Making Sense of Cycling activism

Making Sense of Cycling activism Peter Cox Professor of Sociology Department of Social and Political Science University of Chester peter.cox@chester.ac.uk Abstract Cycling activism has a long history and today, a global reach. However, the diverse forms of participation used, the organisational (and non-organisational) structures employed, and the variety of forms of engagement with political and extra political processes, appear to represent very different understandings of citizenship and processes of political and social change envisaged by activists. Through a meta-analysis of a wide variety of cycle activisms, this paper considers the actions and selfexpression of activists though their actions, writings and through the networks and organizations they form, in order to understand how these express underlying assumptions (often not formally articulated) that participants hold about the nature and mechanisms of change. It revisits Lofland’s work on the American Peace Movement to consider the ways in which diverse activisms with a single uniting feature can be understood as articulations of a range of interlocked and bundled models of change. The paper thus explores the meanings attributed to forms of action by activists themselves and questions simple typological, correlative relationships between organisations, forms, actions and ideology. The paper draws from ongoing extensive empirical study and a history of more 10 years of work with these activist networks in Europe, South Asia, and North and South America. As part of this process of analysis, it also considers the relationship between researcher, activism and activists. Introduction Cyclists and social activism have been connected for over one hundred and fifty years. Riders have organised to protect and promote their own self-interest, to use cycling as a means to articulate other social concerns or social change goals (such as suffrage or socialism), and in expression of broader visions of social transformation of which cycling is an integral part. A number of recent studies of specific groups and actions have explicitly used social movement studies approaches to explore cycle activism (see for example Aldred, 2012; 2013; Balkmar & Soummerton 2017; Candipan, 2019; 1 Casteñeda, 2020; von Schneidemesser et al 2020; Tan and Martínez López, 2020). This paper contributes to this analysis, but rather than focusing on a particular case, develops a meta-analysis of cycle activism drawing both on published studies and original research. Its purpose is to establish a framework that can allow us to understand the way in which very different groups and actions, often with contending ideological positions, contribute to a broader process of social change. Adapting tools from analysis of other broad-based social movements, this paper argues that these offer means to understand the often apparently strange connections between profoundly disparate groups and activities. How is it, for example that one encounters anarchist street activists welcomed at an event designed to further corporate governance, international policy and industrial investment? However, connecting such diversity across geographies and time requires challenge to some existing methods and assumptions in social movement studies. The meta-analysis approach employed, taking a step back from the immediate observational data, allows us to comprehend these complex processes and cross ideological linkages. After outlining some early examples to establish the continuity of cyclists’ collective actions, the paper focuses on the problems posed by such a long and diverse history, and some of the ethical challenges posed in developing a theoretical perspective that draws not only on this legacy but also on current activism. It then outlines the model of interpretation developed and its attempts to solve the problem of the political ethics of social movement research. The paper focuses on the method and ethics of research in activist groups rather than presenting data on cycle activist groups themselves, so the historical comparative examples presented (as follows) are only meant to be illustrative, not proof of concept. They are drawn from a much larger piece of research that covers over a century of data, selected on the basis of their ability for quick summary and capacity to stand alone. 2 Early histories As soon as cyclists organised themselves into clubs for riding – even before the safety bicycle – they began to campaign for better conditions in which to ride. Two early groups from the UK illustrate this. The National Cyclists’ Union (NCU) was formed “To secure a fair and equitable administration of justice as regards the rights of bicyclists on the public roads” and to organise and regulate cycle racing in Great Britain (cited in Reid 2014: 63). Originally founded on 16 February 1878 as the Bicycle Union, it went immediately into action over an amendment to the Highways Act and established the rights of all cycles to be legally treated as carriages: that is, as vehicles with the same rights and obligations as other road users (The Bicycle 1943: 3). The Bicycle Touring Club was founded in August 1878 to assist cycling excursionists and changed its name to the Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) 5 years later to emphasise the inclusion of (lady) tricyclists alongside its largely male (bicyclist) members (Lightwood 1928). At the same time, the Bicycle Union merged with the Tricycle Association to become the NCU. Early combined actions by the two groups were to institute road signs to warn riders of conditions such as steep hills. Cycling in Britain prior to the First World War remained a largely middle-class activity, prices being kept deliberately high by a rigorously enforced manufacturers’ cartel (Pinkerton 1998). Only as usable second-hand machines became available did ridership broaden. Similar action to defend the self-interest of cyclists can be seen in the formation of the Road Improvement Association (RIA) in 1885 as another joint enterprise between the organisations. The RIA organised conferences and produced pamphlets on road design, publicising macadamised construction and asphalt (surface binding) treatments for more pleasant and safer conditions for all travellers (Macadam 1821; Reid 2014). In parallel in the USA, the League of American Wheelmen was behind the formation of the Good Roads League in 1892 (Epperson 2014). Another example of rightsbased action occurred as the CTC took a celebrated (and ultimately costly) legal action to defend women’s right to wear rational dress in a celebrated test case in 1898. They took on an ultimately lost a prosecution against the refusal to offer food to a traveller. Yet this immediately poses the question 3 as to whether the case was ultimately pursued to defend the plaintiff’s right as a woman