Suarez Miranda was a fictional explorer, travelling across South America, who documented the things and events he saw. In one entry, Suarez writes of a kingdom in which mapmaking became so perfect, the mapmakers were unhappy until the map occupied the entirety of the kingdom. Each point on the Earth coincided directly with each point on the map. But, later generations eventually found it to be useless and let it gradually fade and disintegrate.
Jorge Luis Borges told the tale of Suarez Miranda over 70 years ago in a short story titled “On Exactitude in Science”, examining how we represent complex systems. There has to be some level of generalisation. Both extremes are completely useless. Being too abstract leaves you with very little information about the system, but being too specific is impractical, as Suarez Miranda documents.
Take for example a regular map. Not Google Maps, but a permanent map, even one made of paper. It can’t be perfect, but it can’t be too abstract. When a cartographer makes a map, they have to select certain types and amounts of data to show on the map. How many levels of political boundaries should be included? Should landmarks and cities of a certain population be shown? Why? As a cartographer, it can be an important job to effectively communicate the message and data you want to show.
Most of the time when we look at maps, we’re looking to answer a question. How many sandwich shops per capita are there in New York City versus Boston? Or, what countries produced the largest amount of coffee beans in 2015? Maps can tell you so much information about the world very quickly. However, what happens when the cartographer isn’t telling the whole truth, or even bending it?
A Collection Begins
In the 1980’s, a man named PJ Mode began collecting maps that he found strange or peculiar. These maps, referred to by some as “cartographic curiosities”, were usually not bought because nobody wanted some weird, cheap map that wouldn’t fit into their own collections. In an interview, Mode describes how over time he realised these maps were all trying to advocate for something. Eventually, these maps took on the descriptor “persuasive”. Then, in 2020, over 800 maps from Mode’s strange collection were digitised and published by Cornell University Library’s Division of Rare & Manuscript Collections. The exhibit is called “Persuasive Cartography”.
What is Persuasive Cartography?
PJ Mode defines persuasive cartography as maps that are intended primarily to influence opinions and beliefs—to send some sort of a message—rather than to communicate objective geographic information. In the past, these maps have also been called suggestive, rhetorical or didactic cartography, and sometimes even propaganda mapping. All maps are persuasive to some extent, like one that persuades you there are more sandwich shops per capita in New York. However, these persuasive maps are used for the intent to alter what people believe, and often exaggerate reality to do so.
The main problem is that most of us are inexperienced with critically examining maps and how they are created. This is compounded by us often trusting blindly in the map being accurate and objective. And why wouldn’t we be? We see a map and there’s the data right there. It’s showing the data, so why wouldn’t it be accurate? Some maps are obvious that there is some exaggeration happening, but others can be more sly and insidious. It all stems from a long history of persuasion.
The History of Persuasive Cartography
Persuasive cartography has been around for a very long time. Some maps in the PJ Mode collection date back to the 1600’s, of which a number were used as a way to spread Christianity. Then, through the age of discovery, the maps were used increasingly for colonialist and imperialistic purposes. Often showing the might of their empires, countries would make elaborate maps, dominated by symbols and images of imperial wealth and power, that would suggest their superior power.
In the 20th century, persuasive cartography really took off. During the World Wars, more and more maps were used to persuade people that either this country or that country was winning. For example, a map of the United States was created, but all of the place names were replaced with German town names in an attempt to persuade the American people to want to join the war.
In fact, it was the Germans who became almost renowned for their skill in making persuasive maps and the sheer volume of maps they created. During the 1920’s, a group of German academic geographers developed what they called “Geopolitik”. This was in response to the notion that the British had more effective propaganda mapping in World War I and had led to the German’s defeat. This led to a “virtual flood” of suggestive maps being produced by the 1930’s, so much so that they began appearing everywhere. By the mid-1930’s, the Geopolitik movement was incorporated into the Nazi movement.
After World War II, persuasive maps continued to be produced throughout the Cold War, in an effort to sway one side or another. For instance, the Mercator Projection, which artificially makes Russia and other countries near the pole look bigger, was used profusely in the USSR. Not only was the USSR bigger in size than the US, but it also looked much, much bigger on maps.
The Effects
Persuasive mapping has been used throughout history for governments and those in power to sway the public’s opinions and beliefs on certain topics. In a poststructuralist analysis of cartography, researcher Brian Harley suggested the “social purposes between the lines” were usually the goals of the authoritarian elite, who were using maps to legitimise their power and manipulate the poor and weak. This position became popular in the late 20th century as more academics examined the usage and effect that suggestive mapping had on history.
However, it’s not all bad news. We are becoming more aware of the subjective characteristics of mapping and recognising political and social influences in it. Whether or not we listen to these thoughts is another matter.
How You Can Spot One
One academic, Judith Tyner, created a list of clues that a map might be persuasive, or not quite as objective as it seems:
- The map is highly generalized.
- The map lacks a scale; distances may be distorted
- The projection name is not shown; the projection may be unsuited to the task; grid lines may be omitted or may be on a different projection than the outlines of the land masses.
- The layout is simple with a definite eyepath.
- Symbols are pictorial, dynamic, or suggestive with little or no explanation. The symbols may have high emotional impact.
- Color is used primarily to attract attention or to evoke an emotional response rather than as a clarifying agent; color associations are played upon.
- The most attention-getting color is used to represent the place or object being ”sold”; undesirable areas or phenomena are shown by unpleasant colors or colors with unpleasant connotations.
- Text is minimal and may be limited to only a persuasive title.
Tyner notes that not every persuasive map will include all of these elements, but if a map has more, the more likely it was designed to persuade you. If you just remember one or two of these clues, the next time you see a map, you might be able to tell if the goal was objectivity or persuasion.
Persuasive Cartography Today
Why does persuasive mapping matter today? Simply, they’re everywhere. They’re in advertising, teaching, theology, political cartoons, and, of course, in propaganda. But, worry not. With just a little critical thinking, you can spot more and more suggestive maps, understand their nature, and have a bit more peace of mind.