The promotion of cycling as a solution to many of the problems affecting life in cities is increasingly present both as an academic object of study and in public debate and city planning. It is a topic that calls for an interdisciplinary approach, as the perspectives of Engineering and Architecture benefit from insights from Sociology, Geography, Behavioural Studies and Medicineâto name but a few. When surveying the academic publications that investigate ways of increasing cycling and removing the existing barriers, it is possible to observe how discourse-related observations are frequent and prominent but, at the same time, how the field of Cycling Mobility is yet to become an object of study for Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). This book thus aims to bring together two different fields that have rarely met before in academic literature and to do so within the framework of Ecolinguistics .
The definition of Ecolinguistics we shall refer to is Stibbeâs (2014, 217):
questioning the stories that underpin our current unsustainable civilisation, exposing those stories that are clearly not working, that are leading to ecological destruction and social injustice, and finding new stories that work better in the conditions of the world that we face. These are not stories in the traditional sense of a narrative, however, but rather discourses, frames, metaphors and, in general, clusters of linguistic features that come together to covey particular worldviews.
Stibbe shows the connection linking Ecolinguistics and CDS , underlining how the discursive investigation of ecological matters expands what have traditionally been the objects of study of CDS , namely sexism, racism and other oppressive power relationships (see also Stibbe 2015).
Referring to these traditional objects of study, Halliday (2001) highlights that we have movements and commissions dealing with the role that language can play in reinforcing sexist and racist discrimination and attempting to change social reality by working on the language, but, on the contrary, we do not have anything similar regarding classism. Halliday explains:
it is acceptable to show up sexism - as it is to show up racism - because to eliminate sexual and racial bias would pose no threat to the existing social order: capitalist society could thrive perfectly well without sex discrimination and without race discrimination. But it is not acceptable to show up classism, especially by objective linguistic analysis [âŠ]; because capitalist society could not exist without discrimination between classes. Such work could, ultimately, threaten the existing order of society. (185)
Classism, as the analyses presented in this book will show, has a strong, deep, but not self-evident connection with mobility-related issues. This is revealed by Furness, who highlights that âone of the cheapest forms of transportation on the planet is construed as elitist, whereas one of the most expensive and resource-intensive technologies is considered populistâ (2010, 135). He observes the rhetorical device employed to construct cyclists as elitists, through the same sweeping critiques used against anti-car proponents and environmentalists . This, Furness argues, is a double-aimed conservative perspective employed to dismiss the questioning of the status quo and infer the existence of a silent majority who is against change. On top of this, it defines elitism as a disposition of moral or behavioural origin rather than something derived from privileges that are economic, structural legal or spatial.
Worldviews like the one exposed by Furness are observed in this book from an ecolinguistic perspective and their presence in the texts under scrutiny is exposed. Following Stibbeâs (2014) proposal to strengthen the combination of CDS and Ecolinguistics , the investigations presented in this book judge worldviews on criteria that are derived from an ecosophy (or ecological philosophy) which brings together scientific evidence concerning the interaction of living beings, including humans, their physical environment and an ethical framework concerning why the survival and flourishing of ecosystems matters. This is in line with the Strong Programme in Discourse Studies outlined by Angermuller (2018, 6), which argues in favour of establishing the truth value of the claims under investigation by judging their normative quality (see Chapter 2). The worldviews investigated are judged from a scientific perspective and at the same time from an ethical perspective. More specifically this book aims to expose âthe ecologically destructive ways that everyday discourses construct notions of the âgood lifeâ, providing tools to help resist those discourses, and searching for beneficial discourses which actively identify the âgood lifeâ with something other than consumerismâ (Stibbe 2014, 125).
Stibbe (2015, 14â15) details the ecosophy used in his work and highlights the centrality of celebrating, respecting and valuing the life of all living beings. Living is more than âbeing aliveâ and the author underlines the importance of well-being , explaining that it is a sine qua non, which has to be part of any measure to address ecological issues, given that any measure that harms human interests is not going to be adopted (14). The ability to live with high well-being should be granted to both present and future generations. The next central notion is that of empathy, which implies we need to be aware of the impacts of our choices, to minimise harm and feel a duty to give back to the system supporting us. This means, of course, that solutions to keep within environmental limits are essential, not exceeding in the consumption of resources or the creation of levels of waste that ecosystems cannot absorb. Social justice and resilience are the final points: as resources become exhausted and more ecological destruction is inevitable, solutions to redistribute resources among people and to find new forms of society are necessary in order to allow the continuation of high well-being .
The ecosophy on which this book is based on shares the above tenets and focuses on a specific aspect of life, everyday mobility, advocating the increase in the number of people cycling as an effective and significant solution that responds to all the necessities raised within the ecosophy . Increasing cycling numbers, especially in urban areas, means a significant reduction in vehicle-collision deaths and a reduction in sedentariness-induced deaths. It minimises the harm caused by the use of private cars in terms of fewer collisions, in terms of less consumption of resourcesâincluding the production of cars and car parts and, of course, the fossil energy required to run carsâand in terms of less production of waste, that is air pollution through exhaust fumes and waste from used car parts and cars.
Increasing cycling gives back to the system as people who cycle frequently report that cycling makes them appreciate more the surrounding environment and feel part of it (see Chapter 7), hence increasing cycle use is here assumed a way to start a positive chain-effect likely to generate higher levels of environmental awareness. As cycling is much more affordable than driving (not only in terms of economic costs, but also of the training and testing required), its increase also generates positive effects in terms of social justice. As for resilience, numerous studies show that the current levels of car use, projected in a medium-term future in which urban populations are forecast to grow steadily, would result in cities permanently locked in traffic congestions and increased cycling can ease this burden. It is important to point out that our focus on cycling is not meant to imply that no other solutions exist (e.g. walking, improving public transport, reducing the number of trips in the first place). Cycling was selected because it is the environmentally friendly mobility solution that appears most suited to replace private cars in urban environments, as it offers same or shorter journey times and same freedom from pre-planning (see Pucher and Buehler 2017), while generating health benefits thanks to the increase in physical activity. At the same time, cycling is the mobility choice that generates the highest levels of hostility from people who resist change.
Digging in the hegemonic underlying assumptions, that are found even in texts that aim to promote cycling, is a way to reveal the dominant destructive worldview within which all the above-mentioned destructive forces are at work. This is revealed by observing a topic, cycling-related discourse, which has been overlooked by CDS so far. The perspective from which this book was envisaged is also indebted to Meadowsâ book Thinking in Systems (2008). Leading author of 1972 The Limits to Growth, Meadows was a pioneering environmental scientist who dedicated her research to envisaging...