Reprinted with e-mail permission from Mr.Schwartz

Lexington’s Bicycling Community: The Framing and Culture that Create a New Social Movement
Mitch Schwartz, University of Kentucky

Abstract

With many metropolitan areas experiencing a recent resurgence in the popularity of bicycling, this study analyzes the cycling community in one such metropolitan area: Lexington, Kentucky.  Interviews were conducted with active cyclists in order to better understand the structure of Lexington’s cycling community, revealing three prominent groups/types of cyclists: (1) recreational/fitness cyclists, (2) commuters, and (3) underground/urban cyclists.  The characteristics of each group are discussed, with particular attention devoted to the underground/urban cyclists, due to their politically-minded culture.  Building from prior social movement literature, the unique framing processes of the underground/urban cycling group are analyzed in order to explore the group as a new social movement.  Finally, the potential for a broader cycling movement based upon interests common to all cyclists is discussed. 

Cycling as a Discourse of Change

Lexington, Kentucky is one of many American metropolitan areas currently involved in a recent resurgence in bicycling (referred to hereafter simply as cycling).  In fact, the League of American Bicyclists, a nationwide organization that promotes cycling advocacy, recognized Lexington as a ‘Bicycle Friendly Community’ in 2007, making it one of approximately one hundred American cities acknowledged by the League for their efforts in promoting and facilitating cycling (League of American Bicyclists, 2008).  This designation, though, does not indicate cohesion, as the cycling community within Lexington is diverse and even somewhat disparate.  Moreover, there is no central organization in Lexington that unites the different cycling groups, and, upon initial examination, a unified perspective within the cycling community is not readily apparent.

As such, one might assume that Lexington’s cycling community lacks direction or has no specified goals.  While such suppositions bear some truth, in the since that there is no explicitly stated credo held commonly by the entire cycling community, I will argue that the structure and culture of at least parts of Lexington’s cycling community still comprise a ‘new’ social movement.  After proffering a conceptualization of social movements and outlining the features of ‘new’ social movements, I will describe the most prominent cycling groups within Lexington’s cycling community, focusing on the group that can most easily be identified as a social movement.  I will explore this group’s unique framing processes that effect the emergence of a social movement, particularly their framing of cycling as a political act in order to create a ‘discourse of change’.  Finally, I will explore the perspectives that unite Lexington’s cycling community as a whole and I will highlight the potential for a broader social movement built upon these commonalities.

The Conceptualization of Social Movements

A systematic and all-encompassing conceptualization of a ‘social movement’ is difficult to posit.  Speaking broadly, Johnston and Klandermans (1995) suggested, “The dominant culture of a society appears stable.  Social movements, on the other hand, are quintessentially changeful” (p. 4).  They continued, “[Social] movements arise out of what is culturally given, but at the same time they are a fundamental source of cultural change” (Johnston & Klandermans, 1995, p. 5).  The conceptualization of social movements as agents of social change that operate in opposition to dominant cultural trends is a perspective found throughout social movement literature.

Diani (2000), however, argued that such a broad conceptualization of social movements is risky because, if scholars share only this broad conceptualization, the same issues might be addressed just as thoroughly without mentioning social movements at all, instead simply building from concepts like collective action, social change, and social conflict.  In contrast, social movements are a specific social dynamic connected to, but also distinct from, these concepts (Diani, 2000).  Diani (2000) outlined three principal components of social movements: (1) social networks among a plurality of actors, (2) collective identity, and (3) conflictual issues.  He elaborated on the social dynamic indicative of social movements:

[The social dynamic] consists in a process whereby several different actors, be they individuals, informal groups and/or organisations, come to elaborate, either through joint action and/or communication, a shared definition of themselves as being part of the same side in a social conflict.  (Diani, 2000, p. 156).

 

Through this dynamic, these actors give meaning to otherwise unconnected symbolic actions and prompt the emergence of specific issues and conflicts (Diani, 2000).

