Mobility as Stress Regulation: A Challenge to Dialogue in Planning?

Abstract

Most people consider both conflict and negotiation to be unpleasant experiences. It is particularly stressful to try to reason with others who do not share one’s values and who therefore might appear unreasonable. Those who are habitually involved in this type of long-lasting dialogue which includes building consensus and trying to understand and respect other ways of thinking, are likely to experience mental strain. People in conflictridden communities would thus have a motive to look for stress-reducing strategies, such as ‘voting with their feet’ or other forms of physical distance regulation. The more mobility that a society offers, the more likely such strategies for keeping stress at a tolerable level would tend to be used. However, the tenets of discourse ethics require copresence when dealing with tensions in troubled communities. Furthermore, communicative planning benefits from place attachment and social inclusion, some similitude of preferences, and strong commitment to one’s home community. These are characteristics that might wither as a result of frequent travels away from home. As such, hyper-mobility may potentially be seen as a challenge to communicative planning and deliberation in a pluralistic society.