Cultural Geography

limits of GIS and asks the fundamental question:

what matters, in their own terms and value sys-

tems, to people who do not use GIS? This basic

research is surely called for as a variety of

authors point out (Chrisman, 1987; Pickles,

1995; Rundstrom, 1993; 1995; Turnbull, 1989).

Mugerauer also calls for the development of a

pluralistic-democratic GIS for mediation, draw-

ing on Paulo Freire’s emancipatory pedagogy.

Learning local ways of knowing and helping

individuals develop their own way of describing

them in GIS is a fundamental form of empower-

ment that awaits.

Responding to human geographic critiques of

geographic technologies and opening new

ontological perspectives, these three approaches

also help make GIS accessible and tangible for

many people who lack exposure to information

technologies. Instead of creating an immense

hurdle by forcing people to learn a certain

technology before they can share their ideas,

these approaches and modest technologies pro-

vide readily accessible ways for people to interact

and be involved in participatory development.

Cyberspace

Rob Kitchin and Martin Dodge’s Mapping

Cyberspace (2001), along with Ken Hillis’

Digital Sensations (1999), are ideal starting points

for picking up on some of the key questions geo-

graphers are asking about cyberspace. Clearly,

cyberspace presents geographers with new chal-

lenges for how we think about nature, space, and

places. Hillis asks why, at this cultural moment,

do cyberspace and virtual reality emerge? He

sees these developments in the context of

embodiment. Whereas in geographic space the

socio-cultural body provides us with a means for

developing strategies and tactics to cope, cyber-

space has yet to develop a strong culture. In this

sense, Hillis notes that with the popularization

and commercialization of cyberspace there has

been a deepening sense of segmentation, in terms

of both the body and space. This accompanies a

Cartesian desire for disembodied, alienated sub-

jectivity that finds transcendence in the physical

limits of cyberspace. Cyberpunk literature high-

lights these dimensions of transcending physical

space and the separation of the Cartesian mind

from its physical surroundings. At the same time,

Don Janelle’s recognition that we cannot

describe and navigate cyberspace without geo-

graphic metaphors points to the continued impor-

tance of geography (Janelle and Hodge, 2000).

Children growing up in the information age

bear witness to this geographic complexity. Gill

Valentine and Sarah Holloway (2001) point out

that there has never been a sharp demarcation

between, in their terms, ‘online’ and ‘offline’

spaces. Drawing on actor network theory, they

argue that children’s activities, such as playing,

‘are shaped by shifting associations (and disasso-

ciations) between humans and nonhuman entities

in which the properties of the technology are not

inherent but emerge in practice’ (2001: 75). The

process of developing stable, culturally meaning-

ful practices goes hand-in-hand with the stabili-

zation of technology.

Finally, the importance of practice in the

development of technology has been stressed by

Nigel Thrift (1996). Virtual Geographies(Crang

et al., 1999) extends Thrift’s analysis, drawing

substantially on science and technology studies

to develop powerful insights about the cultural

geography of the information age. In thinking

geography’s engagement with technology through

the lens of structuralism, they make the evocative

point that the virtual world created on the inter-

net, cyberspace, or whatever it may be called,

should be assessed first and foremost as an alter-

native, not as a copy or representation. This

insight helps to move geographers beyond the

limits of understanding technology solely in

terms of results and consequences. It contributes

to deepening geography’s engagement with the

politics of the practices that produce geographic

knowledge.

The potential of cyberspace to substantially

alter our experience of the world has profound

implications. Through the increasing embedding

of technology in our quotidian lives, more active

and pervasive digital representations are replac-

ing the human relationships that for millennia

have defined society and humanity itself. Many

people already regularly communicate with insti-

tutions such as banks, local government, power

companies, etc., solely through automatic

response systems. While not yet cyberspace, this

is the beginning of a future experience in which

it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish

human from computer.

POLITICALLY ENGAGING

GEOGRAPHY’S TECHNOLOGY

Bonnie Nardi and Vicki O’Day (1999) write

clearly about the political implications of confin-

ing technology to the tool metaphor. In their

words, ‘Using the tool metaphor to describe tech-

nology suggests several tactics to users. Before

starting to work, it is important to choose the

right tool for the job’ (1999: 29). The tool

540 SPACES OF KNOWLEDGE

3029-ch29qxd.qxd 03-10-02 11:08 AM Page 540