Maps as a Form of Communication - Essay Example

 “The whole practice and philosophy of geography depends on the development of a conceptual framework for handling the distribution of objects and events in space” Harvey. D (1969) Explanation in Geography. London: Edward Arnold From the very beginning of the study of geography, mapping and the understanding and usage of maps have been a fascination for geographers and geographical philosophers alike. Maps have enabled the world to be classified into the spaces in which people live, work and play. They have separated human populations across territorial and cultural boundaries; brought about the creation of descriptive lines and symbols marking the world over; and resulted in increasing possibilities for the exploration of the planet and human society across it. The paper aims to explore and evaluate how mapping and the understanding of maps as a tool for communication has been researched. Looking at a number of works by cartographers and geographical researchers, the intention is to produce a descriptive and critical dialogue of the theoretical perspective from which communication within maps has been explored; the methods that the researchers have undertaken; and what knowledge we know have about the way in which maps communicate to us. Philosophical understanding with regard to the study of mapping is vital as maps have two distinct trademark features “offering a framework for knowledge, and a set of assertions about the world itself.” (Kitchin et al 2009) This means that thinking about mapping must therefore provide a distinction between the process of mapping as an exercise, and the type of claims that knowledge asserted within maps is able to make. Cartography aims to be a scientific process, and it is of course deeply rooted in the study of landforms and other surveying practices. The map should represent the world through ‘visual inventorying’, forming an accurate representation of the land itself and the spatial relationships around it (Tufte 1983, Kitchin et al 2009). The map is an effective tool for communication only if it displays a scaled abstraction of the land to a known and standardised degree of precision (Kitchin et al 2009). The beginnings of research into map communication and a more user directed interpretation started to develop in the 1950’s. Up until this point the demands for the map to reflect ‘true’ to life representation had certainly been an objective of cartographers, but as the demands from various consumers of maps such as the military and property owners grew, the need was seen for a move away from the art of cartography (Kitchin et al 2009). Arthur Robinson, designer of the Robison world map projection, wanted to form a science of cartography, whereby design principles would be based on what was easiest for the map user to interpret (Robinson and Petchenik 1976). This approach was a distinct move away from the notion of the cartographer producing a map from within a social context. Through scientific methodology and approach the map making process would be separate from the user and different maps could be produced to reflect the demands of the user. Research based on Robinson’s work began to look at the user response to maps, and increasingly how cartographers could best communicate data to the user through location and distance representation, and accurate symbolisation (Pickles 2004). As technology and the internet developed in the latter part of the 20th Century the idea of mapping the world through one single authoritative view became more difficult (Kitchin et al 2009). The sheer volume of data available to both cartographers and map users, and the ease of access to it meant that the two became inextricably linked. This shift also coincided with the move away from the printed map towards the on-screen and also interactive map. However it is the result of this level of quality and exactness that the map reader may believe exists that creates room for the map maker to interpret space in their own manner (Broek 1965). As those cartographers who believe in the interpretive nature of the mapping process would argue, the persuasiveness of a precise design and craftsmanship means that the cartographer is unable to express the limits of their creation and so the reader becomes used so seeing the map “as a precise portrayal of reality.” (Broek 1965). Therefore the map becomes defined, not by how it communicates to the user, but by how the map maker sends their message of data interpretation. The subjective nature of maps has been both criticised and applauded. In an essay written in 1942, John Kirtland Wright maintains that it is the subject that plays the most important role in the construction and reading of maps. In a similar fashion to Broek he states that the scientific validity in a map stems from its appearance, and as such the user can be lead to believe that the depiction and arrangement of things on a map reflect the earth’s surface. He goes on to say that “no map… can be wholly objective.” (Wright 1966: 33) With regard to communication we must therefore explore the possibility that maps, and