---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Palmas <palmas@gmail.com>Date: 2011/1/29
Subject: [bicicletada-SP] The text of a flyer that was distributed at SF Critical Mass on January 28, 2011.
To:
bicicletada-sp@lists.riseup.net
Protest or Celebration? Or Something Deeper Still?
January 29th, 2011 by ccarlsson
As long as you have a bike to ride, you don’t have to buy anything to
participate in Critical Mass, neither object nor service, nor an ideology
beyond a desire to partake in public life on two wheels. When hundreds and
thousands of cyclists seize the streets for a convivial and celebratory use of
public space, many of the expectations and rules of modern capitalism are
challenged. Individual behaviors escape the logic of buying and selling, if
only for a few hours. Once in the street together, unexpected connections
emerge, unplanned events occur, and serendipitous relationships begin. Unlike a
trip to the mall or the market, the conversations are unburdened by the logic
of transactions, of prices and measurements. It’s a free exchange among free
people. The experience alters one’s sense of city life immediately, and more
importantly, shifts our collective imaginations in ways we have only begun to
learn about.
Critical Mass cyclists are among the most visible practitioners of a new kind
of social conflict. The “assertive desertion” embodied in bicycling erodes
the system of social exploitation organized through private car ownership and
the oil industry. And by cycling in urban centers in the Empire, we join a
growing movement around the world that is repudiating the social and economic
models controlled by multinational capital and imposed on us without any form
of democratic consent. This mass seizure of the streets by a swarming mob of
bicyclists “without leaders” is precisely the kind of self-directing,
networking logic that is transforming our economic lives and threatening the
structure of government, business, and (as more imaginative military
strategists are coming to understand) policing and war-making too.
Critical Mass has a new cousin in town: the San Francisco Bike Party (SFBP).
The party-like qualities of Critical Mass have always been present, but the
Bike Party model as developed in San Jose and other cities first involves an
organizing (and monitoring) crew of volunteers who direct the fun. The first
official SFBP happened a few weeks ago on January 7 and drew around 1000 riders
on a bitterly cold night. It was a lot like Critical Mass in some ways—I
enjoyed dozens of conversations with people I found myself next to in the ride,
there were music machines, and friendly vibes from riders and passersby alike.
We were dozens and hundreds of bicyclists filling the streets and displacing
cars, just as we’d dreamed back in the first months of Critical Mass in 1992.
Critical Mass is, or seems to be, political—but let’s admit that it is a
relatively inarticulate politics, or perhaps so multi-voiced that it cannot be
summarized easily by any given set of ideas. SFBP on the other hand is
militantly apolitical, somewhat obsessed with obeying traffic rules,
and—based on the repeated bellows of “Bike Party!” as we rode
along—settling for a fairly shallow and empty idea of “fun on bikes” as
its self-conception.
More interesting perhaps is the informal leadership that is behind the scenes
at both SFBP and Critical Mass. There is a continuum from the SFBP organizing
committee and its “birds” (monitors) at one end to the hardcore “no
leader” anarchists leading recent Critical Masses at the other. In
between—in a decidedly un-moderate role—are some of us who like both events
for similar reasons but have problems with both too. We don’t want to have
people hectoring us into the right lane or to stop at a stoplight where
there’s no need (e.g. northbound along the Embarcadero in the right lane), or
a stop sign when there’s no cross traffic. As one friend put it, “I don’t
do this in my normal life, why would I do it on Bike Party?!?”
What motivates the Bike Party organizers and monitors? Do they have an urge to
make sure groups of people obey their behavioral standards? We know there are a
lot of bicyclists who are intensely committed to “good, lawful behavior” as
the standard by which cyclists of all sorts should be judged. The Bike Party
has just started and it’s likely to grow very large and attract its own
police attention. When the organizers start negotiating with the police it
won’t be long before the police are dictating what is acceptable in terms of
routes, stops, and pace. How will Bike Party’s fun evolve when the
“birds” are more obviously enforcers of police preferences?
That said, the first SFBP was a lot of fun, and in its self-discipline was a
sight to see. Wherever there might have been a conflict with a motorist or a
bus that needed to get by, people courteously cleared the way. No one rode into
a red light or into oncoming traffic. This didn’t need monitoring and grew
naturally out of the preferences of the riders.
Interestingly, this kind of common-sense courtesy could be adopted by Critical
Mass routinely (it is now, but only sporadically) and by so doing, reduce the
tension and increase the pleasure of the ride for most people. Some of us have
modeled this approach and argued for it in flyers and online for years. But we
don’t want to be monitors and don’t want to impose anything on anyone.
We’d like people to behave courteously and respectfully because they want to,
and because it’s more subversive than being angry and confrontational!
