The Privilege of Movement
When I used to think of movement in the past, I thought of relaxing vacations and groovy hip-hop mixes. Now, I think of movement as a manifestation of privilege because of the inaccessibility of movement. Whether it be moving from the city to the suburbs or immigrating to a different country, our ability to move depends largely on power dynamics.
We need look no further than St. Louis for an explanation of this phenomenon. After World War II, the government started to offer low-interest mortgages for those who sought to build houses in the suburbs. While this program helped many individuals move to the suburbs, it came at the expense of racial equity as these loans were only offered to whites. As a result, St. Louis emptied out. A bustling metropolis turned to a hallowing city full of abandoned homes and businesses as former city dwellers flocked to the suburbs. This white flight had massive implications on the city, and the effects still linger today. Overall, white residents left the city because of their privilege while black residents were confined because of their lack thereof.
White residents left the city because of their privilege while black residents were confined because of their lack thereof.
White flight and suburbanization are not unique to St. Louis; these power dynamics are ever-present in many other post-industrial cities. In this case, movement matters because of the quality of life that follows. St. Louis County has a significantly higher tax base than St. Louis City, which translates to better public schools, recreational parks, and employment opportunities. People don’t just move to the suburbs for the heck of it; they move because of the associated life outcomes. At the end of the day, those with privilege can buy themselves a better quality by moving to the suburbs.
On an international scale, we see the same phenomenon. This type of movement is not known as white flight but as the brain drain. When those with privilege move out of developing countries, they attain better life prospects at the expense of those left behind. According to the New York Times, Haiti looses about 85% of its educated youth to immigration. South Sudan similarly struggles to maintain a high quality of life for citizens in the midst of skilled workers leaving the country. Thus, it makes sense that developing countries continue to lag behind. When developing countries loose significant portions of their educated workforce, they have little opportunity to strengthen their economies and political institutions. Merit-based immigration may help those with the means and power to move to developed countries, but it condemns the rest of the population to a lower quality of life.
On the planetary level, I fear that this same result holds true. The U.N. tells us that we have 12 years to take meaningful action to address climate change. Despite this warning, powerful individuals don’t seem concerned about our planet’s fate. Why should they be? If Earth grows to be inhabitable, they can always buy into Elon Musk’s space force idea. They can use their money to purchase the ultimate commodity: life, which will take the form of a rocket ship ride to Mars. While those in positions of power can buy themselves a lifeboat—or in this case, a rocket ship–, those left behind will suffer the ultimate consequences because of their inability to move.
When those with privilege move out of developing countries, they attain better life prospects at the expense of those left behind.
Time and time again, our ability to move is indicative of our privilege. We see this on the local, international, and planetary level through white flight, the brain drain, and the space force. As we think about this important phenomenon, my hope is that we also think about the barriers to movement. Though technology and globalization may lead to great strides, we must step back and take a look at the unequal distribution of benefits. Greater movement for select individuals comes at the expense of the quality of life of others and often exacerbates existing inequalities.
These considerations pose a dire question: should movement be restricted? Should we bar those with privilege from fleeing inner cities in search of suburbs because their movement will hurt those left behind? Should we restrict hopeful immigrants from relocating to wealthier countries because we know that their movement will hinder the economic capacity of their country of origin? Should we do away with the concept of the space force so that rich people cannot commodify life when Earth becomes inhabitable? Should we put limits on movement in order to benefit entire communities? This question is not one of facts and data but of competing morals and values. Ultimately, we must choose what we value more—the individual liberty of a few or the quality of life of many.