New Social Movement Theory

Emerging in response to the deficiencies of the structure-centered perspectives of more traditional approaches (e.g., Marxist analyses, resource mobilization theory, political process perspectives), new social movement approaches attempt to explore social movements not only from a structural perspective, but also from a cultural perspective (Johnston et al., 1994).  The categorization is a bit controversial because ‘new’ social movements do not necessarily have different tactics or goals than ‘old’ social movements, but Melucci began promulgating the term new social movement in 1985 simply to emphasize the cultural aspects of social movements, not to promote a clear delineation between different movements (Jasper, 2007).  As such, new social movements often have certain characteristic cultural features that distinguish them from old social movements.  In general, political organizing based upon collective identity, rather than socioeconomic class, is what distinguishes new social movements, which emerge primarily in post-industrial societies, from the more class-based social movements of industrial societies (Taylor & Whittier, 1998; Johnston et al., 1994).  More specifically, Johnston et al. (1994) outline several interconnected characteristics that often characterize new social movements and their cultural, rather than structural, facets.

For example, new social movements generally emphasize identity, particularly the development of a collective identity and a shared culture (Johnston et al., 1994).  However, the distinction between the individual and the collective often becomes unclear, as new social movements frequently involve intimate aspects of daily life and are associated not simply with specific activities, but with entire lifestyles (Johnston et al., 1994).  New social movements extend beyond particular acts of protest or resistance and impact the everyday lives of participants (Johnston et al., 1994).  These movements also seek new and alternative forms of participation and decision making related to the issues of collective interest, and new social movements often have important political meaning and imply the expansion of civil, rather than political, engagement by the populace (Johnston et al., 1994).  Finally, in contrast to conventional political parties or movements, new social movements tend to be segmented, diffuse, and decentralized, with various subgroups generally maintaining considerable autonomy (Johnston et al., 1994).

While these characteristics are by no means present in every new social movement, these features indicate the cultural focus of such movements, which do not fit the structural models of more traditional social movement approaches.  In turn, new social movement approaches adopt tools that are better suited to cultural, rather than structural, analyses.

Framing as a Tool of the Cultural Analysis of Social Movements

Salman and Assies (2007) noted the need for new tools of cultural analyses: “Opportunity structures and mobilization structures remain insufficient to account for collective action” (p. 228).  Further, they observed that framing processes can compensate for these deficiencies, as framing processes are the mediating element between structures and action:

[Framing processes] bring in the element of shared meaning and definitions, an element that was long neglected in the resource mobilization tradition as it relied on cost-benefit analysis while, in contrast, new social movement scholars tended to highlight this dimension.  Framing is about sociocultural perceptions and the construction of shared understandings that justify, dignify, and motivate collective action.  They are about building consensus for action.  (Salman & Assies, 2007, p. 228)

 An application of framing processes to social movements emphasizes how frames intersect with broader cultural patterns and how they might be strategically used for mobilization (Johnston et al., 1994).  Within Diani’s (2000) conceptualization of social movements, framing is the process by which actors give meaning to symbolic actions and promote specific issues.  Moreover, in the context of new social movement approaches, frame analysis takes on new meaning as one way of assessing collective identity because new social movements often self-consciously create, present, and use frames to generate collective identity (Johnston & Klandermans, 1995).  In the following section, the method by which the characteristics and frames of Lexington’s cycling community have been identified and analyzed are explained.

Method

For information about Lexington’s cycling community, I sought prominent and active cyclists to interview.  Beginning with an existing acquaintance, I located participants via snowball sampling, and, in the end, I conducted twenty semi-structured interviews between September 2008 and December 2008.  Each interview lasted between thirty and sixty minutes and followed the same interview guide, which contained questions related to Lexington’s cycling community, the various groups that exist therein, and the culture of each group and of the cycling community as a whole.  As part of the informed consent process, each participant granted me permission to use his/her name and other personally identifying information.

It is important to note that fifteen of the twenty participants are members of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, a nonpartisan group that advises the Mayor and initiates and executes various cycling advocacy efforts.  The Task Force is composed of a diverse array of cyclists who are familiar with all the cycling groups in Lexington; as such, my sample similarly represents a diverse range of interests and perspectives regarding cycling.

