According to primary theories of Science and Technology Studies (STS), “one should never take the meaning of technological artifact of technological system as residing in technology itself” (Bijker 1995). Rather, it is necessary to consider the societal influence and impact on social groups when analyzing the evolution of an object.
The evolution of the design of the bicycle, as seen in History of the Bicycle: A Timeline, takes a winding path of progress. This non-linear progression towards the most efficient and practical bicycle we have today questions the necessity of each intermediate stage. But then we must consider the social impact that each invention had and that the bicycle would not be what it is today without each of those stages along the way due to their influence on shaping society.
Wiebe Bijker breaks down this deconstruction of the bicycle based on how it seen by nonusers and users of different kinds. He goes about analyzing these differences by asking each group their perception of the bicycle. Non-users describe the machine as being dangerous. Similarly, users observe the risky element of the bicycle, however find this aspect of adventure appealing and is what draws them towards their use of the bicycle. The bicycle is unique in the sense of its versatility and large usage by a range of social groups where each group uses and views the bicycle differently.
The theory of social construction of technology (SCOT), also known as technological determinism, applies to how we are able to interpret the bicycle from both a historical and modern standpoint. The “interpretative flexibility” inherent within this theory stands for a group-dependent lens of analysis. Bijker touches specifically on the example of the air tire and how the advancement of this element was viewed by various users—the racers were concerned about speed, others appreciated its convenience and stability while producers were focused on economic outcomes. “Relevant social groups do not simply see different aspects of one artifact. The meaning given by a relevant social group actually constitutes the artifact” (Bijker p 77).
Bruno Latour would look at the bicycle in a similar way through the lens of his Actor-Network Theory. This systems based view interprets the existence of all technology contextually and according to the working of both natural and non-natural causes of interaction. Because of the web that each actor is connected to, the working of each individual or inanimate actor influences the central object as well as other actors in the web. Through these theorists we see the difficulty in establishing a singular definition or use of the bicycle. In order to truly convey a holistic view of this machine, one needs to look at all of the users, angles, and applications.
Riding a bicycle is often one of the epitomized examples of tacit knowledge-- defined as knowledge of a skill or concept that is difficult to explain but must be experienced first hand in order to be mastered. It is impossible to teach someone to ride a bicycle by explaining the process or even demonstrating the action. Rather, it is a task that can be learnt simply by trial and error. One usually possesses all of the necessary skills which are components of the task itself-- balance, strength, and perception-- but it is their synthesis and application which requires practice. Through this explanation, we see how riding a bike is about personal experience. Similarly, the social groups created through the use of the bicycle are a component of each individual's personal connection and application of the machine.
Calvin and Hobbes
Back to The Bicycle home page
