Notes

#

I agree that maps have power. They are representations that grant different levels of recognition to different peoples and different places. They can be utilized or weaponized by different authorities in ways that cause unspeakable suffering. Most are already familiar with this, even if they are not cognizant of the fact, every war and genocide has its competing maps. Governments all around the world use maps to erase or diminish populations that they have oppressed. Maps decide who votes, where we can live, and who exists.

The last of these three is the most concerning. That maps have the power to give credence to one narrative of reality, in essence decide reality. This is often the narrative held by an authority and not the disenfranchised people most affected by it. These are two separate issues. One, that maps decide what is objectively true, and, secondly, that maps are drawn by the powerful. Which is the inherent problem? I don’t think you can choose either exclusively. If the problem isn’t maps but only who draws them, then why is a bad faith cartographer so freely able to manipulate a map to distort reality in a way that causes harm? Without launching into a debate about the relationship between science, truth, and justice we have to grapple with serious questions about the objectivity of map-making raised by the readings based on the real life consequences of “objective maps”.

I believe that this question of ethics lies in expertise. In my experience, this has been best elucidated in court hearings on gerrymandered maps. Harley explains, Similarly, the primary effect of the scientific rules was to create a 'standard'—a successful version of 'normal science'—that enabled cartographers to build a wall around their citadel of the 'true' map”. Litigators have defended maps that reduce the electoral representation of protected classes because these maps follow the rules of cartography. Maps reduce their object to data. Cartographers have a wide authority to interpret this data whether it be the location of minerals or people. Rather than conceptualizing these interpretations as products of their authors with differing levels of validity (the common definition of an interpretation). The rules of cartography have been used to claim that maps are the product of a process, which by its nature must be unbiased and entirely valid (if entirely adhered to). Much like evolutionary biologist building phylogenetic trees to represent taxonomies the quantitative genetic data is mixed with qualitative expert opinion to produce knowledge. The experts in this case, the mapmaker, has the authority to use their qualitative expert opinion to reach certain conclusions. Perhaps purposefully manipulating the data or adhering to the standard biases of the discipline. Which is why the ethics of cartography should be debated by experts who have different interpretations because positivism just leads to people defending their preferred map after the fact using criteria that was not the sole basis for its creation.