Introduction
In connection with Black History Month, our February Module is Mapping for Racial Equity. Before diving into background information on our specific mapping project, we want to spend some time exploring the history of maps and their inherent power.
Thinking Critically About Maps
When we think about maps, we may often perceive them as a 2D, stale, fixed object. They simply display where things are–very matter of fact. However, to accept maps as binary–true or false– obscures the inherent biases within them. Behind a map there is data, the methodology used to collect and analyze that data, and a handful of choices made by an individual on how to visualize them. The cartographer makes active choices to omit some things and highlight others, inevitably cloaking data with an element of subjectivity. Color, projection, or symbol choices, conscious or not, have important effects on how viewers interpret a map, often re-enforcing or undermining particular beliefs. Maps are far from objective renderings of reality. As with all things in the digital age, we must be conscious consumers of maps and view them through a critical lens. Because maps often masquerade as beacons of objectivity, a certain set of skills is required to consume them critically. Americans are taught from an early age to be “cautious consumers of words,” but they are rarely taught the same skills regarding maps.
What is included on the map? What is the cartographer trying to show? What has been left off? What are they trying to hide? Why did the cartographer use red to symbolize this item on a map? What is the source of this map?
It is important for viewers to differentiate between written interpretations of a map and the data which it represents. When creating a map and choosing a title for it, a mapmaker should be careful to avoid extrapolation. An interactive map published by the New York Times titled “The Best and Worst Places to Grow Up” is a prime example of this phenomenon. While the title may suggest that the map reflects data from a quality of life index, the map actually references “how much extra money a county causes children in poor families to make, compared with children in poor families nationwide.” While there is likely an important link between social mobility and quality of life, the title of the map does not accurately represent the reality of the data. In conflating economic indicators with quality of life, the map makers express a normative view regarding what makes a life good. Again, a map masquerading as objective works to normalize certain views of reality. While the idea that making money makes life better may be a common one, it is still an opinion, not an empirical statement.
Are Atlanta or Denver bad places to grow up? Are the best places Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas, and rural Minnesota and Iowa? What constitutes a “good” or “bad” place to live? How would you show this on a map?
Another thing critical consumers of maps should consider is the source of the data. Where did this information come from? Is it from a trusted source? Is it recent? Data is not as objective and scientific as it may appear to be. As statisticians are known to say, “garbage in, garbage out”. In other words, the quality of data can vary widely depending on sources, methodology, and interpretation. Moreover, the process of turning raw data into visualizations requires human decision making, tinging even the best, more scientifically rigorous data with hints of subjectivity. The way data is visualized, particularly through the use of different colors to show variation (typically through choropleth maps), can be misleading or obscure reality. For example, in maps of food deserts – or urban areas in which it is difficult to find fresh, affordable food – Black and POC communities are often portrayed as barren, empty, and coloured in red. What may appear an insignificant decision on behalf of map makers can shape the public’s perception of such communities, defining Black and POC communities solely by their hardships.
Colonial History of Maps
In order to truly understand the rhetorical power of maps, it is important to return to the history of cartography. Namely, the historical relationships between colonialism and map-making. Primarily, maps supplied Europeans and other colonial powers with the information required to conquer foreign territories. Geographical knowledge was foundational to the colonial project. The map has long been a key tool for cutting up the world. Borders, especially those delineated by lines on maps, are about control of a space. A map-maker’s decision to include – or exclude – particular lines, symbols, and physical features lies in a set of power relations and during colonial times, often advanced a particular agenda. The lines drawn on maps had real consequences for the people and places they sought to represent. The partition of Africa in colonial times, for example, drew arbitrary lines, ignoring traditional cultural and linguistic boundaries. Such arbitrary border drawing often led to an escalation of conflict between groups that found themselves lumped together in newly created colonial territories and later nation-states.
Maps as Tools of Discrimination: The United States
However, it is not necessary to look far back in history to see the normative power of maps. Cartography was also intimately tied up in the United States. This is most directly seen through redlining, which was the cartographic practice of categorically denying access to mortgages to individuals and to whole neighborhoods in the 1930s. An agency of the U.S. federal government, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), graded the “residential security” of thousands of American neighborhoods for banks, savings and loans, and other lenders who made mortgages. For each of the cities, the agency produced maps that visually represented these grades; a grade of A was deemed “best” and safest and was colored green. Those deemed hazardous were given a grade of “D” and colored red. If residents of these neighborhoods were African Americans, immigrants, or Jews, HOLC deemed them a threat to the stability of home values and described their presence as an
“infiltration.” Although the practice is no longer legal, the impact of redlining is still with us today. Its harmful legacy has left communities of color struggling with access to healthcare and grocery stores, poorer educational opportunities, and increased vulnerability to climate change, as many of these areas are prone to flooding and extreme heat.
Bottom-Up Mapping
In recent years, Geographic Information System (GIS) technology has become much more powerful and far less expensive, leading to an explosion in its popularity. The rise of new cartographic technology has made the critical consumption of maps more and more relevant. This rise of new web mapping technology has democratized cartography. More and more people can attempt mapmaking – a practice formerly restricted to experts with access to specialized software. Such democratization has had important ramifications for the types of maps being produced. Namely, whereas corporations and states once monopolized cartography, communities are now empowered to decide how they are portrayed in maps. Bottom-up, grass root cartography can capture the nuances of community values, practices, and even language that top-down approaches often miss. Nevertheless, this democratization process is far from perfect. Eliminating the need for expertise can lead to inaccurate maps which can then easily spread across social media platforms, perpetuating falsehoods.
Tools like OpenStreetMap help democratize the process of mapping–making it more accessible to anyone in the world. But like many other forms of self-demarcation, OpenStreetMap is not perfect. OSM merely striked a momentary balance between western ideologies and community knowledge. Every community will have different ways of understanding their spaces and places, so dominating cartographic languages used in GIS are unable to capture the wealth of knowledge and complex understandings of place.
Many Indigenous communities have developed practices of counter-mapping. Counter-mapping is an act of resistance and defense against those who have used mapping as a monopoly of power. Some communities have sought to create maps that encapsulate how they view space and place: as a living fabric. The process of community mapping can create results that are nuanced, textured, and rooted in community-specific knowledge and experiences.
February’s Mapping Project
For our February Module, Mapping for Racial Equity, we invite you to contribute to the following project: ALBANY, GA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & RESILIENCE. This project aims to fill in the gaps of geospatial data, so that local officials have up to date information when natural disasters strike again: promoting community development and resilience.
Comments