Show why you agree or disagree with Allen and Massey's view that maps influence both the way we understand the world and the way we see ourselves in relation to other people

Word Count: 1428

Cartography seems a relatively simple conception, yet its societal effects are both profound and difficult to gauge. The strength of Allen and Massey's argument is that it draws attention to these effects, as well as underlining the significance of those who control map production and distribution. Their argument is that maps, far from being technical products created without bias, are by their very nature 'social products'; a map is "a particular interpretation of the places it describes”. The value of Allen and Massey’s view can be demonstrated by discussing the nature of subjectivity in geography.

If maps were totally objective representations of the world, then a discussion of their effects would be far less relevant. Maps are clearly very useful, and are essential to a wide variety of political, economic and military actions. Yet, if maps simply showed the world as it is, then their power to shape how we see ourselves or the world would be muted; the would be influential, but only in the sense that they would promote a balanced understanding of the world, insofar as one exists. The real importance of maps is that they are able to advance agendas, emphasise ways of seeing the world and foster ideas. 

All maps are products of human decisions. As Dorling and Fairbairn state, there are “considerable choices available to…prospective map-makers…[including] variations in extent of coverage, in content, in design and appearance, in emphasis of features on the map face, in the medium on which the map is present and in method of production”. The choices made regarding these factors are capable of considerably distorting our perceptions of the world. Such decisions could be taken with obvious intent. For example, a company seeking to extract oil from an area might choose not to represent settlements with populations of 10,000 people or less, so that, at a glance, the earmarked area appeared to be uninhabited. Such decisions need not be so blatant, deliberate or malicious. Communities may be excluded from a map simply because they have not yet been recorded. 

Maps are not simply created at random by individuals. Instead, certain people create them with specific purposes. Similarly, some maps seem to have authority and legitimacy, while others do not. Again, this is not a random process, but one that is determined by who holds power in a society. In essence, if a group of people are able to firstly create a map of a space, and secondly to persuade people of its accuracy, they will be able to exercise considerable control over that space. A historical example of this can be found in the era of colonialism. In the ‘scramble for Africa’, maps did not just reflect reality but also shaped it. At the Berlin conference of 1884, Africa was carved up among the major European powers in a largely arbitrary way. The Europeans’ attempts to turn these imaginary states in real ones are important examples of how maps help to shape the way the world is perceived. Herbst draws attention to the fact that these artificial boundaries "that often did not account for local political, sociological, economic factors" have largely been largely retained to the present-day. The choice to accept the boundaries as they were at the turn of independence could be interpreted as the basis for a nation’s sovereignty having less to do with the unity of its people, but more to do with the rigidity of its shape on a map. That is not to say, however, that redrawing the map of Africa along more realistic social and ethnic lines would have been a straightforward process, as nearly a century of colonialism had profoundly Africans’ sense of themselves, and they could only realise their independence within the paradigm of the colonial-state. Africans had found their sense of self affected by the mapping of the imperialist; for them, as Davidson comments, “it seemed impossible to reject any significant part of the [colonial] legacy”. It could well be as Allen and Massey argue, that the “process of building up particular ways of interpreting the world is an important aspect of the politics itself”

Allen and Massey use the phrase ‘geographical imaginations’ to refer to the plurality of views people hold of themselves and their environment, both immediate and distant. The use of the term ‘imaginations’ is significant, as it makes explicit the notion that no one person holds an objective view of the world, but instead a fusion of information drawn from any number of diverse and possibly disparate sources. Maps are one such source of information, and they therefore have the potential for considerable influence. However, before evaluating this influence, it is important to reflect on the nature of maps.

In common usage, defining a map presents no particular problems. Any sort of visual representation of spatial relations, either on paper or a computer screen, is widely held to constitute a map. However, this definition appears to exclude what Fairbairn et al call ‘mental maps’ from consideration. What they define as maps that people “create in their heads” are also significant in terms of shaping understandings of the world. Different types of mapping will influence perceptions in different ways, making the study of all forms of mapping, the written and the unwritten, relevant. 

A useful example of how usage of maps both reflect and shape reality can be found by comparing the written and unwritten. Bowen discusses her confusion in attempting to create a map of the village in which she is conducting anthropological research. At first she misunderstood the villagers when they a described certain homestead as being ‘near’ and another as ‘far’, despite them being a similar distance away. She later realised that the villagers were not referring to spatial distance, but to the closeness of kinship ties.

This example illustrates two points. Firstly, it shows how maps will not always concur, and will sometimes produce competing views of the world; a somewhat obvious point, but one that is often overlooked. Secondly, it shows how conventional written maps, like the one Bowen was attempting to draw, sometimes emphasis spatiality at the expense of more significant variables.

Castells understanding of the world, as proposed in ‘The Network Society’, is one in which a plurality of social groups are differentiated and linked by ‘languages’, class and culture. These bindings can be more significant than geographical location; an accountant working for a large multi-national bank in Nairobi, for example, might have considerably more powerful links with an employee in the same company working in Tokyo than the street traders yards away from his office – in this sense, his or her status as ‘an accountant’ or ‘an employee’, is more significant as his or her status as ‘a Kenyan’. This is just one of many examples of how social factors can cut across geographical ones. This does not necessarily contradict Allen and Massey’s argument that maps affect the way we see the world, and ourselves but it does show that they are not necessarily the most important factor.

If it is accepted that maps have played a role in shaping the present, then it perhaps important to consider how they will continue to do so in the future. It is often said that the world is becoming more complex and fragmented; the beginning, perhaps, of a post-modern era. It is difficult to say with any certainty how cartography will deal with this era, but Robert Kaplan offers one speculation. He argues that, in showing who control what space, "the map…[made] a jigsaw puzzle of neat pieces without transition zones between them”, but this no longer represents the more nuanced reality. In ‘collapsed states’, such as Somalia, the uniformity of the nation on the atlas is a mockery of the fractured groups that inhabit the space. As in the Congo, amongst other places, the government singularly fails to meet Max Weber’s definition of a state as being “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence within a give territory”. Kaplan suggests that a more realistic map [get that quote]

Maps are of huge importance in our society. Their practical utility is obvious. The virtue of Allen and Massey’s argument is that it allows us to see cartography as being significant in an even wider manner. Maps represent not reality, but ideas about reality, and it is these ideas that shape how people see themselves and how they see others. Through close study of the ways maps are produced and understood, we can begin to unravel the meanings and consequences of these ideas. 

Mapping Essay Bibliography

Allen J and Massey D 1995 Geographical Worlds. Oxford; Oxford University Press.

Castells, M 1996 The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwells, Cambridge.
Bowen, ES 1974 Return To Laughter. First Anchor Books Edition, New York: Anchor Books.

Davidson, B 1992 The Black Man's Burden - Africa and the Curse of the Nation-State Oxford; Harare, Nairobi, Uganda James Currey; Baobab Books, E.A.E.P, Fountain Publishers.

Dorling D & Fairbairn D, 1997 Mapping: Ways of Representing the World. Harlow; Longman

Herbst, J 2000 States and Power in Africa - Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control. Chichester, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Kaplan, RD 1992 The coming anarchy February Edition, Atlantic Monthly

Weber, M 1970 'Politics as a Vocation' in From Max Weber: essays in sociology, translated, edited and with an introduction by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills London: Routledge.