Introduction,
about 4x4 and offroading
What is offroading?
The term ‘off-roading’ has a few different meanings depending on the context. When talking about environmental issues, off-roading is often regarded as literally driving off the road, path or track, into complete and ‘untouched’ wilderness. This often raises concern for environmental issues and symbolizes the 4WD as a token of environmental disregard (Bishop 1996, 259). Yet, this is not necessarily the definition of off-roading many enthusiasts use. Enthusiasts (mostly) refer to the use of some form of road or track, when talking about off-roading. The exact moment where ‘normal’ driving turns into off-roading is a debatable topic. Bitumen (paved) roads are definitively not off-roading. While ‘low range high clearance only’ tracks are definitively for off-roading. Any road in between these two denominations might fit into either category, mostly depending on the interpretation of the user based on the state of the road, which is impacted by the weather, and capabilities that are afforded by the vehicle and its driver. For example, Hema maps, a company that make maps specifically for off-road use, distinguish between a track (which are rated easy, medium or hard) and unsealed roads. An unsealed road is simply defined by the fact that it is not a bitumen road, and can often easily be driven in two-wheel drive vehicles. As a rule of thumb, 4-wheel drive can be engaged on unsealed roads, to improve safety, while this is not advisable on bitumen roads, as the high grip creates added strain, which will certainly break parts of the vehicle. Tracks are often, but not always, distinguishable by the signs, which are placed by the local government, warning drivers that access is restricted to ‘high-clearance, 4-wheel-drive vehicles only’. Where unsealed roads often require 4-wheel drive to be driven safely, tracks often require 4-wheel drive to be driven at all.
​
Off-roading in any case involves vehicles with four-wheel-drive capability, and driving in places where a two-wheel drive vehicle would generally not be able to go. Bishop (1996, 257) argues that off-roading is closely connected to notions of experiencing the outback (Bishop, 1996, 257), though Bishop (ibid) does make a distinction between ‘4WD devotees’, who are mainly interested in vehicles, and ‘nature lovers’, who are mainly interested in nature or the outback. I’ve found that while indeed, the motivations of off-roaders on why they are interested in off-roading, can be roughly equated to either ‘nature lovers’ or ‘4WD devotees’, I would not argue for an ontological divide within the off-roading community on this basis. I’ve found that while there are large differences in environmental sympathy, as well as mechanical sympathy, between off-roaders, I’ve not met an off-roader who is only interested in one of these aspects.
​
​
​
The vehicle, people and places
In preparing this research, I identified three main concepts to engage during my research; ‘the vehicle’, ‘the people (off-road drivers)’, and ‘the places (people off-road in)’. Though when we talk about off-roading, none of these concepts can be understood separately from the others. A driver only exists in relation to a vehicle, and when talking about vehicles in an ‘off-road’ context, we invariably imply an ‘on-road’ context, and thus the concept of places and infrastructure. When engaging with these concepts through the lens of Haraway’s (1958, 59) ideas on the (lack of) ontological divide between people and technology, the question becomes to which extent these three concepts can be separated from each other, or in fact, how they are connected. During my fieldwork I found that there definitively is a component of individualistic agency within off-roading. Off-roaders generally end up in some of the remote places in the world because they choose to travel to these places, rather than by chance, or an external agent. Davidson (1982, 234) argues that it is experiencing “wilderness, the untamed pure quality, the magic and aloneness and freedom of this country” that draws off-roaders to these remote places. Yet, Bishop (1996, 260) argues that even though the four-wheel-drive is an individualistic symbol, as the driver decides when and where to travel, it is still bound to the public infrastructure of roads and petrol stations. And thus, there is an implicit connection between people, vehicles and places. Based on the concepts of actor network theory, affordance, and infrastructure, during this research, I engaged with the connection of people, vehicles, and places, that constitute the practice of off-roading. The main question this work engages with then is: “What is the relationship between people, their vehicles, and their surroundings?”
​
Social and Academic relevance
​
​
Today we are more connected than ever. Globalisation brought promises of unification (Tsing 2000, 339) through connectivity, and technology under the banner of modernisation (Tsing 2000, 335). Though we now accept that diversity will not disappear under global influences (Tsing 2000, 352), technology remains a key part of all corners of our society. Technology is everywhere, and our lives would not be the same without them.
Through the concepts of Actor-Network-Theory, Affordance, and Infrastructure, I engage with off-roading. The case of off-roaders, their vehicles, and the places they drive in, might give interesting insight in the broader, but often opaque relationship between people, technology, and their surroundings.
