[📃 WORD] Identity, Framings, & Scale Of The Critical Mass

Identity, Framings, & Scale Of The Critical Mass

PLACE / Education
TYPE / Urban Design/Research
YEAR / 2024

Introduction

Critical Mass - in quantum physics, feminism, social dynamism, and more - describes the amount of substance needed to sustain a chain reaction. This is quite the appropriate name for the Critical Mass urban cycling movement that recently found its home here in Calgary; the social movement by which a large number of cyclists “take back the streets” on the last friday of every month as a form of protest against automobile culture and a form of celebration for urban cycling (Lopes 2016, 8).

The Critical Mass may seem unidimensional at face value; it’s just a bunch of cyclists flooding the streets, a “pro-bike” movement, an “anti-car monthly action”, or even “a form of street theatre” – right? (Furness 2010, 136). If we were to cut deeper into the Critical Mass, we will find that it has plenty to say about concepts like community, identity, political scale, urbanism, communication, governance, and even white privilege. We can’t cover everything, so we’re going to focus on two frameworks: urban social movements and political geography.

We first introduce a brief history of the Critical Mass, which will then be recontextualized under Castell’s urban social movements framework – allowing us to cross reference the movement’s perceived goals and identify any misalignment to Castell’s work. Martin’s conception of frames and identity formation in social movements are then applied, to finally end with an exploration into the movement’s multi-scalar relationships. Concepts like conflict, governance, Swyngedouw’s “glocalization”, the “right to the city”, and performativity are used as tools to further develop our understanding of the mechanisms behind the Critical Mass movement. Many concepts like place-framing and governance, for example, are inherently interconnected and, therefore, none shall be read in isolation.

01 - The Critical Mass as an Urban Social Movement

Originally named “The Commute Clot”, the Critical Mass began in San Francisco in 1992 as they “converge at rush hour” to express to drivers a foundational message: “We are not blocking traffic, we are traffic!” (Furness 2010, 134). Furness further explains that one of the main goals of the Critical Mass was to “reduce invisibility” of bikers on the street and “[spark] a necessary dialogue about the role of the bicycle in a world increasingly dominated by cars” (Furness 2010, 354 and 134). Other scholars such as Blickstein and Hanson argue that “Critical Mass aims to shape debates on sustainability and material practice” (Blickstein & Hanson 2001, 346).

To understand the Critical Mass under urban social movement theories, Castells presents an introductory framework of goals and attributes for urban social movements. Castells argues that all urban social movements fall under at least one of the three goals; to “obtain for residents… a city organized around its use value”, coined as “collective consumption trade unionism”, to establish “community” via the search for “cultural identity”, and to enable “urban self-management in contradiction to the centralized state” - or in other words, a decentralized state (Castells 1983, 319). While urban social movements must exhibit these three goals, they do not need to exhibit all of them at once – the Critical Mass mostly aligns.

Castells’ first goal to obtain a city organized around its use value is exhibited by the movement, as it contradicts the “notion of the city for profit”, or the city as “exchange value”, through the push back against automobile culture – a culture that's synonymous with the “city for profit” mindset (Castells 1983, 319). The movement has successfully established a community with a general collective identity being an urban cycling advocacy group, spreading to more than 350 cities worldwide (Lopes 2016, 8). As discussed further in this essay, approaching the Critical Mass at different identity scales reveals a multifaceted microcosm of individualized identities and relationships; one could define the movement as an anti-car counter-culture while another could be there for “just a bike ride” (Furness 2010, 136).

I argue that the Critical Mass partially aligns with the third goal as well. Micheal Klett explains that the Critical Mass, as a movement, “has no leaders” - only “organizers”, in which all the participants are the organizers (Furness 2010, 135). Furness further explains that the Critical Mass operates “without a charter, a centralized network, or formal affiliation with any organization…” - let alone be associated with any political party (Furness 2010, 135). Although the Critical Mass is decentralized in nature, it does mean that it fully lives up to the goal of contradiction to the centralized state. It does, however, contribute to the deinstitutionalization of urban cycling.

On top of the three goals, all urban social movements must be “conscious of its role as an urban social movement”, interface with society via a “series of organizational operators”, and be “ideologically autonomous” of any political party (Castells 1983, 320). The Critical Mass satisfies all of the listed criteria.

