CONSUMER BIKER
“The motorcycle at its core, is both an object of commerce and fetish.”
(Charles M. Falco, in The Art of The Motorcycle).
“Modern life ascribes to us a multiplicity of...potential identities...they also represent a predicament that threatens fragmentation and psychosis - terrifying in their lack of personal, collective and moral boundaries.”
(Jonathan Rutherford in: Identity, community, culture, difference).
“Look out, there’s a monster coming.”
(Bonzo Dog Dooda Band).
There are claims that Biker culture is consumer based. In the distant past, primitive peoples could create their own imagery out of raw materials from their natural environment. As they developed specialised skills, they found a need to trade or barter for goods. This included leisure items, like clothes and jewelry, produced by artisans. So any culture is consumerist when viewed this way. By differentiating between the natural and the consumer Biker, it can be shown that this culture is free of any such constraint.
The idea that motorcycles were conceived out of necessity suggests they are a commodity. The fact that we usually have to pay for one, whether it was made to undergo a practical or enthusiastic role, new or second-hand, supports that notion. In that sense, science is right when it states that: You don’t get something for nothing. There is however a limit to the amount of possessions we can have out of need - or choice. Once we pass that line, our buying becomes consumer-lead; an endless flow of (unnecessary) must-haves.
Because not all Bikers are able to create things for themselves, a market has been realised for style, fashion and associated kudos. At a basic level, this is a useful convenience, but there are those who take it too far. The bike media carry ads for equipment that allegedly makes your riding or your bike better, or improves the appearance of you or your bike. Some cross the lines of practicality and necessity, and enter novelty. Much on offer is art or craft, but there is also a great deal of assumed kudos and cool, which the gullible might swallow, and the egocentric chase avidly.
When the customer digests a sales-pitch that brands them as exclusive, their superiority is about as substantial as junk-food. Their obsession with appearance over-rides their (biking) interest. It is fair to state that certain components can improve the look (according to taste) or performance of a bike. But that should engender pleasure and satisfaction, not egocentrism. Feeding on the envy of others is a nauseous diet.
This is where the real consumer Biker question arises, concerning acquired rather than naturally evolved imagery. A little narcissism or pride isn’t bad. But when only a specific marque of bike will do, and only branded clothing is cool to be seen in, it then becomes not about enjoying motorcycling, but about being seen.
*
The visual thing is part of nature. A style or appearance can look good. They can look so good, you may want them to be that way all the time. It is a basically harmless human function of appreciation. That’s why we find certain people or objects more attractive than others. Add to this the aura of style - deliberate and affected behaviour, and you have a role you either find suitable to emulate or adapt, or simply repulsive. The repulsion in the case of the consumer Biker arises from the false acquisition of style, that is, the purchasing of replicated goods to create it.
The argument about consumer culture indicates that only the moneyed can be in from a possessional view, no matter how others might feel. The individuality of Bikers has dispelled this over the years, and many who have emulated the Biker appearance are considered as consumer Bikers, rather than genuine ones.
*
The factory custom motorcycle market is an example of the consumer process. It was inspired by the enthusiasm for the customised Harley-Davidson. This movement tended towards fatter, dresser-type cruisers. There are Fat Bob petrol tanks available to enhance the bulk. The forks are also made bulkier and wider - as in the wide-boy type, to accommodate balloon tyres. Deeply valanced mudguards and other metal panels are retained, enhanced or added to the heftier cruiser.
The loyalty of some towards the Harley custom cruiser created a niche, if not a clique. No other brand was satisfactory, and it has been noted that some owners of such machines will not acknowledge riders on other bikes - even those in the same idiom (including other Harley-Davidson riders).
