Hi and welcome back to a new blog post! I am officially finished with school for the summer, so I will have more time to post over the next three months. That means many more blog posts are coming your way filled with an array of fascinating information. Now, I know that I said that I was going to talk about critical cartography in this post, and I promise that is coming. However, when I was researching the topic, I found a dissertation that included the concept of critical cartography in a wider context, and to be honest, I fell down a rabbit hole. "Paradigmatic Tendencies in Cartography: A Synthesis of the Scientific-Empirical, Critical and Post-Representational Perspectives" by Pablo Iván Azócar Fernández essentially discusses how different philosophical beliefs, notably regarding the theory of knowledge, shape how one examines cartography. As it is a dissertation, I was a little intimidated because I thought I would not be able to understand this level of understanding and language, but I was surprised to find that it wasn't that bad. Occasionally, it did take several times to read a sentence to understand what it was saying. Once I started reading it, I simply could not stop, and I put my original idea on the back burner and decided to focus on using the dissertation as a foundation for my investigation into critical cartography. The next few blog posts are going to focus on how different theories and beliefs arose over time, which consequently changed how some viewed maps. Fernández dedicated a section specifically to critical cartography, so we'll get there eventually. Right now, I will be examining section 2 of 9 of the dissertation. This was by far the longest, so future blog posts will combine several sections. In section 2, "Philosophy, Epistemology, and Cartography", Fernández dives into the means by which critical cartography emerged and displays a broader understanding of the theoretical implications of cartography. I've uncovered an utterly fascinating world, so be ready because we are about to jump right into a pool of knowledge. Fernández divided the dissertation into 3 parts (A, B, and C) and for each, listed a central question that he would address along with a corresponding research objective. Part A, made up of sections 2 and 3, works to answer the question: Does the development of cartography have epistemological and philosophical bases like other scientific disciplines? The research objective was as follows: To analyze the philosophical and epistemological bases of cartography during its contemporary development. Let me break those two down a bit into simpler terms. You likely know what philosophy is, but Fernández gives a formal definition that he used for the purposes of his work, writing “Philosophy is an attempt of the human spirit to come to a conception of the universe by means of the self-reflection about its theoretical and practical functions” (Fernández 9). Essentially, this definition is saying that philosophy is the ways in which humans gain knowledge about fundamental parts of themselves and the world around them. I will go into more detail in a minute, but now, let's shift to the definition of epistemology, which I personally was unable to define at first. Epistemology is " the branch of philosophy that studies the scientific research and its product, the scientific knowledge" (Fernández 9). In other words, it is a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. So, now that those two key terms have been defined, the research question and objective make more sense. Simply put, Fernández is examining cartography to establish the theory behind its creation and how evolving ideology impacted the field. Furthermore, an emphasis is placed on how cartography displays our knowledge of the world we live in. I learned so much in this section and saw cartography in a whole new way, so I'm so excited to pass on this information! Within section 2, Fernández further breaks up the information into 7 subsections, each focusing on different philosophical/epistemological beliefs and how those can be connected to cartography. It follows a general chronological order after introducing the major topics, so I too will go mostly in this order for the sake of simplicity. Now, philosophy is a topic that can be applied to literally anything, but at its core, it works to decipher two main things, "a conception of me" and " a conception of the universe". These can be known as an internal perception (me) and an external one (universe). One important element of this idea is that philosophy falls within the realm of human understanding due to its connection to our perspectives and can also vary from individual to individual. This will be important later on. Epistemology branches off of philosophy by zeroing in on the "nature, origins, and limits of knowledge", and specifically focuses on scientific knowledge based on facts and rational thought. Cartography falls under the scope of philosophy due to its ability to display human knowledge, and specifically coincides with epistemology's focus on scientific knowledge, as cartography is considered a science. Therefore, its interpretation is also subject to different beliefs, and the way in which the general community views cartography has evolved with changing ideologies. The theory of knowledge always contains three considerations, "a subject, an object, and an image", and the relative importance placed on each led to different philosophical beliefs, which we like to call the "isms". I'm sure you've all heard some deep-thinking person ramble on about perspective and how everything is relative, and while that can be annoying when you want a clear answer, these deliberations have defined generations. Anyways, below is a cool chart from the dissertation that displays different central questions in relation to the "isms" Now I could go into a great amount of depth regarding the chart, but because the focus of the blog is on cartography, I think that this information is sufficient in showing the main idea. I will describe what you are seeing though. The first column shows potential problems considered when looking at the theory of human knowledge. The second column shows the question concerning the relationship between the subject and object in said problem. The final column provides examples of different "isms" that correlate to each issue, some (or maybe all) of which you have probably