​
Community and 4x4 language
When I left for Australia, I had hypothesised that off-roaders would be largely individual entities, which were part of a more or less homogenous group, connected by a few online message boards. When I met Greg Milligan during the initial days of the research, it quickly became evident that that my hypothesis was wrong. Although I’ve found that off-road communities are indeed largely connected by online message boards, in this case the ‘Mad Rutters’ (now ‘Untamed 4x4 QLD’) Facebook group, there is a large social aspect to traveling to remote places. Firstly, I learned that off-roaders rarely travel alone. As per example on the right, off-roading alone is not advised, and joked about in the ‘Mad Rutters’ Facebook group.
​
There were frequent messages on this Facebook page, that asked people, who were effectively strangers, if they were interested in joining them for a drive. I’ve found this largely occurs because of safety aspects, a single off-roader can often not get itself unstuck, where multiple vehicles can more easily help each other. But the level of social interaction, between these people, often quickly surpasses this initial safety aspect. Sitting around a campfire together, after a day’s driving for example, cannot be attributed to safety on the tracks. Additionally, there are parking lot car-meets, designed to socialize and engage with each other and their vehicles; and people often engage each other to build, maintain or modify their vehicles, usually on vehicle specific pages. I've found that a large part of off-roading is done sitting in driveways, with greasy hands, muddying stubby coolers (containers that keep drinks cool), while having banter with friends.
​
This heightened interaction and interconnectivity does sometimes cause some issues within off-roading communities. Because people engage strangers to the end of safely driving together, or to discuss technical aspects of vehicles and maintenance, there is always the risk for off-roaders of engaging with people that have less than desirable levels of understanding. As Shan put it when referring to Facebook: “any man and his dog can give their opinion”, which is a crude way of saying that any information you get through engaging strangers online should be taken with a pinch of salt, because not everyone might be as knowledgeable as they make out to be. I argue that this, as well as effective communication, is the reason off-roading communities use jargon, or perhaps even argot (Coleman 2014, 31), to display a certain level of confidence when interacting with other off-roaders. Off-roading involves a lot of specific language, which, especially for outsiders, is difficult to engage with and understand. It is through the involvement with off-roading, that people learn this jargon. And thus, the jargon could be used, by off-roaders, as a way to gauge another’s knowledge on off-roading; And in doing so determine a level of social cohesion (ibid).
​
​
​
The reader, research
and my involvement
Even though I was somewhat technically inclined, at least to the point where I felt confident that I could engage with the technical aspects of off-roading, before the start of the research, there were many instances of jargon I encountered during it, that I did not understand. It is only after revisiting my research materials after collecting them, in editing the audio-visual material, and writing this piece, that through the newfound knowledge and understanding, I realised how much engagement I missed, or not fully understood, during the initial phases of my participative research. I argue that this is not problematic, but rather a necessary result of the constructive nature of social research. Not unlike another off-roader, my social involvement through participatory observation is what allowed me to learn more about off-roading and its jargon. Allowing me to better understand material that was gathered during earlier encounters, after the fact.
Mosse (2006, 936) argues that the academic knowledge production, like this text, should not be a large disconnect with the social and collaborative aspects of ethnographic research. It would thus not be desirable to present these earlier materials, as if there was an advanced level of understanding of the jargon in it, while it was gathered. Because this understanding was not present, at the time of gathering these materials. Especially because the lack of understanding formed the social interactions of the research. It is because of this I adopt MacDougall’s (1998, 79) notion that new knowledge is centred in the experience from which the knowledge was derived. This means engaging with a constructivist approach of knowledge production, that focusses more on the relational nature, in the form of the relationships and interaction, my interlocutors and I had in the field (MacDougall 1998, 79); rather than mediating an observational understanding of what off-roading is. This means that the audio-visual aspects of this thesis, as well as this written part, likely will contain jargon, of which the meaning will not be made explicitly clear to the viewer or reader. By making this choice, I at times, push the viewer/reader into an ‘outsider’ perspective, which is representative of the relational context of this research. During this research the meaning of all jargon was often not known to me, and not required for me to gain an understanding of the different aspects of off-roading. This piece thus aims to engage the reader/viewer with the practice of forming an understanding of off-roading, and thus with the relational aspect of off-roading, rather than a more observational understanding, to construct a form of knowledge reproduction that is more truthful to the social aspect of this ethnographic research, according to the principles of Mosse (2006) and MacDougall (1998).