The editors define 'radical cartography' as âthe practice of mapmaking .... 4(1), pp. 11-33. Give Geography its Place
Title: An Atlas of Radical Cartography Editors: Mogel, L and Bhagat, A Year of Publiation: 2007 Place of Publication: Los Angeles Publisher: Journal of Aesthetics and Protest Pages: 157; 10 Maps Price: $30 Paperback Recently, I had a conversation with a fellow academic about recuperation of radical projects by the state and the mainstream. He told me how radical theory and research on radical movements has been systematically analysed and archived by state agencies in order to combat and recuperate radical groups, or otherwise survey the organisational form and ideological development of these movements and ideas. The Israeli military using poststructuralist theory in their strategy (Weizman, 2008) is an obvious example. Counter-cartographies such as this atlas are therefore balanced on a knife-edge of research ethics between progressive political engagement and the risk of endangering groups and individuals involved. As a publication edited by two leading members of the Institute for Anarchist Studies in New York, my mind was also drawn to consider the cartography of this atlas’ readership, the political and social spaces readers occupy and its potential effects upon, and position within, a waning ‘alter-globalisation’ movement. Thus the slight irony and peculiar significance of this publication cannot go unnoticed. The position it represents, between the institutionalised academy and an activist movement desperately seeking new directions, is played out within its pages and makes for very interesting and sometimes challenging reading. The atlas is laid out as a series of ten maps by a range of activists, artists and cartographers, each accompanied by a short article written either by themselves or another scholar or activist. Some articles are directly related to the maps, while others are inspired by them or extrapolate on the same theme. Most of the writers are not geographers, although many are academics, and all are political activists of one stripe or another. This brings their different interests together to form a series of essays formed by a symbiosis of a range of academic sensibilities and political sympathies. Similarly, many of the map-makers are professionals in the artistic world, and bring their graphic and design skills together with their political ideas to produce both aesthetically beautiful and thought-provoking maps. The editors define ‘radical cartography’ as “the practice of mapmaking that subverts conventional notions in order to actively promote social change” (2007: 6), although whether this necessarily produces radical cartography, rather than simply progressive cartography remains to be seen. In chapter two, the Institute for Applied Autonomy (IAA) addresses the idea of radical cartography by discussing their notion of ‘tactical cartography’. Just like the tactical media milieu, tactical cartography “embrac[es] themes of political empowerment” (2007: 29) by producing practically useful maps for day-to-day political organisation. In this case, they include a map of all CCTV cameras in Manhattan, New York, in order to track the ‘routes of least surveillance’. The editors note that the maps and texts attempt to “unhinge our beliefs about the world, and… provoke new perceptions of the networks,
lineages, associations and representations of people, places and power” (2007: 6). This attitude towards the purposes of cartography envelops the whole publication, and is reflected in the diversity of maps and subject matters included in it. Each map and essay approaches cartography and its role from a different angle, producing a broad melting-pot of ideas, angles, aesthetics and political priorities in which almost anyone mildly interested in cartography and the politics thereof could find something of interest. Some of the best contributions come from the complimentarity between map and text. A particularly impressive collaboration worthy of note is Lize Mogel’s map From South to North accompanied by text by Sarah Lewison, which interweave discussions of global warming, marine transport industries and the changing landscape of globalised capitalism to great effect. Indeed, Mogel’s map is in itself a wonderful Dada-inspired collage of text and illproportioned chunks of the world map grafted together. The Centre for Urban Pedagogy’s diagram of the power structures and actors within the New York waste disposal industry is also brilliantly complimented by Heather Rogers’ story of how the fight against mob rule in this industry was co-opted by multinational corporations using exploitative practices of predatory investment to secure lucrative deals and monopolies. On the other hand, several contributions are of merit in their own right. For example, An Architektur’s eerily minimalist and almost brutalist architectural mapping of the systems and processes migration surrounding one German