I, Muehlenhaus. U, Riedermaus.

THE HOOK

Upon reading the phrases below, what mental image comes to mind?

1. Texas            2) Political Affiliation
   

Why is Texas red? Political maps are ubiquitous and therefore largely taken for granted. Precisely due to these characteristics, and the fact that political affiliation is an attribute occupying geographic spaces too large to be directly perceived (Anderson 1983; Freundschuh and Egenhofer 1997), maps of the political landscape play a primary role in shaping people's conceptions of the political world. Though most American citizens likely envision Texas as red when asked the above question, really much of Texas could be viewed as blue – the southern counties vote heavily Democrat. The reason most of us see red is because this is the dominant map representation of southern states today.

THE LINE

Given the centrality of political maps in modern society, it comes as a bit of a surprise that relatively little discussion exists concerning the evolution of political cartography specifically. Certainly there has been a plethora of discussion and research concerning the use of maps by states for imperialism (Sherman 1998; Biltcliffe 2005), state governance (Black 1997), and propaganda (Monmonier 1995, 1996; Pickles 1992). A multitude of articles exist dissecting the political motivation of particular maps or cartographers (Wood and Fels 1986; Zeigler 2002). But aside from curt mention of the existence of political maps in several comprehensive studies on the evolution of thematic cartography, and books binding together different studies on political maps in a piecemeal fashion, no systematic study concerning the evolution of politically motivated thematic maps has been attempted.

THE SINKER

My research will offer both a cartographically and geopolitically informed history of how geopolitical cartography, or what I interchangeably call political maps and mapping, has evolved since the advent of thematic mapping in the late 1700s. Using this overview, I will also explain how political mapping is changing in definition, form, use, audience, and capability today, during our current period of geopolitical upheaval of late US hegemony. As will be shown technology, and the limits of its diffusion, plays a key role in the evolution of political mapping.

I define political maps, or geopolitical mapping, as thematic maps that are created, funded, or promoted by states and other significant political institutions for any of the following motivations: to organize political activity among the membership population; manage economic resources; influence popular opinion; administer colonial gains; or shape public perception of the social and physical environment. Of particular interest to my research are linkages, both geopolitical and technological, across several political map types, including: Western imperialism; moral statistics and demography; and election maps. I will examine the dependency of these different political map types on broader geopolitical developments, including data acquisition, data accuracy, and mapping technologies. I will analyze how cartographic techniques and visual variables were used differently in different political contexts.

Whereas the first part of my research will be concerned with examining the evolution of cartographic techniques put toward political uses, and not necessarily the political processes behind them, part two of my research will focus on how technological development, globalization, and a changing modern geopolitical order are impacting the roles and capabilities of political maps. Thus, the goals of this dissertation are twofold – to explain how political mapping has evolved in Western societies and to contextualize and predict where this type of mapping may head in the future. Before determining the best methods for achieving these goals, I will review what is already known about political mapping, how this knowledge was acquired, and where its shortcomings lie.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A library's worth of literature already exists covering numerous aspects of maps and society. I do not have time to cover all aspects of this research in detail here. Keeping this in mind, I will draw on the most pertinent research to date that helps build a rationale for my proposed study. I admit, up front, that there is a vast array of literature that cannot be reviewed here but that will likely be discussed, at least tangentially, in my dissertation proper.

To limit the scope of my literature review, I will follow a systematic path of argument. First, I will establish that the rise and continuing evolution of thematic cartography, including political maps, is inherently linked to technological development. Second, I will review evidence linking technological development in cartography to geopolitical competition among powerful states. Finally, I will review political geographic literature that firmly establishes the need to look at state competition, and subsequently cartographic technological evolution, in the larger, political economic framework of the global capitalist market. Having elucidated the necessity of such analysis, I will argue that it remains undone, and propose to begin such an analytical process in my dissertation, before moving into a discussion of my research questions.

The Short History of Thematic Cartography

Arguably, cartographers have spent as much time on historical analysis in recent years as they have on developing new methods of cartography. The history of cartography has become a key subfield in Geographic Information Science (Jiang 1996; Kraak 1998), and has led to many monumental works analyzing different aspects of map evolution and use (Buisseret 1992; Konvitz 1987; Robinson 1982). However, due to the nature of this research explosion, the techniques, methods, and analytics of these studies are as varied as the variety of maps researchers attempt to analyze. My research will attempt to establish a contextual framework within which political mapping can be analyzed both historically and as it develops currently, in a cross-comparative, systematic manner.