the cartographers who produce them do not always In 1989 John Harley argued that “maps are a cultural text.” (Harley 1989: 7) and that having acknowledged this, cartographers should not focus on the “formal science of communication.” moreover “the history and anthropology of the image,” (Harley 1989: 7). This, he argues should lead to a recognition of the lack of neutrality of maps and the acceptance that they are a social constructions, imbibed with the cultural values of the cartographer. Further to this point Harley states that there is an element of social inequality engrained in maps that cannot be overlooked. Maps were first commissioned and produced in large scale for and by the wealthy; landowners, and those with military power. As such, castles, churches and other properties owned by the aristocracy are traditionally represented with distorted geometry in comparison to minor land holdings. These distinctions of power are engineered into the map to assert the idea that a nobleman’s land is more worthy than a farmer’s, the distinctions of power are legitimised in the map through cartographic artistic license (Harley 1989). For John K. Wright, “maps are indispensable instruments of war” like any other war equipments (1942, p. 527). Certainly, maps contribute to the conduct of the war. However, it is also important to note that wars are also about redrawing maps. It means there is a dialectical relationship between maps and geography as both help to redraw each other. Here, the issue is not simply of subjectivity in the maps as argued by Wright. He asserted that “every map is thus a refection partly of objective realities and partly of subjective elements” ibid). Maps actively reproduce social reality in general and geographical reality in particular. Therefore, one has to see cartography as an epistemological tool that actively engages with human beings and the objects in the social world. Another important problem with the Wright’s idea of the subjective element in the map is based on a modernist binary between the objective and the subjective. Subjective is not just the intrusion of the “human shortcomings” into the supposedly scientific, objective activity of making maps. Here, the missing point is that the very idea of making maps itself is a product of human subjectivity. In spite of the scientificity of a map, it remains that maps are just reflections of human beings subjective perception of geographical reality of different parts of the planet. Here, geographical reality is not simply reflected through the maps; rather it is actively recreated through maps. Therefore, maps are not photographic representations of the objective reality. Also, it is important to note that distance from the nature also matters. According to Pickles, “with increasing distance from nature, greater levels of subjective judgement are introduced and these in turn require consideration of the mental and moral qualities of the cartographer and map user” (p.37). However, once cannot be sure about producing scientific maps by being close to the nature because many boundaries in the nature itself are drawn by humans. Nature itself has become human environment, one cannot forget. Conclusions Mapping is used for understanding both territory and people. The paper argued that maps are communicative mechanisms wherein we could portray the distinctiveness of territories and populations. Importantly, maps are also discursive formations as they not only construct discourses but also knowledge on geography. According to the science of cartography, maps are pure abstractions of the territorial realities. However, maps are not devoid of the influences of dominant discourses of power and knowledge as they consist of social contexts, location-specificities and symbolisations. However, one has to understand that maps are not reservoirs of passive knowledge. Reading the maps involve reproduction of knowledge, especially when it is interactive. Virtual, on-screen maps have become interactive in an unprecedented manner. Simply speaking, it means that interpretation of the map is a subjective process. It leads to the argument that maps are cultural texts with multiple meanings and contexts. Cultural values do have a (hidden) place in the maps which are the product of the (un)conscious cultural sensitivities of the cartographer. Maps also reproduce the existing social inequalities. What are often highlighted in the maps are symbols of ruling class power, not the territories of the poor and the excluded. Besides, maps are predominantly produced for the dominant sections of the ruling class. There is no objective-subjective dichotomy in the maps. Map making itself is to reflect the subjective perception of the geographical reality. References Pickles, J.(2004) A History of Spaces: Cartographic Reason, Mapping, and the Geo-coded World, London: Routledge. Robinson. A, Morrison. J.L, Muehrke. P.C, Kimerling. A.J, Guptil. S.C (1995) Elements of Cartography. Chichester: Wiley.   Wright, J. K. (1942). Map Makers are Human: Comments on the Subjective in the Maps, The Geographical Review, Vol. XXXII, No. 4, pp. 527-544. Read More