Thank you for subscribing
Close
<html>
<head><meta name="robots" content="noindex, follow" />
<title>The Social Ideology of the Motorcar</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>

>body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" marginwidth="100" leftmargin="100">
<div align="center"> <!-- #BeginLibraryItem "/Library/nav.lbi" --><h1>/bikereadercom/contributors/misc/gorz.html</h1><table width="5%" border="0" cellspacing="5" cellpadding="5" align="center">
 <tr> 
 <td bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Home</font></td><td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Humour</font></td><td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Essays</font></td><td><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Travel</font></td><td><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Images</font></td></tr>
</table><!-- #EndLibraryItem --> 
 <pre> ;</pre>
</div>
<p><font size="6" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>The Social Ideology of 
 the Motorcar<br>
 </b><font size="3"> by</font><b><font size="3"> André; Gorz</font></b></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3"><i>please 
 read this first</i></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">The worst thing about cars 
 is that they are like castles or villas by the sea: luxury goods invented for 
 the exclusive pleasure of a very rich minority, and which in conception and 
 nature were never intended for the people. Unlike the vacuum cleaner, the radio, 
 or the bicycle, which retain their use value when everyone has one, the car, 
 like a villa by the sea, is only desirable and useful insofar as the masses 
 don't have one. That is how in both conception and original purpose the car 
 is a luxury good. And the essence of luxury is that it cannot be democratised. 
 If everyone can have luxury, no one gets any advantages from it. On the contrary, 
 everyone diddles, cheats, and frustrates everyone else, and is diddled, cheated, 
 and frustrated in return.<br>
 <br>
 This is pretty much common knowledge in the case of the seaside villas. No politico 
 has yet dared to claim that to democratise the right to vacation would mean 
 a villa with private beach for every family. Everyone understands that if each 
 of 13 or 14 million families were to use only 10 meters of the coast, it would 
 take 140,000km of beach in order for all of them to have their share! To give 
 everyone his or her share would be to cut up the beaches in such little strips-or 
 to squeeze the villas so tightly together-that their use value would be nil 
 and their advantage over a hotel complex would disappear. In short, democratisation 
 of access to the beaches point to only one solution-the collectivist one. And 
 this solution is necessarily at war with the luxury of the private beach, which 
 is a privilege that a small minority takes as their right at the expense of 
 all.<br>
 <br>
 Now, why is it that what is perfectly obvious in the case of the beaches is 
 not generally acknowledged to be the case for transportation? Like the beach 
 house, doesn't a car occupy scarce space? Doesn't it deprive the others who 
 use the roads (pedestrians, cyclists, streetcar and bus drivers)? Doesn't it 
 lose its use value when everyone uses his or her own? And yet there are plenty 
 of politicians who insist that every family has the right to at least one car 
 and that it's up to the "government" to make it possible for everyone to park 
 conveniently, drive easily in the city, and go on holiday at the same time as 
 everyone else, going 70 mph on the roads to vacation spots.<br>
 <br>
 The monstrousness of this demagogic nonsense is immediately apparent, and yet 
 even the left doesn't disdain resorting to it. Why is the car treated like a 
 sacred cow? Why, unlike other "privative" goods, isn't it recognised as an antisocial 
 luxury? The answer should be sought in the following two aspects of driving:<br>
 <br>
 1.Mass motoring effects an absolute triumph of bourgeois ideology on the level 
 of daily life. It gives and supports in everyone the illusion that each individual 
 can seek his or her own benefit at the expense of everyone else. Take the cruel 
 and aggressive selfishness of the driver who at any moment is figuratively killing 
 the "others," who appear merely as physical obstacles to his or her own speed. 
 This aggressive and competitive selfishness marks the arrival of universally 
 bourgeois behaviour, and has come into being since driving has become commonplace. 
 ("You'll never have socialism with that kind of people," an East German friend 
 told me, upset by the spectacle of Paris traffic). </font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">2.The automobile is the 
 paradoxical example of a luxury object that has been devalued by its own spread. 
 But this practical devaluation has not yet been followed by an ideological devaluation. 
 The myth of the pleasure and benefit of the car persists, though if mass transportation 
 were widespread its superiority would be striking. The persistence of this myth 
 is easily explained. The spread of the private car has displaced mass transportation 
 and altered city planning and housing in such a way that it transfers to the 
 car functions which its own spread has made necessary. An ideological ("cultural") 
 revolution would be needed to break this circle. Obviously this is not to be 
 expected from the ruling class (either right or left). <br>
 <br>
 Let us look more closely now at these two points.<br>
 <br>
 When the car was invented, it was to provide a few of the very rich with a completely 
 unprecedented privilege: that of travelling much faster than everyone else. 
