RECONSIDERING THE BICYCLE: An Anthropological Perspective on a New (Old) Thing CHAPTER FOUR: “Good for the Cause”: The Bike Movement as Social Action and Cultural Politics © Routledge 2013

KEY IDEAS The “bike movement” is an unfolding, flexible, and emergent arena of cultural politics. It has heterogeneous fronts and diverse, sometimes contradictory, positions on critical issues. The bicycle has long been a politically-flexible symbol, having been appropriated by diverse political ideologies and causes. In the context of contemporary bicycle advocacy, it is still a flexible symbol. At the community level, two dynamics—perspectives on the bicycle’s visibility, and how to get people on bikes—can demonstrate the heterogeneous and contextual ways bicycle advocacy takes shape. © Routledge 2013

Social Movements and Cultural Politics “Social movements,” an anthropological perspective: Are typically thought of as marginalized social actors struggling to transform power relations from the bottom up, though they are not internally monolithic, and reflect divergent views on critical issues. Mobilize people around symbolic claims or identities, and thus operate as much in the terrain of cultural meanings, symbols, moralities, and identities as they do in arenas of material power relations. “Cultural Politics” A concept that refers to the inextricable interrelationship between the cultural and political that takes shape through the intersection of ideas, symbols, and social action in the context of social movements. © Routledge 2013

The Bicycle as a Politically-Flexible Symbol Since the early years of the bicycle, its promoters have understood that they can shape meanings of the bicycle to fit particular political and ideological agendas. 1880s: Cyclists organize good roads movement to promote national progress and interests of cyclists and bicycle industry. 1890s: Suffragettes appropriate the bicycle as emancipatory machine in support of women’s rights 1970s: Environmental advocates and anti-automobile advocates adopt the bicycle as a critique of industrial modernity s: National bike movement emerges focused on gaining “right to the road” based on a view of bicycles as vehicles. 1990s-2000s: Bike movement gains federal recreation and transportation dollars— the bike becomes an autonomous cause. © Routledge 2013

Cyclist Visibility and Non-Visibility Cyclist visibility is both a pragmatic and political concern. Pragmatic in that it is believed to enhance individual safety Political in that it raises consciousness about cycling conditions, generating a commitment to advocacy. But the role of the actual bicycle in this context is flexible. The bicycle as symbol of simple lifestyle: Positioning the bicycle conspicuously through daily use and intensive involvement with its mechanical dimensions. Vs. The bicycle as fringe vehicle: Keep bicycles in the background as a “soft” approach to generate broader support for active recreation and mobility. © Routledge 2013

Dilemmas of Fun and Convenience What practical actions will actually get people on a bike? People want to have fun! Playful events and stickers, collective rides, parades, races, etc. But how to sustain the energy, especially when it’s not necessarily “fun” to ride a bicycle in everyday conditions? People want convenience! Free bicycle parking at city events But how to generate excitement and commitment over something so mundane? © Routledge 2013

Discussion Questions Do you think calling the bike movement “heterogeneous” and “fragmented” undermines whatever claims it might make about cyclists’ rights to the streets? A somewhat common view among U.S. cycling advocates is that anyone who rides a bicycle for transportation is him or herself an advocate for cycling. Do you agree? Why or why not? What defines an “advocate?” One bicycle advocate said “The contest for us is not just policies or striping on the road, it is, at a fundamental level, over meanings.” What do you think this means? How do advocates participate in the production of meanings? © Routledge 2013