After the interviews were completed, I transcribed each interview verbatim and then coded each transcription for analysis.  This study focuses on responses to two lines of questions: the first related to Lexington’s cycling culture as a whole and any overarching goals and/or perspectives that unite the entire cycling community, and the second related to any different groups or types of cyclists and their separate goals and/or perspectives regarding cycling.  Discussions of these topics were coded and analyzed to identify, on the one hand, the most commonly cited overarching goals/perspectives that unite the entire cycling community and, on the other hand, the most prominent groups/types of cyclists and the goals/perspectives of each.  The findings and analysis derived from interview responses are summarized in the following sections, beginning with an exploration of the most prominent groups/types of cyclists within Lexington’s cycling community.

Findings and Analysis

In general, respondents indicated that there is not a unified Lexington cycling culture; rather, there are several groups/types of cyclists that, at best, have some commonalities in interests or overlap in membership.  Shane Tedder, the Sustainability Coordinator for the University of Kentucky’s Office of Residence Life and a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, said simply, “I think that there are multiple perspectives [within the cycling community].  …  So, no, it’s not united by one perspective, it’s really diverse.”  Dave Elbon, a member of the Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee and a fellow member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, elaborated:

The cycling culture is not really monolithic.  There are a lot of different cycling cultures going on at the same time in town, and I’m not sure that they all have the same goals.

Likewise, Tim Buckingham, a member of the Bike Lexington Planning Committee and another member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, observed, I don’t think there’s one theme that everyone agrees on.  I think everybody comes to cycling with their own, not political agenda, but their own agenda.  I don’t think there’s one primary goal for the culture, and right now the culture’s kind of fragmented; there’s [sic] lots of different groups.

 And Bill Crank, the manager of Pedal the Planet, a local bike shop, agreed: I think the groups are kind of splintered, not because there’s really any animosity, but they’ve kind of all grown up separate.  …  I don’t think there’s one organization that kind of gathers everybody or speaks for everybody.

With all twenty respondents acknowledging at least some delineation among cycling groups and/or types of cyclists, several groups/types were noted throughout the interview process.  The three most thoroughly discussed types of cyclists were (1) recreational/fitness cyclists, (2) commuters, and (3) underground/urban cyclists.  Although other types were acknowledged by respondents, these three types were described as the most prominent, so the following analysis will focus on these three types, beginning with a description of each.

Recreational/Fitness Cyclists

Nineteen of the twenty respondents at least mentioned recreational/fitness cyclists, and this was by far the group discussed in the most detail.  Dave described this group as “people who are mostly interested in recreational cycling, who probably drive a car during the week and then on the weekends, go ride out in the countryside.”  Additionally, when most respondents talked about recreational/fitness cyclists, they referred to the Bluegrass Cycling Club (BCC), a group of ‘road cyclists’. This is likely because, as Mike Galbraith, a League of American Bicyclists certified instructor, a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, and a transportation and urban planner, said, “They’re the only officially organized bicycling club, and there are no others.”  Mike elaborated on the BCC, noting the group’s goals of fitness, competition, and recreation:

There are many dedicated cyclists in the Bluegrass Cycling Club, but it is a club, and they are club riders—they’re fitness, health, a little competition, but it’s group riding, and group riding is fun, group riding’s a lot of fun.

Shane acknowledged these same goals:… the Bluegrass Cycling Club, which was very much a fitness-oriented … group … who rode for the exercise in it, for the fitness in it, and for the enjoyment of long-distance rides.

These sentiments were echoed by Tim, who additionally mentioned the BCC’s advocacy efforts:

The fitness cyclists—you have demarcated groups like the Bluegrass Cycling Club—their goal is mainly individual health; they do some advocacy standpoints, but for the most part, it’s fitness cycling, it’s how many miles did you ride, things like that.