The historical analysis of thematic cartography began in earnest in the late-1970s and early-1980s, concurrent with the withering influence of quantitative and behavioral geographies. In the midst of the discipline wide paradigm shift to post-modernism, previous methods of geographic inquiry began to be critiqued. Previous cartographic and geographic research was academically lambasted for completely ignoring the role of social context in map design, interpretation, and use (Aitken and Michel 1995; Kitchin 1996; Kitchin and Freundschuh 2000; MacEachren 1995; Sui 1994). Whereas behavioral geography acknowledged that spatial cognition shaped human environmental behavior, it treated the recipient as a "black box" passive observer (Downs and Stea 1973), and ignored the influence of social and cultural context on human activity. Though it was a fundamental paradigm in initiating the exploration of the power of maps to transform human perception, behavioral research was soon dismissed for failing to take into consideration that social factors may be as influential as maps in shaping human cognition (Montello 1995). For example, an Ethiopian and Eritrean looking at the same map of the Horn of Africa would almost surely interpret the map in different ways. Perhaps the Ethiopian would focus on Ethiopia, and would find Eritrea's existence on the map inexplicable, as it is a relatively new state that seceded from Ethiopia. It is now well acknowledged that contextualizing map use socially and culturally is crucial to understanding how maps are interpreted and used (Kitchin and Blades 2002; MacEachren 1995).

    Though not necessarily comprised of behavioral geographers, at the close of the 1970s the sub-discipline of cartography was also caught up in the travails of the post-modern paradigm shift. Cartography had established itself as a scientific endeavor since the end of the Second World War (McMaster and McMaster 2002); however, it had largely limited itself to defining maps as communicative devices (DiBiase 1990; Dykes, MacEachren, and Kraak 2005). Maps were seen as mediums through which spatial language was emanated. The communication paradigm, as it came to be known, conducted "objective" research in a vacuum, failing to take social context into consideration. It was argued that cartographers could discover optimal map representations that, if utilized, would facilitate an accurate understanding of spatial data for a majority of map users (Robinson et al. 1995; Tufte 1983). A smattering of research attempted to unearth these optimal representations through laboratory experimentation with human subjects. Eye-movement analysis, symbol interpretation, text reading, and color interpretation testing were all conducted to develop scientifically valid cartographic techniques (McMaster and McMaster 2002).

Concurrent to the communication paradigm, there was an increasing realization that historical evaluation of map design and evolution was necessary to shed light on potential avenues of future exploration. In the late-1970s and early-1980s, the history of thematic cartography began to grow in prominence within the cartographic sub-discipline as a whole. Two researchers are particularly worth mentioning here: MacEachren (1979), who established a framework for the historical analysis of thematic cartography; and Robinson (1982), who devoted much of his life to cataloguing the evolution of cartographic methods and achievements.

    In a largely overlooked but in hindsight highly relevant piece, MacEachren (1979) proposed that cartographers establish a framework for the historical analysis of thematic cartography. He expressed concern that historical evaluations would be episodic and fretted that too often cartographic history lacked any coherency to help guide future research. MacEachren (1979) argued that historical cartography would benefit from analyzing thematic maps via a cartographic perspective, rather than merely by a cartographer-centered, biographical one (i.e., still today, many historical evaluations of thematic cartography center on cartographers, rather than their maps). MacEachren's map-centric framework analyzes thematic cartography via a tripartite model:

1. Geometric Symbolization: does the map use dots, lines, area, or other types of symobology?
   
2. Data Type: does the map represent qualitative or quantitative data; is the data nominal, ordinal, interval, or ration?
   