heard of before. Here's a fun challenge if you're into this topic. Can you find a different "ism" and correctly place it on the chart? To apply this to cartography, there are central controversies around maps that can be viewed from a philosophical and epistemological lens. For example, one can ask whether maps "create reality" or if they "represent" it. This ties into philosophical questions about whether maps display internal or external knowledge of the world. From an epistemological scope, this leads to considerations regarding the way in which maps are constructed. Over time, different ideological trends have come and gone as humans have gained a wider range of experiences around the world. These beliefs can be classified into different "isms" that historians use to define an era. All of these can be tied to cartography to some extent, and below, I will be explaining the evolution of thought starting with the eighteenth century and the correlations between these philosophies and cartography. Also, it should be noted that this list is in no way exhaustive. Positivism and Empiricism: In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a popular philosophy was known as positivism. This approach emphasizes a concept known as monism or the idea that situations can be explained by a single principle. Positivists believe that scientific evidence is necessary to validate facts. Furthermore, the scientific method used to do this consisted of taking known facts to develop theories and then applying these theories to other specific instances. Consequently, science was seen as objective (free from personal bias). This philosophy developed into the epistemological belief of empiricism, which is the idea that knowledge originates from sensory experience. Empiricism utilizes the positivist method of using scientific evidence to obtain objective knowledge. Both of these "isms" can be seen in cartography during the time period. The geographic discipline experienced major events in Europe that established a solid foundation for cartographic development. These events, discussed in further detail in the dissertation, systemized the practice of cartography and laid a foundation for a perception of maps as scientific knowledge. Like with all scientific knowledge, maps were seen as accurate depictions of reality that are not impacted by personal perspectives. Also, during this time, the cartography profession emerged as a result of exploration. This meant that the practice was controlled by militaries and were focused on accuracy. However, at the end of the nineteenth century, a more theoretical cartography slowly emerged when societies were created that questioned scientific knowledge and assumptions. Logical Positivism and Neo-Positivism: Logical and Neo-Positivism emerged as a dominant perspective in the early twentieth century that criticized the elements of positivism. During this time, scientific methodology transformed. Logical positivism, the epistemological element of this belief system, was founded in "experimental verification of the theoretical statements and their validation". In other words, scientists had to prove theories through their studies and experience. The philosophy of neo-positivism shares many traits with that of traditional positivism but differs in approach to establishing facts. Neo-positivists use a "hypothetical-deductive method" that involves applying theories to experiences to validate said theories. As a result, science became very methodical, and high levels of precision were required. Moreover, scientists developed a common language so that findings could be shared in a consistent manner. As a result of this philosophical evolution, geography and cartography also changed. The practice of quantitative geography emerged, in which geographers created a methodical approach to explaining phenomena with maps. This was largely in response to varying regional perspectives that were highly criticized during the neo-positive era. Quantitative geography also uses the hypothetical-deductive method to explain spatial phenomena, meaning that laws and theories are applied to different areas when analyzing geography. Additionally, the period saw a rise in scientific cartography, which allowed maps to function largely as a method of communication. Epistemologically, logical positivists believed that maps should be as accurate as possible because they are an instrument of communication. As with science in general during this time, precision was key in cartography, and they were supposed to display information objectively without bias. So, before I move on, I just wanted to provide a little interlude. I know that this is a lot of information to absorb at once, and I decided to omit an in-depth discussion of several points made in the dissertation. However, I highly suggest reading these sections if you are interested. For reference, these are parts 2.5 and 2.6. I included a short section later on in the post, but I wanted to let you know that I am skipping ahead to a later section. It's very interesting, but this post is already too long, and I don't want to bore you with too much confusing philosophy. I am also going to throw in my own "ism" just to add a bit more flare. Now, back to the good stuff. Postmodernism and Poststructuralism: The two ideologies previously discussed fall within the larger framework of modernism. Postmodernism essentially flipped modernism on its head. It questioned the assumptions previously made, specifically in a scientific context. The basis of postmodern theory in science is that knowledge is relative, and patterns were too readily generalized in previous years. Poststructuralism arose as a way to shine a light on the inconsistencies and contradictions in the theories of modernism. Therefore, the epistemology of this time period was focused on the idea that there is no complete truth, even in science, which rejected the high objectivity in forms of positivist thought. This section is especially intriguing to me because I learned a lot about both modernism and postmodernism in English class this year, and I can see the same trends in cartography that I found in various works of literature. It really is amazing how the way we think is mirrored by the things we produce. Anyway, here is a chart comparing the two ideologies: ![]() In cartography, the role of maps as unbiased representations of the world was