Mayumi Blogger Template

In the article, "Ideology and the Map", by Barton and Barton, a statement is posed at the very beginning of the article that presents the idea of the map being "quintessentially ideological" (NMR 50). Barton and Barton explain this idea throughout the essay and discuss the ways that the inclusive ways of the map are to be taken away and replaced with the ideas of the repressed so that their point of views are heard (NMR 76). Barton and Barton begin the argument with the rules of inclusion which "...determine whether something is mapped, what aspects of a thing are mapped and what representational strategies and devices are used to map those aspects," (NMR 54). The authors continue to describe the ways by which a place can be objectified and the hierarchization that occurs when using legitimating strategies. But while ideology expresses things, it also can also repress things such a countries, cultures and people. This is seen specifically with the "repression of the others of the Other" which is when the "Other" is situated in a ethnographically homogenous area, and where a change in the "norms" would result in a change or shift in power. Barton and Barton investigate the idea that the map as a product as well as a process throughout this reading. When they write about the thought of the map as a product, it is with examples such as the subway system in London. The changes that were made to the maps in the subway station allowed for the public to view the map as a multidimensional way to seeing the map of the city. This made the map more user friendly, showing how the map can be seen as a product and the people as users of the product. Barton and Barton then examine how it is possible to "denaturalize the map" (NMR 72). The authors bring up the idea of the map as a collage, something that combines images along with words to for a cohesive idea or thought. This brings about a juxtaposition of an element (the map) that now has significant elements (text and visual) that when combined allow the person using the map to grasp a better and wider understanding of the idea that is presented. Barton and Barton conclude tat to denaturalize the map would be "...adopting the perspective of the traditionally disempowered. Advocating not simply their inclusion but their point of view as well," (76).

Inquiry:

While I had never thought as a map being something that could be analyzed ideologically, after reading the arguments and ideas posed by Barton and Barton, the ideology of maps is clearly mapped out, no pun intended. What Barton and Barton show throughout this reading is that through the years, those who have made the maps have constructed them in a way so that the hierarchy of the society is reflected upon the way the maps are read and interpreted. I agree with the argument made that the maps should reflect more than the things that people only wan to see as the authors quoted another source in saying that the maps do not convey things such as slums, or parts of the city that are unpleasing to see. This is such an important concept because maps should convey and present everything that exists, and like the authors stated, when a country, or a state or a city is not included on a map, it is like the place never existed. This concept is demoralizing and is damaging to the cultures and ideas of a place and their people. Barton and Barton make several references to the map being either a product or a process and I came to the conclusion after reading this article that the map can be both depending on how we decide to interpret it, or how we were taught to interpret it. There are many different types of maps and they all vary on levels of interaction, making it difficult to classify the entirety of maps as one specific thing, a process or a product. While I understand the claims that the authors are making about maps being something that is presented to people as an "object of desire and not an object of use"(NMR 70), this poses an interesting question, to what extent are we consumers rather than users? When do we start using the map as if it is an extension of ourselves and not just a material tool? When looking at the argument about the collage being a way to express the "viewpoint of the oppressed,"(NMR 70) at what point does the collage become limiting? How are we involved in the construction of these maps? How do we contribute to the "oppression of the traditionally oppressed", are we playing into these ideas? And to ask the question posed at the end of the reading... "Will Unity be achieved? (NMR 76). Can we actually expect to be able to combine the views of the oppressed with those who are traditionally shown on maps?