In this interview, I, Mohammad Nazarpoor, spoke with our Cycling Professor, Marco te Brömmelstroet, about the power of language, narrative, and imagination to rethink, challenge, and reshape mobility.. Here, you can read a summary of his main arguments and insights.
How do you look at the “mobility turn” in the humanities and social sciences? and the “humanities turn” in mobility? What contributions do they have to each other?
My general take on the origin of the mobility turn in the humanities is that we are increasingly aware of the importance of our mobile selves. For a long time, we have sought to understand human behavior and its effects. Early views considered travel simply as a line between two points—a movement devoid of meaning. Today, however, we recognize that mobility is not an empty vessel going from A to B but a meaningful experience for both the self and our social interrelations. This deeper appreciation is yielding interesting insights.
How do you evaluate the current transport system? When viewed from the perspective of social and humanities, what are the challenges and potentials?
For five or six decades, mobility has largely been treated as an engineering problem—a system to be optimized. In doing so, we have reduced human behavior to the model of the utility-maximizing consumer. In that framework, people are seen not as meaningful individuals but as isolated, efficiency-seeking agents. This oversimplification diverts our attention away from understanding what people do, why they do it, and how they do it. It is, I believe, this misunderstanding that underlies many of the current challenges faced by cities and countries in the field of mobility.
Real and constructive solutions require us to unpack the narrative stories, worldviews, and underlying assumptions of our mobility systems. Systems—and in particular mobility systems—are not natural givens; they are created through assumptions and narratives. Although these narratives have guided our approach for decades, they also limit us because we never step outside the established discussion. Humanities research is crucial in challenging and changing these underlying narratives. While such challenges are not sufficient on their own for systemic change, they are a necessary condition.
Why does language matter? What is the power of narratives to challenge urban mobility?
Language is at the heart of this issue because it simplifies reality. When we look to the past, when we try to understand the present, but also when we are thinking about our urban mobility futures, we should therefore turn our attention to the language with which we think, not only as something we use but also as something we can ourselves create, together. Take the photo below as an example:
Most people would describe this as a deer crossing the road. But another way to describe it is that we are looking at a road crossing the forest. With each of these statements you are using language to simplify reality. And each of these simplifications is as valid as the other. But the choice we make between them guides our attention in thinking about this. It guides what kind of problems we might see. And it guides which solution directions we will consider.
Replacing one flawed system with another based on a simplistic understanding (for instance, swapping a car-based system for a bike-based one) risks repeating the same mistakes. Instead, we must interrogate the narratives themselves: What defines the future mobility system? What are the core problems, and on which points do we agree or disagree?
This challenge is particularly acute in a field dominated by engineering logic. Engineers excel at optimizing a given goal, once that goal is defined. However, they rarely question who defined the goal or what it means in broader social terms. The humanities reintroduce politics into the discussion, fostering dialogue about who should determine the objectives of our mobility systems. In the Netherlands, for example, conversations in the 1960s and 1970s led to cycling becoming a mainstream subject of traffic design. Yet, over time, the political debate has diminished as the system’s defined parameters became optimized rather than questioned.
A further point of reflection lies in the metaphors and language used to define mobility. The terminology employed—often inherited from early 20th-century engineering and biological analogies—has solidified norms and design guidelines. The famous 1939 New York Futurama exhibition, which promoted a future centered on car dependency, is a clear illustration of how narratives can shape societal choices. Those same narratives now underpin our understanding of urban mobility.
Can bicycles serve as a lens for critical understanding and a transformative tool for changing the urban system? Can the bicycle replace the “issue of human experience” with the “issue of machine efficiency” and highlight the potential values for our society?
An essential insight is that we must never conflate the means with the end. Cycling, for example, should not be seen merely as a technical solution to congestion. Rather, the bicycle has the potential to challenge dominant narratives and inspire radically different visions of urban spaces. Its design is almost magical—its diamond frame symbolizes efficiency and aesthetic minimalism. Yet, as cycling becomes more integrated into established traffic engineering approaches, that transformative potential runs the risk of being lost.
Even as practical measures such as separated bike paths are essential, activists and academics should insist on preserving the bicycle’s ability to reimagine urban living. Both a technical and a political conversation must occur—one that expands the debate beyond purely economic or congestion-related metrics. For example, political platforms should address broader issues such as children’s right to safely explore their city autonomously. In doing so, we challenge the traditional, technocratic discourse and allow for multiple, competitive narratives to emerge.
Addressing mobility challenges requires a combination of technical expertise and a deep re-evaluation of the narratives, language, and politics underlying our daily movement. We must remain alert to the fact that our current systems are the product of historical choices—choices that can and should be rethought. By engaging diverse stakeholders, including artists, educators, and political leaders, we can create space for alternative ideas and open debates on the future of mobility.
For more reading, take a look at the article: Identifying, nurturing and empowering alternative mobility narratives
