Naeun's critique
From CyberOne Wiki
Naeun Rim Cyber One Professor Charles Nesson 12/31/07
Roadside Hegemony
The American Heritage Dictionary defines “hegemony” as “the predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.” Those who have taken any course involving basic sociological concepts, however, know that hegemony is much more complex than mere dominant influence. In its complete sense, hegemony describes domination through induced consent—that is, the ruling class maintains its power by convincing the lower classes that the status quo is inevitable. They manage this by indoctrinating society with social norms that reinforce the “normalcy” of the principals and ideals of the ruling class, thereby lulling the masses into unwittingly consenting to their dominion. It is perhaps the most effective way to oppress a class of people—by blinding them to the fact that any domination is occurring.
“Hegemony” is the first word that comes to mind when visiting the website “Bicycle Courtesy Now,” found at http://jpatrickduffy.googlepages.com/bicyclercourtesynow%21. The site claims to promote “understanding and cooperation among bicyclers, motorists, and pedestrians” but in actuality only demands heightened understanding from bicyclers. This is made clear by its very title, which asks for bicycler courtesy, not general courtesy from all free-moving people. The site virtually ignores the unique position of bicyclers—the fact that, on the road, they are in the minority. Cambridge is a treacherous city for walkers, drivers, and bicyclers alike. However, lawmakers are least likely to consider the interest of bicyclers when drafting traffic laws and regulations. This is because walkers outnumber them and drivers overpower them—in short, the bicycler has the weakest position in roadside democracy. Neither as ubiquitous as the pedestrian nor as rich/threatening as the driver, the bicycler represents the voice of the few and the powerless, forced to comply with standards that were built without them in mind. By calling for increased enforcement of such regulations, the website is, in effect, reinforcing the hegemonic domination of non-bicyclers.
Nonetheless, the website does attempt to at least pretend that it is presenting a balanced viewpoint. The links on site’s the left-side menu lead to articles that are exercises in perspective. The first link shows a clever poem that represents an unforgiving stance against bicyclers if read from top to bottom, and a conciliatory stance towards them if read from bottom to top. The second, third, and fourth links bring us to hypothetical stream-of-consciousness rants by a driver, bicycler, and walker, respectively. In its glimpse inside the mind of a bicycler, the site even notes how neglected bicyclers are by society: “The roads aren’t made for us; the laws aren’t made for us.” Up to this point, the site seems to be making a sincere effort to put forth its mission—to foster more cooperation among the three groups.
Yet the site then goes on to target only bicyclers, at times lapsing into sarcasm (a link to the summary of bicycle laws is titled “The law of bicycles (and why we should maybe, oh, I don't know, follow them)”) that reveals the true agenda of the site. It claims, “While some, if not most, bicyclers are no doubt aware of their rights and responsibilities while on a bicycle, it is clear that at least some either do not know or do not respect the laws that govern them.” Such statements paint a picture of bicyclers as either deliberate lawbreakers or inconsiderate nuisances. Even while recognizing the fact that the laws do not represent the interest of bicyclers, the website’s bottom-line agenda is to make bicyclers obey said laws. By unfairly placing the bulk of the weight of road and sidewalk etiquette onto the shoulders of bicyclers while feigning concern for everyone’s safety, the site not only does bicyclers an injustice, it also fails in its mission to “make travel (motorized or otherwise) easier, less stressful, more efficient, and, most importantly, safer for everyone.” More specifically, its methods would not persuade a single bicycler to use more caution when riding.
The site’s ineffectiveness is unfortunate, considering the worthiness of its purported goal. Road safety is something that needs desperate attention in Cambridge and Boston, two cities that seem to have been organized by duct-taping slabs of cement together. And it is no doubt the case that encouraging bicyclers to adhere more closely to traffic laws would further this goal. It is also the case, however, that the website does no such thing. What it instead does is to serve as an outlet for rage against bicyclers, a tactic that, while perhaps satisfying for non-bicyclers, may in fact have the unproductive effect of irritating bicyclers, further isolating them and prompting them to continue disobeying laws. Sprinkling words of understanding here and there does little to veil the true mocking tone of the site and perhaps actually makes the insult to the bicyclers even worse. If the site had really wanted to induce change in bicycler behavior, it should have appealed to the bicyclists’ interests instead of trying to force them into conforming to pedestrian and driver standards.
The key thing to highlight regarding bicycler disobedience of traffic laws, for example, is that it endangers bicyclers above all others. Drivers and walkers may be annoyed by bicyclers who run red lights and zip down sidewalks, but it is the bicyclers who end up seriously injured or even dead from their own disobedience. Expressing genuine concern for the safety of bicyclers might go a long way towards convincing them to pay closer attention to regulations. Instead, the site guilts bicyclers by implying that their disobedience compromises everyone else’s well-being. Further, bicyclers are likely to feel further alienated for being singled out. After all, it is no secret, as the site itself acknowledges, that Cambridge and Boston drivers are notoriously incompetent, while the pedestrians act like they own the streets half the time and cower in fear the other half, leading to unpredictable behavior. Without calling for equal behavioral reform on all fronts, the site cannot maintain that it seeks cooperation from everyone.
To realize the general goal of road safety and civility, it would also be constructive to consider whether the changes that need to be made are in the laws and not in the actions of citizens. If an entire class of people is unable to follow certain rules, the fault may lie with the rules and not the people. Certain bicycle regulations simply do not make sense for bicyclers. For one thing, there is a serious scarcity in bike lanes, which leaves the bicyclist naturally displaced. Going on the road risks incurring the wrath of frenzied drivers, who are always in a rush to get somewhere. When choosing the road, bicyclers are required to follow the same traffic laws as drivers, laws that fail to take into account the differences between bicycles and cars. Cars must strictly obey traffic laws because they are powerful machines, full of gas and made of metal, ready to explode or crush a human life at any instant. Bicycles do not share these characteristics and therefore should not be subject to the same prohibitions. Stopping at every red light or having to follow one-way street signs would seriously slow down a biker and, worse, mostly likely slow down traffic. Because bicycles are already much slower than cars, strict enforcement of traffic light violations would result in bicyclers being unable to get anywhere efficiently. In some parts of the city, bicycles are also not allowed on sidewalks, a rule that, if strictly enforced, could potentially drive a lot of cyclers off the road. Bicyclers have no shield protecting them from the massive cars whizzing past, making biking on the road a truly terrifying experience. Many find that biking on the sidewalks is the only way to get places without risking their lives. There is very little justification for banning bikes on sidewalks other than the fact that they annoy walkers—just another example of how the minority interest of bicyclers is continually suppressed by the dominating classes.
That is not to say that the site does not state a valid point. Bicyclers do disobey traffic laws, which does make traveling less safe and more frustrating. In spite of these disadvantages, however, we must question whether we want to risk policies like stricter enforcement that would discourage people from going out on bikes—because one thing the site forgets is that bicycling has many positive aspects. It decreases the number of cars on the road, helps the environment, is cheap, saves fuel, and provides a faster way for walkers to get around. Perhaps having to drive around a biker is a small price to pay for these advantages. Regardless, it is likely that the site creators did not intend to impose the values of drivers and walkers onto bikers but merely felt that they wanted bikers to follow roadside norms. Such is the nature of hegemony; even the dominators are not aware that they are dominating. But before we demand bicycler courtesy now, let us remember who these bicyclers are: minorities. And shouldn’t we first demand lawmaker courtesy now by forcing them to think of the minority interest before we allow them to create laws that do nothing to serve that interest and then punishing them for it?
