critical analysis of cyberspace mapping

1
critical analysis of cyberspace mapping
martin dodge, casa seminar, 3rd July 2002
the map is a help provided to the imagination
through the eyes. Henri Abraham Chatelain, Atlas
Historique (1705)
2
what have I been doing for the last few years??
Oct. 2001
Phd
cybergeography
Thesis
1996
Sept. 2000
2002?
aims - coherent, valuable and academically
credible analysis
3
understanding cyberspace?

• there are many ways to describe and understand
  cyberspace
• economics, legal, mathematics, art, sociology,
  etc..
• Im a geographer, so I believe maps enjoy a
  privileged position
• maps have been powerful visual tools for
  understanding the world for 1000s of years
• maps have been key in framing our understanding
  places, their size, shape and the relations
  between them
• maps have been vital for navigation
• maps vital in war, commerce and government

4
defining cyberspace mapping?

• cyberspace
• the conceptual spaces of information and
  communications flows within the digital
  infrastructure of computing hardware, software
  code and high-speed telecommunications networks
• it is not the technology or infrastructure
  itself, but the virtual spaces that this enables
• map and mapping
• maps are graphic representations that facilitate
  a spatial understanding of things, concepts,
  conditions, processes, or events in the human
  world
• (Harley and Woodward, History of Cartography,
  Volume 1, 1987)

5
defining cyberspace mapping?

• cyberspace mapping concerned with maps that show
  some aspect of ICT infrastructure or conceptual
  digital information spaces
• maps of cyberspace, not maps in cyberspace
• my framing of the domain of cyberspace mapping is
  obviously somewhat artificial
• cyberspace mapping being done by lots of
  different people, groups and organisations. not
  conventional cartography or GI industry

6
but can we really map cyberspace?

• a common question, based on 2 misconceptions
• maps have to be geographical
• cyberspace is non-spatial and separate from
  geography
• challenge the death of distance notions
• mapping is much wider than the OS, Times Atlas
  and A-Z street maps
• why is it hard to do?
• cyberspace is new, its rapidly evolving, its
  fluid and its diverse. a lot of it is
  (increasingly) private space
• breaks Euclidean conventions
• we have very few good examples!
• but its still early days

7
what are cyberspace maps like?

• difficult to generalise.
• many graphical forms and many aspects of
  cyberspace to map
• modes of interaction
• lots of scope for innovation
• there is no one true map of cyberspace
• I dont attempt a full catalogue here - see the
  Atlas of Cyberspace website and book!

8
why map cyberspace?

• why are these maps interesting and significant?
• maps of cyberspace are important because they can
  tell us things about cyberspace
• and cyberspace is becoming increasingly important
  in our lives
• the human desire to explore the unknown
• cyberspace is one of the most significant terra
  incognita of the 21st century
• revealing what is hidden. making the invisible
  visible. enhancing our understanding
• maps as a census of cyberspace. feeding into
  government policy and business decisions

9
why map cyberspace?

• maps shape our perception and knowledge of
  cyberspace. maps frame space
• maps also tell us things about the people who
  made them, and how they view cyberspace
• power, money and control
• property maps of cyberspace
• what you can see, you can control and exploit
• cartography redux
• increasingly our lives involve visual, CMC,
  screen-based interaction. who controls the
  geography of the screen?

10
why map cyberspace?

• people are making the maps regardless, so need to
  get in there and analyse them
• the maps are being used to make important
  decisions, regardless of their efficacy or ethics
  
• these are early maps, but like a lot of
  technology, the first map can set the boundaries
  of the possible going forward
• got to get your critique in early before it all
  become set

11
defining critical analysis?

• critical and not criticism
• not a value judgement critique (I like that
  map!)
• not a technical evaluation and usability test
• critical geography
• critical cartography
• a kind of deconstruction
• destabilise the objective truth claims of a text
• I dont like the jargon and the baggage though
• linking into Ground Truth. but I am critiquing
  the maps and not whole systems

12
my theoretical position

• critical theory as a combination of
• social constructivism
• political economy
• I think they provide good theoretical tools for
  understanding cyberspace
• maps and cyberspace are socially constructed
• maps and cyberspace produced within power
  structures of capitalism
• (e.g. why dont we all have broadband?)
• applied through ideas of critical cartography

13
theory of critical cartography

• development of critical cartography in the last
  15 years or so
• the 2nd text of maps
• social and political contexts of maps and the map
  makers
• key scholars
• JB Harley, Deconstructing the map (1989)
• Denis Wood, The power of maps (1992)
• Jeremy Black, Maps and politics (1997)
• Jeremy Crampton, Maps as social constructions
  power, communication and visualization (2001)
• Paul Laxton, New nature of maps (2001)

14
critical cartographer

• Brian Harley
• rather than accepting what cartographers tell us
  maps are supposed to be, the thrust of my
  deconstruction is to subvert the apparent
  naturalness and innocence of the world shown in
  maps both past and present
• break the assumed link between reality and
  representation

15
critical cartographythe new nature of the map

• the power of maps
• maps are not simply about communicating
  geographic information or representing the
  landscape
• maps express power maps create power
• maps are not neutral or objective
• maps are systems of power-knowledge
• maps are subjective, selective distortions
• maps serve the interests of those that make them

16
critical cartographythe new nature of the map

• maps can be read as texts, concerned for the
  2nd text, the marginal, the unsaid
• we should worry less about map design, accuracy
  standards, theories of information transfer, etc,
  etc (thats a smoke screen)
• examine more the social implications
• what are the ethics of the maps, the map-maker
  and their mapping practices
• is it ethical to record and map someones web
  surfing and email interactions?

