Analysis

Atlay et al (2019) and Galman (2019) argue that audio-visual research materials have great potential as independent ways of knowledge production. The benefits of audio-visual methods, that limit the power gap between researchers and interlocutors (Barbash & Taylor (1997), Clifford (1983), need to be carefully preserved when audio-visual research is contextualized within the text-based modalities of academic production. During this research into off-roading, there have been observations outside the realms of my collected audio-visual materials. These observations can thus not be mediated within this thesis using audio-visual materials. I argue that this is not necessarily because audio-visual materials do not lend themselves to creating arguments for these observations, but rather because there is a limited amount of audio-visual data that can be collected in three months. I’m confident that with more time, audio-visual materials could be collected, that would possibly make a strong case for the connection between my theoretical framework, research methods, and audio-visual material. However, because fieldwork is not endless, and because my methodology specifically excluded the use of interviews, which has left me with little audio-visual material, that suits the format of the ethnographic film, that can be used to connect this academic writing, which is historically and contemporarily, a disconnect with the social and collaborative aspects of the ethnographic research (Mosse 2006: 936), I will argue the connections between my theoretical framework, and observations, in this written Analaysis.

The Cyborg

Haraway (1985, 59) states that high-tech culture challenges the dualisms between people and technology; “It is not clear who makes and who is made in the relation between human and machine.” It is exactly this interpretation of the ontological cyborg, that I found makes up part of off-roading.

Vehicle maintenance is an integral part of off-roading, like stated before, Harry noted that: “Rarely do you see on Instagram that there is a lot that goes into building a vehicle, and that there is even more that goes into keeping a vehicle on the track.” At first sight, we might assume that vehicle maintenance is a typical example of people enacting agency upon their vehicles, in which they actively shape the effecter affordance (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997) of their vehicle. However, I’ve found that vehicle maintenance affords an interaction wherein the vehicle also enacts agency, as shown in the clip below.

When talking about how to go about changing the wheel hub on his Navara, Harry notes that certain actions must be done in a certain way. The wheel must be on the ground to take the wheel nut off, because it does not afford for doing this when the wheel is suspended. Harry goes on to note that the way in which certain things must be done, is ‘not very nice’ and that he does not like that. When taking of a somewhat loose nut he states that “You sir, came of very easy, and I don’t like that. I feel like you are going to cause problems lately, you dirty slut.” In this case I argue that the nut enacts agency on Harry. By potentially becoming a problematic item, it makes Harry engage with it in a specific manner. I argue that this is an example of the fluid enactment of agency objects have, when changes occur in the relational environment of the object (Ter Keurs 2014, 46). The loose nut wasn’t seen by Harry as potentially problematic, when he assumed it was tight. It is the combination of the interaction between Harry and the vehicle during maintenance, and the fact that the nut is loose, that shapes the way Harry interacts during the hub change.

In the film (03:10) Harry also refers to the Navara as a “hot bitch”. It is the capability of the vehicle to enact agency on Harry, that might be the cause of this personification. Harry’s mental state “This is the happiest I’ve ever been”, is directly linked to the (cooling) performance, of the vehicle. But the cause of his happiness is not the direct result of measurable performance, he states himself that his vehicle usually runs hotter than what he considers ‘normal operating temperatures’. It is the performance achieved, within the context of the radiator that is old and clogged with mud, that makes him happy.

That performance is not linear, and that building vehicles is not only about increasing/achieving some measurable performance mark, also becomes clear when Shan and Harry discuss vehicles (5:09) in the film. Shan tells about his mate ‘SASsing’ his car, which means swapping the independent suspension (IFS) for a solid axle suspension, which arguably improves off-road capability, and thus effecter affordance. He refers to his own IFS vehicle with “I just find them fun” indicating that he has no desire to build a more capable vehicle. He goes on to state about solid axle vehicles that “you might as well be in a McDonalds carpark”, indicating that having a more capable vehicle, will not always lead to a more enjoyable off-roading experience. Harry continues with stating that he got over competent since “he put both lockers in” (lockers are a technical aid that greatly improves off-road capability). “I don’t pick a (driving) line, I just point at a hill and drive up.” I suspect he views not having to ‘pick a line’, not having to think about his driving, as something negative, as being a capable driver is seen as important within the community. Having a more capable vehicle negates (some of) the need of being a competent driver, and is thus not always desirable within the context of off-roading communities.

