Lying with Maps

Cartography: an art of lying to tell a truth?

Revisiting Lecture 01: Mapping as a process of abstraction
The "Real World", in all of its diversity is viewed with a specific purpose in mind.
Particular objects are defined, measured for location and attribute
A system of symbols portray the information (originally graphics symbols, now also data structures)

Transformation that restructures source material to make a map:
The World is compressed - represented by the map.
(from Erwin Raisz, 1962, Principles of Cartography, chapter 3)

Two 'schools' of cartography:

• Communication: (Dent, Robinson, most of the rest) map as communication channel between map designer and map reader (percipient). The lie is a social act, inside a context of meaning.
• Analytical: (Tobler, Nyerges, Chrisman, few others) map as transformation of information. The lie as a measurement difference, subject to some kind of external verification (limited in scope by frames of reference.

Both schools have been accused of taking the map too literally as a mirror of "reality"...

Various Critiques of Cartography (from the insiders):

Harley: 1989 Deconstructing the Map (Cartographica)
Dennis Woods: The Power of Maps
Maps as an expression of power, refute the concept of a "mirror"
postmodern critique, recognize the role of context (ultimate relativism?)

Mark Monmonier 1991 How to Lie with Maps (a remarkable success as a trade book)

MacEachern: 1994 Some Truth with Maps (a deliberate attempt to be positive)

Beyond the cartographers:

Map metaphor is a common topic in philosophy of science.
Maps are used to portray the simplicity of the linkage between a model and reality.
The linkage might be a whole lot more complicated: maps are actually a good model of theories, but not in the way expected...

The Bottom Line:

Issues of ethics and responsibility are inherent in any communication.
Effective maps are possible, but a reader must look closely...