critical analysis of cyberspace mapping

1. critical analysis of cyberspace mapping martin dodge, casa seminar, 3rd July 2002 the map is a help provided to the imagination through the eyes. Henri Abraham Chatelain, Atlas Historique (1705)

2. what have I been doing for the last few years?? Oct. 2001 Phd cybergeography Thesis 1996 Sept. 2000 2002? aims - coherent, valuable and academically credible analysis

3. understanding cyberspace? • there are many ways to describe and understand cyberspace • economics, legal, mathematics, art, sociology, etc.. • I’m a geographer, so I believe mapsenjoy a privileged position • maps have been powerful visual tools for understanding the world for 1000s of years • maps have been key in framing our understanding places, their size, shape and the relations between them • maps have been vital for navigation • maps vital in war, commerce and government

4. defining ‘cyberspace mapping’? • cyberspace • the conceptual spaces of information and communications flows within the digital infrastructure of computing hardware, software code and high-speed telecommunications networks • it is not the technology or infrastructure itself, but the virtual spaces that this enables • map and mapping • maps are graphic representations that facilitate a spatial understanding of things, concepts, conditions, processes, or events in the human world (Harley and Woodward, History of Cartography, Volume 1, 1987)

5. defining ‘cyberspace mapping’? • cyberspace mapping concerned with maps that show some aspect of ICT infrastructure or conceptual digital information spaces • maps of cyberspace, not maps in cyberspace • my framing of the domain of cyberspace mapping is obviously somewhat artificial • cyberspace mapping being done by lots of different people, groups and organisations. not conventional cartography or GI industry

6. but can we really map cyberspace? • a common question, based on 2 misconceptions • maps have to be geographical • cyberspace is non-spatial and separate from geography • challenge the ‘death of distance’ notions • mapping is much wider than the OS, Times Atlas and A-Z street maps • why is it hard to do? • cyberspace is new, its rapidly evolving, its fluid and its diverse. a lot of it is (increasingly) private space • breaks Euclidean conventions • we have very few good examples! • but its still early days

7. what are cyberspace maps like? • difficult to generalise. • many graphical forms and many aspects of cyberspace to map • modes of interaction • lots of scope for innovation • there is no one true map of cyberspace • I don’t attempt a full catalogue here - see the Atlas of Cyberspace website and book!

8. why map cyberspace? • why are these maps interesting and significant? • maps of cyberspace are important because they can tell us things about cyberspace • and cyberspace is becoming increasingly important in our lives • the human desire to explore the unknown • cyberspace is one of the most significant terra incognita of the 21st century • revealing what is hidden. making the invisible visible. enhancing our understanding • maps as a census of cyberspace. feeding into government policy and business decisions

9. why map cyberspace? • maps shape our perception and knowledge of cyberspace. maps frame space • maps also tell us things about the people who made them, and how they view cyberspace • power, money and control • property maps of cyberspace • what you can see, you can control and exploit • cartography redux • increasingly our lives involve visual, CMC, screen-based interaction. who controls the ‘geography of the screen’?

10. why map cyberspace? • people are making the maps regardless, so need to get in there and analyse them • the maps are being used to make important decisions, regardless of their efficacy or ethics • these are early maps, but like a lot of technology, the first map can set the boundaries of the possible going forward • got to get your critique in early before it all become set

11. defining ‘critical analysis’? • ‘critical’ and not ‘criticism’ • not a value judgement critique (‘I like that map!’) • not a technical evaluation and usability test • critical geography • critical cartography • a kind of ‘deconstruction’ • destabilise the objective truth claims of a text • I don’t like the jargon and the baggage though • linking into ‘Ground Truth’. but I am critiquing the maps and not whole systems

12. my theoretical position • critical theory as a combination of • social constructivism • political economy • I think they provide good theoretical tools for understanding cyberspace • maps and cyberspace are socially constructed • maps and cyberspace produced within power structures of capitalism (e.g. why don’t we all have broadband?) • applied through ideas of critical cartography

13. theory of critical cartography • development of critical cartography in the last 15 years or so • the 2nd text of maps • social and political contexts of maps and the map makers • key scholars • JB Harley, Deconstructing the map (1989) • Denis Wood, The power of maps (1992) • Jeremy Black, Maps and politics (1997) • Jeremy Crampton, Maps as social constructions: power, communication and visualization (2001) • Paul Laxton, New nature of maps (2001)

14. critical cartographer • Brian Harley: • rather than accepting what cartographers tell us maps are supposed to be, the thrust of my deconstruction is to subvert the apparent naturalness and innocence of the world shown in maps both past and present • break the assumed link between reality and representation

15. critical cartography:the new nature of the map • the power of maps • maps are not simply about communicating geographic information or representing the landscape • maps express power; maps create power • maps are not neutral or objective • maps are systems of power-knowledge • maps are subjective, selective distortions • maps serve the interests of those that make them

16. critical cartography:the new nature of the map • maps can be ‘read’ as texts, concerned for the 2nd text, the marginal, the unsaid • we should worry less about map design, accuracy standards, theories of information transfer, etc, etc (that’s a smoke screen) • examine more the social implications • what are the ethics of the maps, the map-maker and their mapping practices • is it ethical to record and map someone’s web surfing and email interactions?

