When we think of maps, our minds leap to Google Maps, MapQuest, travel brochures, and atlases: images we unquestioningly trust to display a view of the world. In fact, maps are all around us: in our heads, the books we read, the essays we write, the roads we travel. But how can maps possibly be entirely objective in all these different aspects? As John Brian Harley states in chapter 2, “Maps, Knowledge, and Power”, of his essay compilation The New Nature of Maps, “in any iconological study it is only through context that meaning and influence can properly be unraveled. Such contexts may be defined as the circumstances in which maps were made and used. They are analogous to the speech situation in linguistic study and involve reconstructions of the physical and social settings for the production and consumption of maps, the events leading up to these actions, the identity of map makers and map users, and their perceptions of the act of taking and using maps in a socially constructed world. Such details can tell us not only about the motives behind cartographic events but also what effect naps may have had and the significance of the information they communicate in human terms” (Harley 56). The context of a map matters more than we ever realize, from its intentions to historical background. We not only need to consider where a map can take us, but where it came from. Considering their significant influence on the physical and abstract, Harley argues that maps are not scientific communications that can be taken at face value, but representations of the mapmaker’s perspective and intended message.
Beyond their common practicality, maps become weapons when the government seeks to argue their case through them. As Harley notes on page 56, “even a cursory inspection of the history of mapping will reveal the extent to which political, religious, or social power produce the context of cartography.” He goes on to present evidence from throughout history: “This has become clear, for example, from a detailed study of cartography and prehistoric, ancient and medieval Europe, and the Mediterranean. Throughout the period, “mapmaking was one of the specialized intellectual weapons by which power could be gained, administered, given legitimacy, and codified. Moreover, this knowledge was concentrated in relatively few hands and Maps were associated with the religious elite of dynastic Egypt and of Christian medieval Europe; with the intellectual elite of Greece and Rome; and with the mercantile elite of the city-states of the Mediterranean World during the late middle ages’” (Harley 56). From the earliest civilizations, no matter the time or space, the ruling class has discovered and applied the power of maps. In other words, maps have been weaponized by man for their ability to manipulate power, to tangibly facilitate man’s deepest desires to conquer and claim.
The wars won by maps can be traced throughout history as they aid imperialism, as in not only expansion of rule, but of ideologies. Maps have political, religious, and propaganda uses. They establish and validate land and political boundaries, carry out religious intentions by erasing some and elevating others, and spread specific ideas. There is something about seeing a display on paper that legitimizes, in a way that abstract ideas cannot.
In their basest essence, maps are knowledge. This perspective is a lot more meaningful when we acknowledge that mapmaking has historically been a privilege, benefitter, and representation of the elite or the powers in control. As such, it makes sense that “storage of authoritative resources involves above all the retention and control of information or knowledge“. The making and spreading — or withholding — of maps is essentially the control of knowledge. This gives the mapmaker considerable power over the views of the map reader, especially if they are ignorant or impressionable. Frequently, it is not only the mapmaker, but “set of power relations [behind them], creating his own specification”. Harley’s argument makes it undeniable that maps are inherently biased, often intentionally.
Overall, Harley argues that maps are not objective sources when considering the context — political, social, economic, and historial — behind them. After all, maps are graphical depictions, representations, images — works that all have artists. In this case, the mapmaker as artist is biased, just like any other human being. This property of maps has been exploited for propaganda and imperialism throughout history. In modern times, this can be seen in huge conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where no clear land boundaries can be defined by maps. Maps are so much more than we give them credit for, or realize — for they are potent weapons in the advancement of society.
Beyond their common practicality, maps become weapons when the government seeks to assert their political agenda through them. As Harley notes on page 56, “even a cursory inspection of the history of mapping will reveal the extent to which political, religious, or social power produce the context of cartography.” He goes on to present evidence from throughout history: “Throughout the period, ‘mapmaking was one of the specialized intellectual weapons by which power could be gained, administered, given legitimacy, and codified’. Moreover, this knowledge was concentrated in relatively few hands and maps were associated with the religious elite of dynastic Egypt and of Christian medieval Europe; with the intellectual elite of Greece and Rome; and with the mercantile elite of the city-states of the Mediterranean World during the late middle ages’” (Harley 56). From the earliest civilizations, no matter the time or space, the ruling class has discovered and applied the power of maps. In other words, maps have been weaponized by man for their ability to manipulate power, to tangibly facilitate man’s deepest desires to conquer and claim.
The wars won by maps can be traced throughout history as they aid imperialism, as in not only expansion of rule, but of ideologies. Maps have political, religious, and propaganda uses. They establish and validate land and political boundaries, carry out religious intentions by erasing some and elevating others, and spread specific ideas. There is something about seeing a display on paper that legitimizes, in a way that abstract ideas cannot. In their basest essence, maps are knowledge. This perspective is a lot more meaningful when we acknowledge that mapmaking has historically been a privilege, benefit, and representation of the elite or the powers in control. As such, it makes sense that “storage of authoritative resources involves above all the retention and control of information or knowledge” (). The making and spreading — or withholding — of maps is essentially the control of knowledge. This gives the mapmaker considerable power over the views of the map reader, especially if they are ignorant or impressionable. Frequently, it is not only the mapmaker, but “set of power relations [behind them], creating his own specification”. Harley’s argument makes it undeniable that maps are inherently biased, often intentionally.
Overall, Harley argues that maps are not objective sources when considering the context — political, social, economic, and historical — behind them. After all, maps are graphical depictions, representations, images — works that all have artists. The mapmaker as artist is biased, just like any other human being. This property of maps has been exploited for propaganda and imperialism throughout history. In modern times, this can be seen in huge conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where no clear land boundaries can be defined by maps. Maps are so much more than we give them credit for, or realize — for they are potent weapons in the advancement of society.
Links to Final Draft:
WordPress – http://emilyluo.bergbuilds.domains/formalessays/formal-essay-1-final/
