best be understood as a type of response to the inherentrisksofautomobilisation. Here, theindustry'sriskresponseisthenembodiedintheonboardcomputersof thenewestautomobiles.Multimediaandinformationtechnol-ogy are implanted into the automobile in order to cope with the threats that arise whenautomobilisationturnsagainstitself. Apartfromservingwhattheinformationtech-nologyindustrycallsa `killer-application', electronictolls, roadguidance, andotherautomobile based information technology systems are meant to increase the shrinkingcapacity of the road infrastructure network.602 J BeckmannEventhoughmanytransporttelematicshardlyfulfil theirobjectiveofimprovingthe traffic flow, they accelerate what could be called a hybridisation. The notion of thehybridis, for instance, foundinthe works of Latour (1993). Latour breaks withthe dualismthat divides objects andsubjects, andopens upthe possibilityfor anunderstandingof theinterrelationbetweenobjectsandsubjects ingeneral, andthedistinctrelationshipbetweenthecar anditsuserinparticular. WithLatour onemayargue that it is not only themetamorphosis of staticanddynamic vehicles that takesplacealongsidetheprogressionofautomobilisation, butamorphingofsubjectsandobjectsthemselves. Accordingto `actor-network theory' (ANT)(Latour, 1996)things,like the automobile, take onhumanproperties. Humans andnonhumans becomequasi-objects (andquasi-subjects)these`actants' equallyoccupyanodewithintheactor-network of automobilisation.What allows Latour to break with modern dualisms such as `object versus subject'is that he assigns agency to things. ANT is based on an anthromorphism that allowsone to viewtechnical artefacts as quasi-human. Machines are anthropomorphiccreatures because theyweredesigned and produced by humans and thus bear humanthoughtandaction; theyeitherhaveahumanshapeorgiveshapetohumans; theysubstitutehumanactionandact as`adelegate' thattakesthepositionofahuman.Such anthropomorphism takes a variety of forms in the case of the automobile. A carisconstructedandproducedbydesignersandengineers. It carriescertainformsofusage that are prescribed into the car's design. Or in other words, the car makes its useruse it in a distinct manner. Furthermore, it substitutes for human conduct like walkingor cycling and, thereby, reorders and restructures humanmovement through space. Itis important to note, however, that a car does not move by itselfit needs to be drivenby humans. Only when humans employ the services of the automobile will theybecome quasi-objects. Only when we drive the car, will we morph together and becomea car ^ driver hybrid.To recapitulate, the subjects, vehicles, and spatiotemporal patterns of auto-mobilisation cannot be examinedinanisolatedmanner. All three dimensions ofautomobilisation are interwoven. Together they forma mobility paradigm, whereacar ^ driver hybridisgroundedinauto-space. It is particularlythisgroundednessthat is most visiblewhenever thehybridis entrappedintheveryspaceit haspro-ducedin the trafficjam.Suchspatiality,however,receives littlerecognition throughactor-networktheory. AlthoughANTcaptures themorphingofobject andsubject,that is, of the car and its driver instructively, it provides limited possibilities to under-stand the spatiality of the hybrid. This void within ANT is based on the elimination ofgeographical distance or proximity. Latour states: ``[G]eographical proximity is the resultof asciencegeographyof aprofessiongeographers, of apracticemappingsystem, measuring, triangulating. Their definition of proximity and distance is uselessfor ANTor it should be included as one type of connections, one type of networks,aswewill seebelow'' (1996, page 371). Here, distanceandproximityareviewedasinventedbygeographers. ANT, now, allowsoneeithertogetridofsuch `tyrannyofdistance' (1996, page 371) or tomarginalise its relevance. Withsucha conceptionof geographicalspaceANTprovesto beof little helpfortheinvestigationof spatialmobilitysince mobility is, first and foremost, about the overcoming of geographicaldistance. In opposition to Latour, I argue, that the geographical notion is notsimplyanotherconnectiondefiningametrics andascaleof theauto-network, butof constitutive relevance. Rather than being another node in the network, space(whichisalwaysbothphysical andsocial) isthegroundonwhichautomobilisationunfolds.Automobilitya social problem and theoretical concept 603From traditional to reflexive automobilisationSofar, Ihaveoutlinedsomeof thecrucial featuresofwhat Iregardasthethreeconstitutive