Japanese manufacturers realised that the Harley-Davidson was a popular customising candidate, so they copied the idea and produced homogenous models. Some have V-twin engines, swept chrome exhausts, high handlebars and even tasseled leather accessories. They really do look good, having taken the most attractive elements of custom Harleys and put them into one package. But because they are bought, not built, they are cheap imitations in the view of some riders. These bikes provide the look some aspire to yet cannot afford or are unable to produce for themselves. That is the theme on which they are sold world-wide, although some have progressed to a stage where their own identity exists beyond the Harley. That has happened partly because these bikes are often well-made, despite often being less expensive. Ownership doesn’t automatically pigeon-hole anyone, but there are certain traits that give rise to some undesirable manifestations as far as genuine bike-lovers are concerned.
Because a bike is different doesn’t always mean it’s inferior or superior. There are however, pinnacles of (imagined or real) excellence that many aspire to. It is this pyramid down which some riders look. Yet an irony has entered the Harley snob argument, as even Harley-Davidson now manufacture such as the retro-styled Heritage Springer model - a fat, factory custom cruiser. It is broadly accepted among Bikers that the cruiser, whatever manufacture, is not maneuverable or quick, and is a bike to be seen on rather than ridden. Therefore those using them are sometimes not considered to be real Bikers by others. If their contention is correct, then custom posers are not Bikers in the recognised sense of the word, practically or culturally. Their motives for bike ownership are not to take them down the road, but to appear on them to impress either their peers or the opposite sex.
In the case of the consumer Biker, this assumption might be correct. However, in isolating people who do not share the biking spirit, we must be careful not to detract from the cruising bike (and rider). In countries like America where roads are endless and straight, and in countries where the scenery needs to be taken in rather than blurred, cruising is an excellent and relaxed means of riding. A comfortable, sat-up riding position creates less aches after a long haul than the wrist-aching ‘flying frog’ assumed by those with a preference for speed. We might also note the subtle difference between a cruiser and tourer. The cruiser ambles along and takes the scenery in, while the tourer is built to cover vast distances in less time, and is often faired with lower handlebars.
*
Choice is personal. It is however governed by buying power. You enjoy whatever you can get. The nuisance factor enters when people with more money than sense set levels of spending below which all else is inferior. This includes other types of bike owner besides the cruiser; brand loyalty taken to excess. The rationality of choice is then broken down. The main contenders are the style buyers. It is alleged they have no style of their own, and can only gratify their egos by setting themselves up as superior. Behold, the consumer Biker, AKA RUBS - Rich Urban Bikers.
We can begin to analyse it through the accessories that accompany certain styles. Some riders wear sun glasses out of necessity. The glare can obscure your vision, making riding unsafe. Fashion designers modified the basic sun-shade spectacle, and made them more interesting to look at. So those Bikers who wore shades started buying them. Yet there are those who wear them not because they need them, but because they think it makes them look good. This is part of the reason why, in the year 2000, black visors became illegal. People were using them at the wrong time (i.e. in dull conditions) for the wrong reasons.
Leather jackets and trousers have always been recognised forms of protective clothing. They also look good, but some are manufactured for look rather than protection. The natural evolution of that look was created by Bikers. The consumers had to buy it - it can be detected in the over-all newness of the artifacts; a clue that the biking might not be the genuine lifestyle of that rider.
In effect, the custom bike syndrome sells the rebel image to the trendy. These include a 1970s-80s incarnation of the drop-out. Not the Hippy type, but the egocentric yuppie. There will be some amongst them whose interest is more genuine, and it can be argued that less wealthy riders are jealous. But these allegedly jealous types infer that it is the consumers who are envious of their natural style - their bikes being extensions of their own personality (and not a representation of a bottomless bank account).
Even so, if a bike is an extension of personality, it doesn’t need to be personalised to be individual. The individual choice of someone who buys an off-the-peg race replica lies in that decision. To all intents and purposes, that bike is perfect for what the buyer intends to do with it. This can lead to other consumer-lead purchases, where the type of bike ridden by the world champion whatever is the only bike to have, and copies of their leathers the only kit to be seen in. Fine if you enjoy it, nauseating again if you shove it in people’s faces.
