The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_C Date:31/3/09
Time:21:45:52 Filepath://ppdys1108/BlackwellCup/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-
9781405132879/appln/3B2/revises/9781405132879_4_C.3d

map-design research lost momentum in the

1980s, when the shortcomings of psychophys-

ical rescaling became apparent. Despite this

disappointment, subject-testing remains a

useful strategy for evaluating solutions to

problems in map design, and empirical studies

experienced a revival in the 1990s, when the

computer proved a valuable tool for testing

subjects andqualitative methodssuch as

focus-group interviews offered further

insights (Suchan and Brewer, 2000).

Computers fostered numerous technical

advancesaswell,includingautomated strategies

for placing labels in non-overlapping locations,

generalizing linear features, classifying data for

choroplethmaps, interpolatingisolines, gen-

erating oblique views of three-dimensional

surfaces, and creating visually effective ani-

mated and interactive maps (Monmonier and

McMaster, 2004). Although the computer was

ostensibly an instrument of mapmaking, these

techniques clearly functioned as tools for map

design insofar as the map author could readily

experiment with thresholds, parameters and

methods of symbolization. Although the limi-

tations of psychophysics were readily apparent

in the 1980s, interactive maps that the user

could query with a cursor further undermined

the need to improve value estimation by rescal-

ing map symbols.

Twoothertheoriesprominentincartography

in the 1970s were the communication model

and a conceptual framework called visual vari-

ables. Derived from feedback-loop models in

information theory, the cartographic com-

munication model in its simplest form treated

the map as a channel connecting a map author

(source) with a percipient (destination). A

more elaborate version treated the map author

as a filter that helped form the percipient’s view

of the world and added a reverse flow (feed-

back), which encouraged a modification of the

map’s design or content to promote a more

accurate transmission of the map author’s

intended message. Particularly noteworthy

was a comparatively sophisticated modification

by Antonı ́n Kola ́cˇny ́ (1969), whose model

described the cartographer’s reality and the

map user’s reality as overlapping but not com-

pletely coincident subsets of a larger reality.

Although the communication paradigm

receivedconsiderable attentionintheacademic

press and no doubt heightened awareness of

communication among academic cartograph-

ers,thenotionthatallmaps,orevenmostmaps,

contained a specific message was largely viewed

asnaı ̈veortrivialbythe1980s,whencomputer-

assisted cartography began to command

increased attention (Antle and Klinkenberg,

1999). By contrast, French semiologist

Jacques Bertin’s (1983) notion of visual vari-

ables, especially the six retinal variables (size,

shape, hue, value, pattern and orientation)

under the map author’s control, proved more

relevant to map design, and remains a signifi-

cant theory in cartography.

The third definition of cartography, focused

on the societal impact of maps, recognizes that

the map is not only a descriptive medium and a

problem-solving tool but also atext, as that

term is used in textual studies, cultural studies

andcritical theory, and thatmap readingis

thus a situated cultural practice. Although aca-

demic cartographers had at least a vague aware-

ness of the map’s rhetorical clout, especially in

geopolitics (Tyner, 1982), the 1980s

witnessed a renewed interest in cartographic

propaganda. Particularly influential were the

writings of J.B. Harley, a map historian acutely

aware of the map’s role in assertinghegemony

and justifying exploitation and also its vulner-

ability to manipulation as an instrument of

warfare, colonization and diplomacy. Harley’s

most important contribution was the notion of

cartographic silences, whereby the deliberate

omission of features orplace namesmight

advance a government’s territorial claims

or promote an illusion of benevolence or effi-

ciency (Harley, 2001a). These ploys succeeded

largely because the public understands the

need for selective generalization – the map

works as a communication device only when

the mapmaker consciously avoids graphic clut-

ter – and widely accepts the map as an osten-

sibly objective, factual representation of reality.

And because most maps work, or appear to, the

public generally accepts the map author’s view

of reality, however flawed or one-sided. That

many maps in the media and the political arena

contain discernible biases made the label

‘social construction’ particularly appropriate

(Vujakovic, 1999; Schulten, 2005).

Harley challenged scholars to question the

motives of mapmakers by ‘deconstructing’

contemporary as well as historic maps (cf.

deconstruction). Although the studies that

followed sometimes bordered on mild para-

noia intheirdisdain for evidence of intent or

impact – Pickles’ (2004, pp. 60–71) critique of

exaggerated claims for the ‘power of maps’

includes some good examples – other scholars

combined an insightful examination of the

map author’s mindset with a careful appraisal

of the institutional context in which maps were

produced. For example, Herb (1997) tied the

development of strident late-1930s German

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_C Final Proof page 68 31.3.2009 9:45pm

CARTOGRAPHY