questioned by prominent cartographers. One of which I actually discussed in my blog post "A New Perspective on Cartography". If you remember (which you probably don't because it was my first post), Denis Wood created unconventional maps of his neighborhood that focused on telling a story from his point of view. Wood and like-minded cartographers take the angle that bias is inherent in maps. Wood even refers to maps as "weapons of power". Another figure during this time, John B Harley, developed the concept of CRITICAL CARTOGRAPHY (I told you I would get there) after seeing discrepancies in representations of different cultures in maps. Overall, postmodernism saw a total shift in the world of cartography. Instead of being seen as methods of communicating purely objective and scientific information, maps are now considered a method of persuasion that are subject to different social and cultural contexts. Additionally, maps are found in different disciplines and are more appreciated as pieces of art. Due to its newfound subjectivity, maps are now a form of personal expression along with being a way to present geographic information. Skepticism: To decide which extra "ism" to include, I literally spun a wheel, and it landed on skepticism. At its foundation, skepticism is the idea that absolute knowledge is uncertain, so skeptics emphasize the necessity of doubt when looking at claims. This epistemological approach contains some similarities to those previously discussed, but unlike positivists, this school of thought rejects the notion of knowledge (and maps) as objective pieces of information. This more closely aligns with the postmodern view that maps are actually subjective and contain bias in their presentation of knowledge. Coincidentally, skepticism is inherent in critical cartography. The main idea in critical cartography is that a subject's perspectives of space are unreliable, and therefore, the maps produced are as well. Skepticism highlights this and holds the belief that the processes in human minds cannot be trusted as a means of justification for knowledge. So, as it turns out, the wheel picked an epistemological doctrine that aligns perfectly with critical cartography. What are the chances of that? As mentioned earlier, there were two parts that I did not include earlier that discuss how the ideology of two philosophers connects to cartography and its evolution. While I am not going to go into much detail, I would like to introduce their contributions to epistemology just to give a bigger picture. First, Ludwig Wittgenstein was a British philosopher who aligned with logical positivism and postmodernism in various points throughout his career. His work focused on the ability of language to portray reality. In his early career, Wittgenstein had a "one-to-one" theory that stated every fact (piece of reality) corresponds to a part of language. In this case, the symbols and overall message of maps can be seen as a means of showing objective knowledge. Later, Wittgenstein shifted his philosophy to say that the context in which language is used determines the associated reality, which coincides with critical cartography. So, while his early work says that language (and maps) is an accurate description of reality, his late work states that language (and maps) is only a form of reality ![]() Next, Karl Popper's "theory of three worlds" breaks up knowledge into different categories. Popper, a logical positivist, focused on the theory of knowledge throughout his career. In doing so, he produced the idea that there of three "worlds" of knowledge. The first world is the world itself (facts and phenomena), which is actually unknown to man in its entirety. Then, the second world is "subjective knowledge" or thoughts that arise in an individual. Lastly, the third world is "objective knowledge" or a person's conception of reality that validates their thoughts. To maybe simplify this a bit, I have included two figures that show how maps becomes third world pieces of knowledge. The first figure describes how information is transferred by maps. The second shows how a new reality is produced by maps. While the two ideas presented are different, both align with the three worlds theory. In both, the first world is the visible information/phenomena being shown in the maps. The second world contains the cognitive processes that occur in the cartographer and readers, and the third world is the form of reality that arises with maps. This was really interesting to me because it really went deep into the conception of maps and the considerations necessary when examining a map. A process must occur that involves subjective knowledge in order for an image to be produced, so a map can never be wholly factual. For this reason, the development of the argument in critical cartography can be seen here. Like I said earlier, if you wish to dive deeper into this topic, you can visit Fernández's dissertation.
I hope that you learned as much as I did from this blog post. It is utterly fascinating to see how much theoretical framework can be applied to cartography and how different theories of knowledge change how maps are perceived. Maps are neither accurate nor inaccurate but represent a reality that is separate from the object they sought to depict. When you look at a map of the world, you probably don't consider the fact that it is a very western depiction of reality. Europe remains at the center of the map when it really doesn't have to be (Earth is a sphere after all), and the boundaries were largely determined by a select few worlds powers. I had never really thought twice about this, but after learning more about the relationship between individual thoughts, maps, and reality, it is clear that maps are far from unbiased. As humans have gained a more complex understanding of the nature of our knowledge and perception of the world, the contradictions inherent in our belief system have slowly been revealed. Cartography acts as a perfect example of this, and its change over time represents the evolution of human thought. Furthermore, practices like critical cartography emerge to counteract the discrepancies created throughout our history. Next week, I will be discussing patterns in both science throughout history and in modern cartography, so be ready for more information coming your way!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
September 2021
Categories
|