Map Cultures, Misuses, and GI - A Primer of GIS: Fundamental Geographic and Cartographic Concepts - page 229

Japan began expanding into Manchuria and Korea in the 20th century, the
name became the now commonplace “Sea of Japan.” For sometime now Kore-
ans have been seeking to have the name changed officially by the UN to ref lect
the historical uses, but although their claim has been acknowledged, its recog-
nition and adoption by the UN has been slow in coming.
In-Depth Crises of Representation: Crises for
Geographic Information and Maps?
A number of social philosophers have criticized the representational culture of
Western modernity since the late 19th century. Their impact has been substan-
tial and broad. For GI and cartography, their endeavors to understand the
activities of representation and construction of GI and maps have led to a
number of contributions, which have begun more and more to inf luence scien-
tific and professional cultures. In his recent topic, A History of Spaces , John
Pickles engages these issues by developing three crises of representation that I
interpret here in the context of broader crises of representation.
The first of these crises relates to the assumption of objectivism in GI and
maps. Many GI and map makers and users presume that their GI or maps
approximate the real world as a correspondence or true relationship between
symbols on a map or points, lines, and areas with a single “reality.” For them,
the making of GI and maps involves the straightforward collection, prepara-
tion, transmission, and reception of information. In other words, a good map
is one in which the information intended for communication by the maker cor-
responds to the information received by the map user. The map, in
objectivism, is then an accurate representation of the real world. Many people,
of course, have come to realize that the accuracy of GI or maps has as much to
do with what people are trained to see and measure. Out of the crisis of
objectivism, people recognize that GI and maps are as bound by conventions
and ideologies as they are by the science they deploy or follow.
The second of the crises relates to the assumption that what GI and maps
represent is natural. Clearly, a corollary of the first crisis, many people who
wish to believe that maps correspond to what can be found in nature have
ended up finding out that any such correspondence results from the role of
maps in first creating what is to be found—for example, wetlands or low-density
housing. The boundary between the scientific and the political roles of maps is
very fuzzy and for some any attempt to draw a boundary is inadequate. The
intentions of GI and map makers and users matter. For David Turnbull, this
crisis culminates in the recognition that maps precede territories, creating the
spaces they map and then claiming them to be natural.
The third crisis is that of subjectivism. The knowledge represented in a
map is always connected to forms of social interest. Biases in apparently “objec-
tive” GI and maps result. This crisis involves the recognition that we always
must consider the interests of GI and map users and makers when considering
the cultures and roles of GI and maps in any society.