3. Theme Type: does the map represent a physical or social theme; political, medical, geological, meteorological, etc.
   

Though at first a seemingly rudimentary taxonomy, it should be noted that MacEachren's proposal has several longitudinal benefits over typical, non-systematic approaches to historical cartography. First, by breaking historical classification down by geometric symbolization, we can better evaluate the chronological, and at times concurrent, progression of cartographic techniques as a whole. Second, by further analyzing the history of thematic maps by type of data, we can better determine which historical maps are compatible for comparison. Finally, since almost anything with spatial characteristics can be mapped, breaking analysis down by theme allows for more specialized review of map development and comparison. For this research I will embrace MacEachren's theoretical framework, breaking my systematic analysis down by the first two categories (visual variable and data type), and using the third category (particular theme) to outline the chapters of my analysis (e.g., maps for imperialism; maps for governance; and election maps).

Though I am unaware of any further historical research utilizing MacEachren's proposed framework, it is undeniable that his research had an affect on future historical cartography. Three years later Robinson (1982) produced a seminal work on the development of thematic cartography and, either unwittingly or not, largely outlined his argument and book structure around MacEachren's tripartite model. Early Thematic Cartography is cited by many historical cartographers as a foundational work in the analysis of thematic maps and their role in society at large. Robinson argues that though maps have been around for millennia, the advent of thematic cartography in the late-1700s and early-1800s was revolutionary both for the cartographic discipline and, even more importantly, for society as a whole (1982: 12-15). The difference between thematic maps and those that came before is summarized in Robinson's succinct definition of a thematic map: i.e., those maps that "concentrate [sic] on showing the geographical occurrence and variation of a single phenomenon, or at most a very few" (Robinson 1982: 16). Robinson emphasizes that the evolution of thematic cartography is dependent upon attitudinal shifts throughout society at large, including: intellectual, political, economic, and religious shifts. Thus, maps have not only been used to shape our understanding of the world, but they have also been shaped by social processes.

Beyond merely linking the development of thematic cartography to broader social processes, however, Robinson argues that it is tightly linked to one area in particular – technological development. He outlines how thematic cartography has grown in spurts and plateaus along with technological epochs. The advent of thematic cartography represented a major innovation and an historic paradigm shift for cartography (Robinson 1982). Tying statistics to spatial distribution and figuring out how to make this visually intelligible was a major leap for science as a whole. Robinson argues that though experimentation with thematic map design, particularly of environmental features, began in the late 1600s, it was constrained by the limits of printing and reproduction technologies. Beginning in the late 1700s, however, printing costs declined and technologies advanced, and this allowed the development of more nuanced, detailed, and innovative maps. The first 50 years of the nineteenth century mark a major spike in the development of thematic cartography, as new techniques become possible (MacEachren 1979; Robinson 1982). Robinson argues that most thematic map designs and techniques were developed during this era, and that since that time, other than the addition of more color, technological innovation in thematic map design has largely remained stagnant – a plateau of development. Of course, Robinson was writing in 1982; at this time, Robinson prophetically opined that modern computer technology would likely induce another round of thematic map innovation in the near future. A decade later, Robinson's prophecy has come to fruition. While discussing the impact that geovisualization science and technology has had on cartography in his magnum opus, How Maps Work, MacEachren states: "I view GVIS as the most important development in cartography since the thematic mapping 'revolution' of the early 19^th century" (1995: 460). As will be discussed in my dissertation, a second technological revolution has arrived, geovisualization (GVis), and this new technologically driven form of mapping may have serious implications for not only thematic cartography in general, but political mapping in particular.

Geovisualization can be identified as a specialized, and increasingly dominant, realm of cartography based on technological innovation. Its premise is that, beyond being merely a tool of data presentation, maps can be used as tools for data exploration and knowledge construction (MacEachren 1994a; Jiang 1996; Kraak 1998; Keim, Panse, and Sips 2005; MacEachren et al. 1994; Andrienko and Andrienko 1999; Gahegan 2005). Beyond visual communication, maps are just as useful for visual thinking (DiBiase 1990). The use of maps for visualization – or the process of visual thinking and exploration of data – is not necessarily a new concept. They have always been visual tools (Wood 1994). However, the ability of map users to become map creators and to explore the data visually on their own in an interactive interface is entirely new. As will be argued, this may have serious ramifications for the classic view of state-controlled cartography.