17. two key ideas • maps are subjective • maps are frames

18. maps are subjective • we all know the huge number of subjective decisions we take when making maps • just think of the last time you did some analysis (manipulation) and mapping in ArcView. trace out the number of subjective, and often arbitrary, decisions you make (why 4 classes instead of 8?) • plus all the arbitrary defaults set by ESRI programmers • these all effect the end result. what comes out of ArcView is your social construction

19. this is the same for even the most fancy 3d immersive cyberspace map • this applies to all visualisations

20. maps are subjective • subjectivity is inherent • subjectivity is not wrong. you are not a ‘bad’ person for making subjective maps. not a personal criticism • the problem is : • passing off the map as objective and neutral • denying the subjectivity • naïve belief that the map is just a mirror of reality • this is enhanced with the ‘scientific’ sophistication and hiding behind layers gee whiz tech • maps are then used and applied on the assumption that they are objective

21. distortion and deception“how to lie with maps” • most obvious being through • data selection/omission • projections • how are maps of cyberspace deceiving? • Clearly there are many ways to project cyberspace onto a map

22. maps as frames of space

23. interfaces as frames of virtual space

24. virtual maps make virtual space • the map affects what we see and what we can do • we never know virtual space for ‘real’ • the interface is the space • map and the territory are one • those who make the interface, make the space… • and of course the map they make is subjective and serves their interests • its easy to take the interface for granted, assuming it is natural and a given. do not recognise its artificiality

25. ‘global’ [political economy] - power - interests - consumption - closure $$$ ££££ $$$ ££££ ‘local’ [social constructivist] - authorship - objectives - contexts ‘the map’ - subject - rhetoric - accuracy - ethics - space $$$ ££££ methodology for critique

26. ‘global’ • Power: What are the economic structures in which the map is situated? • Consumption: How is the map presented, disseminated, and used? How does the map work as part of wider cyberspace discourses and how is it received by society? • Interests: What interests are served by making this map? Who wins and who looses? Where does power lie in the production of this map? • Closure: What maps were not made? How does this map foreclose other representations and opportunities? What other mappings have been undertaken or alternative mappings could be imagined?

27. ‘local’ • Authorship: What is the authorship of the map? Who is doing the showing and what are their explicit and implicit intentions? What is the relationship between the map and its author? • Objectives: Why was the map made? Are the objectives of the map stated explicitly? What are some possible secondary, implicit objectives? • Contexts: What are the institutional contexts of the map? Who pays for the map to be made? What necessary practices and technical infrastructure was required to make the map? What are some of the major social and cultural inspirations and influences on the map?

28. ‘the map’ • Subject: What is the subject of the map? What is shown and what is not shown? • Rhetoric: How is power encoded and expressed in both the content and graphical form of the map? What conventions underlie the graphical symbols employed on the map? • Accuracy: How ‘accurate’ is the map? What are its standards of accuracy? Is it a workable map? • Space: What is the scale of the map? What conception of space is the map based upon? What is the maps worldview? • Ethics: Is it an ethical map? What are the wider social, political and economic implications on the space being mapped? How might the map change nature and perceptions of the space that it maps?

29. My critique methodology??? • I have struggled on this bit • easy to say, harder to do • welcome your thoughts and suggestions • need to limit the questions and lines of enquiry • need a structure to avoid rambling discussions where ‘everything matters’ • not sure how well the questions follow the theory (esp. for political economy) • I will see what results come out • application of critique methodology to 12 case studies

30. next step - which maps to critique? • Can’t critique them all. (In current Atlas there are 256 different cyberspace mapping projects) • divide cyberspace mapping into 3 ‘scales’: infrastructure, information, social • 4 case studies at each ‘scale’ • the case studies were selected before the critique methodology was drawn up • but clearly self-selected and not unbiased • chose case studies where I could say interesting things! • easier for geographic maps? can apply to all?

31. Social spaces Information spaces Infrastructure

37. structure of the thesis Introduction 1. Mapping – historical context and critical theory 2. Cyberspace – historical context and critical theory 3. Developing a critical theory of cyberspace mapping 4. Critical analysis of Internet infrastructure mapping 5. Critical analysis of information spatializations 6. Critical analysis of mapping online social spaces 7. Reflecting on the Atlas of Cyberspace Conclusions

38. critics of critical cartography • too polemical • too many generalisation • not all mapping is hegemonic. there is space for alternative mapping • seeking to re-envision cartography fitting their subjective views of the world • end up in a position where ‘everything count’ • knocking down and not building up • does not help making ‘better’ maps • it is, of course, only one route to analyse cyberspace mapping