Work in the area includes both critiques of the orthodox paradigms of GISciences as well as the conduct of geospatial analysis in pursuit of specific social and cultural goals.ĭeconstruction: A methodology for revealing the underlying normative assumptions that are built into a text by the powerful. Critical cartographic work accepts that maps are expressions of power and seeks to contest, critique, and subvert this power as it seeks to create (and critique) new ways of knowing, seeing, and being in the world.Ĭritical GIS: A term for research that brings social theoretical concerns into tension with geospatial information systems and science. Fixed objects versus ontogenetic becomingsĬounter-mapping: Mapping practices that set out to question, trouble, or contest dominant power relations in society through the act of mapping and/or the maps produced.Ĭritical cartography: A set of mapping and spatial visualization practices that begin from the acceptance that maps, like other socio-technical systems, are not and never can be neutral.Deconstructivist and Hermeneutic phenomenological approaches.Additional resources for cartographers and GIScientists seeking to further explore critical approaches to maps are provided. Finally, the chapter concludes by suggesting the incomplete, heuristic nature of both the approaches and ideas explored here as well as the practices of critical cartography itself. Third, epistemological understanding of maps and their affects are explored through the dialectic of the map as a static object versus more processual, ontogenetic understandings of maps. Second, it places state-sanctioned practices of mapping against participatory and counter-mapping ones. First, building from Harley’s earlier work, it defines a deconstructivist approach to mapping and places it in contrast to hermeneutic phenomenological approaches. To do so, after briefly situating work on cartography and power historically, it presents six critiques of cartography and power in the form of dialectics. This entry charts some of the many ways that power may be understood to manifest within and through maps and mapmaking practices. 2) implored cartographers to “search for the social forces that have structured cartography and to locate the presence of power – and its effects – in all map knowledge.” In the intervening years, while Harley has become a bit of a touchstone for citational practices acknowledging critical cartography (Edney, 2015), both theoretical understandings of power as well as the tools and technologies that go into cartographic production have changed drastically. Over twenty five years ago, Brian Harley (1989, p.
0 kommentar(er)