Robinson and others have done a relatively thorough job reviewing the evolution of thematic cartography broadly up to the dawn of the GVis revolution in the early 1990s. However, one thing that is noticeably absent from this comprehensive history is a section, or even a paragraph, on explicitly "political" maps. In fact, much of this research has concentrated on medical mapping. Though there is no doubt that medical maps are of crucial importance today , as they were back when John Snow mapped the spread of cholera in London (Monmonier 1997; Robinson 1982), it is hard to imagine that people view more medical maps in their lifetime than political ones. Geopolitical maps are ubiquitous in the news, in organizational literature, and in our minds. We perceive states as red, blue, communist, third world, and parts of our hometowns as economically moribund and to be avoided. Yet, no mention of political maps exists in Robinson's otherwise gospel-worthy narrative.

Though shunned in discussions of thematic mapping, geopolitical maps are anything but ignored in the cartography literature broadly. In fact, there has been an abundance of GIS and society literature devoted to maps and their link to politics – or, even more conspiratorial, to militarily funded technological developments (Cloud and Clark 1999; Pickles 1995; Roberts and Schein 1995). Cartographers have also looked at maps and their role in political rhetoric and manipulation (Monmonier 1996, 2001; Wood and Fels 1992). In the next section I will review some of the primary discussions concerning maps and their political heritage, and in so doing, illustrate that this vein of inquiry is not as antipodal as might be assumed from that of the aforementioned cartographic historians. In fact, the two theoretical approaches – historical and critical – share many parallels and are in many ways interdependent approaches.

The Long History of Maps and Politics

Technology is a primary object of analysis in historical cartography. It is largely assumed that by analyzing how mapping technologies changed, we can better understand the evolution of mapping techniques (MacEachren 1979; Robinson 1982). Post-modern critical approaches differ in their analysis of technology. Instead of focusing on the role of technology in map evolution, this research focuses on how states have largely driven technological developments in mapping and why. In fact, much of the latter research treats "maps" as technologies of the state in a Foucauldian sense – technologies created for governance and control (Harley 1989; Pickles 2004; Wood and Fels 1992). Though the object of their interest is largely the same, relatively little work bridges the historical cartography and post-modern perspectives. This has resulted in a dualistic approach to understanding cartographic evolution – standard historical approaches (largely the domain of cartographic specialists) are shunned by, and equally shun, post-modern critical geographers (generally theoretical gurus who are largely untrained in the technologies of cartographic production). However, some common ground exists in this decades-long binary and I hope to utilize this to bridge both perspectives within my theoretical framework – both approaches focus on the importance of technology to cartographic evolution.

Perhaps coming off of Robinson's (1982) argument that technology has as much an impact on the evolution of thematic mapping as anything, Monmonier (1985) examined the role that modern technological transition plays in cartography. Monmonier moves beyond Robinson in a crucial way, however. He places cartographic technological development into a broader geopolitical context, alluding more than once to the fact that: "Mapping thrives on war and threats of war" (Monmonier 1985: 45).

Though today Technological Transition in Cartography is antiquarian, it stands as a testament to just how extensively the last 20-plus years of technological development have impacted cartography (Monmonier 1985) – a traditional discipline that today has been subsumed into an entire new one referred to as Geographic Information Science (Goodchild 1992; Wright, Goodchild, and Proctor 1997). Many of Monmonier's predictions and arguments about the changing methods and role of cartography have come to fruition and already been passed by further developments. For example, Monmonier prophesizes that "before 2000, [a land surveyor] might well push a button on a small, portable pocket navigator and read out his coordinates accurate to several decimal places" (Monmonier 1985: 45).

More interesting still are the technological developments that were beyond Monmonier's or anyone's predicting. Many of the cartographic innovations of the past 20 years have their roots in geopolitical shifts, not merely technological ones. The sudden, unexpected end of the Cold War in the late-1980s and early-1990s brought about a technological boom and bust that enhanced cartography more than anyone writing in 1985 could have predicted. The decreased need for military superiority allowed the GPS satellite network to be opened to the public. The Internet was privatized in 1994 and resulted in the Information Revolution and new forms of networked communications and geopolitics that state institutions are still coping with today (Castells 2000; Himanen, Castells, and Torvalds 2001; Oas 2002). As regards cartography, the rise of Internet technologies allowed for the online distribution and database management of geographic data and map software (Brodlie 2005; Dykes 2005; MacEachren 2005; Onsrud, Johnson, and Lopez 1994; Pickles 1995; Schafer et al. 2005). Today, cyber-networks are increasingly prerequisites for real-time geovisualization and collaboration efforts. Though Monmonier's early work succumbs to many of the shortcomings plaguing other cartographers' research – it looks at specific cases of interest without contextualizing them in a broader theoretical framework – it remains an important gateway piece. It proffers sufficient evidence that Robinson and others were correct about the ongoing role of technology in thematic map evolution. At the same time, it opens the doors to a more nuanced analysis that ties technological development to geopolitical statecraft.