or as a cyclist or both: the rational dress issue united the two inseparably. Self-representation and an emphasis on the rights of cyclists as cyclists was only one of the dimensions of collective action. Explicitly socialist cycling clubs were also formed. The Clarion newspaper, founded by Robert Blatchford in 1891. promoted a range of cultural and sporting activities (Prynn 1976). It founded the National Clarion Cycle Club in 1895 for "the association of various Clarion Cycling Clubs for the purpose of Socialist propaganda and for promoting inter-club runs between the clubs of different towns" (Objects of the NCCC), following the prior foundation of a series of local Socialist or Clarion Cycle Clubs, first in Birmingham and then in Liverpool, Bradford, Burnley and the Potteries. Other socialist cycling clubs were formed, nationally and locally, elsewhere in Europe. For example Solidarität, the ‘Worker’s Cycling Organization’ in Germany established in 1896 or the Copenhagenbased [Karl Marx] Arbejdernes Bicycle Club (ABC) of 1894 (Rabenstein 2001; Hoffman 2008). For the socialist clubs cycling was a means to express a vision of wider socialist transformation: to reappropriate leisure for the majority of the population instead of it being a privilege of the bourgeoisie alone. Practically, cycling together in the Clarion fulfilled a double role, both “[t]o propagate Socialism and Good Fellowship” as stated in the Objects of the NCCC. This was a restatement of the club slogan adapted from the William Morris quotation, “Fellowship is Life, Lack of Fellowship is Death”, which served as part of the masthead of The Clarion (Riordan 2006) in a design by William Crane. Cycling in ideologically identified clubs allowed participants a space for self-expression, free discussion and acted as a means of propaganda rather than being exclusively an end in itself (although this it also fulfilled this function). “The Bicycle”, wrote a prominent early member, “brought within easy reach all the things which the new philosophy taught [people] to enjoy‟. It offered an “escape from city life after the daily round of toil, and gave riders “the power to roam on the King’s Highway”. … “A luxury hitherto almost the privilege of the within easy reach of all the beauties of the countryside could be enjoyed by mere possession of the magic wheel” [quoted in Pye (1995:3)]. Clarion rides also served as 4 the spaces in which solidarities could be built and ideas discussed. In the latter half of the 1890s, suffrage campaigners Sylvia and Christabel Pankhurst consistently rode with the Manchester Clarion alongside Eve Gore-Booth, another of the city’s most prominent suffragists who linked campaigning for the vote to struggles over women’s right to work and to unionisation (Liddington, J. 2014; Tiernan 2012). Suffrage and socialism were not separate campaigns for these activists (though Christabel Pankhurst would soon disidentify from socialist aims. In Bikes and Bloomers (2018) Kat Jungnickel shows how cycling further provided a means through which women demonstrated innovation and entrepreneurship though design and patent of radically new clothing patterns. Within the suffrage movement, cycling did not just allow women to travel independently and unchaperoned but also laid the grounds for other forms of collective action and the redefinition of social roles. Although the case was lost, the CTC’s legal action mentioned above allows us a glimpse into the ways in which cycling activism might not just be about the bike. Cycling activism more generally Tracing a broader historical analysis of cycling activism, even in outline, requires a much longer study. Carlton Reid’s Roads were not built for cars (2014) and Bike Boom: The Unexpected Resurgence of Cycling (2017) together provide an invaluable general history of twentieth cycling campaigning, illustrating the emergence of the campaigns and arguments of a range of groups although from a journalistic, rather than academic perspective. For the purpose of this paper’s meta-analysis, a few key points only need to be sketched out in order to ground the social movement analysis, and the groups contextualised in broader discussions of the future of cities. Post-1960s urban activism rediscovered cycling as both symbolic and practical means to reclaim the city. Public demonstrations against proposed urban motorways in London, Amsterdam and Paris expressed dismay at the existing trajectory of urban change and prompted the formation of new activist networks and organisations across Europe (Cox 2015a, Feddes 2019). These took a range of scales from local e.g. London Cycling Campaign (1978) to national, e.g. Fietsersbond, (NL 1975) ADFC 5 (W. Germany 1979). Social location and activity also varied. Social activities and spaces, bicycle co-ops, cafés and festivals were paralleled by academic interest in cycling as a possibility for future mobility (for example in the UK the Open University Alternative Technology Research Group, which, in association with the OU New Towns Study Unit, organised a 1979 conference whose proceedings were published as Developing Pedal Power (Brown & Potter 1979)). Other concerns were the practical provision of infrastructural innovation, as voiced by Sustrans (UK 1977). Writers as diverse as Gorz (1980 [1973]) and Illich (1973, 1974) contrasted cycling and motoring to illustrate their socio-political analyses of the impact of technology on power relations. Over the last 50 years, these patterns of activism have been repeated and elaborated globally. Bike activisms take numerous forms and arguments and appear everywhere that people travel by bicycle. Whether confrontational actions on the streets such as critical mass (Carlson 2002, Furness 2010), or within the context of institutional lobbying groups working at intergovernmental level in Brussels (Cox 2015b); from local feminist bike workshops (Gamble 2017) through social enterprises (Zapata & Zapata (2017) and environmental lobbying (Horton 2006) to the engagement of the transnational cycle industry in funding activities that might lead to greater cycling numbers (Rosen 2002; ECF 2017);. The research project of which this is paper is a small part traces some of these groups and practices in detail, as well as drawing on existing published accounts so as to chart a large spectrum of activities through to the present day. However, the focus here is on the method and the modelling produced in this research. What links diverse forms of cycle activism? An opening question is whether these disparate actions and campaigns add up to a coherent social movement. First, we need to consider what the linkage might be: ideology, class, ethnicity, identity rights, all these are the bases for conventional social movements. Yet the range of bike activisms cuts across these. Their common challenge to the status quo is obvious, as is the fact that they all ride bicycles and issues around the riding of bicycles are involved in their actions and organising. 