dimensions of automobilisation. I have referred to modernisation theoryandtothesociologyof technologyandscienceinorder toilluminatefurther thecharacteristics of each of these dimensions. In particular, I have drawn upon some ofthe considerations made by ANT and, thereby, highlighted how objects and subjectsof automobilisation merge together in what I called auto-scapes. The situated morph-ingofdriverandcarbringsaboutanewactant, whichUrry(1999)hascoinedthecar ^ driverhybrid. InthefollowingparagraphsIwill takethisnotionfurtherand,onlybriefly, linkit tosomeof thepointsmadebyreflexivemodernisationtheory(Beck et al, 1994).Traditional automobilisation has reconfigured contemporary urban spaces as frag-mentedspaces, currenttimesasinstantaneoustimes. Ithasmorphedthecaranditsuser into the form of a hybrid grounded in auto-spaces and auto-times. More than this,ithascausedincalculablerisksonaglobal scaleandissubsequentlythreateningitsownfoundations.Inotherwords,automobilisationhasturnedagainst itself.Itsrisksinclude the destruction of the earth's ozone layer, the exploitation of resources for theproductionandconsumptionofmotorcarsand, onamoreday-to-daylevel, trafficjams, `summer smog', and multiple car accidentsjust to name a few. Despite its severeimpacts on the whole biosphere, the automobile is not `disappearing'. As a result of theexploration of new markets in both highly industrialised and developing countries, carmanufacturersareproducingmorecarsthanever beforewiththeconsequenceof anever-increasing motorisation rate.Suchalterations, however, have not ledtoaparadigmshift inthe sense thatautomobilisation has produced anomalies which can no longer be resolved within theparadigm. The changes that I am speaking of here have modified the type of automo-bilisationratherthanreplacedtheparadigmassuch. Byreferringtothesechanges,Iclaimthat automobilisationhasbecome`reflexive'. Just asBeck(1994) arguesformodernisation itself, I argue that the mobility paradigmof automobilisation hasturned reflexive in that an increasing number of both transport experts and nonexpertsare concerned with the risks of automobilisation. They have acknowledged that tradi-tional automobilisation has created circumstances under which it cannot continue, andarenowengagedwiththedistributionandredistributionof suchrisks. However, amore reflexive mobilityparadigmdoes not implythat anyactant, anycar ^ driverhybrid, has become reflexive. The paradigmof reflexive automobilisationis ratherconstituted by both self-critical and orthodox or noncritical approaches.The true `Beckian', that is self-critical `reflexive moderniser' (Emundts, 1999), how-ever, conceives of spatial mobility as a social rather than a technical issue; acknowledgestheambivalenceof reflexiveautomobilisation; viewsecologicalissuesascentral; actsinterpretative in that he or she recognises alternative means of transportation; questionstraditional expertise (that of automobilisation); and provides possibilities for achang-ing mobility conduct. Such reflexive modernisers we find, for instance, among plannersand consumers. Nowadays we can witness the planning of car-free cities, the establish-ment of car-sharingclubs, theexpansionof car-critical citizens' movements, andsoforth. In other words, reflexive automobilisation opens up new auto-scapes. Hence, onecouldagreewithLatourandclaimthat ``reflexivityis not a`problem', astumblingblock along the path to knowledge, the prison in which all enterprises would be locked,it is the land of opportunity'' (1996, page 377).Nevertheless,reflexivity hasalso broughtaboutresponses bythosewhoopposeareduction of privatecar use.It is as if theempire of traditional automobilisationhasstruckback. Elsewhere, I havearguedthat, for instance, automobileclubs arenot604 J Beckmannsilent withinthis`landofopportunity' calledreflexivity(Beckman,1999). It istheirconceptofmobilitythatactsasacultural filterand, thus, acceptscertainrisksandfilters others out (Adams, 1995). It is their mobility view that shapes a particular wayof defining and responding to the risks of automobilisation. In constructing theautomobileasanecessitywithoutanalternativeandinconstruingautomobilisationrisks as threats to the automobile rather than to the environment, such clubs becomecounterreflexive. Theyfoster technical solutions towhat theysee as environmentalproblems of thecar. Automobileclubs introduceandexplaintotheir members thetechnological interventionsthataresupposedtomakedrivingmoreenvironmentallysound. In