The role of the state in cartography and map development is a theme that rises again and again in Monmonier's work. He has written a small library of books on the uses and abuses of cartography for state and ulterior aims (Brodlie 2005; Dykes 2005; MacEachren 2005; Monmonier 1989, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2001, 2002; Onsrud, Johnson, and Lopez 1994; Pickles 1995; Schafer et al. 2005). He touches upon gerrymandering in Bushmanders and Bullwinkles (2001), privacy issues and geopolitical surveillance in How to Spy with Maps (2002), societal debates concerning the appropriateness of particular maps over others in Drawing the Line (1995),
and outright deception by the state, nefarious cartographers, and developers in How to Lie with Maps (1996). His publications have been and remain a catalyst for cartographers and policymakers alike, attempting to discern dubious representations created for political gain. Though the theme of many of his works remains important, his methodological approach of exposing erroneous techniques and ulterior motives behind particular maps has been critiqued for not being critical enough and for missing the broader context (Pickles 2004; Wood and Fels 1992). From reading his works one can glean a plethora of exemplars as regards politically biased maps, and explain how and why they were erroneous. Yet, if one were asked how these cases tie together, or to present these exemplars as a coherent whole, the task would be difficult. Essentially, there is no framework tying his historical work together. As with many historians of cartography, his work is not contextualized holistically, either cartographically or socially. Yet, there is no doubt that his work has been crucial in garnering interest and further research on the intersection between cartography, technology, and politics.

Though Monmonier offers his own critical reflections on the politicization of maps, at heart he is an archival historian, and historians are generally loath to use theory (Smith 1996). Beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, classic historical analysis became increasingly passé among a new breed of cartographers and critical geographers. An alternative category of historical cartography has risen to the fore in recent years – post-modern critiques of the power of maps. Most of these critiques tie maps to the state, as political tools of subjugation (Harley 1989; Kwan 2002; McLafferty 2005; Pickles 1992; Pickles 1995; Pickles 2004, unknown; Piper 2002; Roberts and Schein 1995; Taylor 1990; Taylor and Overton 1991; Wood and Fels 1986, 1992).

Though others broached the need for a new approach before him, Wood (1992) made the largest waves with his unconventional (i.e., including a traveling art exhibit) and outspoken (i.e., an accompanying book that had more ellipses than citations) critique of maps as political tools that help construct reality; his Power of Maps book is widely cited across the social sciences (Wood and Fels 1992). Just by glancing at his sarcastic and acerbic chapter and subsection titles, his purpose is clear – to scrutinize maps and mapmakers as servants for potentially dubious enterprises. Several of these titles are "Maps work by serving interests," "Every map shows this … but not that," "The interest the map serves is masked," and "Maps construct – not reproduce – the world." Though written in a style that borders on nonacademic – indeed he is currently an "independent scholar" lacking university affiliation – Wood's work raised numerous points that shape how cartographers, geographers, and other academics understand maps and mapping today. In fact, Wood's argument comprises a central component in MacEachren's (1995) masterpiece on how humans use and understand maps – i.e., How Maps Work.

Yet, Wood's (1992) study has also been critiqued by post-modern geographers for largely pointing out the obvious and already well known connection between maps and politics, while adding very little to our broader understanding of map evolution broadly (Black 1997: 17-28). Wood (1986) relies on a semiotic framework built around "signs and myths" to help explain how maps are constructed to show certain things and ignore others. He argues, as have many, that maps shape reality for people, rather than merely represent it. Few would attempt to refute this argument; yet, the most trumpeted conclusions from this book are hardly warranted by the semiotic theoretical framework he proposes in his book.

