Response to Part 4 of the Reader Book

In his article, John Urry suggests to develop a new discipline in sociology that's "organized around newtworks, mobility and horizontal fluidities." (p201) It's quite natural that an academic discipline changes and extends when its ofbject of study changes and transforms. I don't see the study of mobility as a new discipline. It'll be a new focus more probably. Urry mentioned Bauman's metaphor of "gardening" vs. "gamekeeper" state to characterize societies. "The new lobal order appears to involve a return to the gamekeeper state and away from that of the gardener." (p191). So there must be study of mobility (gamekeeper state) before. I wonder if and how this time the study will be different.

Robert Reich categorizes work into 3 groups: routine production services, in-person-services, and symbolic-analytic services. It's interesting to note that all of them are "service" jobs, different from traditional "manufacturing" vs. "service" job categories. Is this just a regrouping of jobs or have jobs really changed in nature?

Nico Stehr states that "contrary to many assumptions, the manufacturing sector and industrial production are not declining in importance in contemporary society." (p216) I'm not totally convinced by his argument. He used percentage of GDP generated by manufacturing activity as chief evidence. What's his definition of "manufacturing activity"?

Anne Balsamo's article is no doubt the most unique one in the group. She identified 4 forms of technological embodiment: laboring body, disappearing body, repressed body, and marked body (p243). It's thought provoking, but at the same time a little difficult for me to grasp: how important is gender here in understanding technology?