6 Is it perhaps more appropriate to think in terms of identity? Does the label ‘cyclist’ have any import? Does it mean anything beyond the blandishment of a descriptive label for the use of a particular form of machinery? It is easy to think of specific movements of cycling activism, and some activist groups have no problem at all about describing themselves as part of a social movement but is there a bigger picture able to encompass that large range of self-organised activity? Are activist claims for a coherent movement any more than strategic essentialism, a defensive mechanism in the light of hostile opposition? Goodwin and Jasper’s succinct introductory definition argues that “a social movement is a collective, organized, sustained, and noninstitutional challenge to authorities, powerholders, or cultural beliefs and practices” (Goodwin and Jasper 2015 p.4). This seems straightforward enough and would seem to fit the phenomena under consideration well enough, but even most enthusiastic academic analysts of cycling activism hesitate to fully engage with bike activism in general through social movement studies perspectives. Zack Furness (2010) argues, for example, that social movement studies forms a useful lens through which to investigate cycling politics yet he shies away from sustained engagement with the theoretical dimensions, refusing to describe cycling activism as in general as a social movement. Social movement studies provide valuable approaches to deal with the analysis of particular organisations and campaigns but the question must be posed whether the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. Reviewing existing literature, we stand at an ambiguous point where the status of cycle activism as a social movement is simultaneously both disputed and embraced by those engaged in its actions. Why the hesitation? The protesting activities of these groups, and their engagement in challenging existing arrangements of the spatial distribution of power on the roads is clear, yet the differences between these actions and the quasi-institutions that form out of them is considerable. Such a diversity of actions, intentions and complex alliances militates against easy categorisation. It may be easy to talk about specific movements and campaigns but to produce an overarching claim that it can 7 be instructive and meaningful to group them together in order to do more than provide comparative studies (where sufficient commonalities for comparison might be found) is much more problematic. Cycling activism as a social movement If, instead of trying to solve this diversity problem in the abstract we turn instead to other authors studies’, the path becomes clearer. Lofland (1995) insist that social movement as a term must retain its value as a referent to amorphous conglomeration as well as to formal organisational forms. He identifies this amorphousness as a valuable ingredient that allows for the formation of social movement cultures: “To read the writings of movement members and to listen to them talk among themselves is to encounter a stream of what we might think of as “movement stories” or when they’re compressed as “movement slogans”” (Lofland 1995:204). The worlds that cycle campaigners inhabit are multiple and diverse, but shared narratives provide means to unite them across division of both space and of time. Melucci (1996) further insists that the term social movement should be treated as a tool, an heuristic rather than a fetish. Scholars, he argued, need always to bear in mind that the term is an attribution of scholarship, that the coherence of any movement is a construction by those writing and speaking about it, rather than a reality. If then, we take seriously Melucci’s argument that “Movements are not entities… [they] are systems of action, complex networks among the different levels and meanings of social action” (Melucci 2006 p.4), then the problem posed by the objections noted above begins to dissipate. If social movements emerge in response to social change and effect social change, then the disparity of groups in radically different social locations should be unremarkable. That there are complex networks of interactions and shared social actions even shared visions are visible amongst these networks (even when competing) allows us to overcome the barrier to considering bike activism under a general label, as well as noting or studying specific instances of activism. Approaching the problem this way, one can recognise both the scholarly activity of labelling as a means to make sense of disparate elements, and the activist adoption of the language of a singular 8 movement as a form of strategic essentialism. In disputed territory and areas of social conflict, especially those arising from states of relative powerlessness, to claim a unity with others, separated either in time or geography, can be a source of strength and inspiration (Lowe & Yuk-Ha Tsang 2018). Strategic essentialism, claiming a specific identity even when consciously aware that the singularity is fictitious, is a tool for activism that allows engagement in the name of a greater entity than is actually present (Nielsen 2013). Diversity of action and ideology, even inconsistency, is not a problem in, for example, scholarship on the peace movement. Peter Brock’s immense range of studies highlight a vast diversity of elements, approaches, analyses and actions in peace movements over the centuries (see e.g. Brock 1991a, 1991b, 1991c Dyck 1999). Despite the many competing views and the need for distinction to be made at a theoretical as well as practical-historical level of analysis, the field can be labelled as peace studies or peace history. It is not unmeaningful to consider individual peace movement actions in specific locations without separating them from the wider context, and drawing comparisons between very different actors can still demonstrate meaningful results. Continuing this analogy, rather than trying to prove a point by looking for the (distinguishing) characteristics of a cycling social movement, we can take this as read, as an heuristic device that allows deeper questions to be asked. We can instead turn our attention to the more precise question of what is it that cyclists working for change do? Are there patterns visible in the actions and arguments of different examples? Approaching the problem this way, a large dataset is available. Either through printed materials, news reports, direct observation and interview, people reveal their own selfunderstandings of action and analysis. Locating the research and outlining method Before explaining the dataset used to ground this study, my own self-role as a sometime bike activist needs acknowledgement and reflection. I first became involved