Bill Gorton, the President of the Kentucky Bicycle and Bikeways Commission, a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, and an environmental lawyer, explained that one of the primary advocacy efforts related to the BCC is the ‘Share the Road’ campaign to raise motorists’ awareness of cyclists:

Things that might be more specific to, say, road riders, would be, for example, the Share the Road initiative.  We have signage on the beautiful Bluegrass bikeways and roads throughout the community to let automobile drivers know that this is an area that’s frequented by our road riders, and, as we try to expand the reputation of the community as a safe cycling destination, we hope to increase cycling tourism here, and we want people that are coming to visit us to feel safe on our roads.

Lynn Phillips, a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force and a lecturer in the Geography Department at the University of Kentucky, agreed that road cyclists struggle to gain acknowledgement from motorists:

There are the folks who are the leisure weekend riders—the Cycling Club people and their goals are to create an infrastructure outside of the city because riding in town is not as aesthetically pleasing; it’s not as relaxing, whatever it might be, so they like to ride in surrounding counties.  They want the surrounding counties to be more accepting—that’s an even bigger challenge.

And, finally, Bill Fortune, a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, a member of the BCC, a cross-country cyclists, and a professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Law, also mentioned safety (the intended outcome of increased motorist awareness) as one of the goals of the BCC: The primary concern of the Bluegrass Cycling Club and the road riders is really bike safety, the way cyclists ride on the rural roads and the way in which cars react to cyclists on the rural roads.

Commuters

One of the other commonly mentioned types of cyclists is the commuter class.  Unlike when they spoke of recreational/fitness cyclists, respondents did not consistently identify any organized group with commuters.  In fact, as Shane observed, many commuters may not be interested in the culture of such a cycling group:

There’s also a growing group of people who want to use their bikes as a mode of transportation, but who aren’t necessarily in to the culture of it; they just want to be cyclist-commuters. 

Bill Crank also acknowledged the solitary nature of the commuter class: “There’s a lot of commuters also … but I don’t know that they have a site or a group that they’re linked together with—everybody’s kind of out on their own.”

Even without an organized group to represent them, commuters still have readily identifiable goals.  Sam Dick, a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force and a local news anchor, noted goals such as safety and infrastructure: “[Commuters are] very up on safety, the road conditions, how they’re treated by drivers; so it’s less the social thing and more of a this-is-how-I-get-to-work-everyday kind of thing.”  Dave echoed this commuter interest in better cycling infrastructure:

There are people who use bicycling for everyday transportation, commuting, things like that, and they’re probably concerned with getting better facilities in town, maybe bike lanes, or some people like off-road paths, and better parking downtown.

Bill Fortune also noted the commuters’ interest in infrastructure: Commuting cyclists are concerned with bike lanes, with safety again, of course.  I think the primary thing the commuting cyclists would like to have is designated bike lanes which are contiguous, so that you don’t have bike lanes stopping and starting, so that you could go almost anywhere in Lexington on designated bike lanes.

 Moreover, a couple of respondents observed that more people would commute if there was a more developed cycling infrastructure.  Dwayne Edwards, a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, a member of the BCC, and a commuter, noted,

The commuters would just like to have some better facilities.  …  I know a lot more people would ride if there were really dedicated bike lanes or a trail where you were actually away from the cars.

 Likewise, Tom Walters, a member of the BCC, said that many people would like to commute but simply do not feel it is safe: “A lot of people, the biggest pet peeve is, ‘If I had a safe means to travel in town, I would use a bike.’”

Underground/Urban Cyclists

There is some overlap between commuters and this final type of cyclist that was most frequently mentioned by respondents, because many of the underground/urban cyclists are also commuters.  However, the primary difference between underground/urban cyclists and strictly commuter cyclists is commuters are generally, as discussed above, only interested in the bicycle as a means of transportation, while underground/urban cyclists are interested in creating a cycling culture.  Ultimately, this interest in culture is one aspect of the framing processes that underground/urban cyclists use to present cycling as more than a means of transportation, recreation, or exercise.  For underground/urban cyclists, cycling is framed as an entire lifestyle, and this unique framing perspective produces an enthusiasm for the cycling lifestyle that spawns a cycling movement.  In turn, this cycling movement meets the criteria of a social movement, particularly as a new social movement.

