Recognizing And Disrupting Impatience

Recognizing And Disrupting Immappanc

For this assignment, please read "Recognizing and Disrupting Immappancy" in Week 14 Readings. The article is long and makes most of the key points by the end of p. 282, before going into extended examples, so you can read to the bottom of p. 282. I want us to read this article with two questions in mind: a) How does this build on our understanding of maps/mapping? b) How can the article help us to wrap-up course discussions and make connections between previous units?

Task: Your answers to the following questions should be at least 400 words long and use specific examples from the article.

1. The article quotes Nedra Reynolds at the bottom of the first paragraph on p. 272 ("we must attend not only to the physical realities...borders just need to be stepped over"). Connect this quote to the ideas that maps are rhetorical, rather than accurate representations of objective reality.
2. How does our position in the world affect our understanding of maps? Use examples from the article.
3. Why is immappancy a problem? (Try to dive into this answer, rather than coming up with a one-sentence answer.)
4. Pick one quote from the article that you found interesting and useful. Connect it to another concept we've discussed in the course so far. LINK TO READINGS:

Paper For Above instruction

The article "Recognizing and Disrupting Immappancy" offers a compelling critique of traditional mapping practices, emphasizing that maps are not neutral tools but are deeply embedded with ideological and rhetorical purposes. Central to this discussion is Nedra Reynolds' assertion that "we must attend not only to the physical realities...borders just need to be stepped over" (p. 272). This statement underscores the idea that borders on maps are not merely physical demarcations but are also social and political constructs that serve particular narratives. Maps, therefore, function as rhetorical devices that can be used to reinforce dominant power structures or challenge them. Reynolds' emphasis on attention to the social and political dimensions of borders aligns with the understanding that maps often reflect the perspectives and interests of those who create them. For example, a map depicting national borders might obscure the complexities of Indigenous territories or undocumented communities, thereby erasing their presence and agency. The map, in this sense, is not an objective representation but a rhetorical tool that can be used to legitimize certain boundaries while marginalizing others.

Our position in the world—geographically, culturally, and politically—significantly shapes how we interpret maps. The article illustrates this by discussing how different communities perceive borders and space based on their lived experiences. For instance, marginalized groups may see borders as barriers that exclude or restrict their mobility, contrasting with the dominant narratives that often portray borders as clear-cut lines of sovereignty. An example from the article highlights how Indigenous communities challenge state maps by emphasizing the fluidity of their traditional territories, which are often omitted or distorted in official cartographies. This demonstrates that understanding of space is not universal and is mediated by positionality; what appears as a boundary to one group may be understood as a space of cultural significance or open land to another. Such perspectives reveal the importance of interrogating the spatial assumptions embedded within conventional maps and emphasize the need for cartographies that reflect multiple worldviews.

Immappancy—the idea that certain spaces are rendered invisible or marginalized—is a profound problem because it perpetuates social inequalities and erases diverse lived realities. When maps exclude marginalized communities or fail to recognize the multiplicity of spatial experiences, they reinforce dominant narratives that justify social and political hierarchies. For example, the article discusses how urban maps often fail to capture informal settlements or migrant enclaves, effectively rendering these populations 'immapped' or invisible. This invisibility sustains their marginalization by denying them recognition and agency. Moreover, immappancy hampers efforts toward social justice, as decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate maps can lead to the displacement of vulnerable populations, exclusion from resource allocation, or neglect of their needs. Thus, addressing immappancy involves critically questioning whose stories and spaces are represented and working toward inclusive mapping practices that foreground marginalized voices.

A quote from the article that resonated with me is: "Maps are always interventions—they are strategic and partial visions, not neutral representations" (p. 278). This reminds me of Foucault’s concept of power and knowledge, which suggests that knowledge is always intertwined with power relations. In our course discussions on power, we have seen how knowledge constructs social realities, and maps are no exception. Recognizing maps as interventions shifts our understanding from seeing them as objective tools to viewing them as active participants in shaping social and political realities. By critically analyzing who creates maps and for what purpose, we can better understand their role in reinforcing or disrupting existing power structures, aligning with our ongoing exploration of power dynamics in social spaces.

References

• Harley, J. B. (1989). Deconstructing the Map. In D. Cosgrove & S. Daniels (Eds.), The Iconography of Power: Soviet Political Posters from the Collection of David King (pp. 47-66). Cambridge University Press.
• Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2007). Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. MIT Press.
• Peluso, N. L. (1995). Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping Indigenous claims to forests in Borneo. Political Geography, 14(3), 175-196.
• Reynolds, N. (2016). Recognizing and Disrupting Immappancy. In Week 14 Readings.
• Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Blackwell Publishing.
• Drucker, J. (2013). Graphesis: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production. Harvard University Press.
• Monmonier, M. (1991). How to Lie with Maps. University of Chicago Press.
• Crampton, J. (2009). Mapping: A Critical Introduction to Cartography and GIS. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Harris, L. M. (2010). Indigenous Cartographies: Mapping Colonial Encounters. University of Minnesota Press.
• Saskia Sassen. (2006). Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton University Press.