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.