Within the relation/interaction between people and vehicles, vehicles thus enact agency in different ways. One way can be seen directly, when a vehicle breaks or performs in certain ways, the result can be seen immediately. But vehicles can also enact agency in more subtle ways, in which it is not necessarily clear who contributes to what effect in the interaction. Off-roaders to a certain extent craft the capability of their vehicles, and in doing so, can craft a certain affordance for off-roading. But desired capability is not linear, a vehicle that has been crafted to contribute more effecter affordance, does not always lead to the desired affordance for off-roading. Furthermore, is the agency the vehicle has, not always a direct result of an earlier action by a person. The way vehicles act within off-roading, is often not predictable. Because it is often impossible to see which agent (the person or vehicle) contributes to which extent, and in which manner, to the interaction, I argue that off-roaders and their vehicles do behave as a cyborg, whose relation is further complicated by external factors like its surroundings and the infrastructure they travers.

Infrastructure

That the environment off-roaders travel in has great baring on the practice of off-roading, and the way off-roading is experienced, is evident from the clip below.

The first clip, which reflect an earlier encounter with the hill when it was wet, muddy and therefor slippery, shows how much an environmental factor, like rain, can influence off-roading. Especially compared to the second clip, which shows another attempt on the hill, later in the day, when it was much dryer. In the first clip Shan says “muddies make a big difference”, he refers to the type of tyres he has on his vehicle. During the preparation for the trip, for which I was also present, there were a few set-backs. Shan’s new Nissan Patrol had some issues that needed fixing. Unfortunately for Shan, his bigger 33-inch tyres, of the ‘mud terrain’ type, sprung a leak and were unfixable. This resulted in Shan, me, and Dave spending the entire night before departure, fitting 5 (one spare) new wheels and tyres to the vehicle. The replacement tyres however, were of the 31-inch ‘all-terrain’ variety. The replacements are less suited for mud, and the smaller size limits the amount of air that can be let out of the tyre, which limits the ‘footprint’ or the amount of tyre that is in contact with the ground, which in turn limits the amount of grip that can be achieved.

Shan thus refers directly to the effecter affordance of his vehicle, in relation to, and as a direct result of the condition off the track. He does not refer to his tyres during his second run on a less muddy attempt, as their impact, and thus agency, in a dry environment are much smaller than in the wet. Wet/muddy vs dry, is thus one of the many infrastructural signifiers (Star, 1999) my interlocutors use to gauge their surroundings. However, as stated by Jensen & Morita (2015, 85) and Larkin (2013, 329), whether the track is muddy or dry only becomes relevant during the interaction with the off-roader. Even more, like Argounova-Low (2012, 74) states, whether the track is muddy or dry is only relevant because the tyres do not afford enough grip for the conditions. I suspect that Shan specifically mentioned the tyres, because we had to change them the day before. Knowing that he had, or could have had, tyres that were more suited to the environment, probably affected his comments about the track conditions.

The way off-roaders interact with, and perceive the environment, is thus rooted in multiple interactions. The interaction between driver capability (handling affordance) and vehicle characteristics (effecter affordance) create affordance, but the environment they interact with shapes the experience that is off-roading. Whether a track is like “driving in a McDonald’s carpark", a "five out of ten", or "not even going to try it", is neither fully dependent on diver/vehicle affordance, nor is it fully dependent on the infrastructural signifiers.

I would argue that there are very few infrastructural considerations that have an absolute effect on 4-wheel driving, and even the ‘absolute’ impact of these considerations might be debatable. We can hear Shan asking whether the shops/petrol station in the town nearby are open 24/7, and this immediately puts us on the topic of ‘essential’ infrastructural considerations. Off-roaders are usually bound to tracks and roads as dictated by the ‘leave no trace’ (Vagias & Powell 2010, 22) principle. Violating this principle usually results in entire areas being fenced off from off-roaders, which creates incentive to adhere to some form of existing infrastructure. More notable however is the vehicle’s need for fuel. In order to do off-roading, some sort of refuelling infrastructure needs to be available. Vehicles can (and often do) carry extra fuel, but only to a certain limit. Fuel availability is a key aspect of off-road planning, and is as much a safety consideration as flooding and forest fires. Latour (2005, 43) argues that “the social is nothing other than patterned networks of heterogeneous materials”. I argue that infrastructure both acts as an actor within off-roading, but also as a network in itself. By their vary nature, no aspects of infrastructure exist in a vacuum. Certain infrastructural signifiers, like whether a track is wet, are much more variable than others, as is evidenced by Bryce’s testimony (17:48) on the impact of forest fires in the film. A forest fire not only produces an immediate access ban, but also introduces additional hazards that might be considerations for off-roaders for years to come.

Infrastructure thus has a profound impact on the practice of off-roading, and knows both quick, and slow changing materials within its network. But Infrastructure, much like technology, does not have a unilateral impact on off-roading. Its agency is shaped during off-roading, and by the different aspects that shape off-roading.

The Social environment

The most important ‘environmental’ factor I found however, is possibly the social one. As can be seen throughout the audio-visual material, off-roading rarely is a solitary engagement. Part of the reason why off-roaders don’t usually go out alone, is because of safety. Australia is a large country, and it is easy to get far away form help and phone reception. If anything does go wrong, or if you get stuck, it is a good thing to have someone with you who can help you out. Getting stuck on a loose sand patch, like in (21:41) the film, might mean hours of digging the vehicle out if you are alone, but can be solved in minutes when traveling together.

