Concepts definitions had been linked, and when necessary it was distinguished the contradictions of the same ones. The territory is not only the result of the overlapping of a set of natural systems and a set of systems of things created for the man. The territory is the soil and more the population, that is, an identity, the fact and the feeling to belong what it belongs in them. (SAINTS, M., 2000, P. 96) the territory is understood of different forms, in the same way that border keeps an ambiguity: leading to think about objective forms of delimitation and control of the space from the most varied criteria (politicians, administrative, cultural, economic, etc) it hides a subjective character extremely, a time that its rigidity or same flexibility depends on the action politics of the diverse social agents had delimited who it they recognize and it as such in definitive historical circumstances. The border, in if analyzing throughout history, intended to draw an image of rock precision: the walls are its symbol, with all its concretude. However, although the intransponibilidade image, the walls are only camouflage, therefore the lived space is ampler and complex of what the limits and borders can determine.
(HISSA, 2006, p.40). However different forms of mobilities, in different space scales, take in them to eliminate borders, when the search for bigger access, being it, in the territorial society or the society of net. We read (2008, p.98) in the sample of a well simple form three types of mobilities, that facilitate to the understanding and its relations between itself: informacional virtual mobility/, space physical mobility/, that sos the transports, the locomotion and imaginary cognitiva mobility/, that sos the thoughts, religion and dreams. Thus, mobility socially is constructed, intersubjetivamente distributed, individually lived, from the story that if makes before between interlocutors, during and after the experience.