Self-consciousness is satisfied, as the movement recognizes itself as exhibiting the dimension of advocacy and activism. This is exemplified in many of their early marketing materials, with call-to-action phrases such as “take back the streets” or “no breathing” - as a subtle critique to car pollution (Lopes 2016, 8 and Blickstein & Hanson 2001, 355 Exhibit C). By a “series of organizational operators”, Castells is referring to three particular groups including “the media, the professionals, and the political party” (Castells 1983, 320). As Furness puts it, the Critical Mass is connected greatly to the media where it has “altered the stakes of Critical Mass … in the past 14 years” by “selectively [distorting]” the essence of the event to sell the idea that “Mass participants are chaos-loving anarchists” (Furness 2007, 310). This connection with the media, especially where the movement is being antagonized, can be a major push back to reaching milestones and maintaining a favorable standing with the public (that would, in itself, further fuel their cause). Lastly, the Critical Mass is “ideologically autonomous”, in that it has no political party affiliated with its cause (Castells 1983, 320). As described by Klett and Furness previously, the Critical Mass is decentralized and not associated with any political party.

The reductive and limiting nature of Castells’ framework is, especially geographically, calls for an additional dimension. This dimension is the “right to the city” movement, as outlined by Miller & Nicholls. As we will see later, I argue that the Critical Mass follows a strain of the “right to the city” narrative where “the rights of citizens… are conceived as the focus of the movement” and not as a means to an end by “achieving broader political goals” (Miller & Nicholls 2013, 453).

01.1 - Framings & Identity

Let's build the case for the Critical Mass further by employing Martin's conception of collective-action frames", "motivation frames", diagnostic frames", "prognostic frames", and "place-frames" in tandem with identity formation (Martin 2003, 733, 733, 736, 740, 742). Collective-action frames – framing that "denotes how social movements articulate issues, values, and concerns" that enable "connective identity and activism" – is the collective interconnected labour of the motivational, diagnostic, prognostic, and place frames – so let's build these items first (Martin 2003, 733).

"Motivation frames'' can be considered the initial frame for a call to action, as it describes "the group of actors and potential actors" with the push to "[exhort] people to act" (Martin 2003, 736). After motivational frames comes the problem identification phase - through “diagnostic” framing (Martin 2003, 740). “Diagnostic” framing happens when “collective-action organizations describe problems” in regards to their cause to then “assign blame or causes for the problems” (Martin 2003, 740). Once the opposition is defined, the collective-action group “[identifies] the actions” and the proposed solutions to solve said problems - this framing practice is called “prognostic framing” (Martin 2003, 742).

These frames can be simplified as the Call-To-Action, Problem Identification, and Taking Action. Through this approach, they can manifest in the Critical Mass in a number of ways – heavily influenced by their respective place-frames. In San Francisco, all three frames are exhibited as seen in their initial communication methodology called “xerocraxy” or “rule through photocopying" (Furness 2010, 137). Xerocracy is a “grassroots'' approach to spreading information in the form of fliers and printed media that encourages everyone involved to “print, photocopy, and solicit media that advocate and/or explain the ride” throughout the city (Furness 2010, 137). Here we see the spreading of call-to-action information to motivate participation in the Critical Mass event. The spreading of information, in itself, also works to identify and solidify the opposition being the dominating automobile culture, as perceived by those exercising xerocracy and those passing by – this problem/opposition identification is diagnostic framing in action. And finally; xerocracy operates beyond the spreading of call-to-action information and opposition identification, as the act of xerocracy itself is a practice in prognostic framing - essentially micro-collective-actions to promote further “collective … activism” (Martin 2003, 733).

