The main concern of this study is the situation where a person remains in a certain place despite being formally free to leave. While we often assume that individuals are always judging their surroundings, I would like to point out that this "freedom to exit" is actually supported by very specific conditions—what I refer to as "re-placement conditions". If the act of moving causes the immediate loss of one's identity or the foundation of daily life, then leaving is no longer a realistic choice in practice. Regarding the term placement, it should be understood as a complex web of connections in labor, family, and roles that allows an individual to maintain their current state. My central argument is that when these connections become too specific to a particular environment, the "re-placement conditions" are lost, leading to a state of "structural fixation". This is not a matter of a person's preference or loyalty, but rather a structural consequence where the bridge to a new life has been burned away. Furthermore, I have introduced the idea of "Latency" to describe a state where a person feels a sense of wrongness but cannot even start the process of judging their situation. In such a condition, the individual does not even reach the stage of making a decision because they lack the necessary evaluative tools. Therefore, it is my conclusion that "structure precedes choice". Rather than questioning why an individual does not choose to move, we should focus on whether the structural infrastructure that makes choice possible is being maintained or not.
Mayu Tanaka (Thu,) studied this question.