with a network of local cycle activists in the UK in the early 1990s. Connections were made, national gatherings attended, festivals were 9 organised. With a university training in anthropology and ethnographic methods and having studied social movement and social activism at both undergraduate and Doctoral level, I began looking more widely at cycle activism as a form of community engagement and social action in the early 2000s. While I was no longer directly involved, my academic studies allowed me to maintain engagement with the international networks of activists pursuing change in mobility regimes. And for more than 15 years I have been constructively engaged in the development of social science cycling studies as a means of understanding and better engaging with the processes of mobility transformation and urban change. Currently, I work with the ECF as Chair of the Scientists for Cycling Network, for academics who want to put their expertise at the service of the ECF’s international lobbying work. Part of this task is also connecting and supporting those working on aspects of cycling and has further allowed privileged access to grassroots forums and groups from Taipei to Brazil (see box 1). As part of this I have attended the annual Velo-City conferences which serve as a meeting point for professional lobbyists and policy makers, together with representatives of activist networks and groups. The events have become more corporate over the years, reflecting the changing field of cycle advocacy, and lengthy discussions have consequently been had with grassroots groups who feel that they no longer have a voice in such a professional process. Tradeshows and cycling festivals also form another useful source of information and conversation with cycle advocates and these have similarly informed my analysis. When travelling for academic conferences, I have also frequently made a point of seeking out local cycling projects to obtain a sense of what is going on. Consequently this analysis is not based on a discrete data set, but with observations, conversations and engagements made over a 25 year period. 10 Box 1. Networking meetings attended 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2017 2017 2018 2019 Dublin Cape Town Munich Brussels Copenhagen Vancouver Vienna Nantes Taipei Nijmegen Mexico City Recife Brazil Rio de Janeiro Dublin Ireland (Velo-City) South Africa (Velo-Mondiale) Germany (Velo-City) Belgium (Velo-City) Denmark (Velo-City) Canada (Velo-City) Austria (Velo-City) France (Velo-City) Taiwan (Velo-City) The Netherlands (Velo-City) (Foro Mundial de la Bicicleta) (Biciclutura) Brazil (Velo-City) Ireland (Velo-City) Taking a cue from sociolinguistic analysis, the process of data collection was to build a corpus of material sufficient to reach a saturation point in terms of themes and observations that could be derived from the material. Some archives were mined comprehensively to chart longitudinal development in a single geographical location (UK). Some cycling magazines as literature sources allowed investigation over a span of ten to twenty years (Cycling Plus, Bike Culture Quarterly, VeloVision), others (The CTC Gazette and its successor publications) allowed a view over a century (see Bosi & Rieter 2014). Other sources were examined less systematically once a relative homogeneity became evident. Saturation point was reached when no new insights were being returned and the same ideas and themes were repeated as the literature continued. Incidentally, this repetition reflects the expected turnover in readership and periods of engagement in activity. While stalwart longstanding subscribers make their presence and views known publicly, these are not the norm of those engaged. Rapid saturation and stagnation of ideas was most visible in recent online discussion boards. Interestingly, many of the themes identified in recent discussions were also visible in the older historical material. Online forums, newspaper comment and blogposts, together with their correspondents frequently yielded little but a hardening, even ossification, of attitude and entrenched positions. 11 More informative and more diverse were encounters outside virtual reality. Engaged conversations, especially those outside the realm of formal interviews and presentations yielded more open exchanges of views and more subtly nuanced positions taken in the debate. Multiple notebooks were filled in the attempts to capture ethnographically the contents and flavours of these expressed emotions and personal positionality. Importantly, many are shaped in off-guard moments, appearing in direct response to situational mobilities, revealed only by riding with ‘interviewees’. Research ethics in social movement studies This methodological approach has a second important dimension, the relations between researcher and researched (see Milan 2014). While I have been gathering data on these activities for many years, I have deliberately published virtually nothing. A few conference papers have appeared as outcomes of specific investigations, but little has been done in the general analysis or description of cycling social movements to date. The reason is effectively two-fold. First, discussants in cycling studies are not just academic researchers, but their very participation in the debates, the conferences and the networks shapes the international debates. Analysts and academics are part of the activism and policy debates on which they comment and which they analyse. Thus, the study of activism from one who has been engaged in the debates and has knowledge of those debates as a full participant not just as an observer, demands respect for the integrity of persons and processes involved. The term observer-participant has been used to contrast this degree of engagement with the more common status of participant-observer but recognising the fundamental role responsibility as a participant means that knowledge of discussions and processes has to remain privileged to those other participants in dialogue (Uldam & McCurdy 2013). This links to the second argument over the place of research in that in the study of social movements, there is always a danger of parasitism. The academic study of other’s activism can all too easily lead to extractivism, where the subject of investigation is simply mined as a raw material for interview data to feed the academic publishing and career of the researcher. A scepticism towards conventional 12 information gathering methods involving human subjects is a necessary outcome of re-evaluating research methods in light of Santos’ arguments on imperialist epistemologies. As he argues, “Postabyssal scientific knowledge is always coknowledge emerging from processes of knowing-with rather than knowing-about. Its autonomy is relative. It requires constant self-reflexivity in order to fulfil the double criterion of