Contributing to the development of a unifying cycling culture, there are a few subgroups associated with the underground/urban cyclists: the Alleycats, the LexRides forum, and the bike polo players.  However, none of these subgroups are clearly defined or delineated, and respondents often used the subgroups interchangeably to refer to underground/urban cyclists.  Moreover, despite such affiliated groups, there is no structure to the underground/urban cycling culture; instead, spontaneity and creativity help instill this culture with its enthusiasm and charisma.  Additionally, the relative lack of structure and the incorporation of alternative approaches to cycling exhibited by underground/urban cyclists embody two characteristics of new social movements as outlined by Johnston et al. (1994).  The resultant enthusiasm is likely why new social movements often share these characteristics of spontaneity and creativity.

For example, Robert Brandon, a longtime cyclist whose father has owned multiple bike shops in Lexington, noted the appeal of spontaneous cycling:

The LexRides people, the AlleyCat people, the urban cyclists, we don’t want to have a leader and a president and a style of riding.  We don’t want to have a schedule; we want to be spontaneous; we want to celebrate riding in the city, at all different times of the day and night, and, we’re very spontaneous.

And Melissa Bellew, a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force and a racing/triathlon cyclist, summarized the creativity promoted by the underground/urban cycling culture:

The Alleycat or the underground group, they’re a terrific group of people who work hard to bring alternative styles of cycling to Lexington, whether it’s racing at night or a recent thing they had, the bike prom, where they had people come out and dress up and ride their bike; but they’re making cycling fun to the general person.

Roscoe Klausing, an underground/urban cyclist, echoed the sentiment that spontaneity and creativity make cycling more fun:

All of the stuff that I do from a cycling standpoint is all completely grassroots; there is no structure.  If anything, the only thing that seems to always tie together is that people are trying to have fun riding their bikes, and that may be a race, it may be riding in the parade, it may be going for a beer, or whatever; it’s just about riding for fun.  …  The LexRides contingency, that’s just about people who are motivated.  There’s no clear leader, people do whatever they want, and if their idea is good, people follow.  So it’s a very different thing; it’s completely spontaneous.

However, there are aspects of the underground/urban cycling culture that extend beyond simple enjoyment of cycling, namely a strong sense of advocacy and a commitment to an entire lifestyle intertwined with cycling.  Johnston et al. (1994) noted emphasis on civic involvement and lifestyle changes as additional characteristics of new social movements. Tim referenced these characteristics as they apply to the diverse underground/urban cycling culture:

There’s groups like LexRides or the Alleycats group; that group is kind of like a culmination of everybody: some people are in it for health, some people are in it for transportation, but, for the most part, what LexRides is [sic] just building a culture, like trying to create something from the ground up, so a lot of us are involved in government politics of cycling.

Likewise, Brad Flowers, the President of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, notes these aspects of civic involvement and lifestyle commitment: Bicycling is definitely for the LexRides folks still a form of recreation and a form of fitness, but I think it has a little bit more, maybe, of a political statement in some way—it just has more ideological significance, the bicycle.

This acknowledgement of the political significance of cycling is what most clearly identifies the underground/urban cycling culture as a social movement.  Because these cyclists frame cycling as a political act, their group embodies more than just a cycling culture, they embody a cycling movement.  Several respondents referred to the underground/urban cyclists as the cycling group with the strongest advocacy contingent.  Of the group, Dwayne said, “Some of them are really the leading edge of the people that really advocate cycling.”  Hope Proctor, a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force who works at the YMCA, echoed this view: … like the group with the AlleyCats, but I think they might actually be probably the strongest, most vocal, as far as bringing awareness to cyclists in Lexington, and have the most impact and influence in the political arena as well.

Shane summarized all the various facets of the underground/urban cycling culture, beginning with a simple enjoyment of cycling: “The underground cyclists, their primary goal is just the fact that they have so much fun around the bicycle.”  He quickly transitioned, though, to the civic involvement and lifestyle commitments associated with the underground/urban cycling movement:

I think that [underground/urban cyclists’] more community-focused goal is more people on bikes more often.  We believe that the bicycle is a great form of fitness, a great form of recreation, but the true glory of the bicycle is as a mode of urban transportation.

