Progress in Human Geography final report

My final report for Progress in Human Geography has been submitted. If it is accepted it should appear next year online.

These reports have been a lot of work but at the same time intellectually challenging and I hope useful. Following Mark Monmonier as I did I wanted to switch the focus on to issues that are important but perhaps less well investigated (maybe whoever follows me will want to switch to something else). In my case this was a series of concerns around the politics of mapping.

Here are the first and second reports.

The third report is relevant to this blog as it covers calculation and territory. Here is the opening paragraph.

Two themes dominate this year’s report: calculation and territory. Both of these are larger issues than cartography itself, but cartography has been increasingly drawn into their ambit such that we might tentatively identify cartographic calculations of territory. Ranging across a wide set of problems including colonial, political and racial mappings, not to mention indigeneity and philosophical concerns of ontology; calculation and territory mark out a wide swath of cartographically informed work. This is not to foreclose other inflections of this phrase such as “calculative cartographies of territory” to center around the productive role of mapping, or possibly “territorial cartographies of calculation” to highlight how calculation employs mapping. All of these are possible avenues into the complex relationships between mapping, calculation and territory.

Advertisements

Final line up, AAG 2010 Territory and Cartography III

Title: Territory and Cartography: Politics, History, Techniques III
Description: The relation between cartography and territory seems well-known. State territories are one of the key objects of cartographic work, both in terms of their depiction on geopolitical maps and in terms of the state agencies that produce maps of their territory. Here we want to reverse the question: to what extent is cartography productive of territory? If territory can be understood as a political technology, comprising a range of techniques for the measurement of land and the control of terrain, then cartography, alongside land surveying and the military, is one of those techniques; part of what might be conceived of as state territorial strategies.

These three sessions aim to bring together papers analysing maps politically in terms of their relation to the state and its territory, drawing on a range of historical and geographical contexts. The principle question is: if we know that the map is not the territory, to what extent is it still productive of it?

This third session includes papers that consider the politics of territory and cartography.

Anticipated Attendance: 50
Organizers:
Jeremy Crampton
Stuart Elden
Chairs:
Stuart Elden
Participants:
Presenter: Martin Pratt, Unreliable Witnesses? Maps as Evidence in Boundary and Sovereignty Disputes
Presenter: Helga Tawil-Souri, Virtually Mapping Palestinian Dis-/Re-Appearances
Presenter: Mona Domosh, Corporate cartographies and the making of an American empire
Presenter: Elena Dell’Agnese, “Manifest Cartography”: US territorial expansion, textbooks and the logo-mapping of the Western hemisphere

Final line up, AAG 2010 Territory and Cartography II

Title: Territory and Cartography: Politics, History, Techniques II
Description: Territory and Cartography: Politics, History, Techniques

The relation between cartography and territory seems well-known. State territories are one of the key objects of cartographic work, both in terms of their depiction on geopolitical maps and in terms of the state agencies that produce maps of their territory. Here we want to reverse the question: to what extent is cartography productive of territory? If territory can be understood as a political technology, comprising a range of techniques for the measurement of land and the control of terrain, then cartography, alongside land surveying and the military, is one of those techniques; part of what might be conceived of as state territorial strategies.

These three sessions aim to bring together papers analysing maps politically in terms of their relation to the state and its territory, drawing on a range of historical and geographical contexts. The principle question is: if we know that the map is not the territory, to what extent is it still productive of it?

This second session deals with historical issues of territory.

Anticipated Attendance: 50
Organizers:
Jeremy Crampton
Stuart Elden
Chairs:
Jeremy Crampton
Participants:
Presenter: Scott Kirsch, The Invention of Territory
Presenter: John Hessler, Economic Foundations of Roman Cartography: Law, Territory, and Epigraphy, 100 BC-300 AD
Presenter: Michael Heffernan, Maps and the City: Paris and the 18th Century Cartographic Imagination
Presenter: Catherine Dunlop, Borderland Cartography from Below: The Role of Civil Society in Mapping Alsace-Lorraine, 1860-1918
Presenter: Nessa Cronin, The Jurisdiction of the Map: Official and unofficial productions of imperial space in the Ordnance Survey of Ireland, 1824-46
Sponsorships: Cartography Specialty Group
Historical Geography Specialty Group
Political Geography Specialty Group

Final line up, AAG 2010 Territory and Cartography I

Territory and Cartography: Politics, History, Techniques I
Description: Territory and Cartography: Politics, History, Techniques

The relation between cartography and territory seems well-known. State territories are one of the key objects of cartographic work, both in terms of their depiction on geopolitical maps and in terms of the state agencies that produce maps of their territory. Here we want to reverse the question: to what extent is cartography productive of territory? If territory can be understood as a political technology, comprising a range of techniques for the measurement of land and the control of terrain, then cartography, alongside land surveying and the military, is one of those techniques; part of what might be conceived of as state territorial strategies.

These three sessions aim to bring together papers analysing maps politically in terms of their relation to the state and its territory, drawing on a range of historical and geographical contexts. The principle question is: if we know that the map is not the territory, to what extent is it still productive of it?

This first session is introduced by the organisers, then moves to some conceptual papers before finally considering ways that territory is volumetric.

Anticipated Attendance: 50
Organizers:
Jeremy Crampton
Stuart Elden
Chairs:
Matthew Farish
Participants:
Presenter: Jeremy Crampton, Territory and Cartography: Setting the Agenda
Co-Presenter: Stuart Elden
Presenter: Nisha Shah, Metaphors, man and maps: the cartographic production of ‘territory’ as a normative principle
Presenter: Jouni Häkli, Archiving territory, mapping politics
Presenter: Mark Monmonier, Aeronautical Charting and the Production, Reproduction, and Regulation of Airspace by the United States
Presenter: Richard C. Powell, What is submarine territory? Extending the sovereign rights of the Danish kingdom
Sponsorships: Cartography Specialty Group
Political Geography Specialty Group
Historical Geography Specialty Group