So important, indeed, is the use of maps in geographic work, that,
... if (the) problem cannot be studied fundamentally by maps - usually by a
comparison of several maps - then it is questionable whether or not it is within
the field of geography. - Hartshorne 1939 p. 249
-
Pile and Rose 1992 p. 131
This notion of map-able space involves a specific epistemic
topography: a landscape, a form of knowing or seeing which denies its structuring
by the gaze of white male bourgeois knowers or Other knowns. It limits the
possibility of critique by refusing to acknowledge other kinds of space.
Mapping as a way of knowing and seeing is by no means uncontested. Some contemporary readers of Hartshorne's quote undoubtedly found his idolatry of maps somewhat excessive, especially if they engaged in geography without the aid of maps. Yet it was and still is the case that the map retains a central position as a discipline-defining characteristic of geography. Recent critiques have reversed the positive and enabling sense of mapping and have suggested that the traditional manner in which we understand the map and the manner in which it fashions knowing and seeing have often been both negative and disenabling (Harley 1989, Wood 1992). Such an iconoclastic perspective has its share of critics, yet it is clear that there is among some geographers a sense of unease - a "cartographic anxiety" - about the map and other visual representations in geography, especially as a way of knowing and seeing (Gregory 1994). Yet while fundamentally divided on the consequences of geography's dependence on maps, both map idolaters and map iconoclasts (as well as all of those in between these extremes) share a belief that maps are a fundamental way of knowing and seeing geography, active participants in constructing as well as communicating our geographic understanding of the world. As geographic understanding is a contested process, it is important to understand the manner in which maps and other visual representations shape and are shaped by different ways of knowing and seeing geography.
The cultural landscape is the geographic area in the final
meaning.... Its forms are all the works of man that characterize the
landscape.... The cultural landscape is fashioned out of a natural landscape by
a culture group. Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the
cultural landscape is the result - Sauer 1925, quoted in Coones 1992 p.
71
- Daniels 1989 p. 196
Landscape, the central concept of traditional cultural geography,
does not easily accommodate political notions of power and conflict, indeed it
tends to dissolve or conceal them: as a consequence the very idea of landscape
has been brought into question.
Landscape as a way of knowing and seeing is by no means uncontested. Some contemporary readers of Sauer's quote undoubtedly found his idolatry of landscape somewhat excessive, especially if they engaged in geography without the aid of the landscape idea. Yet it was and still is the case that the landscape retains some kind of central position as a discipline-defining characteristic of geography. Recent critiques have reversed the positive and enabling sense of the landscape and have suggested that the traditional manner in which we understand the landscape and the manner in which it fashions knowing and seeing have been both negative and disenabling (Cosgrove 1984, Daniels 1989). Such an iconoclastic perspective has its share of critics, yet it is clear that there is among some geographers a sense of unease - a "landscape anxiety" - about the landscape as a way of knowing and seeing. Yet while fundamentally divided on the consequences of geography's dependence on the landscape idea, both landscape idolaters and landscape iconoclasts (as well as all of those in between these extremes) share a belief that landscapes are a fundamental way of knowing and seeing geography and an important context within which to structure and debate our geographic understanding of the world. As geographic understanding is a contested process, it is important to understand the manner in which landscapes shape and are shaped by different ways of knowing and seeing geography.
By combining the 'reading' of place with its deconstructed
representation in maps we may come nearer to closing the circle on understanding
place. - Natter and Jones 1989 pp. 13-14
- Lewis 1991 p. 621
Geographers should take advantage of their position within academia
to develop rather than disparage cartographic understanding; that cartography has
so far lagged behind social theory should be taken as a challenge, rather than
cavalierly used as an excuse to neglect the demanding task of map
construction.
I find significant similarities between landscape and the map. Both are synthetic, able to accommodate physical and human geographies. Both have a long, related history and are seen as basic, core rudiments of geography. Both are, as Cosgrove argues, key elements of the "visual bias" of geography as they emphasize synchronic (spatial, 'all-at-once') relations over chronologic (temporal, linear) relations (Cosgrove 1984 p. 27, Sayer 1989). Landscape and the map have also met with similar criticisms. They have been described as too surficial - suggesting "appearance" and "objects" over "substance" and "depth." They both "dupe" viewers into delusions of objectivity - "seeing the landscape as knowing the landscape" and the cartographic "myths" of accuracy, objectivity, and optimal representation. Most importantly, both maps and landscapes have been accused of concealing or diluting conflict, power relations, and difference in their innocuous visual frames.