trust” (Santos 2018 p. 147). Cognitive justice demands that the production of knowledge is considered very carefully (see Santos 2007). Even the standard assurance of informed consent is no guarantee that information or knowledge obtained by the interviewer will not ultimately be transformed into profit for the academic researcher, without any real benefit accruing to the ‘subject’ of research. Gains from the knowledge produced by the activist go disproportionately to the social movement researcher. In social movement studies, this problem can be acute as scholars gain from studying the life risks of others: yet another iteration of extractivism. Consequently, this research only emerges now as a result of permissions and encouragements given by those current activists with whom it has been developed and wish to see it shared with a wider public. This reflects a concern with political responsibility in research not just the standard ethical concerns and the necessary safeguarding concerns. Commitment to the wider political project with which the activism is concerned raises obligations beyond those generally acknowledged in academic research network guidance. Modelling diverse activism Following Melucci’s framing of social movement as a heuristic, and recognising his analysis of social movements as one of many possible forms of collective action, the paper now turns to social movement studies to find suitable frames through which to better understand the broad spectrum of cycling activisms. In her study of community organizing groups, Smock (2004) produces a sophisticated fivefold typology (see table 1). Against these five ideal types, through case study analysis (primary and secondary), Smock considers how these models approach a number of thematic topic areas 13 Table 1. Models of Community Organising (adapted from Smock 2004 pp.33-34) Model Theory of urban change Organizing the community Impacting the public sphere Build power People’s organisation Conflict and confrontation Community- Building Rebuild social fabric Collaborative partnership Legitimacy and collaboration Civic Restore social order Informal forum Accessing existing channels Power-based Women-Centred Link public and private Support team spheres Interpersonal relationships Transformative Structural change Creating alternative frameworks Social movement Developing these further she breaks these down in further tabular form considering in multiple ways how the five models each build individual capacity, community capacity, create community governance structures, diagnose and frame the community’s problems and the strategies and outcomes that each model adopts and pursues. The coding process she produces to examine disparate models of change is a valuable one. As an organisational analysis tool, it provided an invaluable checklist for interpretation of activist and advocacy groups in cycling. However, the correlation of the thematic areas of activity against an ideal type did not fit my data. Groups in my selection would adopt multiple different strategies and techniques, not always compatible with their core values and expectations. Pragmatism and opportunity would over-ride a sense of continuity and coherence to the model of change that appeared at the heart of the group. Smock’s approach was useful for diagnosis, but too restrictive in its correlation of actions and group types. It did not fare well against the changing activities of the networks whose literatures I read and the persons with whom I spoke. The issues identified provided an important starting point of the coding process but crossreferencing them to a typology of groups was not viable. Rooted in organisational theory approaches to organising for change, Smock’s analysis highlights limitations of analytical frames that seek to correlate ideology, tactics and organisational form. While 14 such frames have been useful for analysis of specific cases, they hinder understanding of complex collective actions over a broader perspective and require degrees of coherence often not visible or present in real life activism. Similarly, although direct tactics and campaigns could be understood through their orientation towards the state and particularly, in many cases to policy formation, this only accounted for the direct activism and that based on promoting or defending cyclists’ rights. Much of the activity revealed in the study material comprised small, everyday acts of resistance, and acts of witness: even riding to work on a mundane basis could be transformed, in hostile circumstances, into a visible (and conscious) act of defiance to dominant patterns of automobility. While one could dismiss such activity as bloodymindedness or trivial, it was in these everyday acts of resistance that much of the identity formation was founded. Trying to map actions in their relation to the state was found to result in an overly reductionist modelling, necessarily narrowing understanding of movements to specific goal orientation and achievement. While these elements may be present, and indeed central to campaigning strategies, such approaches do not account for the breadth, diversity and longevity of bike activism. Indeed, a focus on everyday acts of resistance allows us to reemphasise the manner in which “social movements set out to influence both the normative and material dimensions of politics and society” (Lynch, 1999 p.19). It is in the repetition of everyday acts that this normative dimension is realised, subtly normalising practices once deemed deviant or obscure. Social practice theory (Shove, Pantzar and Watson 2012; see also Strengers and Maller (eds.) 2012) further allows us to see how the meanings of actions can be transformed even while the material act remains the same. A more flexible approach to understanding the complex and often contradictory realities of organising for change is found in John Lofland’s (1993) analysis of the US peace movement in the 1980s, Polite Protestors. He surveys a range of different activisms and mobilisations, recognising multiple forms of organisation and approaches. Importantly, he starts his analysis from the observation that social movement actors constantly theorise change – even if this is not clearly or explicitly articulated. Thus, 15 a key role of scholarship is neither to superimpose a socio-political role upon actions or to interpret them in terms of their functionality within the larger system dynamics, but to understand how movement actors a) make declarations relating to ends (analyses of what is wrong), and b) make pronouncements relating to means (what must be done) From this, the observer can begin to grasp the expectations of change latent in these pronouncements and judgements even when not outwardly articulated. Pursuing this method, he produces a six-fold typology of models of change to be found among the many different groups. Importantly, Lofland emphasises that the models of change he identifies are not to be seen either as exclusive, or to be connected with any specific group. Where Smock fits case studies into her tabular matrix of types, Lofland examines his cases and shows how each exhibits several different, competing models of change simultaneously. Some of these can be more obviously bundled together than others. While clearly developed out of a study of peace movement organisations, the six categories lent themselves very clearly to map the variety of ideas circulating amongst the groups and campaigns I had been studying. 