In order for wood to illustrate that maps shape reality and are tools of the state, as he argues, he needs a political framework to accompany his semiotic one. Though he explains how humans see and interpret what is on a map, and how the cartographer shapes what is meant to be seen, he fails to tie this two-way process back to the capitalist state that he is obsessed with critiquing. For example, it may have been beneficial for Wood to draw upon Schattschneider's theories concerning organization and political power (Schattschneider 1960), or even more suitably, Peter Taylor's "all organization is bias" arguments from the early 1980s (Taylor and Flint 2000). Only by analyzing the political context of mapping and the maps can one properly warrant the conclusion that maps are political tools.

Outside and within the discipline of geography, the point that maps can be political tools has been made in various places far more convincingly. In his research on the character and tools behind instrumentalist nationalism, Anderson (1983) devotes an entire chapter to censuses and state mapping. He illustrates how these two state-based institutions can be used to forge or tear apart ethnic and group identities (Anderson 1983). Ziegler (2002) has shown that, contrary to popular characterizations of the map's role diminishing in nation building during contemporary globalization, Central European states effectively utilized mapping to reestablish statehood and national identity in the wake of the Soviet Empire. Wood's argument suffers from an unhidden distaste for the geopolitical order he is a citizen of (Black 1997: 22) – capitalism. Wood fails to adequately incorporate political theory into his argument, and therefore proffers an interesting but in the end unsatisfactory argument concerning of maps and politics.

Wood's work really launches itself off of earlier work by Brian Harley, who arguably offered the first post-modern critique of maps. Harley is a renowned geographer who in the mid-1980s began to embrace Foucauldian methods of cartographic critique. His main argument was that every map can be deconstructed to show hidden texts and discourses of power (Harley 1989). He argued that through deconstruction, a cartographer's true and perhaps entirely hidden purpose could be exposed – "Cartographers manufacture power" (Harley as quoted by Pickles 2004: 12). Though he passed away before he had time to completely redress critiques of his new approach, Harley's work is still widely cited and admired among critical geographers today. The deconstruction approach has not been picked up by many others, but it has stood as the bedrock from which numerous critical geographers, Wood included, launch their daggers at what they deem normative narratives of cartographic history.

An early admirer of Harley's work was John Pickles, who is perhaps the most prolific expert among critical geographers dissecting maps in the 1990s. Widely known for editing Ground Truth – the first serious anthology critiquing the negative social impact of the GIS revolution (1995) – Pickles has analyzed the manifestation of maps for political use in various ways that far exceed his contributions to that work. Ground Truth brought together many critical thinkers, and nearly as many theoretical arguments, involved in the early debates concerning the role of GIS within the geographic discipline as a whole. The book offered a much needed safe-space for scholars to voice their differing opinions; up to this point, academics had been responding to one another via journal article diatribes that were often volatile and not overly constructive (Openshaw 1991, 1992; Taylor 1990; Taylor and Overton 1991). Unlike some, Pickles largely avoided the emotional side of this intra-discipline argument. Early on, he borrowed Harley's method of map deconstruction (Pickles 1992). Using a hermeneutic framework, he proposed that maps can be read and deconstructed as texts (1992). He looked at classic geopolitical propaganda maps to test his hypothesis and found that by and large this framework was successful. However, by cherry picking his case of analysis – Nazi maps were obviously political – he was almost assured of the result he was looking for.

What Pickles is far less famous for is his book on maps and politics that largely illustrates his evolution in thinking over the past 15 years – A History of Spaces (2004). This book offers a comprehensive, post-modern analysis of maps and power. In his new research he embraces Derrida, among several other postmodern philosophers, to systematically break down the power behind the evolution of mapping and mapping technologies. Parallel to my critique of cartographic history, Pickles argues that theories and critiques of cartography have largely failed to address the role of capitalism, or commodity creation, in their analysis (Pickles 2004: 49). Essentially, he argues that historical research up until now has missed the bigger picture – the geopolitical and geo-economic context of map development.