*
Consumerism, then, has caused snobbery. Situations like a breakdown can highlight differences. Whether they’re on an old hack or a newer machine, a Biker in need will usually receive assistance from another. Those that don’t stop to assist may have reasonable grounds, but in recent years not all motorcycle owners share a kindred spirit. Some of it stems from the snobbery; the superiority complex. It’s an amusing experience when, mounted on some object the snobs despise, a kind Biker stops to help one in trouble.
There is also an inverse snobbery, occurring among those who dislike the high-flying attitudes of the snobs. They are not jealous of these people, and will sometimes refuse to own similar machines on the grounds that other Bikers might regard them as snobs. To some of them, the more rough and ready bike and rider are, the more Biker they become. In a community based on freedom, there has to be respect for choice. Without it, you cannot (or will not) belong there.
*
Consumerism exists by telling us what to have, and by making us believe that this is what we need. Because certain vibrations are regarded as character, Harley-Davidson have some of their custom bike engines balanced so that the desirable vibes are predominant, if not exaggerated. The vibrations that bikes make are part of its language, and to adjust them to suit taste is an exercise in art over technology. Harley also devise their exhausts so that the preferred throaty growl is audible above other disagreeable sound emissions. This style over practicality has become so important, that Harley tried (unsuccessfully) to patent their exhaust noise. Ducati also considered it. As producers of excellent bikes, they, like their American cousins could alienate many genuine bike lovers through snobbery.
*
Mandy Turner B.Sc. (Hons.) is a Biker from Devon in the UK. She carried out research into the links between Biker culture and lifestyle. Her dissertation was titled: “A critical examination of motorcycling ‘lifestyles’ in a ‘postmodern’ world of fragmented identities?” It contained statistical analysis, questionnaires and diaries. She described how Bikers allegedly purchase a postmodern identity through consumer power. The result is that people are having to re-invent individuality, in the postmodern world, where consumerism has lead to fragmentation and multiple identities.
She noted that the academic view of motorcycling as a predominantly working class subculture, has been eroded. It has become an acceptable social activity that apparently has no class boundaries, yet retains an element of collectiveness. The acceptance of biking by some, has been the result of those who have compromised their biking.
Mandy also concerned herself with people’s occupations to assess their spending on biking, and to discover any correlation between that and consumerism. A balance was struck by making more qualitative inquiries about Biker identity, regarding dress, style, gatherings, club membership and the length of time spent riding. Within this she noted a link between consumerism and Born-Again Bikers. This group are often the resultant focus of research into biking. Among born-agains there are some who acquire customs, yet only a minority of them, whatever their taste in bike, are prone to suggestion.
Her research concluded that Bikers do purchase an identity, but the cultural component made it unwise to make assumptions about subculture being consumer-lead. She thus made the distinction that occurs in the genuine Biker’s mind: that spending and consumerism are not one and the same thing.
*
It is inferred that youth cultures are consumer societies. You have to buy these records and clothes to be part of them. The signs and totems of culture have always come at a cost. With the Mods of the 1960s, it was at first financial, keeping up with the latest accessory. In the end, it cost them their identity, as they followed fashion into oblivion. Some born again Bikers undergo a similar feeling of being left behind, under the misapprehension that they have to aspire to what’s on offer RIGHT NOW. Competitiveness in the bike media doesn’t help: this is the best looking/fastest/most superior handling bike. One-upmanship isn’t where it’s at. Be true to thine own self, they say, and you will be happy for the right reasons, not because you accomplished sex with an alien.
*
In a work titled Cultural Identity and Diaspora, Stuart Hall made useful comments about the truths underlying cultural identity. He said that it was: “Not a fixed essence”. He added that: “It is something - not a mere trick of the imagination. It has its histories...but it is always constructed through memory, fantasy, narrative and myth.” Biker culture is a multiplicity of identities that are somewhat mythical. You can buy the artifacts, even the myth; but not the genuine identity. Myth has a reputation for not being the truth, creating some negativity. But as a part of that mental picture we create, it is the myth that some mistakenly chase. It’s what gives rise to some of the more excessive nostalgia marketing.
