The term “digital nomad” was first coined by researchers Makimoto and Manners in their 1997 publication Digital Nomad. In their work, the authors put forward an illuminating theoretical perspective: humanity’s inclination towards migration may stem from our ancestors’ nomadic way of life – a view widely endorsed within the field of sociology. Psychologists attribute it to innate human curiosity, while cynics view it as a direct manifestation of escapism. Regardless of interpretation, it appears to be an inherent aspect of human nature (Jardis.com, 2021). The convergence of technology, globalisation, and evolving work paradigms has catalysed the phenomenon of “digital nomadism”, challenging established norms surrounding the nature of work. Digital nomadism signifies not merely the emergence of a new form of employment, but also the advent of a novel lifestyle situated between “travelling” and “migrating”.
In 2022, the global population of digital nomads reached 35 million (The Instant Group, 2021). It is projected that by 2035, this demographic will exceed one billion (Levels, 2015). Over the past two years, China’s digital nomad population has also exhibited rapid growth. By the end of 2023, the number of digital nomads and potential digital nomads in mainland China was estimated to be between 70 million and 100 million (Yao Jianhua, 2024). Academically, Western scholarship lacks a universally accepted or recognised definition of digital nomads. Furthermore, as other topics such as freelancers and remote workers are closely related to digital nomads, the distinctions between these terms require further clarification. Through observation and existing empirical materials, it becomes evident that China’s existing research on ‘digital nomadism’ remains rather ambiguous. Most notably, it lacks contextual definition within a specific framework. There is a need to define the concept and practice of digital nomadism in China, which differs significantly from Western discussions on the subject and cannot be applied indiscriminately. The concept of digital nomadism was originally constructed upon the perspectives and lifestyles of heterosexual white males, resulting in an implicit white normativity permeating both the community and scholarly discourse (Thompson, 2019). In other words, the mobility patterns associated with digital nomadism typically apply only to relatively privileged groups. Issues concerning the sustainability of this lifestyle’s mobility and the power asymmetries inherent within it warrant further investigation.
As this lifestyle gains increasing popularity, academic inquiry becomes crucial to elucidate its complexities and impacts (Oral, 2021). Whilst digital nomadism offers opportunities for flexible, location-independent working, it is not without challenges in the context of achieving Sustainable Development Goals. For instance, maintaining continuous mobility presents significant hurdles. Beyond economic considerations and environmental awareness, the concentration of remote work opportunities and digital nomad hubs in developed nations risks creating cultural and social divides (Hannonen, 2023; Orel, 2023). The influx of digital nomads into regions with distinct cultures may inadvertently lead to cultural numbness or even the erosion of local traditions (Zhou, 2024), challenging the very essence of peace, justice, and strong institutions (UN Sustainable Development Goal 16) and sustainable cities and communities (UN Sustainable Development Goal 11) (Furtado, 2023; Miocevic, 2024). Even the most committed digital nomads may eventually realise that their pursuit of a leisure-driven lifestyle necessitates working while travelling. This realisation may prompt them to alter their travel pace or, upon encountering greater difficulties or developing a need for more stable emotional and living conditions, decide to revert to a more “traditional” lifestyle (Daley, 2018; Thompson, 2019). Adopting a social stratification perspective (Mancinelli, 2020) might offer an intriguing angle: examining who, within local contexts, can opt for lifestyle mobility, and then considering whether digital nomadism represents merely a transitional “leisure” phase rather than a sustainable way of life.
#Academic JourneyLast modified on 2022-09-28