Tourism as a Form of “New Mobility”: Determination of Motivation in the Context of Social Inequality

Introduction. In “fluid modernity” (Z. Bauman), tourist travel becomes a channel of symbolic mobility that compensates for the limitations of vertical mobility. Classical theories (P. Sorokin, T. Parsons) viewed mobility as a change in status positions, but the analysis of tourism as a form of mobility shaped by inequality remains fragmentary. The aim is to theoretically substantiate the inclusion of tourism into the system of social mobility.

Methodology and sources. The key requirement is distinguishing social mobility (change in stratification position) from physical mobility (J. Urry). The construct “tourism as a form of social mobility” is introduced with two sub-modes: direct mobility (business tourism as capital accumulation) and compensatory mobility (illusion of status elevation). Theoretical foundations include neo-Weberian theory (C. Tilly), J. Urry's “new mobility” concept, and D. MacCannell's theory of the leisure class.

Results and discussion. Classical sociology defined parameters of inequality (property, power, prestige). P. Sorokin identified a trend of increasing mobility from physical to intellectual labor. Tourism evolved from elite practice (T. Veblen) to a mass phenomenon. Motivation is shaped by three barriers: economic, temporal, and cultural. The compensatory function of tourism is revealed: for groups excluded from upward mobility, travel creates an illusion of status ascent. Ambivalence is noted while symbolically solving the problem of inequality for the individual, tourism reproduces it through the differentiation of ways to escape everyday life.

Conclusion. In a “streaming society”, tourism becomes a new form of social mobility, but its role is ambivalent. Practices are differentiated: elite tourism demonstrates status, mass tourism provides compensation, business tourism serves as real mobility. Research prospects include empirical verification of motivational profiles of tourists from different stratification groups.

1. Weber, M. (1994), “Basic Concepts of Stratification”, Transl. by Kravchenko, A.I., Sociological Studies , no. 5, pp. 169–183.

2. Grusky, D.B. (2001), “The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality”, Social Stratification, Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective , Westview Press, Boulder, USA. pp. 1–51.

3. Lebedintsev, D.A. (2025), “Historical and theoretical aspects of studying tourism as a social mobility”, Information Communication Society , Saint Petersburg ETU Publishing House, SPb., RUS, pp. 231–235.

4. Yastrebov, G.A. (2015), The Dynamics of Social Mobility in Russia from a Long-Term Perspective , HSE Publishing House, Moscow, RUS.

5. Sorokin, P.A. (2005), Social mobility, Transl. by Sokolov, M.V., Academia, Moscow, RUS.

6. Tilly, Ch. (2005), “Rethinking Inequality”, Polish Sociological Review , no. 151, pp. 207–219.

7. Veblen, T. (1984), The Theory of the Leisure Class , Transl. by Sorokina, S.T., in Motylev, V.V. (ed.), Progress, Moscow, RUS.

8. Bauman, Z. (2008), Liquid Modernity , Transl. by Asochakov, Yu.V., Piter, SPb., RUS.

9. Urry, Jo. (2012), Mobilities , Lazarev, A.V., Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.

10. Cohen, E. (1984), “The Sociology of Tourism: Approaches, Issues, and Findings”, Annual Review of Sociology , no. 10, pp. 373–392. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.so.10.080184.002105

11. MacCannell, D. (2016), The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class , Transl. by Borovikova, A., Izotov, E., 2nd ed., Marginem Press, Moscow, RUS.