When the Biker image moved from simple practicality into style, it was seized upon by capitalist enterprise, creating mythical cults. Suddenly, for example, anyone could have a (reproduction) Triumph tank badge for a belt buckle. If you bought one for the love of Triumph, fair enough. But to those who fashioned one from an actual tank badge, the mass-production is an irritation. Especially as there are people out there with Triumph belt buckles who try to exert that they know all about Triumph, or own one, when neither is the case.
*
The psychographic variables that helped in safety research segregate people into different categories dependent on brand choices. Within these variables we can guess at their purchases by recognising the basic Biker-types. These are listed as:
Egoists - those who seek pleasure; Innovators - those who wish to make their mark; Rebels - those who wish to remake the world in their image; Traditionalists - those who want to keep things the way they are; and Utopians - those who want to make the world a better place.
A comparative list of the nouveaux-Bikers includes elements of the consumer-Biker. It contains: Trendies - those who crave the admiration of their peers; Groupies - those who just want to be accepted; Puritans - those who wish to feel virtuous (or holier than thou); and Drop-Outs - those who shun commitments of any kind.
Using such guidelines, we can see why it is important for the (race replica) Yamaha R1 advert to show some knee-down action, and that the (custom) Yamaha Drag Star ad had to exude cool. We can also recognise elements of personality that have everything to do with having arrived, and little, if anything to do with the enjoyment of motorcycling.
If we then look at Harley Davidson’s marketing over the years, we might understand the U-turn it has made. They initially despised the rebel on a bike and refused to be associated with them. However, their tradition for exploiting marketing ploys altered their tack. They even used an image of Outlaw types in one advertisement, with a caption asking; “Would you sell an unreliable motorcycle to one of this lot?”
When their merchandising began to include after-shave, some serious Mickey-taking ensued. Back Street Heroes magazine carried a fake advertisement that featured a Barbie-like doll dressed in reb leathers. Some shops already sell porcelain rebels and mythical creatures on bikes. Not all of them bad, but many are kitsch items with a syrup-overload. Those schmoozy manufacturers of sentimental picture-plates (see your TV guide) are producing some fantasised stereotype rebels on bikes with attitude. This is the acceptable biking image that mass-society has allegedly come to embrace. It is actually the one they’ve been sold.
*
Biking schmaltz disguised as necessities has far reaching effects. Travel on bikes often includes camping, which means that bikes get piled high with tuck-rolls and fluttering plastic sacks. This adds an element of nomadic romanticism, which, like other biking aspects, has been sanitised (rather than just made practical) by some custom component firms.
In early years the sidecar was used to carry biking families. It also allowed them to bring those little extra comforts, and occasionally someone’s ingenuity added a trailer (some even put them on solo machines). The ultimate family bike accessory eventually made an appearance in the form of a caravan. Other camping paraphernalia filled out this surrogate car fad. Some refuse to be car-owners on bikes were shackled by compromise: a horse is a great ride, but yoked to a coach, it is merely a beast of burden.
Excepting a few cases, the sidecar drifted away from road bikes in the latter half of the 20th century. Instead, compact versions of the trailer-tent tottered behind luxury touring bikes, like Honda Pan-Europeans, which themselves are complete with radios and wine coolers. Long tours demand comfort and extra luggage to some extent. A bike with backrests for both riders and lots of weather protection takes the arduous edge out of touring. But it is some people’s belief that those who haul these pantechnicons of luxury around are something of a consumer Biker. How much do you need beyond a tent and one or two spares? Seasoned travellers will tell you that the best way to pack is to have some room left, not to be fighting to squeeze that extra item in. It depends whether you’re on a biking tour, or touring on a bike.
*
It is obvious that being judgmental can overtake reason, whatever type of rider you are. For all the criticism that can be hurled, it is good to remember that a genuine Biker can still accept another’s view, even if it prompts you to urp (an involuntary ejection of the stomach contents). It is some rider’s unwillingness to accept those on other machines that causes contention and their own (undesirable) categorisation.