The spatial-temporal place-frame that defines 1992-San-Francisco influenced the visual and verbal identity of media. Sprawling 1992-San-Francisco itself was a place-based factor that enabled the hostile automobile culture and the counter-cultural reaction that defines a large part of the Critical Mass’ identity. Xerocracy presents a micro-scale understanding of framing and its relation to collective-action identity. It does, however, contribute to movement and its central identity. The movement itself cultivates a collective-identity via “collective-action framing” – much like the mechanism as exemplified through xerocracy – but on a much larger scale. Martin argues that organizations “legitimate their own agendas” by fostering a “neighbourhood identity that obscures social differences” such as “ethnicity, class, and gender” (Martin 2003, 730). Instead of “neighbourhood identity”, the Critical Mass operates as if it exists in a cloud server that’s connected through face-to-face communications and media. In 2024, the cloud server analogy works even better with the use of internet platforms like Instagram (See CriticalMassYYC’s Instagram Page) to spread information. And instead of xerocracy via the “rule through photocopying”, perhaps advocates and supporters now would Like the posts, share the event information on their Instagram Stories, and/or share with their followers as they are participating in the event real-time. The fostered social relations through the formation of collective identities via the event participation and/or communication channels creates a sense of “solidarity derived from place-based relations” that can further motivate collective action, belonging, and purpose that incentivises supporters to continue to support the social movement as it mobilizes (Nicholls 2009, 80).

02 - (Re)Scaling

The previous section briefly touched on the notion of scale, exemplified by the xerocratic practice. Here, we take that further through an exercise of rescaling and exploring notions of the “right to the city”, governance, performativity, and glocalization. To rescale in political geography is to recontextualize the politics of space through local, regional, national, and/or global frameworks. For our purposes the two poles of the local scale and global scale will be applied – not as two positions in a vacuum, but rather as an entangled pair that’s constantly interconnected.

We’ve approached the Critical Mass at a local-urban scale previously, with the practice of xerocracy. I’d like to approach the Mass at the local-urban scale, once again, but with the shift towards the moment of the ride itself.

Two prominent call-to-actions at the conception of the Critical Mass were phrases like “Take back the streets” and “We’re not blocking traffic. We are traffic”; both phrases that speak to the collective notions of “the right to the city” and (re)claiming space (Furness 2010, 134 and Lopes 2016, 12). The term “Take back the streets” almost parallels that of “the right to the city”. This is no coincidence, as Massers assert this gentle-dominance through a strength in numbers philosophy to “simply take control of what they claim as rightfully theirs’ - their lives and public spaces” (Hernandez & Cuauhtemoc 2007, 148). The strength in numbers works in two dimensions: the establishment of a mobile “social space”, and optical/performative dominance to exert power and incentivise simultaneously (Madanipour 2005, 31).

Conflicts for spatial governance have manifested in a couple of ways. First is the internal practice called “corking” (Furness 2010, 136). Corking is when a number of bikers scout out major road intersections incoming and position themselves in front of the vehicles to block or “cork” the intersection to prevent potential accidents. This creates what Lopes calls “friction” between the movement and the opposition (Lopes 2016, 8). Since the mass continues without following typical traffic rules - like running red lights - corking is crucial to ensure that both parties are civil and controlled.

At the moment where bicycles take up the road in its entirety and the devoidedness of automobiles, in all its abnormality, is made apparent – it is also the moment where the road gets exposed “as a dominant space [meant only for] automobility” (Furness 2007, 303). This ultimately reveals the unfortunate truth that there will always be space held for automobiles – the same luxury might not always be available for cyclists in our respective timelines. Furness shares a similar outlook, as he argues that “at its best, Critical Mass is an expression of solidarity, passion, and critical thinking that is fundamental … [for] any progressive movement” – this is a movement merely in celebration of the means and not necessarily as a means to an end (Furness 2010, 138).

Mayer explains beautifully that urban social movements that fight for a “more just city articulate the global” through “local” means (Mayer 2013, 188). Scholars like Blickstein and Hanson on the Critical Mass would agree with this, as they argue that the social movement aims to “shape debates on sustainability and material practices … through a celebration of bicycling” (Blickstein & Hanson 2001, 346). We can’t have a conversation about bikes without mentioning sustainability. The reason why this is reflective of Mayer’s argument for global articulation through local means is because of the sustainability dimension - which, I argue, is inherently a systemic and globally-scaled phenomenon that can manifest itself at the individual and local level. Blickstein and Hanson wrote: “Think Globally, Bicycle Locally”, which is a nod to shifting political scales (Blickstein & Hanson 2001, 353).