doing so, the club creates the trust that is obligatory for technical interven-tions to be successful. Without the users' trust and acceptance, such interventions willmost certainly result in a failure. Hence, it is precisely the trust in expert systems likethecatalyticconverter or the particle filter for diesel engines that frees the individualdriver from any personal responsibility or individual judgment. In trusting the machi-nery, we lose our abilityfor reflexivity. This, finally, puts the car ^ driver hybridLatour's quasi-objectintoanother, more critical light. Inacceptingthe technicalmeans by which the machinery responds to automobilisation risks, the driver as theotherhalf of thehybridbecomesitsplaything. Fromthisperspective,hybridisationmay very well assign agency to the object but, in doing so, it takes agency away fromthesubject. Orputinotherwords, withevermoretechnical interventionsintoauto-scapes, the individual is increasingly excluded from individual judgment on reshapingsuch auto-scapes.To conclude, in this paper I have developed a model for the mobility paradigm ofautomobilisation. This model is based on three central pillarsthe subjects, thevehicles, and the spatiotemporalities of automobility. Furthermore, I have argued thattraditional automobilisationhasbecomereflexive: ithasproduceddangersandrisksthat threatenits ownfoundation. Against this backgroundalmost all auto-subjects(no matterwhetherthey areconsideredas `transport experts' or `laytransport users')areengagedinresponsiveactionsagainstautomobilisationrisks. However, thestrat-egies tocontainthemvary. Often, these strategies canhardlybeseenas reflexive,since they donotreflect critically onthemobilityparadigmitself. Thesenonreflexiverisk responses rest on a social construction of automobility as a necessity. But despitesuchrestorativeattemptstosustainthecar-as-we-know-it, reflexiveautomobilisationcould also be viewed as an optional path towards a process of de-automobilisation. Itentails new possibilities for the auto-subject to respond critically to thecar's inherentrisks. InsteadofleavingriskresponsetoLatour'sactantstothetechnical artefactsand interventions now filled with agencythe `lay car ^ driver' can reveal reflexivity andself-critically act upon the risks of car use.Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my colleagues at the Department of Sociology, Univers-ityofCopenhagenaswell asthreeanonymousreviewersforpatientlyreadingandcommentingon different drafts of this paper. An earlier Danishversion of this paper was published as``Automobilisering som mobilitetsparadigme'' in Dansk Sociologi 11(1), Kbenhavn 2000.ReferencesAdams J, 1995 Risk (UCL Press, London)Adorno T W, Horkheimer M, 1979 Dialectic of Enlightenment (Verso, London)Beck U, 1994 Risk Society (Sage, London)Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S, 1994 Reflexive Modernization (Polity Press, Cambridge)Beckmann J, 1999, ``Car custodians'', in Trafikdage paa Aalborg Universitet Eds H Lahman,A Pittelkov (Transportraadet, Koebenhavn) pp 565 ^ 574Bijker W E, Pinch T J, 1987, ``The social construction of facts and artifacts; or how the sociologyof science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other'', inThe Social Constructionof Technological Systems Ed W Bijker, T Huges, T Pinch (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 51 ^ 82Automobilitya social problem and theoretical concept 605Bon W, Kesselring S, 1999, ``Mobilita t und Moderne: zur gesellschaftstheoretischen Verortungdes Mobilita tsbegriffs'' [``Mobility and modernity. the social-theoretical positioning of theconcept of mobility''], in Erziehung zur Mobilitat: Jugendliche in der AutomobilenGesellschaft Ed. C Tuly (Campus, Frankfurt) pp 39 ^ 66Buhr R, 1999, ``Neue Nutzungskonzept zur Bedeutung des Autos im Alltag von Frauen'' [Newuser-conceptsthe meaning of cars in the everyday life of women], in Bewegende ModerneEds R Buhr, W Canzler, A Knie, S Rammler (Edition Sigma, Berlin) pp 105 ^ 132Canzler W, 1996 Das Zauberlehrlingssyndrom: Enstehung und Stabilitat des Automobil-Leitbildes[The sorcerer's syndrome: genesis and stability of the vision of the automobile] (Edition Sigma,Berlin)Canzler W, Knie A, 1994 Das Ende des Automobils [The end of the automobile] (C F Mu ller,Heidelberg)Canzler W, Knie A, 1998 Moglichkeitsraume: Grundrisse einer modernen Mobilitats- und Verkehrs-politik [Space of opportunities: outline of a modern mobility- and traffic-politics] (Bo hlau,Wien)Emundts C, 1999, ``Auf