Shane continued, framing cycling as a political act with the goal of promoting cycling: We want to promote [the bicycle as a mode of urban transportation], we want to provide examples of how that works; and so everyday, when the sixty or seventy of us get on our bikes and commute to work, and we’re out in traffic in the mornings and we’re coming home at five, we’re providing the example that there is a different way to get around this community.

 And finally, he referred to the unifying enthusiasm of the underground/urban cycling culture as a principal facilitator of the cycling movement and its continued activism: I think [the underground/urban cycling] group is also interested in just culture-building.  That group of people really likes the other people that they associate with when they’re out doing activist events or doing polo or doing Alleycat bike rides, and so they’re continually looking for creative ways to create social space for those cyclists to come together and interact.

 While this cycling culture surely helps facilitate the underground/urban cycling movement, the culture does not extend throughout all Lexington’s cycling groups.  In the following section, I explore the commonalities shared by all cyclists that could help create a more expansive cycling culture and extend the cycling movement beyond the underground/urban cyclists.

The Foundations of a Broader Cycling Culture

Although respondents often focused on the different groups/types of cyclists and the characteristics specific to each, many were able to identify commonalities that extend throughout the entire cycling community.  Melissa spoke of a common goal of enjoying cycling and promoting a general cycling culture:

All those people together I think have a common thread in that they all enjoy cycling and want to see it grow in Lexington.  …  So all those folks have different individual goals with different groups but overall, even despite the differences, I think all the groups want to work together to make it better in Lexington for the cycling culture.

 Brian Turner, a member of the LexRides forum and the co-owner of Cricket Press (a local poster-printing venture that often produces advertisements for cycling events), echoed the goal of developing a unifying cycling culture:

I tend to think of [the bike] more as a cultural sort of symbol, in that it can provide you with a lot of things if you just think about it in a different way.  I think that if people get out there and see that you can not only have fun and get from one place to another on it, but you can also build a whole like lifestyle around, you can build friends, you can build an entire culture around a bicycle.

 And Tim noted the simple idea that cycling is fun for everyone, regardless of how or why they cycle:I think everybody could agree that cycling’s fun; everybody thinks it’s fun, regardless of what your goal is, everybody enjoys it, so that’s maybe the unifying goal.

Additionally, several respondents referenced the concept of a bicycle-friendly community when discussing goals that are common across the various cycling groups.  For example, Lynn did so while referencing safety as a primary concern to all cyclists:

I think the first thing that we need to do as a community is create a bicycle-friendly city, and I think before we speak to uniting the cycling culture, whatever elements are around here, we need to create a place where it’s safe.

 Bill Gorton echoed her sentiments regarding a bicycle-friendly community and safety, also noting infrastructure and health concerns as common to all cyclists:

What we’re trying to do is making [sic] Lexington, even then Kentucky, much more cycling-friendly.  …  If you’re dealing with the general cycling community, across the board, whether you’re road riders, or you’re city riders, or you’re commuters, good infrastructure—trail development, bike lanes—that helps everybody.  It also is good for the health of the community, the safety of the community, the safety of all cyclists; so that’s one big thing that cuts across all facets and all communities of the cycling culture.

 Dwayne reiterated these ideas of a bicycle-friendly community built upon general interest in safety, infrastructure, health, and enjoyment of cycling:

I think to get the community more cycling-friendly and aware and to build facilities would be the one common theme; and taking as many cars off the road as possible and to show people that it’s healthy and that’s it’s actually convenient to a point, and that it’s fun.  I think that’s kind of a consistent theme amongst all the different little groups.

Brad Oakley, a member of the Kentucky Mountain Biking Association and a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, noted these same sentiments, adding a concern with having cycling more broadly acknowledged as a legitimate form of transportation:

We all have a common goal of more cycling facilities, more awareness, more respect out on the roads and things like that. … There’s an overriding goal for more access, more facilities, things like that, just for it to become more mainstream, I guess, in a lot of ways, but still retain its own unique identity; but just to have it more recognized as a good, viable alternative means of transportation.

