Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Progress in Human Geography
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kitchin, R.
Right arrow Articles by Dodge, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Rethinking maps

Rob Kitchin

NIRSA and Department of Geography, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland, rob.kitchin{at}nuim.ie

Martin Dodge

Department of Geography, University of Manchester, UK

In this paper we argue that cartography is profitably conceived as a processual, rather than representational, science. Building on recent analysis concerning the philosophical underpinnings of cartography we question the ontological security of maps, contending that it is productive to rethink cartography as ontogenetic in nature; that is maps emerge through practices and have no secure ontological status. Drawing on the concepts of transduction and technicity we contend that maps are of-the-moment, brought into being through practices (embodied, social, technical); that mapping is a process of constant reterritorialization. Maps are never fully formed and their work is never complete. Maps are transitory and fleeting, being contingent, relational and context-dependent; they are always mappings; spatial practices enacted to solve relational problems (eg, how best to create a spatial representation, how to understand a spatial distribution, how to get between A and B, and so on). Such a rethinking, we contend, provides a fresh perspective on cartographic epistemology, and could work to provide a common framework for those who undertake mapping as applied knowledge (asking technical questions) and those that seek to critique such mapping as a form of power/knowledge (asking ideological questions). We illustrate our argument through an analysis of mapping practices.

Key Words: cartography • maps • ontogenesis • ontology • practice.

Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 31, No. 3, 331-344 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0309132507077082
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Prog Hum GeogrHome page
J. W. Crampton
Cartography: performative, participatory, political
Progress in Human Geography, December 1, 2009; 33(6): 840 - 848.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Prog Hum GeogrHome page
J. W. Crampton
Cartography: maps 2.0
Progress in Human Geography, February 1, 2009; 33(1): 91 - 100.
[PDF]

Home page
 Prog Hum GeogrHome page
M. Sparke
Political geography -- political geographies of globalization III: resistance
Progress in Human Geography, June 1, 2008; 32(3): 423 - 440.
[PDF]