Mapping the Digital Empire: Google Earth and the Process of Postmodern Cartography

Abstract

The process of cartography and the ideological problems that accompany this process (such as who draws the borders, how is space represented, and who names locations on the map) have taken on new significance in the digital age with the proliferation of digital maps and geographical information systems (GIS) such as Google Earth. By connecting this popular GIS to the colonial history of cartography, this article analyzes the cultural implications of this software program and the potential dangers that are often attributed to GIS. I also seek to counter these critiques by showing how Google Earth uniquely engages its users, not as disembodied voyeurs, but as participants in global dialog, represented spatially on the digital map. Ultimately, this study seeks to find a way in which recontextualization and subversion from the 'master representations' of maps can be achieved within the authorial structure of the digital map rather than re-authoring the existing software.

The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on social media

“…As Farman (2010) notes, by conceptualizing maps and cartographic practice as direct, accurate representations of reality and ignoring the subjectivity and social construction of cartographic representations, we also eschew important cultural interpretations of these visualizations.…”

Digital mapping interfaces: From immutable mobiles to mutable images

“…Yet lately some authors have distanced themselves from this conception of the interface as a representational portal of visual information (Galloway, 2012;Hookway, 2014;Farman, 2010). My understanding of digital cartographical interfaces as Latourian sign-things that are inscribed with socio-spatial 'programs of action' (Latour 2005;1999;1993) fits into this recent way of thinking.…”

Institutions for Civic Technoscience: How Critical Making is Transforming Environmental Research

“…Closely tied to both the colonial enterprise and then the formation of nation-states, the preeminent mapmakers historically are governments and corporations (Burnett 2000;Latour 1990;Harley 2001;Monmonier 2002;Soja 1989). Given the politics of these two groups, and the process and technologies of mapmaking in postindustrial, postcolonial nations and major corporations, data are proprietarily owned (Farman 2010;Helmreich 2011;Monmonier 2002). Herein the material technologies for satellite imaging preclude the engagement of people inhabiting the sites they map; communities cannot direct the path of satellites or opt not to be imaged (Farman 2010;Monmonier 2002).…”

“…Given the politics of these two groups, and the process and technologies of mapmaking in postindustrial, postcolonial nations and major corporations, data are proprietarily owned (Farman 2010;Helmreich 2011;Monmonier 2002). Herein the material technologies for satellite imaging preclude the engagement of people inhabiting the sites they map; communities cannot direct the path of satellites or opt not to be imaged (Farman 2010;Monmonier 2002). While critical geographers, STS scholars, and other academics have written about such concerns, grassroots mapping activists translate such critiques into practice by creating a low-cost doit-yourself methods that enable noncorporate, nonstate actors to rapidly create and share aerial maps (Warren 2010).…”