Category: Weekly Discussions

My discussion group this week analyzed the effects of bias on a reader’s interpretation of a text, as well as the near impossibility of satisfactory objectivity in certain cases. The text that we focused on was chapter 8, “Mapmaking, Counter-Mapping, and Map Art in the Mapping of Palestine” of Denis Wood’s book Rethinking the Power of Maps. 

Straightaway, we recognized the blatantly biased perspective of the writer in favor of Palestine, as evidenced in his word choice and tone. As such, we as the readers knew to take his statements with a grain of salt. We realized that’s not to say that he was wrong or not an expert on the topic, only that there is more than one side to every story. As students and scholars, we agreed that we should strive to understand all perspectives using the provided evidence, instead of forming preconceived judgments.

In addition, we noted that a topic as controversial and divisive as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has been raging for nearly a century, is one in which no commentator can ever be “correct” or “objective” on. There is one side that is bound to disagree or find fault, so the best way to approach such a topic is with an awareness of bias and an open mind to learn.

I had an extraordinarily stimulating discussion with two classmates about Turchi, maps, and related philosophical ideas. Right from the start, the creative juices were flowing, and we flowed from topic to topic, exploring everything under the sun for at least an hour.

We opened the conversation with a surprising observation: that Turchi uses breaks himself, applying the very techniques he writes about in his own writing. It is undeniable that this application is intentional, for subtle reinforcement, for irony, for humor. His use of breaks only emphasizes the powerful eureka moments derived from an unspoken reader / writer understanding. As a group, we found the breaks between sections to be immensely helpful for reorienting our reading and giving a comfortable pause between ideas.

We then talked about how the way that authors control what readers see is closely connected to the same practices in politics. Writers make use of “silences”, or “the intentional or unintentional suppression of knowledge in maps” (Turchi 57), as well as calculated reveals. In the same fashion, the government carefully chooses what to hide and display to citizens in order to generate the desired effect. In writing, it’s called skill; in politics, it’s called propaganda.

In a more general sense, the idea of blanks is reflected in types of humans: those who seek to project their desires onto the natural world (giving rise to domination, imperialism, colonialism), versus those who enjoy nature as it is. An example from Turchi is the contrast between practical, tightly-woven baskets — which are utilitarian, making nature useful to man — and beautiful, work of art baskets — which demonstrate appreciation for beauty of the natural. Humans’ instinct to fill in blanks is present all throughout time and space — literally. We can see the desire to claim blank space through Manifest Destiny, and the desire to expand our influence and knowledge through space exploration. 

Overall, our discussion revolved around the idea of blanks existing not only in writing, but the world all around us.