Map reading from somewhere

Maps create the illusion of the possibility of a birds’ eye view, a view that is located nowhere, because there is no point from which you can see the spherical world looking like a two dimensional map. This omnipresent and omniscient gaze has been dubbed the “God trick”, producing the perception of “objectivity, distanced observation, and full knowledge” (Pickles, 2006, p.348). Neither the production nor reading of maps is placeless. As detailed in the literature section of this chapter, maps have particularities to their provenance. What is less commonly considered is the location of audiences in time and space. Audience location in a space of flows grounded in a particular time and place influences interests and sensitivities when reading a map. Pre-existing knowledge is gauged against the maps, and the maps against that knowledge. Location influences geographical awareness, which could be broadened by looking at visualisations of the world. The particularities of maps and audiences mean that their conceptual abstraction would detract from our understandings of the meanings generated through map reading.

Figure 19 to Figure 21 show the geographical foci of the conversation of each group, when talking in general, about the maps, and also about the graphs. The numbers presented are the number of times a country within that region or the region itself was mentioned in one of the discussion groups. For example, if Uganda were mentioned twice and Tanzania three times within a single discussion group that would mean a point for each country. Similarly, if Africa were mentioned 10 times it is counted once because subsequent references

may be shadows of the first. This counting captures variation of mentions by precluding double counting within groups. When comparing data please note that the discussion of maps and graphs rarely took more than a fifth of the total time. In Mexico and Kenya visualisations stimulate more place-specific talk than in the UK; the UK teachers more readily talked about a range of different places without visual prompting.

In Figure 19 to Figure 21 it appears that in Kenya and the UK the general conversation focused more on Africa than any other region; in contrast Mexican general conversation was more centred on Europe. However when references to the UK in 6/8 Mexican groups are ignored as a potential bias due to the interviewer being British, South and Central America are the most talked about. This shows greater interest and knowledge about a group’s own region than others, except in the UK due to a distinctly non-European mindset. The ways in which this information was mentioned vary: it could take the form of stories of personal experiences, sharing detailed information, or more superficial mentions. All cases are counted equally in these graphs.

The introduction of maps and graphs to the groups altered the geographical focus of their discussions, partly in line with what the maps and graphs emphasised. With cartograms size attracts attention, and in the unlikely absence of a special regional interest, it could be assumed that on the wealth map most attention would fall on the United States. Greater attention is given to North America when reading the maps, than in the general conversation in each of the three research countries. On the poverty map, more attention would theoretically go to India and China, however there is no large increase in conversation about these regions on presentation of the maps. Both Kenyans and Mexicans again spoke most about their own regions when shown the maps. In contrast the overall focus of conversational attention within UK groups shifted away from Africa and towards both North America and Asia.

The trade flow map draws attention to Western Europe again using size, with a huge arrow showing intra-regional trade; the income bar chart draws the eye to the country with the highest bar, the United States, whilst also drawing attention to India and China, given that they have considerable space on the graph, not

due to high earnings but large populations. Attention of Kenyans when reading the graphs shifted from Africa towards Asia. I speculate that this may be because Africa did not feature much in the graphs, although this absence also attracted some attention from Kenyan groups. However the Mexican and UK groups barely commented on this absence, with Africa out of sight, out of mind. Mexican groups continued to focus on South and Central America when looking at the graphs with increased attention paid to Asia. The British groups paid more attention to Europe when not looking at the maps.

Figure 20: Talking about the world from Mexico

Figure 21: Talking about the world from the UK

The observations above, whilst based on rather small numbers, imply that where you come from influences your geographical imagination in terms of what you look for, what you comment upon, and what is noticed in its absence. I recognise that others’ uses of the term geographical imagination would not use such techniques as this (in particular Gregory, 1994). Here geographical

imagination points to a heightened awareness and confidence in commenting

about certain places rather than others. That conversation often focuses on the nearby, except in the case of the UK, reflects local interest and knowledge. The UK, as noted in the introduction to this thesis, is a different case as far as worldviews are concerned; the British post-colonial imagination is broad due to the cultural influences of former colonies on the UK. Kenyans and Mexicans both spoke of Europe second most frequently after their own region (after the interviewer bias is accounted for), which probably reflects historical and linguistic connections. That geographical imaginations appear to focus within the region suggests participants’ worlds not extending to the entire planet. It is argued that “Every map is always a “world” map” because it shows that world (Pickles, 2004, p.192). Here it seems that participants picked their own worlds from the map.

There is a dialectical27 relationship between how geographical imaginations shape map reading and how this influences geographical imaginations. In Kenya and Mexico an interest in participants’ own regions directed considerable attention to those regions despite the whole world being represented. However this attention to their own regions was not exclusive, and participants’ conversation was influenced by what was highlighted on the maps and graphs. This was also the case for the UK groups, whose discussion altered in accordance with the visualisations they were looking at, except that there was less preference for talking about their own region, which is probably linked to British people not feeling as European as Kenyans feel African or Mexicans feel Latin American.

This regional focus in Kenya and Mexico could be a pragmatic information interpretation technique of grounding oneself in the familiar as a point of comparison in order to look beyond to the less familiar. A disposition to be more interested in the local is perhaps a concern for what affects participants’

27 _{By dialectical, I mean that there is a relationship between maps and our}

worlds most. This special interest could be an instinctive desire to identify what participants know in a different form; however it seems plausible that this is taught. We are trained to search for our own country or continent, perhaps looking for its distinctive outline on a map or its name on a graph. This process could be ideologically motivated, a form of banal nationalism previously identified in Western countries where unobtrusive habits reproduce nations and nationals (Billig, 1995/2002, p.6); it appears that banal nationalism thrives elsewhere. This does not need to be confined to the nation, for example pan- Africanism aims to unite Africans, promote pride in African values and glorify African history (Esedebe, 1994, p.5). A similar affection for one’s own region can be detected in the quotation below

“so Nigeria is one of the countries with the most poverty, it has 90.8% of people who earn under 2 dollars a day (reporting information shown on poster). Why are we so far? South-East Asia, Africa, and then LATIN AMERICA”.

(Mexico 6, rural government school. Posters are in Appendix 5)

In the above quotation ‘South-East Asia’ is said in a matter of fact way, followed by ‘Africa’ said pityingly, ‘Latin America’ is said with a triumphant fondness which seems less connected to the topic of conversation, who is poorest, than the fact of talking about his own place. However, having a map encouraged this teacher to talk about other continents as well, highlighted new information about Nigeria, and geographically broadened his conversation to places he might not usually refer to. A map can extend conversation to include more information about more places. The map not only communicates information, but also reminds people of less familiar places and events. In this context, specific information about distant places could be introduced in a more definite way, giving confidence to talk about places, events and relationships that might otherwise have been more vague, half-baked impressions. Putting somewhere on the map can attract the audience’s attention. Yet nationalist preferences and the pre-existing knowledge with which the visualisation blends also inevitably contribute to gel a slightly re-ordered worldview.