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)

Sept. 2000

what have I been doing for the last few years??

cybergeography

aims - coherent, valuable and academically credible analysis

Oct. 2001

1996 Thesis

2002?

Phd

understanding cyberspace?• there are many ways to describe and understand

cyberspace • economics, legal, mathematics, art, sociology, etc..• I’m 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

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)

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

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

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 don’t attempt a full catalogue here - see

the Atlas of Cyberspace website and book!

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

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’?

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

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 don’t like the jargon and the baggage though

• linking into ‘Ground Truth’. but I am critiquing the maps and not whole systems

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 don’t we all have broadband?)

• applied through ideas of critical cartography

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)

• 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

critical cartographer

critical cartography:the 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

critical cartography:the 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 (that’s 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 someone’s web

surfing and email interactions?

two key ideas

• maps are subjective• maps are frames

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

• this is the same for even the most fancy 3d immersive cyberspace map

• this applies to all visualisations

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

distortion and deception“how to lie with maps”

• most obvious being through - data selection/omission - projections

• how are maps of cyberspacedeceiving? • Clearly there are many ways to project cyberspace onto a map

maps as frames of space

interfaces as frames of virtual space

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

‘global’ [political economy] - power- interests- consumption- closure

methodology for critique

‘local’ [social constructivist]

- authorship- objectives - contexts

‘the map’

- subject- rhetoric- accuracy- ethics- space

$$$ ££££

$$$ ££££

$$$ ££££

• ‘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?

• ‘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?

• ‘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?

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

next step - which maps to critique?

• Can’t 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?

Information spacesSocial spaces

Infrastructure

structure of the thesisIntroduction

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

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