There is a term for this! Swyngedouw’s conception of “glocalization” can be applied to the Critical Mass, not only based on the “Think Globally, Bicycle Locally” philosophy, but also due to the movement’s mobilization and systemic level goals (Swyngedouw 2004, 25 and Blickstein & Hanson 2001, 353). Swyngedouw’s upwards scaling phenomenon describes the transition from lower-end scales, like the local scale, to a higher-level scale like the “supra-national or global scales” whereas the downwards scaling phenomenon behaves in the opposite direction (Swyngedouw 2004, 25).

The Critical Mass has seen this upwards rescaling as exemplified by its proliferation to over 350 cities globally. Remember that this movement was started in one city. There’s a layer of irony here too: the Critical Mass is an event that uses bicycles as the primary tool for activism – a tool that’s not usually attributed to inter-urban/city travel. It succeeded regardless. The movement’s collective-action frame can also be redefined through the process of rescaling. For example, examining the movement and its goals on the local scale would result in identity descriptors like “pro-bike”, “anti-car monthly action”, “a protest”, “a form of street theatre”, and even “just a bike ride” (Furness 2010, 136). Zooming out to the urban-regional scale we can see descriptors that speak to “radicalism” in tandem with infrastructural developments and (Furness 2010, 138); at the global scale is where descriptors speaking to environmental sustainability comes into play (Blickstein & Hanson 2001, 346).

Conclusion

What was just a monthly biking event became so much more, when treated under the lens of urban social movement theory and political geography. First, we create a profile of goals and attributes for the Critical Mass itself. It was found that the Critical Mass movement’s goals mostly align with Castells’ three goals and attributes for urban social movements, with partial misalignments with the third goal of contradicting a centralized state. Completing this section, we recognize that the movement follows a certain “right to the city” narrative that focuses primarily on the movement, rather than towards an end. Second, we build upon our profile of the Critical Mass by employing concepts of framing and identity. Beyond the goals, identified and guided by Castells, we identified how framings influence the dynamics of identity - especially with place-frames inherently embedded in the spatialized social movement of the Critical Mass. Lastly, the concept of identity and framings are expanded and contextualized via rescaling practices that touch on notions of rescaling, the “right to the city”, governance, performativity, and glocalization. In sum, the Critical Mass’ identity at the global and systemic scale has a strong emphasis on environmental sustainability, whereas the local scales typically focus on conflicting dominance to the “right to the city”.

Through these exercises, we can conclude that Critical Mass events – and perhaps many, if not all, (urban) social movements – behave differently with a varying set of goals, values, and identity depending on the framing and political scale in question.

Bibliography

Blickstein, S. & Hanson, S. (2001). Critical mass: forging a politics of sustainable mobility in the information age. Transportation 28: 347–362

Castells, M. (1983). The Alternative City: The Structure and Meaning of Contemporary Urban Social Movements. In The City and the Grassroots, London: Edward Arnold

Furness, Z. (2007). Critical Mass, Urban Space and Vélomobility, Mobilities, 2:2, 299-319, DOI: 10.1080/17450100701381607

Furness, Z. (2010). Critical Mass Rides Against Car Culture. In Cycling - Philosophy for Everyone (eds F. Allhoff, J. Ilundáin-Agurruza and M.W. Austin). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444324679.ch13

Hernandez, G. & Cuauhtemoc. G (2007). Ready or not, the velorution has arrived: critical mass an exercise in democracy. Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 8(2), 133-162.

Lopes, K. B. (2016). An ethnography of global connections: The case of critical mass (dissertation). An ethnography of global connections: the case of Critical Mass.

Madanipour, A. (2005a). Personal space of the body. In Public and private spaces of the city. essay, Routledge.

Martin, D. G. (2003). “place-framing” as place-making: Constituting a neighborhood for organizing and activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), 730–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.9303011

Mayer , M. (2013). Chapter 9: Multiscalar mobilization for the just city: New spatial politics of urban movements . In Spaces of Contention: spatialities and social movements. essay, Routledge.

Miller, B., & Nicholls, W. (2013). Social Movements in Urban Society: The City as A Space of Politicization. Urban Geography, 34(4), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.786904

Nicholls, W. (2009). Place, Networks, Space: Theorising the Geographies of Social Movements. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 34(1), 78–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30136815

Swyngedouw, E. (2004) Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17:1, 25-48, DOI: 10.1080/0955757042000203632

[]