Toy, Vehicle, or Equipment?

In this article we consider the ways that parents and children construct an object that has long been associated with North American childhood: the bicycle. We ask the question: is the bicycle a toy or a tool? At first glance, this seems like a straightforward distinction. For example, if an object serves a useful purpose, we classify it a tool. Hammers are tools because they help drive nails into wood. If the object serves no apparent purpose other than our own intrinsic enjoyment, it is a toy. Kites are toys because we gain no instrumental benefit by flying them; kites offer us only amusement and entertainment. Of course, it is not as clear as this. Sometimes toys become tools as ingenious and resourceful people find new uses for them. Tools become toys as we discover other objects that fulfill a function more efficiently or affordably. At times, we engage in public debates about the classification of objects as toys or tools. We saw this recently, when educators debated whether the fidget spinner was a toy that distracted students from learning or a tool that helped students focus on learning (Silver). These examples show that the meanings that objects hold are not inherent to the object but are actively constructed through social processes and situated in specific historical, geographical, and political contexts. Understanding how we make meaning of objects is important because meanings impact on how objects circulate through everyday life and how they are used and valued. In a culture that values work over leisure, tools are socially valued yet ‘toy’ is a word loaded with judgment; although toys are objects of delight they are also associated with superficiality, consumerism, and a desire for status (Whitten). As manufacturers of ‘educational toys’ certainly understand, the construction of an object as a tool or toy shapes when, where, and by whom that object should be used, including the spaces they are allowed to occupy and the ways that children are permitted to engage with and use them (Brougère). The bicycle is many things at once: it moves through space, it requires physical effort of the rider, and it is self-propelled. As an object, the bicycle has also held different meanings depending on the cultural, historical, and political context. Hoffman (6) calls the bicycle a ‘rolling signifier’ in that ‘it carries a diversity of signification depending on its location in time and space’. Throughout its 150-year history in North America, the bicycle has been a leisure-based status symbol of the progressive urban elite, a symbol of women’s liberation, and a transportation vehicle of the working poor, and the focus of a fitness craze (Turpin). Starting out as an adult leisure activity, the bicycle began to be associated with childhood in the 1950s, when the bicycle manufacturing industry began to turn its attention to selling bicycles to children rather than adults (Turpin 1). Through the 1950s and 1970s, advertisements and television shows began to represent the bicycle as a vehicle for childhood freedom, highlighting the bicycle as the quintessential childhood gift and the moment of learning to ride a bicycle a childhood milestone (Turpin; McDonald). Although still constructed as an “indelible part of childhood” (Turpin, 1), the bicycle, and childhood, have changed since the days when the bicycle first gained its iconic status. Although new styles of bicycling (e.g., BMX, mountain) have emerged, the actual bicycling of children in terms of the amount of time spent riding and distance travelled has been on the decline for a generation (Cox; McDonald). Changing ideas about children’s health, development, and parental responsibilities to prepare children for their future have also raised anxieties about how, where, and how much time children spend engaged with ‘toys’ versus ‘tools’, and whether children should be playing or moving around outdoors, in the streets, unsupervised and alone (Alexander et al.; Valentine). A growing body of research highlights the ways in which childhood has become increasingly contained, immobilised, and institutionalised (Karsten; Rixon, Lomax, and O’Dell). In this context the object of the bicycle becomes more problematic given its features of mobility, physicality, and rider autonomy. In this article we investigate the ways that children and parents construct meanings of the bicycle in childhood. We draw on data collected in 2019 and 2020 when we interviewed 24 bicycle-riding children (aged 10-16, rode independently at least once per week) and 19 bicycle-supportive parents about their perspectives and experiences of bicycling in the downtown and suburban areas of the small Canadian city in which they lived. As we elaborate below, children constructed the bicycle as a toy that allowed physical and environmental exploration. For parents, these meanings produced anxiety because they relied on children moving through space unsupervised. In the article we will show how parents managed