Given these commonalties, it seems important to consider the critique of traditional ways of understanding maps and mapping by the likes of Harley (1988, 1989) and Wood (1992) in tandem with the related critique of traditional ways of understanding landscape by the likes of Cosgrove (1984) and Daniels (1989). And indeed, studies by Cosgrove (1993) and Daniels (1993) have evaluated maps (and other visual representations) in terms of a critical understanding of landscape and its broad social, cultural, political, and economic contexts. Thus the complex relations between maps and landscape are understood via critical interpretation of existing visual materials from a critical historical perspective. I engaged in such critical interpretation of historical visual representations of landscape in a study of the "envisioning" of the American West (Krygier 1990).
However, while a critical interpretation of mapping and landscape in its historical context is important, it is also necessary to examine the role of maps and other visual representations in the practice of current landscape geography research. I sense a growing interest by geographers in exploring new methods of landscape geography research. I also sense a growing interest among cartographers in exploring conceptualizations of geographic visualization in practice. The impetus behind my research on geographic visualization and the practice of current landscape geography derives from two sources. The first is based on critiques of "scientific" cartography made by practising cartographic designers such as Barbara Petchenik (Petchenik 1983). Such literature reaffirmed the value of cartographic design and the practice of mapping while questioning the a-geographic and reductionist perspective which had come to dominate the field. The second impetus behind my research is more academic yet still practical. Brian Harley's critiques of academic cartography, which heavily influenced my thinking, were in large part based on the idea of "deconstruction" as developed by both Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida (Harley 1988, 1989). Both are primarily thought of as influencing the critical interpretation (deconstruction) of "texts" of all kinds, including visual materials and landscape. Yet both Foucault and Derrida - as with most influential philosophers before them - come to shape the practice of the sciences and humanities; they have deconstructed existing forms of knowledge and ways of knowing, opening up the possibilities of reconstruction. Derrida in particular offers both a theory of critique (deconstruction) and a theory of invention and practice (grammatology). Deconstruction, then, is not an end but a means to invention and practice (Ulmer 1994). My impetus in this research, then, is to investigate the possibilities of reconstructing something out of what Harley (and others) have deconstructed. I offer not a new, all encompassing "grand theory" but a particular way of thinking about and practicing geographic visualization which builds on ideas and approaches which were marginalized by academic cartography's shift away from geography.
Coones, P. 1992. "Landscape Geography." In: A. Rogers, H.
Viles, and A. Goudie. The Student's Companion to Geography. New York:
Blackwell. pp. 70-76.
Cosgrove, D. 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape.
Totowa NJ: Barnes and Noble.
Cosgrove, D. 1993. Palladian Landscapes. State College PA: Penn
State University Press.
Daniels, S. 1989. "Marxism, Culture, and the Duplicity of Landscape."
In: R. Peet and N. Thrift. New Models in Geography: The Political Economy
Perspective. London: Unwin Hyman. pp. 196-220.
Daniels, S. 1993. Fields of Vision: Landscape Imagery and National
Identity in England and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Gregory, D. 1994. Geographical Imaginations. Cambridge:
Blackwell.
Harley, J.B. 1988. "Maps, Knowledge, and Power." In: D. Cosgrove and S.
Daniels, eds. The Iconography of the Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 277-312.
Harley, J.B. 1989. "Deconstructing the Map." Cartographica 26:2.
pp. 1-20.
Hartshorne, R. 1939. The Nature of Geography. Lancaster PA: The
Association of American Geographers.
Krygier, J. 1990. "The Landscape Images of Baron F.W. von Egloffstein,
Topographic Artist in the Transmississippi West, 1853-1859." Unpublished
Master's Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Lewis, M. 1991. "Elusive Societies: A Regional-Cartographical Approach
to the Study of Human Relatedness." Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 81:4. pp. 605-626.
Natter, W. and J. Jones. 1989. "Response to J.B. Harley's Article
'Deconstructing the Map.'" Cartographica 26:3/4. pp. 113-114.
Petchenik, B. 1983. "A Mapmaker's Perspective on Map Design Research,
1950-80." In: D. Taylor, ed. Graphic Communication and Design in
Contemporary Cartography. New York: Wiley. pp. 37-70.
Pile, S. and G. Rose. 1992. "All or Nothing: Politics and Critique in
the Modernism/Postmodernism Debate." Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 10. pp. 123-136.
Sauer, C. 1925. "Morphology of Landscape." University of California
Publications in Geography 2. pp. 19-53. Reprinted in C. Sauer. 1969.
Land and Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sayer, A. 1989. "The 'New' Regional Geography and Problems of
Narrative." Planning and Environment D: Society and Space 7. pp.
253-276.
Sayer, A. 1992. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach.
London: Routledge.
Ulmer, G. Heuretics: The Logic of Invention. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Wood, D. 1992. The Power of Maps. New York: Guilford
E-mail: jbkrygie@cc.owu.edu