social and political contexts of maps and the map makers
key scholars
JB Harley, Deconstructing the map (1989)
Denis Wood, The power of maps (1992)
Jeremy Black, Maps and politics (1997)
Jeremy Crampton, Maps as social constructions: power,
communication and
visualization (2001)
Paul Laxton, New nature of maps (2001)
Brian Harley:
rather than accepting what cartographers tell us maps
aresupposed to be, the thrust of my deconstruction is
to subvertthe apparent naturalness and innocence of
the world shown inmaps both past and present
break the assumed link between reality and
representation
the power of maps
maps are not simply about communicating geographic
information
or representing the landscape
maps express power; maps create power
maps are not neutral or objective
maps are systems of power-knowledge
maps are subjective, selective distortions
maps serve the interests of those that make them
maps can be `read' as texts, concerned for the 2nd
text, the marginal, the unsaid
we should worry less about map design, accuracy
standards,theories of information transfer, etc, etc
(that's a smoke screen)
examine more the social implications
what are the ethics of the maps, the map-maker and
theirmapping practices
subjectivity is not wrong.
passing off the map as objective and neutral
denying the subjectivity
nave belief that the map is just a mirror of reality
this is enhanced with the `scientific' sophistication
and hidingbehind layers gee whiz tech
maps are then used and applied on the assumption
that theyare objective
Power: What are the economic structures in which the
map is situated?
Consumption: How is the map presented,
disseminated, andused? How does the map work as
part of wider spacediscourses and how is it received
by society?
Interests: What interests are served by making this
map? Whowins and who looses? Where does power lie
in the production ofthis map?
Closure: What maps were not made? How does this
mapforeclose other representations and
opportunities? What othermappings have been
undertaken or alternative mappings could
be imagined?
Authorship: What is the authorship of the map? Who is
doingthe showing and what are their explicit and
implicit intentions?
What is the relationship between the map and its
author?
Objectives: Why was the map made? Are the
objectives of themap stated explicitly? What are
some possible secondary,implicit objectives?
Contexts: What are the institutional contexts of the
map? Whopays for the map to be made? What
necessary practices andtechnical infrastructure was
required to make the map? Whatare some of the
major social and cultural inspirations and
influences on the map?
Subject: What is the subject of the map? What is
shown andwhat is not shown?
Rhetoric: How is power encoded and expressed in both
thecontent and graphical form of the map? What
conventionsunderlie the graphical symbols employed
on the map?
Accuracy: How `accurate' is the map? What are its
standards ofaccuracy? Is it a workable map?
Space: What is the scale of the map? What conception
of spaceis the map based upon? What is the maps
worldview?
Ethics: Is it an ethical map? What are the wider social,
politicaland economic implications on the space being
mapped? Howmight the map change nature and
perceptions of the space thatit maps?
too polemical
too many generalisation
not all mapping is hegemonic. there is space for
alternativemapping
seeking to re-envision cartography fitting their
subjective views ofthe world
end up in a position where `everything count'
knocking down and not building up