I argue however, that the social aspect of off-roading goes far beyond just safety and convenience. The social norms of the environment and people one off-roads with, have a large impact on off-roading in general. In the previous clip, and in the film (8:50) you can see me asking Dany (Mud Lady), what her approach is to climbing a particularly slippery hill. She replies with “Just send it” and then “don’t tell Shan I just said that”. “Sending it” refers to the practice approaching an obstacle full throttle, with little consideration for the track, vehicle, or safety. “Sending it” is a rather popular term within off-roading, and the larger car community. “Just send it” is a commonly heard phrase, and commonly seen practice, within off-roading. Less experienced off-roaders might often get themselves into serious trouble when they are ‘egged on’ to just ‘send it’. As vehicles are expensive, and dangerous, not everyone engaged in off-roading is a proponent of ‘sending it’. The opposite of the motto ‘send it’ would be ‘low, slow, and go’, which refers to engaging the low gear, to tackle tracks meticulously and in a very controlled manner. Shan (and by extend more people who come on untamed 4x4 campouts) do not condone ‘sending it’ and there is strong social control against ‘egging people on’, and ‘drink driving’ (drinking while driving).

Whether the people you start off-roading with are members of the “just send it” or the “low, slow, go” club, thus has a large impact on the way you off-road, and thus engage with the different materials that compose it. I would argue that the social impact on off-roading is not merely limited to something superfluous like being part of the “send it” club or not. Rather I argue that every interaction between people, vehicle and environment, is deeply impacted by the social interactions surrounding them. The constant banter, swearing, and discussion seen when Hary, Cody, Noah, and me work on vehicles in the driveway (10:49) is a good example of the entanglement between social interaction and off-roading I found everywhere during my research. It is also a good example of my ‘outsider’ status as researcher. Noah and Cody state that “swearing is a part of working on cars” but none of them worry about hurting themselves (11:54) or getting dirty/laying on the floor. Yet when I get under the car to help Noah remove the differential, he immediately says “You sure? You’ll get dirty”, and when the diff is removed, Harry tells Noah to “Watch the breather” (a little tube that connect the inside of the (oil filled) differential with the outside air, so that mud and water don’t get in) because “it will piss oil out on him”, referring to me. If I had known about cars and was an actual member of the community, I would’ve known not to lie down under the breather, or at least I should have, and I doubt Harry and Noah would’ve been so mindful.

The most apparent example of the agency the social environment enacts on off-roading is found in a comparison between two separate incidents where wheels were about to fall off vehicles. In the clip below, of which the first part is also in the film, there are two vastly different (social) reactions to a situation that is very similar. I’ve stated before that off-roaders often employ a practice that is closely related to argot (Coleman 2014, 31), to establish the basis of social relations in interactions. In the first clip it is evident that the unfortunate guy, who is about to lose a wheel leaving the car meet, has limited knowledge of vehicle maintenance. When he is handed a jack so he can remove the wheel he states “I don’t know how to use that, someone else has got to do it” which is met with laughter. Later, when he is long gone, this is referred back to by the group that is still at the car meet, and somebody states “they should make a law to make these cunts learn to change a tyre.” I argue that getting stuck, and vehicles breaking, is simply part of off-roading. I’ve found that this really is not a big deal, as long as one makes an effort to (safely) resolve the situation and learn from it. In the case of the car meet however, this effort is not made, and thus reacted to with hostility. Losing a wheel might have not been a big deal at all, was it not that it happened during the car meet. One bystander can be heard saying “I would kill myself if I came to a meet and … (lost a wheel)”.

This example stands in stark contrast to the incident that occurred when Shan and I were driving back from getting fuel, and we almost lost a wheel. When we got hold of the group at camp, via the radio, two cars immediately drove over to help Shan resolve the situation, and rather than make Shan tighten the wheel nuts on the vehicle, something that did occur during the incident at the car meet, the convoy made multiple stops to make sure the wheel was okay, but also to make sure Shan was doing okay. In Shan’s case, almost losing a wheel is attributed to what can essentially be summarized as ‘bad luck’, a ‘bad stud’ or the nuts simply ‘shaking lose’, while at the car meet, even though the situation is relatively similar, the blame is almost wholly attributed to the person losing almost losing the wheel being ‘incompetent’ in the eyes of his surroundings.

Social environments thus not only change the interactions between people, vehicles and surroundings within off-roading, but directly shape how people view the affordances related to off-roading. The social interaction and environment that is always present within off-roading, actively shapes the way in which interactions between people, environments, and infrastructure occurs. In doing so, social environments have significant agency over off-roading.