Counter-Mapping or Counter Culture (Peluso,N.)

“Mapping gives local people the power…” (p. 403)

Nancy Peluso in her article “Whose Woods are These? Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia ” described efforts by localized NGO’s and International organizations to map out Indigenous land-use. The central concept for these mapping projects in Indonesian forestlands were to respond to maps drawn by the governments that left local peoples management and customary title off the map. Instead the government maps, threatened exploitation of forestlands. How these maps, worked to both give local people a voice in government and shift traditional ways of communicating for Indigenous people are examined.
Peluso states “mapping of forests is a political act” (p. 383). In this, she describes its history with origins in Europe, and than extending to the “New World” colonies of North Amercia, Australia and New Zealand. Here, mapping forests was used to delineate property and break-up communal areas, in the name of taking control of the resources that lie within. In the literature, little attention (at the time of this article) had been given to third world cases. However, the same control over land, and mapping out of resources was taking place.

Drawing from these experiences of history, Peluso suggests that if maps are sources of power for the powerful—as traditionally they have been—than if local groups appropriate that source of power than they can offset the “monopoly of authoritative resources”. The key point is to re-insert people onto resource maps, and put forward that maps can pose alternatives, becoming a means for empowerment. In Indonesia, maps by government left people and their claims to resources off the map, leaving there traditional lands vulnerable to drastic changes that would leave them with little to survive on as a culture and as people.

Through her example of two mapping projects she highlights some positive and problematic issues around counter-mapping. A vital outcome of mapping by local people, is if the counter-map has the chance to be properly given recognition by government. If the government gives it legitimate power than it can be used to negotiate, for different land use strategies. To increase chances, Peluso suggests that mimicking the style and technology of government maps is important. This requires outside experts, and in the two case studies presented, the use of advanced mapping technology was enabled by the International organizations. At the same time the international organization also had Intergovernmental political ties, and power in the global arena of bringing acknowledgment to the project. However, local people were reliant on the hope that the International NGO would listen to local people (as local NGO’s do), and properly take them into account in addition to conserving their lands. On the other hand, Peluso points out that mapping has the potential to impact the culture’s it is trying to empower, through creating stagnant cultural artifacts, that provide little space for the dynamic nature of cultural processes. But, Peluso emphasizes that really there is little choice for local people but to participate in mapping, if they want to be recognized.

If people are forced to map as Peluso concludes, counter-maps may also disempower as they are enforced to translate cultural significances into a foreign communication method. At the same time, people must rely on experts to help in the mapping process, which may or may not translate the needs of local people’s properly onto a map, hence the case of the International NGO. The process can be fraught with difficulty, as it does not recognize the autonomy of a people's ways of being. Therefore, even with counter-mapping power is not transferred from government to the local people, but something that is negotiated, possibly at the expense of cultural dignity.

Monmonier ‘s Lying with Maps

“…maps lie in diverse ways” (p.216).

Mark Monmonier (2005) draws on Darrell Huff’s book “How to Lie with Statistics” to show that maps are an example of the distortions highlighted by Huff with statistics. Specifically in this article he looks at how a maps scale effects feature selection and geometry, the power of data classification and how symbolization can augment the information presented on the maps. Monmonier, recognizes the difference between statistics and maps. Maps at best are “massive reductions of the reality they represent” (p.215). He points out that if a map truly tried to epitomize everything, the map would be to perplexing to be properly understood. However, that in the process of mapmaking it is up to the cartographer to select relevant information and depict it in a way that is truthful. In addition, the user-friendly mapping software can generate increasingly less scrutinized maps.

The scale needs to be matched with appropriate symbols, sounds simple, but as Monmonier points out, when you mix a scale bar with a more generalized small-scale map, it “invites grossly inaccurate estimates”. Another example, is cut-points, where a software default allocation of cut-points may make no sense to the actual data, although it may look convincing to the untrained eye. One example is statistical averages by state where varying cut-points can drastically change the message. In addition, the statistics can be manipulated greatly using the same data, but different re-organizations of the numbers can show drastic differences, making the map vulnerable to special interest groups. The third example that he discusses is bivariate correlation where pairs of chloropleth maps can falsely show bivariate correlation with only simple manipulation.

In conclusion, what Monmonier, is really trying to get at is that by doing something wrong in the depiction of the data, the mapmaker can overtly lead the user to misleading interpretations, and ultimately bad decisions. This is made simpler with software that relies less on knowing the data, and more on generating fancy maps. The software gives the mapmaker the tools to easily show seemingly powerful images with a few keystrokes, but that these images may lie. In the hopes of explaining himself for the title, Monmonier states that mostly it is not lies in the maps but “inadvertent fabrication” (222). Oh yes, I think we would all like to call it that.