immigrant detainment centre is at once illuminating and disturbing. Also of note is a roundtable discussion on the Los Angeles water cycle and nature-culture dialectics in practice, and Ashley Hunt’s extremely intricate and complex depiction of multiple scales of capitalist alienation and disenfranchisement in A World Map. The relatively understandable lexicon of the essays, along with the colourful and interesting maps might even mean that the atlas could be used as a teaching tool. There has been much discussion about the role of geography in the school curriculum (e.g. Stannard, 2003; Give Geography its Place, 2007; BBC, 2008), and resources such as this atlas could provide new and interesting subjects of interactive study and discussion for high school and college students, as well as undergraduates. An atlas like this might also contribute to countering the distinct lack of critical geographies in school geography. There are, nonetheless, elements of the atlas that are not quite right, and grate occasionally for the reader. What is very obvious from the start is the very high level of ‘America-bashing’. The USA, although an easy target for radical left critique, is all too often singled out for special treatment. There are many arguably more interesting case studies that, although often more subtle and difficult to unpick, are awaiting discussion. A more productive critique of capital and the state should surely stem from a view that fits the ‘less nasty’ countries of the world as inherently part of bigger socio-economic injustices as a totalising system of governance rather than the ‘bad guys’ being singled out for special treatment. Future volumes of this atlas, if there are to be any, should attempt significantly to broaden the outlook to encompass a greater diversity of geographical subject matters and perspectives beyond the standard ‘anti-neoliberal’ viewpoint that is over-emphasised in this publication and many others.
Another concern, linked to this, is the fragmented nature of the essays. Each one makes interesting and important observations and critiques, and brings forward challenging ideas and perspectives. However, there seems to be little unity between them, and no broader linking-up of critiques and issues. The lack of a concluding chapter by the editors is perhaps largely to blame for this. Upon finishing the texts, one is left wanting some sort of closure, some sort of bringing-together of the different threads running through the publication: disenfranchisement, hidden and forgotten people and places, historical trajectories, alienation, corruption, and so on. A solid concluding chapter would have made a significant qualitative difference to the grounding of the texts and their concomitant maps, as well as to the study of radical cartography more generally. Cartography has seen a modest re-awakening in geography in recent years, in particular within radical and critical milieux (e.g. Pinder, 1996; Crampton and Krygier, 2005; Robinson 2007). Thus this atlas, with its stunning design, relatively accessible language and thought-provoking contributions from activists, artistic practitioners and academics, will sit well within this milieu. Similarly, its positionality as non-academic yet rigorous and engaging with many debates of interest to academic geographers and activists alike, gives the publication a wide appeal with an identity that is hard to pigeon-hole. Despite some broader political problems – such as a propensity to fall into anti-USA mode, and lack of sufficiently deep discussion of what radical cartography is – and the mysterious lack of a concluding chapter, there is no doubt that it has potential for becoming an important contribution to the subject, and paving the way for future projects in a similar vein. References BBC (2008) ‘Geography “Must be Made Relevant.”’ [Online] Available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7192330.stm [Accessed 22nd February 2008]. 17 January. Crampton, JW and Krygier, J (2005) ‘An Introduction to Critical Cartography’ ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies. 4(1), pp. 11-33 Give Geography its Place (2007) GGIP Primary Consultation. [Online] Available from http://www.ggip.co.uk/GGIP%20Primary%20Consultation.doc [Accessed 20th February 2008]. Pinder, D (1996) ‘Subverting Cartography: The Situationists and Maps of the City’ Environment and Planning A 28(3), pp. 405-427. Robinson, T (2007) ‘Grass-Roots Critical Cartography: The University, Resistance Mapping and Social Change’. Presented at the ESRI Education User Conference, San Diego, USA. 16-19 June. Stannard, K (2003) ‘Earth to Academia: On the Need to Reconnect University and School Geography’ Area. 35(3), pp. 316-322.
Weizman, E (2008) ‘Israeli Military Using Post-Structuralism as “Operational Theory.”‘ [Online] Available from http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060801170800738 [Accessed 20th February 2008]. Anthony Ince Queen Mary University of London
