Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
However, it is now widely acknowledged that maps cannot be understood
independently of their context of use, the world view, cognitive schema or the culture
of the map-maker (Turnbull, 1989). The second set of rules of mapping, according to
Harley (1989), therefore relates to the cultural production of the map. These rules are
related to values, such as those of ethnicity, politics, religion or social class, and they
are also embedded in the map-producing society at large. This aspect of the possi-
bilities of map knowledge, however, is never openly discussed in cartographic dis-
course. Harley (1989) gives two examples to show how manifest these rules are in
maps. The first is the well known adherence to the 'rule of ethnocentricity', which has
led many historical societies to place their own territories at the centre of their world
maps. Map projections introduced during the scientific Renaissance in Europe, such
as Mercator's projection, with its Greenwich meridian, helped to confirm a new myth
of Europe's ideological centrality, and in addition to this through its distortion of the
geography of northern latitudes makes Europe appear much larger than it really is.
The ideological fixation on 'north at the top maps', and the ridicule which greets 'the
Australian's view of the world' are other well known examples of these socially con-
structed rules in map-making (Turnbull, 1989). Harley's second example relates to
the 'rules of social order', and how these appear to insert themselves into the smaller
codes and spaces of cartographic transcription. The history of European cartography
since the seventeenth century provides many examples of a hierarchicalisation of
space, with for instance the symbols for a castle implying that it is more important
than a peasant's house. However, this is not necessarily a conscious act of carto-
graphic representation, but rather implying an unspoken rule of 'the more powerful,
the more prominent' (Harley, 1989: 7), with the distinctions of class and power being
legitimised through cartographic signs. The rules of society and the rules of measure-
ment are mutually reinforcing the same image, thus making those maps very convinc-
ing in this respect. According to Harley (1989), this illustrates that much of the power
of the map as a representation of social geography operates behind a mask of a
seemingly neutral science.
Besides the discussion of their 'intertextuality', the social constructivist under-
standing of maps also highlights that they function as forms of power and know-
ledge. Maps, diagrams, texts ('discourses' in general) embody power in a variety of
ways. Discourses set the agenda of what kinds of question can be asked, what
kinds of answer are 'possible', and equally what kinds of question and answer are
'impossible' within that particular discourse. However, to understand how power
works through cartographic discourse and the effects of that power in society is a
complicated process. Harley (1989), drawing on Foucault's ideas about power-
knowledge, proposes a distinction between external and internal power in cartog-
raphy. By external power Harley means power that non-cartographers have over
cartographers (Andrews, 1994): power exerted
on
cartography and exercised
with
