GeoJournal

, Volume 78, Issue 6, pp 935–948 | Cite as

Tracing contingencies: analyzing the political in assemblages of web 2.0 cartographies

Article

Abstract

Our paper presents a theoretical approach to critical research on web 2.0 cartographies. Within the geoweb, dynamic and collaborative web based maps have become a popular medium for collating and communicating geographic information. Web 2.0 cartographies are often promoted as facilitating public participation and democratizing geographic knowledge. Such claims demand a closer look at the processes through which people do engage in these cartographic projects and the multiple actors, institutions, norms and technologies at work. In the context of ‘theorizing the geoweb’, here we propose conceptual tools for analyzing these myriad interactions within web 2.0 cartographies. We understand web 2.0 cartographies as assemblages of subjects, materialities and practices, or ‘actor networks’. Yet explorations of actor‐networks describe existing relations and as a consequence tend to overlook what has been excluded or lies outside of such assemblages. In order to overcome this blindness we suggest bringing together actor‐network theory with the concepts of hegemonic discourses, contingency and the political from Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau. These two political theorists stress the idea that specific social realities become fixed, sedimented and perceived as natural while other possible social realities become marginalized. Using the example of the dynamic ‘Palestine Crisis Map’ (an Ushahidi Crowdmap) we demonstrate a methodology that emphasizes sensitivity towards moments of exclusion and struggle, where the political unfolds. Theorizing the political in this way extends the processual approach within Critical Cartography and offers a conceptual basis for critical research on the social dimensions of web 2.0 cartographies and geoweb practices.

Keywords

Critical cartography Web 2.0 cartography Geoweb Actor-network theory Theory of discourses and hegemonies 