der Suche nach reflexiven Institutionen'' [In search of transreflexiveinstitutions], in Empirische Studien zur Theorie der reflexiven Moderne Eds U Beck,M A Hajer, S Kesselring (Leske & Budrich, Opladen) pp 187 ^ 210Engwicht D, 1999 Street Reclaiming: Creating Liveable Streets and Vibrant Communities (NewSociety Publisher, Gabriola Island, British Columbia)Eyerman R, 1999, ``Moving culture'', in Spaces of Culture Eds M Featherstone, S Lash (Sage,London) pp 116 ^ 137Eyerman R, Lo fgren P, 1995, ``Romancing the road: road movies and images of mobility'' Theory,Culture and Society 12 53 ^ 80Freund P, Martin G, 1993 The Ecology of the Automobile (Black Rose, Montreal)Giddens A, 1990 The Consequences of Modernity (Polity Press, Cambridge)Ha gerstrand T, 1976 Innovation as a Spatial Process (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)Hagman O, Tengstro m E, 1991 The Meaning of the Automobile (Go teborg University, Go teborg)Harvey D, 1990 The Condition of Postmodernity (Blackwell, Cambridge)Hesse M, 1993 Verkehrswende [The transition of traffic] (Metropolis, Marburg)Hoyle B, Knowles R (Eds), 1998 Modern Transport Geography (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)Kagermeier A, 2000, ``German research in transport geography: life in the space between objectiveanalysis and political advice'' GeoJournal 50 17 ^ 24Kaliski J, 1999, ``Die Stadt der Automobilita t'' [The city of automobility] Arch+147 52 ^ 55Kline R, Pinch T, 1999, ``The social construction of technology'', in The Social Shaping ofTechnology Eds D MacKenzy, J Wajcman (Open University Press, Milton Keynes) pp 7 ^ 8Kra mer-Badoni T, Grymer H, Rodenstein M, 1972 Zur Sozio-okonomischen Bedeutung desAutomobils [The socioeconomic significance of the automobile] (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt amMain)Kuhm K, 1997 Moderne und Asphalt: Die Automobilisierung als Prozess technologischer Integrationund sozialerVernetztung [Modernity and asphalt: automobilisation as a process of technologicaland social integration] (Centaurus, Pfaffenweiler)La pple D, 1997, ``Grenzen der Automobilita t'' [The limits of automobility] Prokla 107 21 ^ 38Lash S, Urry J, 1994 Economies of Signs and Space (Sage, London)Latour B, 1993 We Have Never Been Modern (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)Latour B, 1996, ``On actor network theory; a few clarifications'' Soziale Welt 4Lupton D, 1999, ``Monster in metal cocoons: `road rage and cyborgs' '' Body and Society 5(1)57 ^ 72Mayntz R, 1993, ``Grosse technische Systeme und ihre gesellschaftstheoretische Bedeutung''[Large technological systems and their social-theoretical significance] Kolner Zeitschrift furSoziologie und Sozialpsychologie 45(1) 97 ^ 108Rammler S, 1999, ``Die Wahlverwandschaft von Moderne und Mobilita t'' [The elective affinitybetween modernity and mobility], in Bewegende Moderne Eds R Buhr, W Canzler, A Knie,S Rammler (Edition Sigma, Berlin) pp 39 ^ 72Reutter U, Reutter O, 1997 Autofreies Leben in der Stadt [Car-free living in the city] (DortmunderVertrieb fu r Bau- und Planungsliteratur, Dortmund)Sachs W, 1992 For Love of the Automobile (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)Schivelbusch W, 1977 Geschichte der Eisenbahnreise: Zur Industrialisierung von Raum und Zeit[The railway journey: the industrialisation of time and space in the 19th century] (Hanser,Mu nchen)606 J BeckmannSheller M, Urry J, 2000,``The city and the car'' International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24 737 ^ 757Thrift N, 1996 Spatial Formations (Sage, London)Tully C, 1999 Rot, cool und etwas unter der Haube [Red, cool and something underneath the hood](Aktuell, Mu nchen)Urry J, 1999, ``Automobility, car culture and weightless travel: a discussion paper'', online papers ofthe Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster; http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc008ju.htmlUrry J, 2000 Sociology Beyond Societies (Routledge, London)Verband der Automobilindustrie, 1986 Gesellschaft und Automobil [Society and automobile](Verband der Automobilindustrie, Frankfurt)Vester F, 1990 Ausfahrt Zukunft: Strategien fur den Verkehr von morgen. Eine Systemuntersuchung(Heyne, Mu nchen)Weber M, 1990, ``The joys of automobility'', in The Car and the City Eds M Wachs, M Crawford(University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI) pp 274 ^ 284Automobilitya social problem and theoretical concept 607 2001 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain