Ryn Van Leeuwen

The research questions that drove this ethnographic project were varied and numerous. I began with an interest in the Women, Trans and Nonbinary hours at Bikechain (a DIY bike repair teaching space on the edge of campus) yet soon realized that gender was not as important as I had expected. I then moved through theories of capitalist productivity, accessibility, and community. However, these frameworks did not tackle the question in the back of my mind: What makes this site special? I eventually came to understand that Bikechain existed in a space of tension between the institution of the university and the unstructuredness (or ‘messiness’) of punk, DIY subculture. It was not quite punk and not quite academic, but it was certainly messy, and this messiness was not just present but valued.

Because of the convoluted process of my research, I had difficulty finding literature that was relevant to my emerging themes. Literature on bike repair co-ops often dealt with their struggle for continued existence, involvement in the circular economy, or conviviality. Bikechain was not struggling enough and not tight-knit enough to add to those conversations. Prof. Mittermaier reminded me of the concept of bricolage, and I found it useful as a conceptual framework for both the process of DIY repair (using what is at hand, including donated parts and

student volunteers) as well as the way that Bikechain structures its space, community, and purpose. I came across Jules Zhao Liu’s paper on bricolage and improvised culture: “bricoleurs use whatever is at hand to make do with a problem instead of designing a specific means to solve the problem” (2024, emphasis added). The words ‘instead of’ immediately struck me as implying choice and agency. If a person does not have adequate resources, they cannot choose to make do ‘instead of’ solving the problem; they simply cannot solve the problem, so they must make do. What if there exist tools to make a process more efficient or bring a community closer, but one chooses not to utilize these tools because the ‘materials’ at hand are people whom one claims a responsibility to? I argue that Bikechain has made an active choice to engage in bricolage—‘making do’ with a messy space, transient community, and a repair process that takes its time.

A zine was the obvious choice to display my research. Beyond being fun to create and itself a form of DIY, a zine is more accessible to my interlocutors and their community. I am thus also engaging in purposeful bricolage in choosing to forego an academic paper, which would provide more space to explain my findings in-depth. Instead, I have created something perhaps less theoretical but, in my opinion, better overall. I hope that my takeaways can guide Bikechain and its members to reflect on their own choices towards and away from messiness. Perhaps some interested readers will carry forward the concept of bricolage, but I would be just as happy if they enjoy the art.

Liu, Jules Zhao. 2024. “Improvisation, Collective Structure, and Culture Change: A Theory of Bricolage.” Anthropological Theory 24(4):436–57. doi:10.1177/14634996231218568.