 No one up to then had ever dreamt of it. The speed of all coaches was essentially 
 the same, whether you were rich or poor. The carriages of the rich didn't go 
 any faster than the carts of the peasants, and trains carried everyone at the 
 same speed (they didn't begin to have different speeds until they began to compete 
 with the automobile and the aeroplane). Thus, until the turn of the century, 
 the elite did not travel at a different speed from the people. The motorcar 
 was going to change all that. For the first time class differences were to be 
 extended to speed and to the means of transportation.<br>
 <br>
 This means of transportation at first seemed unattainable to the masses -- it 
 was so different from ordinary means. There was no comparison between the motorcar 
 and the others: the cart, the train, the bicycle, or the horse-car. Exceptional 
 beings went out in self-propelled vehicles that weighed at least a ton and whose 
 extremely complicated mechanical organs were as mysterious as they were hidden 
 from view. For one important aspect of the automobile myth is that for the first 
 time people were riding in private vehicles whose operating mechanisms were 
 completely unknown to them and whose maintenance and feeding they had to entrust 
 to specialists. Here is the paradox of the automobile: it appears to confer 
 on its owners limitless freedom, allowing them to travel when and where they 
 choose at a speed equal to or greater than that of the train. But actually, 
 this seeming independence has for its underside a radical dependency. Unlike 
 the horse rider, the wagon driver, or the cyclist, the motorist was going to 
 depend for the fuel supply, as well as for the smallest kind of repair, on dealers 
 and specialists in engines, lubrication, and ignition, and on the interchangeability 
 of parts. Unlike all previous owners of a means of locomotion, the motorist's 
 relationship to his or her vehicle was to be that of user and consumer-and not 
 owner and master. This vehicle, in other words, would oblige the owner to consume 
 and use a host of commercial services and industrial products that could only 
 be provided by some third party. The apparent independence of the automobile 
 owner was only concealing the actual radical dependency.<br>
 <br>
 The oil magnates were the first to perceive the prize that could be extracted 
 from the wide distribution of the motorcar. If people could be induced to travel 
 in cars, they could be sold the fuel necessary to move them. For the first time 
 in history, people would become dependent for their locomotion on a commercial 
 source of energy. There would be as many customers for the oil industry as there 
 were motorists-and since there would be as many motorists as there were families, 
 the entire population would become the oil merchants' customers. The dream of 
 every capitalist was about to come true. Everyone was going to depend for their 
 daily needs on a commodity that a single industry held as a monopoly.<br>
 <br>
 All that was left was to get the population to drive cars. Little persuasion 
 would be needed. It would be enough to get the price of a car down by using 
 mass production and the assembly line. People would fall all over themselves 
 to buy it. They fell over themselves all right, without noticing they were being 
 led by the nose. What, in fact, did the automobile industry offer them? Just 
 this: "From now on, like the nobility and the bourgeoisie, you too will have 
 the privilege of driving faster than everybody else. In a motorcar society the 
 privilege of the elite is made available to you."<br>
 <br>
 People rushed to buy cars until, as the working class began to buy them as well, 
 defrauded motorists realised they had been had. They had been promised a bourgeois 
 privilege, they had gone into debt to acquire it, and now they saw that everyone 
 else could also get one. What good is a privilege if everyone can have it? It's 
 a fool's game. Worse, it pits everyone against everyone else. General paralysis 
 is brought on by a general clash. For when everyone claims the right to drive 
 at the privileged speed of the bourgeoisie, everything comes to a halt, and 
 the speed of city traffic plummets-in Boston as in Paris, Rome, or London-to 
 below that of the horsecar; at rush hours the average speed on the open road 
 falls below the speed of a bicyclist.<br>
 <br>
 Nothing helps. All the solutions have been tried. They all end up making things 
 worse. No matter if they increase the number of city expressways, beltways, 
 elevated crossways, 16- lane highways, and toll roads, the result is always 
 the same. The more roads there are in service, the more cars clog them, and 
 city traffic becomes more paralysingly congested. As long as there are cities, 
 the problem will remain unsolved. No matter how wide and fast a superhighway 
 is, the speed at which vehicles can come off it to enter the city cannot be 
 greater than the average speed on the city streets. As long as the average speed 
 in Paris is 10 to 20 kmh, depending on the time of day, no one will be able 
 to get off the beltways and autoroutes around and into the capital at more than 
 10 to 20 kmh.<br>
 <br>
 The same is true for all cities. It is impossible to drive at more than an average 
 of 20 kmh in the tangled network of streets, avenues, and boulevards that characterise 
 the traditional cities. The introduction of faster vehicles inevitably disrupts 
 city traffic, causing bottlenecks-and finally complete paralysis.<br>
 <br>
 If the car is to prevail, there's still one solution: get rid of the cities. 