In A History of Spaces, Pickles distances his work from Harley's, while at the same time building upon it. Though Pickles is a proponent of deconstruction, he argues that Harley was too myopic in his analysis of maps. By critiquing one map at a time, and looking for the hidden message of the cartographer, Harley was incapable of, as much as he may have desired, addressing the broader social context within which the cartographer is operating. Pickles (2004: 114, 132) observes a shortcoming in much of the critical GIS literature in that it often presupposes that map technologies are used for the purpose of repression; he argues that maps can be used by marginalized political agents too.

Like Wood, Pickles views the development of maps as going hand-in-hand with the extension of state power over its constituents and imperial possessions (Pickles 2004: 107). Maps were often used by European powers to eradicate populations from geographic imaginations and therefore from the public's reality (Pickles 2004: 107-112). However, Pickles notes that most research on the role of political map use comes from the nineteenth century and that there is a dearth of research on geopolitical maps of the twentieth century (Pickles 2004: 112) – Monmonier's work being an exception, not the rule. He hypothesizes that maps may be playing less prominent a role in establishing social identity around the world. I would concur with him, but I would disagree that this makes maps less relevant – in fact, the more insidious and taken for granted they are, the more powerful they are as political tools!

Though he contends that maps are tied to the state and have been important tools in maintaining a geopolitical order based on territorial states, Pickles (2004: 153) also insinuates that maps are actually a product of something much larger than state power: "Mapping is part of the expansion of a particular kind of capitalism that has enabled industrialized countries to [conquer the world cheaply]." He sees this cheap conquering as developing through technological development, arguing that modern cartography is now inseparably linked to digital technologies – dependent upon data storage and retrieval (Pickles 2004: 58). Yet due to his fixation on the economy of the nation-state, Pickles fails to adequately address the influence of the larger context within which geopolitical contestation takes place, mapping technologies are developed, and political maps are created – global capitalism. My research will contextualize political map development and use within a framework based on capitalism. This will avoid the need to analyze map development at the state scale, and will allow for the explanation of how maps, as part of geopolitical processes, are linked to capitalist market expansion, and subsequent technological innovations, broadly.

Though Pickles recent work is extremely insightful and has facilitated a new foundation on which to build future post-structuralist research, it also succumbs to many of the analytical traps that it accuses other cartographic historians of falling into. First of all, in attempting to avoid a chronological history of map development, which Pickles argues is "not entirely useful" (cite: page #), the book is forced to arrange itself around a handful of broad themes. It largely confines itself to nineteenth century state analysis until the end, when it suddenly jumps forward to discuss how maps can be useful to new political agents – without going into adequate detail about what new political agents are or how they have become more predominant in the geopolitical system. Pickles correctly identifies that maps are products of capitalism, traditionally tools of strong states, and can be utilized for both good and bad. Yet, by merely approaching map analysis from a poststructuralist perspective, his research comes at the expense of missing the evolution of political maps – an evolution which allows us to understand how maps have become what they are in modern geopolitics.

The approaches used to analyze the political nature of maps are as numerous as the people studying the topic. In many ways these different approaches have grown out of one another. In other ways, there remain two ontological camps – the classic cartographic historians analyzing the uses and abuses of maps throughout history (Black 1997; Monmonier 1996; Short 2001; Short 2004) and the post-modern critics who view all maps as political tools and the technology of maps as inherently linked to the state and military (Harley 1989; Pickles 2004; Wood and Fels 1992). My research will be different in that I argue that a contextual framework is needed in which we can take all research on maps and politics – coming from cartographers and critical geographers. I will establish a framework that ties political map research together and offers solid ground for future inquiries – a new dual approach allowing for the results of both historical and geopolitical approaches to intermix and be compared.

In the next section, I will briefly overview the key components of this theoretical framework. After explaining the concepts behind my framework, I will explain how it might help us better understand the evolution of political thematic cartography broadly, at which time I will then segue into my research questions.

The Future of Maps and Politics: The Need for a Holistic Analysis

As shown in the previous sections, there is one element forging a clear link between research on the history of cartography and post-modern critical geography – technological innovation. Whereas historical cartographers often analyze how technology has played a primary role in cartographic techniques and uses, post-modern approaches often view maps as part of a larger set of technologies constituting state political power. I argue that there is usefulness in both of these perspectives.