 Cheryl Wyatt, a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task force who works for the National Center for Safe Routes to School and is involved with the Kentucky Rails to Trails Council, also echoed a shared interest in legitimacy, awareness, and safety:

It seems a high priority is to make the general community aware that bicycling is a legitimate means of transportation and that motorists need to be conscious and aware of that, in respect to bicyclists.  And at the same time, I think those who are in the bicycling culture recognize that there’s a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that those who are on bicycles are safe cyclists.  So I think a lot of it has to do with safety factors, just getting word out and making sure that the public knows that it’s a bicyclist’s—a person’s right to be out on a bicycle.

With so many respondents—regardless of preferred style of cycling or group affiliation—acknowledging these myriad issues as of common interest to all cyclists, there is certainly the potential for an all-inclusive cycling culture that has the enthusiasm and activism of the underground/urban culture but extends throughout the entire cycling community.  In the concluding thoughts that follow, I offer some suggestions that might help the underground/urban cycling movement use the commonalities noted above as a foundation for a more expansive cycling culture and, in turn, a more widespread cycling movement.

Conclusion

Overall, the existence of multiple, and even disparate, groups/types of cyclists within Lexington’s cycling community does not detract from the potential of the cycling community as a social movement.  Although the groups may have differing perspectives about and goals for cycling, there is also a lot of overlap among the various groups.  As noted above, goals that all cycling groups have in common range from the general promotion of a cycling culture and the development of Lexington as a bicycle-friendly community, to the idea that cycling is fun and healthy, to the need for increased safety and better infrastructure.  As Dave said, “We all share cycling, we have that thing in common, so we tend to identify with each other more, even if we’re not doing exactly the same thing.”

Unfortunately, at this point, the underground/urban cyclists seem to be the only cyclists who view cycling as politically significant.  Returning to Diani’s (2000) definition of social movements, the underground/urban cyclists are the only cyclists who emphasize the conflictual issues related to cycling; they are the only cyclists who view cycling as part of a struggle.  Essentially, because they view themselves as activists and frame cycling as a form of activism, they become participants in a social movement and cycling becomes a political act.  So while other cycling groups may qualify as social networks and each group may have a collective identity, only the underground/urban cyclists view cycling as one facet of a larger conflict.  In turn, only the underground/urban cyclists fit Diani’s (2000) criteria for a social movement.

Despite this relatively significant distinction, there is not great disparity between underground/urban cyclists and other types of cyclists.  The primary characteristic that distinguishes underground/urban cyclists from other cyclists is their particular framing process; that is, the unique ways underground/urban cyclists think about and present cycling.  As noted above, underground/urban cyclists frame themselves as activists and they frame cycling as a meaningful symbolic and political act.  Underground/urban cyclists frame cycling as not only a form of transportation, recreation, and/or exercise, but as an entire lifestyle that incorporates these and many other aspects of cycling.  Additionally, underground/urban cyclists place great emphasis on promoting an energetic cycling culture that makes cycling enjoyable and encourages enthusiasm for the ‘cycling lifestyle’.  Johnston et al. (1994) noted that such cultural and lifestyle implications are a defining characteristic of new social movements.  In summary, the excitement for cycling, its culture, and its lifestyle provide the foundational motivation for participation in the cycling social movement, which develops from framing cycling as a lifestyle and from framing the act of cycling as politically significant.

However, Lexington’s cycling culture/movement need not be confined to underground/urban cyclists only.  Given the shared concerns of all cyclists, there is a common cultural thread running throughout the various cycling groups that not only connects these groups/types of cyclists, but that can also link individual cyclists to a collective identity that they enact both publicly and privately.  Moreover, the diversity of groups/types of cyclists is not necessarily a deterrent to the success of a broader cycling movement, for new social movements tend to be somewhat fragmented and decentralized.  Such diversity, however, may hinder/be hindering the development of a unifying cycling culture.  As the most politically active cyclists and as the group with the most fervent culture, the underground/urban cyclists seem like the most likely candidates to attempt the task of building such a unifying culture.