Development Maps (Monmonier)

“…maps are anybody’s weapon…” (p.81)

Monmonier in this chapter on “Development Maps” depicts the role that maps play in shaping the planning process in municipalities. In particular, the focus is on how maps are a “tool of persuasion” for specific interests groups such as developers. It also points to the resource split in communities around map-making, as a community group concerned about the developer’s proposals, may not have the financial resources to present a opposing map and if they do it may not be as sophisticated as the developers, impacting the ability to communicate on equal ground.
Different types of maps are highlighted in the chapter, that are used by municipal planners to make decisions on land-use including three main types zoning, a master plan, and an official map. In addition maps of ecosystems, soil and other natural features can be brought in through environmental assessments for projects. The process of utilizing these different levels of maps is put forward to make sound decisions around land-use in communities. However, maps do not always represent adequately what is on the ground or what is actually in the development plan.
To illustrate this, Monmonier lays out eleven rules for developers to follow in order to manipulate or “polish” the maps and in turn the process of decision-making. These somewhat satiric rules, demonstrate how easy it is for interest groups to present information in a seemingly truthful format, a map. Hence the rule “generalize creatively” provides advice on how to enhance what you want to emphasize and diminish features to persuade the community. Another interesting rule is to add mundane details such as lots of tree stamps to the maps. This small act can drastically change the impression of the map, which is demonstrated in Figure 6.4. The article further explores the tax assessment process, as way to illustrate the review process, drawing on maps that specifically emphasize the points to be made. Such as drawing of houses that are over taxed, on a cadastral style map, that shows it much larger relative to tax assessments in the neighborhoods. This kind of map is a kind of a propaganda-cadastral map that provides a visual appeal to the decision-makers.
The discussion and examples within this article, provides an example of how maps can be shaped towards the interests of the mapmakers. Although the examples are hypothetical and at times slightly mocking the municipal process’s it shows how maps, can be taken for truth just because they are maps, not matter how easily manipulated, and this acceptance can drastically impact what does happen in reality, hence the quote “…maps are anybody’s weapon…” (p.81).

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-Undefined & Dangerous.

“it is a technology…closely tied to the concrete material and ideological needs and interests of certain groups”. p.639

Perkins (1995) article “Representations in an Electronic Age: Geography, GIS and Democracy”, explores the impacts of GIS as a tool, technology and social relation. His discussion of GIS, begins with the claim that GIS is not straightforward, it is fraught with different interpretations, as the technology infiltrates many different professions and ideological movements. While Geography as an academic discipline has explored and questioned the assumptions of knowledge-making since the late 1970’s; emerging from the modernist paradigm to approaches that question the objectivity of knowledge created for the people to devour rather than query. GIS has largely missed these paradigm shifts.
To brighten the discussion, Perkins draws on the many progressive possibilities of GIS. He points to the re-emergence of a civic culture that draws on the electronic airways to create a “community of dialogue” and the potential for marginalized groups to harness the power of cartographic representation. Therefore on the one hand, GIS can enable communities to better make decisions, providing access to more and better information. On the other hand, it can be used as a power tool for groups to communicate on equal playing fields of those traditional map-makers. This can occur in the face of the development and research of GIS and electronic tools primarily being funded through business, government and military elites.
Nevertheless, Perkins illustrates that the discussions around GIS largely maintain its 1960’s roots, with scientific claims to objectivity. Drawing from contemporary writings on GIS, he points out the problematic nature of inquiry. He concludes that GIS practitioners and academics are focused on the technological ability of GIS to represent reality, rather than considering how the information presents reality. In other words, the weight is on how the spatial data can be manipulated, not the end use of the map, whether this is a market analysis for business interests or mapping out military targets.
It is suggested, from Perkins article that the use and development of GIS reflects the contemporary power structures within society. So yes, it can be used to empower marginalized people, but most often it is used by elites that are acting in their own self-interests and this is mirrored within the literature of GIS. Often this results in a discussion limited to the usefulness of the tool presented within interests that diverge or compete with the proponents of progressive social change. As a result GIS practitioners, can hide behind the technology, as it is muddled between its ability to cross many areas of geographic inquiry, but it is reliant on the justice of the data that feeds it and as Perkins seems to criticize, the values and assumptions behind the data.

Critical Cartography-More Recently Known As Carto-Power

Crampton and Krygier (2006) in their paper apply a critical theoretical lense to academic cartography, tracing the origin of the post war scientific movement through to the age of Internet based geographical applications. They describe this approach as a one-two punch, where new mapping applications and a movements to highlight the polictical nature of maps were not apparent when the discipline of cartography first began, resulting in what they describe as cartography undisciplined. Through this critical lense map-making and maps are discussed to examine the assumptions of this particular field of knowledge and challenge the traditional authority of academic cartographers. The paper in general seeks to tackle the links between geographical knowledge and power relations that are ultimately political.
The Robinsonian movement of the post-war era sought to transform cartography to a pragmatic, scientific basis, where validity of data was prominent. Robinson, a cartographer that drove the transformation, was at the time responding to propaganda maps that overtly sought to promote specific interest’s of the people in power. However, this movement that dominated cartography, did not address underlying assumptions of the maps, that are argued in this paper were not value-free as once promoted, but worked to serve specific agenda’s of the map-maker’s and elites that controlled society’s cartography agenda’s. To understand what drives the maps, and what or how they communicate to the user, Crampton & Krygier argue that a challenge to academic cartography is vital to addressing the disparities in cartography the have mostly been considered a technological practice rather than a value laden text.
The technological transition now seen in cartography has, been one of the main factory that has left cartography undisciplined. Another words, maps and map-making are out of the hands of academic cartography, with new mapping application emerging through the digital age, providing the tools for the larger society to formulate maps according to anyone’s agenda. These technologies are commonly known as map-hacking, where open source Internet applications provide a platform for the public at large to become their own map-makers, putting maps in the hands of the users’ not cartographers. These applications did not-the authors point out-emerge from the discipline of cartography but from the software industry. At the same-time, imaginative mapping practices driven by artists are challenging assumptions of geographical space with ever-changing installations that ultimately work to come up against the authority of maps, finding new ways to depict reality.
Over all the authors conclude that these new mapping practices, need further attention within cartography to how they are changing the discipline and offering new possibilities for a critical perspective for society’s ability to represent place and space.