their desires and worries in ways that at times reconfigured the meaning of ‘bicycle’. We point to the central role of emotion in enabling and limiting children’s bicycling opportunities. We close with a discussion of the implications of these findings in the construction and promotion of children’s bicycling. Children's Constructions of the Bicycle in Childhood Our interviews with children revealed that while it was appreciated as a vehicle that could get them places faster than walking, children primarily constructed the bicycle as a toy. In fact, children constructed the bicycle as two different types of toys. First, the bicycle was a physical toy that afforded riders the opportunity to connect with their environment in novel ways and in so doing, to experiment with their physicality. For MK (boy, 11) the best part about riding was practicing ‘tricks’, or small manoeuvres with a bicycle like popping it up on one wheel, or jumping the bike over an obstacle. He had a number of favourite ‘trick spots’ – curbs, steps, benches, small hills – spread through the city that he would stop at as he made his way across town. Ross (383) sees this as ‘discipline and disorder’, noting, with respect to children’s unaccompanied school journeys, “the potential for impromptu play responding to features along the route”. She adds that “such free-play can only occur when children are able to set their own agenda, making decisions along the way”, implying that journeys may be more ‘playful’ – and bicycles more ‘toylike’ – when adults are not co-present. MK explained that he liked tricks because there was nothing at stake, other than possibly being teased by his brother. At the same time, friends were a source of inspiration and creativity as kids worked together to test out tricks and record their performances: Q: What do you like about tricks? MK: They’re easy to learn. If you mess one up, no one makes fun of you for it, no one laughs at you. Q: What is your least favourite part about riding? MK: When I do miss a trick, my brother makes fun of me. Alternatively, GL (boy, 15) sought out trails in nearby wooded areas on his mountain bike where he would engage with the rocky and rooted terrain at different speeds. For GL, the fun of mountain biking was that anything could happen: Q: What it's like to do the trails? What happens and what do you like about it? GL: Just the craziness of the unexpected sometimes. And like, the downhill obviously, not [to] have to do anything and just roll down the hill through all these roots and rocks and stuff. It is quite challenging. Second, the bicycle was an adventure toy that afforded children the opportunity to explore the local environment with no agenda other than to take in the surroundings and see what’s there. Whereas with riding for transportation “you’re trying to get somewhere, maybe going faster to try to get there faster, obviously, but for leisure you're just having fun enjoying it and just looking around, you see what's around you” (GL). Perhaps less risky than trick riding, adventure riding still required some bravery as it required the rider to venture into the unknown. Given this, it was the experience of exploring and discovering their surroundings that engendered joy and exhilaration. Children enthusiastically described their journeys and the special spots and surprising moments they experienced along the way. Whereas trick and trail riding required focus and intensity, adventure riding encouraged openness and receptivity. NT (boy, 10) explained, “there's no rules that you [need] to go here. It's, just, you can bike wherever you want. And do whatever. Like it's not somebody pushing you to go a certain speed or slow down or anything. I really like that.” Being afforded the autonomy to move as they wanted through space was the most treasured aspect of bicycle-riding. TL (girl, 12) explained, “I get to go places that I wouldn't normally get to go when I’m with other people. And then I get to choose where we go”. SG (girl, 12) related her experience of freedom on a bicycle to her right to autonomy: “you can do whatever you want and however you want, and its your own opinion and you don't have to follow anybody else's. You can be free.” In a culture that values productivity and improvement, toys are sometimes dismissed as objects with little value other than to provide amusement or fill time. This is why we often see toy manufacturers working to establish associations between toys and various improvement-oriented or utilitarian purposes, as this helps legitimise toys as good, valuable, and necessary (Brougère). However, the descriptions above highlight the richness of experience that comes from engaging with objects as toys. Commonalities across these two uses of the bicycle were the elements of creativity, curiosity, and low-stakes outcome, and an emotional experience of joy, satisfaction, and exhilaration. Parents’ Constructions of the Bicycle in Childhood

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.