16 Change theories codified: a) idealist Transcender theory: promote rapid shifts of mass consciousness = Proper realization of the reality of the situation will produce major shifts in consciousness and behaviour Educator theory: communicate facts and reasoning = active need to teach Intellectual theory: produce new facts and reasoning = production of new knowledge for change b) political Politician theory: Political electioneering and lobbying = either within existing political groupings or building anew. Protest theory: force issues by Non co-operation and disruption = active disruption (intervention) and passive non co-operation (less well articulated) Prophet theory: Affect deep moral regeneration = radical discontinuity with existing order Source: Lofland, (1993) Polite Protesters Rather than identifying an ideal type, against which could be read from a theory of change, Lofland examines the literatures and actions of the different groups and networks to identify underlying assumptions that groups appear to be working with. Often, groups’ theories of change are not explicit or consciously articulated. Careful and sensitive reading may be required to tease out buried ideas. Placing academic analysis external to the actors themselves and giving it a role as an interpreter risks placing social movement scholarship at a remove, with privileged insight. Potentially, it then suggests that the one who studies the movement can understand what the actors within the movement are doing better than the movement actors themselves. Here we are back in the dangerous territory of superimposing external expertise upon the actors themselves. The imperialist epistemology Santos argues against can reappear despite the best of intentions. Only therefore, by testing this modelling process with those engaged in everyday activism could it be legitimated. While the analysis of cycling activism conducted using Lofland’s approach (or any other) might have been an interesting intellectual 17 exercise, it necessarily had to remain entirely a personal insight unless and until validated through conversation and discussion with those whose actions it enabled me to understand. Lofland groups his six categories into two basic orientations, echoing Bob Overy’s earlier (1982) work on peace movements. Overy contrasted prophetic and practical actions, aligning either or both with actions either to force policy change or to create a different society. Here we pick up the two distinct categories of cycling activism identified at the outset, either actions to create policy change, to realise or defend rights, or actions intended to assist movement towards a broader reorientation of society. Overy’s prophetic and practical binary categorisations (in which he is relatively dismissive of the former) are developed much more sensitively by Pleyers’ (2010), in his understanding and interpreting contemporary activism as alter-globalization. Faced with a similar diversity of responses and types of action, Pleyers suggests a constant and unresolved tension between the way of reason and the way of subjectivity as two principles underlying action. Rationality and affect are not separate and antithetical categories for Pleyers, but are characteristics involved in the inner tensions of all activism. Similarly, these two dimensions were clearly visible within the discourses produced within cycling activism. However, it still remained necessary to analyse cycling activism on its own terms and to do so required development of Lofland’s model of change theories. Change theories in cycling activism Once again, before describing the categories it is important to emphasise that these are not distinct and exclusive categories. They exist bundled together in complex sets and contradictory tendencies are visible within clusters held by groups. Such tensions may be resolved temporally by shifts in attitude and action over time but may also lead to friction and fissure. Or their continued co-existence may be a source of dynamic internal interplay as participants constantly read and re-read both their situation and the tactics appropriate to it. Changing contexts of action due to external events may also lead to these shifts. 18 Combining the insights of these models and applying them to the cycling activism produces a six-fold analysis of models of change in cycling activism. Contagion The fundamental assumption is that change spreads virally. There may be a number of different triggers but the important thing for campaigners is to highlight the correct trigger. Once that is in place it is assumed that change will spread by contagion. It can be seen clearly expressed in the slogan “build it and they will come”, referring to infrastructural innovation. Underlying this may be an unexamined dependence on rational choice modelling, assuming that individuals and groups are (subconsciously) calculating entities able to “catch on” once a suitable seed is planted. However, contagion models of change are not dependent on rational choice or utilitarian models and may express and link with other mechanisms. Education Change requires appropriate knowledge of how to act. This may be at the individual or at the collective level, but what is essential is that people can learn how to act appropriately in order to change the bigger picture. Better knowledge of the problem and its solutions will create the change. This model is often part of the assumptions around individual behaviour change and may be exemplified in the provision of cycle skills training, for example. Innovation Similar to education, but may be more strongly linked to structural changes as well as individual. Innovations can be in knowledge or technologies. The main point is the assumption that new ideas or possibilities will alter the situation. In turn, this will allow new opportunities for change. In the case of knowledge, new discourses may change the political situation. In the example of technology, the introduction of an innovation such as a public bike scheme or the e-bike is understood as crucial for change. Often, innovation is assumed to lead to contagious change, but, may equally require structured connection with institutional or educational change 19 Institutional This is usually the most familiar