A quick little argument about reductionism vs. wholism:
In the book Whole, which has absolutely nothing to do with mapping, the author asserts that much is wrong with the current reductionist way of doing science. That is, that reducing, for example, the intricate workings of an entire human body into a single enzyme reaction sequence and then claiming that you understand what’s going on is absurd, and that, while we need such studies, we also need systems-level researchers who can put the pieces together. Now, I’m just summarizing many chapters into a single sentence so there’s bound to be criticisms and things that I’m not addressing here. So read the book if you want all that information. What I’m interested in alarming people with telling people in this post is just exploring a way in which it reminded me of a current “debate” in mapping, even though it basically presents the opposing viewpoint from mine.*
This debate would be that of The New Map vs. The Old Map. Now, debate is in quotes mostly because there aren’t many people vigorously defending either of these styles and most cartographers are receptive to both styles. But there are a few who are really not crazy about The New Map. And that’s what I’m going to talk about.
The New Map is a type of mapping that leans toward popular subjects and, dare we say it, reductionism. The map subject might be anything from a current event (e.g., New York City bike sharing) to a current health issue (e.g., obesity mapping) to dots of people’s locations (e.g., England dot map). The reductionist aspect is exemplified by simplistic maps of a single variable. While the subjects may be quite complex (beer maps excepted), the map winds up being simplistic.
If you’re on social media and interact with at least one mapper, you’re seeing maps that fit this category every day. Some, however, gripe at their simplicity and worry about this populist attitude toward maps and where it might lead the unaware astray. Before I go off on a tangent about how most things we were initially afraid of turned out to be an overall good for society, I’ll admit that not all trends are wonderful and enlightening. However…
What’s wrong with The New Map? That they don’t give enough information? As long as they are correct, as long as the cartographer is thoughtful, mindful, and presenting information ethically and accurately, what is not to love? It’s not the dumbing down of information, it’s the creative dissemination of data. For the most part, mappers are plesaantly surprised by The New Maps that we see. I, for one, enjoy their novelty of subject matter, novelty of information design, and novelty of their under-the-hood programming.
Yes, some New Maps are artsy, widely disseminated (popular), and more single-focused than the ones I’m used to creating as a scientist. That doesn’t mean I have to automatically attack their integrity. What do you think about The New Map?
*When it comes to mapping, not nutrition.
Recent Comments