References

  1. Amsterdamska, O. (1990). Book review. Surely you are joking, monsieur latour! science in action, by Bruno Latour. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(4), 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aouragh, M. (2011). Palestine online. Transnationalism, the internet and the construction of identity. London: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  3. Belliger, A., & Krieger, D. (2006). Einführung in die Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. In A. Belliger & D. Krieger (Eds.), Anthology. Ein einführendes Handbuch zur Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie (pp. 13–50). Transcript: Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  4. Bittner, C., Michel, B., & Turk, C. Turning the spotlight on the crowd: Examining participatory ethics and practices of crisis mapping. Accepted for print by ACME (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  5. Bittner, C., Michel, B., Glasze, G., & Turk, C. (2011). Krisen- und Konflikt-Karten im Web 2.0. Ein kritischer Blick auf die neuen Krisen und Konfliktkarten. Geographische Rundschau, 63(11), 60–65.Google Scholar
  6. Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. (2006). Frameworks for understanding organizational change—the case of a major ICT outsourcing contract. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 42(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  7. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, second life, and beyond. From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  8. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–233). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Crampton, J. (2008). Cartography: Maps 2.0. Progress in Human Geography, 33(1), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crampton, J. (2010). Mapping. A critical introduction to cartography and GIS. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Crawford, C. S. (2005). Actor network theory. In George. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory (pp. 1–3). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Dalton, C. M. (2012): Mashing-up maps. Google geo services and the geography of ubiquity. Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill. Department of Geography.Google Scholar
  13. Del Casino, V., & Hanna, S. P. (2006). Beyond the ‘Binaries’: A methodological intervention for interrogating maps as representational practices. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 4(1), 34–56.Google Scholar
  14. Dodge, M., & Kitchin, R. (2007). Rethinking maps. Progress in Human Geography, 31(3), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dodge, M., Kitchin, R., & Perkins, C. (2009). Thinking about maps. In M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, & C. Perkins (Eds.), Rethinking maps. New frontiers in cartographic theory (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Elwood, S. (2008). Volunteered geographic information: Future research directions motivated by critical, participatory, and feminist GIS. GeoJournal, 72(3–4), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elwood, S. (2010a). Geographic information science: Emerging research on the societal implications of the geospatial web. Progress in Human Geography, 34(3), 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elwood, S. (2010b). Mixed methods: Thinking, doing, and asking in multiple ways. In Dydia. DeLyser (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative geography (pp. 94–113). Los Angeles, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elwood, S., & Leszczynski, A. (2011). Privacy, reconsidered: New representations, data practices, and the geoweb. Geoforum, 42(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elwood, S., & Leszczynski, A. (2012) New spatial media, new knowledge politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00543.x.
  21. Farman, J. (2010). Mapping the digital empire: Google earth and the process of postmodern cartography. New Media Society,. doi:10.1177/1461444809350900.Google Scholar
  22. Featherstone, D. (2008). Resistance, space and political identities. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gartner, G. (2009). Web mapping 2.0. In M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, & C. Perkins (Eds.), Rethinking maps. New frontiers in cartographic theory (pp. 68–82). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Glasze, G. (2009). Kritische Kartographie. Geographische Zeitschrift, 97(4), 181–191.Google Scholar
  25. Graham, M. (2011) Cloud collaboration: Peer-production and the engineering of the internet. In S. Brunn (Ed.), Engineering earth (pp. 67–83). New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  26. Goodchild, M. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haklay, M. (2010). How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and ordnance survey data sets. Environment and Planning B, 37(4), 682–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haklay, M. (2013). Neogeography and the delusion of democratisation. Environment and Planning A, 45(1), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haklay, M., Singleton, A., & Parker, C. (2008). Web mapping 2.0: The neogeography of the geoweb. Geography Compass, 2(6), 2011–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harley, J. B. (1989). Deconstructing the map. Cartographica, 26(2), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hetherington, K., & Law, J. (2000). After networks. Environment and Planning D, 18(2), 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hostaker, R. (2005). Latour—semiotics and science studies. Science Studies, 18(2), 5–25.Google Scholar
  33. Kitchin, R., Gleeson, J., Dodge, M. (2012) Unfolding mapping practices: A new epistemology for cartography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00540.x .
  34. Kontopodis, M., & Niewöhner, J. (2010). Das Selbst als Netzwerk. Zum Einsatz von Körpern und Dingen im Alltag. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  35. Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  36. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  37. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radical democratic politics. London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 264–280). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation—philosophy, sociology, Genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, B. (1999). On Recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 15–25). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Laurier, E., & Brown, B. (2008). Rotating maps and readers: Praxiological aspects of alignment and orientation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(2), 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. Law, J. (2007). Actor network theory and material semiotics. John Law’s STS web page. http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf. Accessed 07 October 2012.
  46. Lee, N., & Brown, S. (1994). Otherness and the actor network: The undiscovered continent. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(6), 772–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leszczynski, A. (2012). Situating the geoweb in political economy. Progress in Human Geography, 36(1), 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mouzelis, N. (1988). Marxism or post-marxism? New Left Review, 167(1), 107–123.Google Scholar
  49. Neis, P., & Zipf, A. (2012). Analyzing the contributor activity of a volunteered geographic information project—the case of OpenStreetMap. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 1(2), 146–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. November, V., Camacho-Hubner, E., & Latour, B. (2010). Entering a risky territory: Space in the age of digital navigation. Environment and Planning D, 28(4), 581–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pickles, J. (1992). Texts, hermeneutics and propaganda maps. In T. J. Barnes & J. Duncan (Eds.), Writing worlds. Discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of landscape (pp. 193–230). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Pickles, J. (2004). A history of spaces: Cartographic reason, mapping and the geo-coded world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Rehrl K (2010) Geoweb verbindet www und physische Welt. In Rehrl K, Reich S (Eds), Geoweb. (6–17) Heidelberg: dpunkt-Verl.Google Scholar
  54. Robinson, A. H. (1952). The look of maps. An examination of cartographic design. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  55. Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technologies and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters—essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 26–56). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Stephens, M. (2012): From geo-social to geo-local: The flows and biases of volunteered geographic information. Dissertation. The University of Arizona, Arizona. School of Geography and Development.Google Scholar
  57. Tawil-Souri, H. (2012). Digital occupation: Gaza’s high-tech enclosure. Journal of Palestine Studies, 41(2), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turner, A. (2006). Introduction to neogeography. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  59. Wood, D. (2010). Rethinking the power of maps. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  60. Wood, D., & Fels, J. (1992). The power of maps. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  61. Wood, D., & Fels, J. (2008). The natures of maps: Cartographic constructions of the natural world. Cartographica, 43(3), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations