According to many, maps have long been considered a tool of navigation, whether that is getting from one place to another or transmitting geographical information onto paper. However, closer examination reveals that maps are far more than mere representations of the physical world; rather, maps are metaphorical and symbolic tools that reflect the deep cultural, political, and personal biases of the cartographers who create them. These biases can both consciously and unconsciously influence how the world is presented, reinforcing the power structures and narratives of the time.
An article published in twenty-sixteen by Rania Khalek called, “McGraw-Hill destroys textbook to placate pro-Israel bloggers,” discusses how McGraw-Hill, a popular textbook and educational publisher, withdrew all textbooks within a week by destroying copies of a geography textbook because of the criticism from pro-Israel activists. The controversy arose due to a map in the textbook that labeled Palestinian territories as “occupied” and that it posed “an enormous threat to Zionist ideology because they have the ability to cut through Israeli propaganda that portrays Palestinian anger and violence[…]” (Khalek 2016). Due to the geographical history of Palestine and Israel, many pro-Israel groups argued that the maps were politically biased and not accurate. Following the backlash that they received, McGraw-Hill quickly decided to take action within the week of the incident by calling back all books that had those maps and destroying the inventory of the textbooks that were out there, rather than revising it or putting out a new edition.
The quick decision by McGraw-Hill to destroy their textbook following criticism from pro-Israel groups revealed the powerful role that maps, and their creators, play in shaping perceptions and can be used as propaganda tools to push specific agendas if and when desired. By choosing how to represent geopolitical boundaries and which details to include or exclude, cartographers, specifically McGraw-Hill in this case, although just the publisher, can influence public perception allowing for the upholding of certain power dynamics in which they can scure and twist to hold dominance over other’s perceptions. Withdrawing and destroying the textbooks in a quick fashion, “less than a week later,” (Khalek 2016) – rather than simply revising them – illustrates how maps are now not only passive representations of geographical facts but active tools in shaping political realities because the map’s depiction was seen as a threat to a specific political agenda, prompting those in power, the lobbyists, to suppress it by lashing out at McGraw Hill to take it down. The deliberate alteration of maps – using details to emphasize, what to omit, how to label regions, the scale, and even the description – underlines the idea that the cartographer’s creation can be not purely objective, but rather subjective and influenced by ideological goals that hold high power. Giving the cartographer such power, allows them to realize that they can use their full conscience to influence a large population and use that to justify their power and dominance in the world. In other words, because maps give cartopgrapher’s the power to twist political “right and wrongs”, thougth the idea that they know they can influence others, it allows them to reinforce the power structures to fit the agenda’s they wish to complete
However, although maps give cartographers the ability to influence and justify their power when they purposely want to, just as the lobbyist thought if McGraw Hill didn’t take their map down, some might need to also realize that there is bias in map making even if there was no intention and “agenda” of doing so. In Text and the Context in the Interpretation of Early Maps by J.B. Harley, Harley suggests:
that all maps are rhetorical[…] because […] maps are never neutral or value-free or ever completely scientific. Each map argues its own particular case[…]They are part of a persuasive discourse, and they intend to convince. Theirs is not an innocent reality dictated by the intrinsic truth of the data; they are engaging in the ancient art of rhetoric. (Harley 37)
This quote from Harley suggests and emphasizes that maps are inherently subjective, shaped by the perspectives of their creators, even when they aim to present themselves as neutral. When Harley says that “maps are never neutral or value-free or ever completely scientific,” he is illustrating that every map is shaped and embedded with particular values, whether or not the cartographer is consciously aware of them to use the maps as propaganda. Additionally, Harley’s statement that “each map argues its own particular case” suggests that maps are not only just tools for conveying geographical information, but also are forms of persuasive communication that engage in the art of expression to present a specific view of the world. Even if the cartographer’s goal is not explicitly to use the map as propaganda, the map’s design still conveys a particular narrative, that influences how people understand the space it depicts. This influence can justify dominance and give the cartogrpher the power by reinforcing certain ideologies even if the intention of the map-making was to objectively draw a map.
In sociology, I’ve learned that everything we do is influenced by the people and culture surrounding us, whether intentional or unintentional. This is called Implicit Bias: a bias, that as humans we cannot turn off. Even when sociologists try to turn off this bias while learning and taking notes about new cultures, there will always be some prejudice that will be brought to the table because, during childhood growth, this is how you as a human person are made to be “yourself”; society and their influences on you have shaped you to be the way you are today.
Harley’s assertion that maps are inherently biased and persuasive aligns with the notion of implicit bias. Although sociologists acknowledge that they cannot fully remove their biases when conducting research they still bring their biases just cartographers also bring their assumptions during the process of mapmaking, often without realizing it. Even when mapmakers intend to create objective representations, their choices of what to include, emphasize, or omit on a map are influenced by the societal and cultural environment they have grown up in because the maps pictures that they generate from their minds through the influences in society, which means mapmakers will carry prejudice from the experiences that each individual will encounter in their lifetime, and draw those biases and experiences onto the paper so-called “transmitted information”. Because each person’s experiences in life are different due to different cultures and other influences, maps are not just ways to transmit geographical information, but ways people can uphold power in a propaganda sense.
Ultimately, maps are more than pieces of paper to transmit information. They are pieces of propaganda whether used as such or not. By analyzing maps, many can uncover the hidden meanings and power dynamics that are written deep below the surface, revealing why maps shape not only understanding of geography, but reinforce the power structures and narratives of the time, whether intentional or unintentional.
Leave a Reply