 That is, string them out for hundreds of miles along enormous roads, making 
 them into highway suburbs. That's what's been done in the United States. Ivan 
 Illich sums up the effect in these startling figures: "The typical American 
 devotes more than 1500 hours a year (which is 30 hours a week, or 4 hours a 
 day, including Sundays) to his [or her] car. This includes the time spent behind 
 the wheel, both in motion and stopped, the hours of work to pay for it and to 
 pay for gas, tires, tolls, insurance, tickets, and taxes. Thus it takes this 
 American 1500 hours to go 6000 miles (in the course of a year). Three and a 
 half miles take him (or her) one hour. In countries that do not have a transportation 
 industry, people travel at exactly this speed on foot, with the added advantage 
 that they can go wherever they want and aren't restricted to asphalt roads."<br>
 <br>
 It is true, Illich points out, that in non-industrialised countries travel uses 
 only 3 to 8% of people's free time (which comes to about two to six hours a 
 week). Thus a person on foot covers as many miles in an hour devoted to travel 
 as a person in a car, but devotes 5 to 10 times less time in travel. Moral: 
 The more widespread fast vehicles are within a society, the more time -- beyond 
 a certain point -- people will spend and lose on travel. It's a mathematical 
 fact.<br>
 <br>
 The reason? We've just seen it: The cities and towns have been broken up into 
 endless highway suburbs, for that was the only way to avoid traffic congestion 
 in residential centres. But the underside of this solution is obvious: ultimately 
 people can't get around conveniently because they are far away from everything. 
 To make room for the cars, distances have increased. People live far from their 
 work, far from school, far from the supermarket - which then requires a second 
 car so the shopping can be done and the children driven to school. Outings? 
 Out of the question. Friends? There are the neighbours... and that's it. In 
 the final analysis, the car wastes more time than it saves and creates more 
 distance than it overcomes. Of course, you can get yourself to work doing 60 
 mph, but that's because you live 30 miles from your job and are willing to give 
 half an hour to the last 6 miles. To sum it all up: "A good part of each day's 
 work goes to pay for the travel necessary to get to work." (Ivan Illich).<br>
 <br>
 Maybe you are saying, "But at least in this way you can escape the hell of the 
 city once the workday is over." There we are, now we know: "the city," the great 
 city which for generations was considered a marvel, the only place worth living, 
 is now considered to be a "hell." Everyone wants to escape from it, to live 
 in the country. Why this reversal? For only one reason. The car has made the 
 big city uninhabitable. It has made it stinking, noisy, suffocating, dusty, 
 so congested that nobody wants to go out in the evening anymore. Thus, since 
 cars have killed the city, we need faster cars to escape on superhighways to 
 suburbs that are even farther away. What an impeccable circular argument: give 
 us more cars so that we can escape the destruction caused by cars.<br>
 <br>
 From being a luxury item and a sign of privilege, the car has thus become a 
 vital necessity. You have to have one so as to escape from 
 the urban hell of the cars. Capitalist industry has thus won the game: the superfluous 
 has become necessary. There's no longer any need to persuade people that they 
 want a car; it's necessity is a fact of life. It is true that one may have one's 
 doubts when watching the motorised escape along the exodus roads. Between 8 
 and 9:30 a.m., between 5:30 and 7 p.m., and on weekends for five and six hours 
 the escape routes stretch out into bumper-to-bumper processions going (at best) 
 the speed of a bicyclist and in a dense cloud of gasoline fumes. What remains 
 of the car's advantages? What is left when, inevitably, the top speed on the 
 roads is limited to exactly the speed of the slowest car?<br>
 <br>
 Fair enough. After killing the city, the car is killing the car. Having promised 
 everyone they would be able to go faster, the automobile industry ends up with 
 the unrelentingly predictable result that everyone has to go as slowly as the 
 very slowest, at a speed determined by the simple laws of fluid dynamics. Worse: 
 having been invented to allow its owner to go where he or she wishes, at the 
 time and speed he or she wishes, the car becomes, of all vehicles, the most 
 slavish, risky, undependable and uncomfortable. Even if you leave yourself an 
 extravagant amount of time, you never know when the bottlenecks will let you 
 get there. You are bound to the road as inexorably as the train to its rails. 