17
two key ideas

• maps are subjective
• maps are frames

18
maps are subjective

• we all know the huge number of subjective
  decisions we take when making maps
• just think of the last time you did some analysis
  (manipulation) and mapping in ArcView. trace out
  the number of subjective, and often arbitrary,
  decisions you make
• (why 4 classes instead of 8?)
• plus all the arbitrary defaults set by ESRI
  programmers
• these all effect the end result. what comes out
  of ArcView is your social construction

19

• this is the same for even the most fancy 3d
  immersive cyberspace map
• this applies to all visualisations

20
maps are subjective

• subjectivity is inherent
• subjectivity is not wrong. you are not a bad
  person for making subjective maps. not a personal
  criticism
• the problem is
• passing off the map as objective and neutral
• denying the subjectivity
• naïve belief that the map is just a mirror of
  reality
• this is enhanced with the scientific
  sophistication and hiding behind layers gee whiz
  tech
• maps are then used and applied on the assumption
  that they are objective

21
distortion and deceptionhow to lie with maps

• most obvious being through
• data selection/omission
• projections
• how are maps of cyberspace
• deceiving?
• Clearly there are many ways
• to project cyberspace onto a map

22
maps as frames of space
23
interfaces as frames of virtual space
24
virtual maps make virtual space

• the map affects what we see and what we can do
• we never know virtual space for real
• the interface is the space
• map and the territory are one
• those who make the interface, make the space
• and of course the map they make is subjective and
  serves their interests
• its easy to take the interface for granted,
  assuming it is natural and a given. do not
  recognise its artificiality

25
global political economy
- power - interests - consumption - closure


local social constructivist
- authorship - objectives - contexts
the map
- subject - rhetoric - accuracy - ethics - space

methodology for critique
26

• global
• Power What are the economic structures in which
  the map is situated?
• Consumption How is the map presented,
  disseminated, and used? How does the map work as
  part of wider cyberspace discourses and how is it
  received by society?
• Interests What interests are served by making
  this map? Who wins and who looses? Where does
  power lie in the production of this map?
• Closure What maps were not made? How does this
  map foreclose other representations and
  opportunities? What other mappings have been
  undertaken or alternative mappings could be
  imagined?

27

• local
• Authorship What is the authorship of the map?
  Who is doing the showing and what are their
  explicit and implicit intentions? What is the
  relationship between the map and its author?
• Objectives Why was the map made? Are the
  objectives of the map stated explicitly? What are
  some possible secondary, implicit objectives?
• Contexts What are the institutional contexts of
  the map? Who pays for the map to be made? What
  necessary practices and technical infrastructure
  was required to make the map? What are some of
  the major social and cultural inspirations and
  influences on the map?

28

• the map
• Subject What is the subject of the map? What is
  shown and what is not shown?
• Rhetoric How is power encoded and expressed in
  both the content and graphical form of the map?
  What conventions underlie the graphical symbols
  employed on the map?
• Accuracy How accurate is the map? What are its
  standards of accuracy? Is it a workable map?
• Space What is the scale of the map? What
  conception of space is the map based upon? What
  is the maps worldview?
• Ethics Is it an ethical map? What are the wider
  social, political and economic implications on
  the space being mapped? How might the map change
  nature and perceptions of the space that it maps?

29
My critique methodology???

• I have struggled on this bit
• easy to say, harder to do
• welcome your thoughts and suggestions
• need to limit the questions and lines of enquiry
• need a structure to avoid rambling discussions
  where everything matters
• not sure how well the questions follow the theory
  (esp. for political economy)
• I will see what results come out
• application of critique methodology to 12 case
  studies

30
next step - which maps to critique?

• Cant critique them all. (In current Atlas there
  are 256 different cyberspace mapping projects)
• divide cyberspace mapping into 3 scales
  infrastructure, information, social
• 4 case studies at each scale
• the case studies were selected before the
  critique methodology was drawn up
• but clearly self-selected and not unbiased
• chose case studies where I could say interesting
  things!
• easier for geographic maps? can apply to all?

31
Social spaces
Information spaces
Infrastructure
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
structure of the thesis

• Introduction
• 1. Mapping historical context and critical
  theory
• 2. Cyberspace historical context and critical
  theory
• 3. Developing a critical theory of cyberspace
  mapping
• 4. Critical analysis of Internet infrastructure
  mapping
• 5. Critical analysis of information
  spatializations
• 6. Critical analysis of mapping online social
  spaces
• 7. Reflecting on the Atlas of Cyberspace
• Conclusions

38
critics of critical cartography

• too polemical
• too many generalisation
• not all mapping is hegemonic. there is space for
  alternative mapping
• seeking to re-envision cartography fitting their
  subjective views of the world
• end up in a position where everything count
• knocking down and not building up
• does not help making better maps
• it is, of course, only one route to analyse
  cyberspace mapping