O f all western countries, the Netherlands has the highest level of bicycle use. According to many parameters-bicycle ownership, bicycle facilities, distance travelled by bicycle per capita, percentage of bicycle trips within the modal share-the Netherlands takes fi rst place among the European cycling nations, followed at some distance by Denmark and Germany. 1 Although the reputation of the Netherlands as a cycling country dates back to the interwar period, only after the Second World War did the Dutch deviation from the general European pattern of bicycle use become more marked: fi rst, use of the bicycle in the Netherlands declined less and then, after 1970, it increased more clearly than elsewhere. 2 Now in the Netherlands, cycling for transport is common and self-evident, but at the same time it is more than just that: it is a national phenomenon, presented as such at many instances of national self-awareness. As German historian Anne-Katrin Ebert has argued, this manifest link between cycling and Dutch national identity can be attributed, at least in part, to the successful interventions of the infl uential Dutch national cyclists' and tourists' club Algemene Nederlandse Wielrijders Bond (ANWB) in the fi rst half of the twentieth century. 3 Remarkably, however, the history of cycling has not received much attention from the Dutch-whether professional historians or the general public. Cycling seems to them a quasi-natural phenomenon: ever present and without a history. Many examples of the absence of the bicycle from the Dutch historical conscience can be given. Neither the nationalist turn in Dutch public opinion during the last decade nor the (related) trend towards 'canonising' past events through the publication of a still growing number of 'historical canons'-fi rst and foremost the Canon of the Netherlands (2006), followed by an proliferation of historical canons for all possible locations, regions and themes, including a 'Canon of Mobility' (2008) and a 'Canon of Spatial Planning' (2010)-have led to increased attention for the bicycle (or, alternatively, the bikeway) as the 'canonical' Dutch object that it appears to foreign visitors. 4 The Dutch foundation for the preservation of 'mobile heritage' receives support from academics and the EUROPEAN CYCLING

This article demonstrates that Hugo Münsterberg's presidential address "Psychology and History," delivered to the American Psychological Association in 1898, should be understood in the German context of the 1890s. It constituted a response to a central feature of fin-de-siècle culture in Europe, the revolt against positivism. To be more precise, Münsterberg reacted against a new intellectual trend that was arising in Germany in the middle 1890s: the call for a historically oriented social psychology put forward by Wilhelm Dilthey-who was explicitly attacking Münsterberg's physiological conception of psychology-and new cultural historians like Karl Lamprecht and others who seemed to be putting Dilthey's program into practice.

This article reconstructs the historical transformation of mobility in the city of Maastricht in the period 1950–1980, from cycling as the most popular mode of traveling in the 1950s to car driving by the end of the 1970s. Based on an analysis of written sources and oral history interviews with Maastricht travelers and other practitioners who experienced this shift themselves, this article sheds light on this historical transformation, its key actors, and its main drivers. Combining insights from studies of social practice-based perspectives on mobility, historical sociotechnical transitions, and the model of urban obduracy, this study seeks to contribute to understanding why and how cities may transform toward being unsustainable places. Furthermore, it aims to show how social practice approaches can give more context-sensitive insights into processes of transformation and transition compared to established MLP-based transition approaches, by giving more attention to local meanings.

No abstract

No abstract