 No more than the railway traveller can you stop on impulse, and like the train 
 you must go at a speed decided by someone else. Summing up, the car has none 
 of the advantages of the train and all of its disadvantages, plus some of its 
 own: vibration, cramped space, the danger of accidents, the effort necessary 
 to drive it.<br>
 <br>
 And yet, you may say, people don't take the train. Of course! How could they? 
 Have you ever tried to go from Boston to New York by train? Or from Ivry to 
 Treport? Or from Garches to Fountainebleau? Or Colombes to l'Isle-Adam? Have 
 you tried on a summer Saturday or Sunday? Well, then, try it and good luck to 
 you! You'll observe that automobile capitalism has thought of everything. Just 
 when the car is killing the car, it arranges for the alternatives to disappear, 
 thus making the car compulsory. So first the capitalist state allowed the rail 
 connections between the cities and the surrounding countryside to fall to pieces, 
 and then it did away with them. The only ones that have been spared are the 
 high-speed intercity connections that compete with the airlines for a bourgeois 
 clientele. There's progress for you!<br>
 <br>
 The truth is, no one really has any choice. You aren't free to have a car or 
 not because the suburban world is designed to be a function of the car-and, 
 more and more, so is the city world. That is why the ideal revolutionary solution, 
 which is to do away with the car in favour of the bicycle, the streetcar, the 
 bus, and the driverless taxi, is not even applicable any longer in the big commuter 
 cities like Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, Trappes, or even Brussels, which 
 are built by and for the automobile. These splintered cities are strung out 
 along empty streets lined with identical developments; and their urban landscape 
 (a desert) says, "These streets are made for driving as quickly as possible 
 from work to home and vice versa. You go through here, you don't live here. 
 At the end of the workday everyone ought to stay at home, and anyone found on 
 the street after nightfall should be considered suspect of plotting evil." In 
 some American cities the act of strolling in the streets at night is grounds 
 for suspicion of a crime.<br>
 <br>
 So, the jig is up? No, but the alternative to the car will have to be comprehensive. 
 For in order for people to be able to give up their cars, it won't be enough 
 to offer them more comfortable mass transportation. They will have to be able 
 to do without transportation altogether because they'll feel at home in their 
 neighbourhoods, their community. their human-sized cities, and they will take 
 pleasure in walking from work to home-on foot, or if need be by bicycle. No 
 means of fast transportation and escape will ever compensate for the vexation 
 of living in an uninhabitable city in which no one feels at home or the irritation 
 of only going into the city to work or, on the other hand, to be alone and sleep.<br>
 <br>
 "People," writes Illich, "will break the chains of overpowering transportation 
 when they come once again to love as their own territory their own particular 
 beat, and to dread getting too far away from it." But in order to love "one's 
 territory" it must first of all be made liveable, and not trafficable. The neighbourhood 
 or community must once again become a microcosm shaped by and for all human 
 activities, where people can work, live, relax, learn, communicate, and knock 
 about, and which they manage together as the place of their life in common. 
 When someone asked him how people would spend their time after the revolution, 
 when capitalist wastefulness had been done away with, Marcuse answered, "We 
 will tear down the big cities and build new ones. That will keep us busy for 
 a while."<br>
 <br>
 These new cities might be federations of communities (or neighbourhoods) surrounded 
 by green belts whose citizens-and especially the schoolchildren-will spend several 
 hours a week growing the fresh produce they need. To get around everyday they 
 would be able to use all kinds of transportation adapted to a medium-sized town: 
 municipal bicycles, trolleys or trolley-buses, electric taxis without drivers. 
 For longer trips into the country, as well as for guests, a pool of communal 
 automobiles would be available in neighbourhood garages. The car would no longer 
 be a necessity. Everything will have changed: the world, life, people. And this 
 will not have come about all by itself.<br>
 <br>
 Meanwhile, what is to be done to get there? Above all, never make transportation 
 an issue by itself. Always connect it to the problem of the city, of the social 
 division of labour, and to the way this compartmentalises the many dimensions 
 of life. One place for work, another for "living," a third for shopping, a fourth 
 for learning, a fifth for entertainment. The way our space is arranged carries 
 on the disintegration of people that begins with the division of labour in the 
 factory. It cuts a person into slices, it cuts our time, our life, into separate 
 slices so that in each one you are a passive consumer at the mercy of the merchants, 
 so that it never occurs to you that work, culture, communication, pleasure, 
 satisfaction of needs, and personal life can and should be one and the same 
 thing: a unified life, sustained by the social fabric of the community.<br>
 <br>
 </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Le Sauvage, September-October 
 1973</font></p>
<p align="center"> ;</p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">TOP 
 OF PAGE</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3"></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3"></font></p>