assumption about processes of structural change. Engagement with existing political and civic institutions is seen as essential and necessary for change to occur. “The long march through the institutions”, engaging in the lobbying and policy formation process is necessary to bring about the required transformations. Institutional change may also be understood and expressed in terms of orientation towards governmental intervention (at local national or international levels). Pressure for structured programmes and incentives are often underpinned by this assumption. Disruption For change to occur, some form of a crisis needs to be forced. Action must be taken to confront problems and highlight them. Disruption is not always confrontational or negative in its character. It may also take the form of celebratory acts that disrupt the ordinary passage of events and highlight different realities or ways of thinking. Many Critical Mass actions reflect this idea and exhibit both dimensions of reaction and celebration. Street motor-traffic closures for ciclovia are an example of a disruptive act made possible through institutional intervention, providing opportunities for citizens to experience streets in a new way. Prefiguration Less rooted in identifying specific goals and mechanisms Both Lofland (1993) and Melucci (1996) describe this as “prophetic” action. In other words, “be the change you want to see”. Labelling it prefigurative takes away the religious or moral language and points to the strongly political dimension often hidden by the term “lifestyle” also used to describe these actions. Bike Kitchens and community co-ops often strongly exhibit this idea, but it can also be extended to many smaller acts of defiance or everyday practices of resistance. Each of these categories can be read as an area of focus and a motivating factor for action. They are not discrete or separate but bundled together in differing proportions and ratios. A single group’s 20 actions might demonstrate different patterns from campaign to campaign. As a diagnostic tool the categorisation of different models of change allowed the researcher to better understand and distinguish the variety of actions and approaches, while being able to understand their combined contributions to a cohesive whole which does not rely on the denial or removal of contradictions (see Pleyers 2010). Application These categories were derived from cross-coding both Smock’s categories and Lofland’s theories of change onto the mass of data assembled in researching cycle activism. The modified categories were then outlined. Aware that this research should not be presented as the result of an extractive process and its obligations to the communities whose actions and knowledge have created this knowledge, the models were shared with activist groups in Brazil, as well as among scholars and experts in the UK and internationally through the Velo-city conference. For ease of use, examples related to specific organisations were mapped as categories on a radar plot. As in figure 1 Figure 1 radar plot of theories of change Contagion 1 0.8 Prefiguration 0.6 0.4 Education 0.2 0 Disruption Innovation Institutional 21 Initially perceived as strength and weakness map, conversations with a national gathering of bike activist groups allowed this to be reframed as a diagnostic tool. It could be used to identify implicit assumptions being made by individuals or by groups and to identify where sources of conflict might lie. Further the appropriateness of any given tactic vis-a-vis a particular struggle or opponent could be better analysed. As a tool for self-analysis the theories of change model had the potential to be developed as part of a practical toolkit. Openness and communication are vital elements in activist struggles and the building of collectively across antagonistic differences is always a challenge. By understanding the different theories of change at work, diversity and difference can be interpreted as elements of complementarity instead of incompatibility. The model allows for diffusion of conflict through better understanding of differences and for analysis of the degree of match between goals and tactics. It further enabled dialogue to open between anticipated outcomes, the aspirations and the tactics employed within groups. The models of change approach, validated through dialogue, could then be reapplied across the full corpus of data as a more academic exercise, and utilised to provide an interpretative framework for a full-length study of cycling activism. Knowledge generation in social movement research is demonstrated, as both Pleyers 2010 and Santos 2018 insist, as an iterative process. It is co-produced with activist communities, and these communities are spread over time. Bike activism connects across generations and awareness of actions that have occurred previously or in other locations are part of the toolkit that sustains activism in a long struggle. 22 References Abord de Chatillon, Margot, 2019 Women in gear(s): exploring gender in the path to velonomy. Paper presented to Cycling and Society Symposium, University of Chester Sept.1-4 Aldred, R. 2012 The Role of Advocacy and Activism in John Parkin (ed.) Cycling and Sustainability [Transport and Sustainability Volume 1] Bingley, UK: Emerald 2012 pp.83-100 Aldred, R. 2013 Who are Londoners on Bikes and what do they want? Negotiating identity and issue definition in a ‘pop-up’ cycle campaign. Journal of Transport Geography 30: 194–201. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.01.005 Balkmar D. & Summerton, J. (2017) Contested mobilities: politics, strategies and visions in Swedish bicycle activism, Applied Mobilities, 2:2, 151-165, DOI: 10.1080/23800127.2017.1293910 Bosi L & Reiter, H. 2014 Historical Methodologies. Archival research and oral history in social movement research. In Della Porta, D. (ed.) Methodological practices in social movement research Oxford: Oxford University Press Brock P., 1991b Freedom from War. Nonsectarian Pacifism 1814-1914 Toronto: University of Toronto Press Brock P., 1991c Studies in Peace History York: William Sessions Brock, P. 1991a Freedom From Violence. Sectarian non-resistance from the Middle Ages to the Great War Toronto: University of Toronto Press Brown, A., & Potter, S (eds.) 1979 Developing Pedal Power Milton Keynes: Open University Candipan, Jennifer. 