I advise they expand the underground/urban cycling culture to appeal to other types of cyclists by emphasizing the shared interests of all cyclists.  Underground/urban cyclists should not be the only cyclists working to create a unifying cycling culture, though.  Ultimately, if enough members of Lexington’s cycling community build upon their shared interests, they can construct a collective identity and a shared culture.  New social movements can build success just as easily from such cultural features as from structural and organizational features.  Once collective identity and shared culture exist, the activist and lifestyle frames currently most prominent among underground/urban cyclists can be incorporated in order to produce a more widespread cycling movement.

Wendy Trimble, the co-owner of Pedal the Planet and a member of the Mayor’s Bike Task Force, observed the nearly universal relevance of cycling: When you talk about bicycling, I think most people, even if you’re not in the cycling culture, most people can relate to cycling because every house has a bike in their garage.  So even if you’re talking to people that aren’t necessarily in the cycling culture, you can talk about cycling.

 The key for the cycling movement is converting this relevance into activism.  Lexington’s underground/urban cyclists have shown that this conversion can be accomplished with the appropriate frames.  The next step for Lexington’s cycling movement is to use their unique frames to expand participation.

Discussion

There is still much work to be done before the intricacies of Lexington’s cycling community can be completely understood.  In future studies, I plan to supplement the data from my interviews with field observation to provide better insight into the frames of various groups/types of cyclists.  I will give the underground/urban cyclists particular attention, as their frames seem to be most clearly associated with the cycling culture/movement.

Admittedly, there are several groups/types of cyclists that were mentioned by respondents but that were not examined within this paper.  I limited my exploration to the three groups that respondents discussed most thoroughly, but other groups (like racing teams, mountain bikers, families, and the homeless) were acknowledged and may warrant further study.  Additionally, all respondents were active members of Lexington’s cycling community, so the views of casual cyclists and/or non-cyclists may not have been adequately represented.  Understanding the views of these groups, however, will be crucial to any sustained success of Lexington’s cycling movement.

Finally, this study exclusively explores the cycling community of Lexington, Kentucky.  Although it is likely that parallels exist between this cycling community and others, there are myriad factors that influence the characteristics of a cycling community in any given location; therefore, the preceding discussion of Lexington’s cycling community is not generalizeable to other cycling communities.  As such, comparison of different cycling communities/cultures/movements might provide additional insights that could help improve the cycling cultures/movements of these communities.

References

Diani, M.  (2000).  The concept of social movement.  In K. Nash (Ed.), Readings in contemporary political sociology (pp. 155-176).  London: Wiley-Blackwell.

 Jasper, J. M.  (2007).  Cultural approaches in the sociology of social movements.  In B. Klandermans & C. Roggeband (Eds.), Handbook of social movements across disciplines (pp. 59-110).  New York: Springer.

 Johnston, H., & Klandermans, B.  (1995).  The cultural analysis of social movements.  In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp. 3-24).  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 Johnston, H., Laraña, E., & Gusfield, J. R.  (1994).  Identities, grievances, and new social movements.  In E. Laraña, H. Johnston, & J. R. Gusfield (Eds.), New social movements: From ideology to identity (pp. 3-35).  Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

 League of American Bicylists.  (2008).  Bicycle Friendly Community Master List.  Retrieved 9 December 2008, from http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/pdfs/bfc_master_list_sept_08.pdf.

 Taylor, V. & Whittier, N. E.  (1998).  Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian feminist mobilization.  In P. M. Nardi & B. E. Schneider (Ed.), Social perspectives in lesbian and gay studies: A reader (pp. 349-365).  New York: Routledge.

 Salman, T. & Assies, W.  (2007).  Anthropology and the study of social movements.  In B. Klandermans & C Roggeband (Eds.), Handbook of social movements across disciplines (pp. 205-266).  New York: Springer.