Critical Mass has always styled itself as radically democratic. In the public
space of our streets, the people present determine their own fates by how they
interact with each other and passersby, which can be profoundly
democratic—not in the sense of majority-rule voting that we usually accept as
the definition of “democracy” but in the directly democratic sense of open
and unmediated participation. In other ways Critical Mass never has been
“democratic,” because very few people influence the route the rides take
(though almost anyone might exercise that influence on a given ride), and fewer
still sometimes cause conflicts along the perimeter by riding into oncoming
traffic or lurching into cross traffic ahead of the main ride.
In the early years routes would be proposed and “voted on” by a show of
hands in Peewee Herman Plaza at the beginning of the ride. No more than a few
dozen could meaningfully participate in that, even if hundreds were in the
vicinity. In practice every ride is directed by the most convincing and
assertive riders at or near the front. Ever since the 1997 attack by the
police, after which there was a big drop-off of written communication among
riders (the much-vaunted “xerocracy” seemed to wither away), there
haven’t been more than a dozen proposed routes in as many years. As a result,
many people who didn’t live through Critical Mass in the 1990s are
ideologically committed to “no proposed routes” and “no leaders.”
Some of these same people seem to believe that Critical Mass is “a protest”
and that the point of it is to occupy the major traffic arteries in order to
screw up traffic as much as possible. They have been heard grumbling when the
ride headed south or too far west, urging the ride to turn back towards
downtown and the city center in order to pursue their tactical approach. In
their own odd way, they ARE leading Critical Mass, but without explaining their
idea of what it is, or how going where they want to go will fulfill their
unspoken “mission.” This reveals the peculiar self-governing reality of
Critical Mass: ad-hoc leadership groups make important decisions that influence
the experience of everyone, but are completely unaccountable to anyone but
themselves.
That leaves some of us oldtimers scratching our heads. Who said Critical Mass
is “a protest”? Isn’t being an antagonistic cyclist counterproductive?
What is it about youthful subcultures that think it’s really radical to act
out and pick fights with people who don’t look or think like they do? Isn’t
it more radical to try to turn these people into active allies in the fight for
a better life? Isn’t the “mainstream” life the radicals are
“protesting,” dependent on car transit, inherently worse than what it could
be? Don’t we want to invite people imprisoned by it to join us, instead of
giving them cause to hate us?
In some cities the police have been successful at stopping Critical Mass, maybe
because the riders themselves haven’t been as creative with the ride and its
logic. In Austin, Texas and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and even in Manhattan,
police departments have attacked and arrested Critical Mass cyclists and
successfully discouraged a lot of people from participating in those cities. In
Portland, Oregon, a very bicycle-friendly city, Critical Mass died out when the
culture was too dominated by angry young men (in San Francisco we call them the
Testosterone Brigade) who think there is a “class war” between cars and
bikes. They go out of their way to block cars, to taunt and provoke motorists,
especially those in expensive cars. Those doing it are proud and feel like
they’re pushing things to the limit, but to the rest of us they look
cowardly, hiding behind the mob.
Inanimate objects don’t have class wars, and to target people in cars as the
enemy is a huge political mistake. Car drivers are not the enemy, but our
natural allies! The folks stuck in traffic in cars or on busses are clearly
more like than unlike the riders who are temporarily altering the rhythm of
urban life by seizing the streets on bicycle. The point of Critical Mass, in my
opinion, has always been to create an inviting, celebratory space that is so
contagious that people who might not bicycle much are irresistibly drawn to
trying it out. If you self-righteously call people names, try to make them feel
guilty or ashamed, there’s little chance they will change how they think and
further, change their behavior. Our pleasure is more subversive than our anger,
and that’s hard for some people to remember in the heat of the streets.
It’s easy to forget that one of the best things about Critical Mass is that
it puts hundreds and thousands of us in the streets together where the rules
and etiquette aren’t always clear. That means we have to solve problems as
they arise by talking to each other, working things out in the pressure of the
moment, and getting important practice in political self-organizing and
self-management.
In the United States during the past two decades a serious Culture War defined
the society, with right-wing Christian fundamentalists increasingly emboldened
to try to control the behavior of the rest of the society. On the other side
are millions of people who believe in high levels of personal freedom and
tolerance, and you can find a lot of the most ardent and articulate of those
folks riding their bikes in Critical Mass.
There is real tension between the different values vying to influence these
mass bike rides. Probably a large number of participants really don’t care,
as long as they have a fun ride every month. That’s fine, but we’re not
living up to our self-expectations if we leave these deeper issues unexamined.
Whatever our preferences, neither Critical Mass nor SF Bike Party are good at
communicating to passersby the deeper meaning of their existence. We may not
like every turn the ride ahead of us makes, but shouldn’t we do our best to
influence our shared culture by openly debating our behaviors, our
“messages” (or lack thereof), and our purposes?
—Chris Carlsson, January 28, 2011
http://www.sfcriticalmass.org/2011/01/29/protest-or-celebration-or-something-deeper-still/
-----------------------------------------------
>Recursos da lista da Bicicletada de Sao Paulo:
Sair da lista: bicicletada-sp-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net
Enviar mensagem: bicicletada-sp@lists.riseup.net
Sitio: www.bicicletada.org