2019. ""Change Agents" on Two Wheels: Claiming Community and Contesting Spatial Inequalities through Cycling in Los Angeles." City & Community 18 (3): 965-982. doi:10.1111/cico.12430. Carlson, 2002 Critical Mass: Bicycling’s Defiant Demonstration AK Press Casteñeda, P., (2020) From the Right to Mobility to the Right to the Mobile City: Playfulness and Mobilities in Bogotá’s Cycling Activism. Antipode 52(1) 58-77 Cox, P. 2015a Cycling, environmentalism and change in 1970s Britain. Paper presented at Mobility and Environment, 13.02.2015 – 14.02.2015, Kerschensteiner Kolleg, Deutsches Museum, Munich Cox, P. 2015b Social movement activism, social change and bicycling in the UK. Paper presented for panel on "Cycling practices and sustainable mobility transitions" at the T²M/Cosmobilities Joint Conference "The Future of Mobilities: Flows, Transport and Communication" in Santa Maria C.V. (Caserta), Italy from September 14th to 17th, 2015 Dyck, H.L. (ed.) 1999 The Pacifist impulse in historical perspective Toronto: University of Toronto Press ECF (European Cyclists’ Federation) 2017 EU Cycling Strategy. Recommendations for delivering green growth and an effective mobility system in 2030 Brussels: ECF Epperson, B., 2014. Bicycles in American Highway Planning: The Critical Years of Decision-Making, 1969–1991. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. Feddes, F. and de Lange, M. (2019) Bike City Amsterdam: How Amsterdam Became the Cycling Capital of the World, Amsterdam: uitg. Bas Lubberhuizen. Furness, Z. M., 2010 One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility. Philadelphia: Temple UP 23 Gamble, Julie (2017) Experimental Infrastructure: Experiences in Bicycling in Quito, Equador. International Journal of Urban And Regional Research 41(1) 162-180 DOI:10.1111/14682427.12449 Goodwin, J. and J.M. Jasper (2015) ‘Editors’ Introduction’, in J. Goodwin and J.M. Jasper: (eds.) the Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts [3rd ed.] Oxford: Wiley Blackwell 1-8 p.4 Gorz, A., 1980. Ecology as Politics. London: Pluto, pp. 69–76 [Chapter Originally Published as the Social Ideology of the Motor Car, le Sauvage, September–October 1973]. Hoffman, Aage. 2008. “Arbejderidrættens Forhold til Socialdemikratiet ca 1880-ca 1925.” Arbejderhistorie 1: 96-115. Horton, Dave 2006 Environmentalism and the Bicycle Environmental Politics 15(1) Illich, I., 1973. Tools for Conviviality. London: Calder and Boyars. Illich, I., 1974. Energy and Equity. London: Calder and Boyars. Jungnickel, K., 2018. Bikes and Bloomers. London: Goldsmiths’ Press. Liddington, J. 2014 Vanishing for the Vote: Suffrage, Citizenship and the Battle for the Census Manchester: Manchester University Press Lightwood, J.T., 1928. The Cyclists’ Touring Club: Being the Romance of Fifty Years’ Cycling. London: CTC. Lofland J (1995) Charting degrees of movement culture: tasks of the cultural cartographer. In Johnston and Klandermans (eds.) 1995 Social Movements and Culture Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press pp.188-216 Lofland, J., 1993. Polite Protesters: The American Peace Movement of the 1980s. New York: Syracuse University Press. Lowe, J., & Yuk-Ha Tsang, E. (2018). Securing Hong Kong's identity in the colonial past: Strategic essentialism and the umbrella movement. Critical Asian Studies, 50(4), 556-571. doi:10.1080/14672715.2018.1503550 Lynch C., 1999 Beyond appeasement: Interpreting interwar peace movements in world politics Ithaca Cornell University Press Macadam, John Loudon (1818) Remarks on the present system of road making originally, 4th ed. 1821 Melucci, A. 1996 Challenging Codes Collective action in the information age Cambridge University Press Milan, S. 2014 The Ethics of Social Movement Research. In Della Porta, D. (ed.) Methodological practices in social movement research Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 446-464 Nielsen, C. R. (2013). Frantz Fanon and the Négritude Movements: How strategic essentialism subverts Manichean binaries. Callaloo, 36(2), 342352. https://doi.org/10.1353/cal.2013.0084 Overy, Bob 1982 How Effective Are Peace Movements? Montreal: Harvest House Pinkerton, John. 1998. “Who Put the Working Man on A Bicycle?” in Oddy, Nicholas and Rob van der Plas, eds. Cycle History 8 Proceedings of the 8th International Cycle History Conference, Glasgow. San Francisco: Van der Plas Publications: 101-106 Pleyers, G. 2010 Alter-Globalization: Becoming actors in the global age Cambridge: Polity 24 Prynn, David. 1976. “The Clarion Clubs, Rambling and the Holiday Associations in Britain since the 1890s.” Journal of Contemporary History 11 nos. 2/3 [Special Issue: Conflict and Compromise: Socialists and Socialism in the Twentieth Century]: 65-77. Pye, Dennis. 1995. Fellowship is Life: the Story of the Clarion Cycling Club. Bolton: Clarion Publishing. Rabenstein, Rüdiger. 2001. “The History of German Workers‟ Cycling Association, Solidarity.” in Cycle History 11: Proceedings of the 11th International Cycle History Conference San Francisco: Van der Plas Publications: 160-168 Reid, C., 2015. Roads Were Not Built for Cars. Newcastle: Front Page. Reid, Carlton (2017) Bike Boom: The Unexpected Resurgence of Cycling. Washington: Island Press Riordan, James. 2006. “Amateurism, Sport and the Left: Amateurism for All Versus Amateur Elitism.” Sport in History 26 no. : 468-483 DOI: 10.1080/17460260601066233. Rosen, Paul 2002 “Up the Vélorution: Appropriating the Bicycle and the Politics of Technology” SATSU Working paper N24 2002. Subsequently published in: Ron Eglash, Julien Bleecker, Jennifer Croissant, Rayvon Fouché & Giovanna Di Chiro (eds.) Appropriating Technology University of Minnesota Press Santos, B de Sousa (ed.) 2007 Another Knowledge is Possible. Beyond Northern Epistemologies London: Verso Santos, B de Sousa 2018 The End of the Cognitive Empire. The coming of age of epistemologies of the South Durham: Duke University Press Shove, E., Pantzar, M., and Watson, M., 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. London: Sage. Smock, Kristina (2004) Democracy in Action. Community organizing and Urban Change New York, NY. Columbia University Press Strengers, Y. and Maller, C., eds. 2012. Social Practices, Intervention and Sustainability: Beyond Behaviour Change. Abingdon: Routledge. Tan, H. & Miguel A. Martínez López (2020) Dancing with shackles? The sociopolitical opportunities, achievements, and dilemmas of cycling activism in Guangzhou, China, Journal of Urban Affairs, 42:2, 241-256, DOI: 10.1080/07352166.2019.1592650 The Bicycle, UK, 17 February 1943, p3. “The NCU” Tiernan, S. 2012 Eva-Gore-Booth: An image of such politics Manchester: Manchester University Press Uldam, J., & McCurdy, P. (2013). Studying social movements: Challenges and opportunities for participant observation. Sociology Compass, 7(11), 941951. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12081 von Schneidemesser, D., Jeremias Herberg, Dorota Stasiak, (2020) Re-claiming the responsivity gap: The co-creation of cycling policies in Berlin’s mobility law, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 8, 100270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100270. Zapata Campos, María José & Zapata, Patrik (2017) Infiltrating citizen-driven initiatives for sustainability, Environmental Politics, 26:6, 1055-1078, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2017.1352592 25