    The goal of my research is to not only offer a historical interpretation of thematic political mapping but to also establish a framework in which future trajectories of political mapping can be predicted. In order to create such a framework it will be necessary to bridge differences in the existing types of analysis. This can be done, I argue, by not only focusing on changing technologies and tactics of map visualization throughout time, but by placing them in a much broader context than they have thus far been placed in.

    I propose utilizing a political geographic framework based off of the one proposed by Taylor and Flint (2000). Within this loose geopolitical framework we can ingratiate both view points and see how they interact and inform one another. Moreover, technological development remains a central theme in this geopolitical context, but it is not inherently tied to the state. My framework can be broken down into two key component parts – (1) the geopolitical context of mapping and (2) the historical evolution, or processes, of political mapping.

Part I: The Geopolitical Context of Mapping

I will embrace a structuralist approach that sees global capitalism as a framework within which all political entities (states and others) compete for power across all scales. Taylor and Flint have adapted World Systems Theory (WST) to political geography to allow for the geohistorical analysis of political processes and interactions. Geohistorical analysis is the act of analyzing social processes, and the manifestations of these, geographically over a long duration – in the case of Taylor and Flint, since the dawn of modern capitalism in the 1500s (Taylor 1999; Taylor and Flint 2000). Using the WST notion that capitalism is a global economic system in which everyone interacts but it lacks a parallel, global political system (Wallerstein 1974), Taylor and Flint argue that the global capitalist market is the ultimate structure within which to analyze social processes (Flint 2001; Taylor 1996). The benefits of this framework are threefold – (1) it allows for the analysis of all political interaction, regardless of scale or the power of the political agents involved; (2) it facilitates the analysis of technological development and diffusion globally, through capitalist exchange and conflict, and therefore does not limit our understanding of technological development to a state-by-state explanation and comparison; and (3) it is geared toward longitudinal, historical analysis of social processes over time, helping us avoid the pitfalls of episodic, case-based research.

Trans-Scalar Geopolitics

Though states currently dominate our geopolitical imaginations (Agnew 1998), the global scale at which they materialize is not the only scale of geopolitics and, indeed, has not always been the one dominating everyday conceptions of politics (Arrighi 1994). An innumerable amount of political institutions, or agents, exist in the capitalist economy, all competing to better their respective positions and well-being. Geopolitics operates across all scales; in the current capitalist system states merely have more power than other types of political institutions, because they are the dominant political institutions at the global scale. The larger the scale of operation, the more resources institutions can manage and administer. However, people belong to a plethora of political institutions across all scales. We are all members, often inactive, of numerous geopolitical institutions that we belong to in order to help us maneuver politically and/or economically in the global market – e.g., a nation, a university, an extended family, a religion, a professional association of geographers, a neighborhood, a civil union, a state, several corporations (through stock ownership), ad nauseam.

A prime example of small scale geopolitics is marriage. A nuclear household is a geopolitical institution – a political union that combines two people's resources for political and economic advantage, or perhaps disadvantage depending on whom one marries (just ask my wife). The household is the prime geopolitical institution operating at the local scale – loyalties to this institution often take precedence over individual loyalties to bowling leagues. When they do not, the household normally disintegrates as a geopolitical unit. It is rare that a household will ever truly compete with a state; though, cooption is a definite possibility (e.g., family dynasties). Regardless, all household units interact with states geopolitically on a daily basis – i.e., through voting, paying taxes, and participation in national economies.

Critical research on GIS and society is largely poststructuralist – largely based on inductive rather than deductive knowledge creation. This is unfortunate, as many of the critiques of maps and power are valid but, I argue, contextualized improperly as manifestations of state power. Using Taylor and Flint's capitalist market framework will better contextualize political mapping and map technologies as globally diffuse, competitive, and useful to a variety of political agents operating above (e.g., the UN, EU, global terrorist networks, and trans-national corporations) and within (e.g., city and provincial governments, NGOs, neighborhood groups, etc.) state governments. Such a framework will also allow for analysis of the role that technological innovations have played in political mapping for these different political organizations.

Mapping the Development and Diffusion of Map Technologies

Taylor and Flint's (2000) capitalist framework proves useful in contextualizing the development of mapping technologies as well. It is argued throughout geopolitical literature that modern technology, be it for sailing, weaponry, production, trade, putting a person on Mars, or things that today are inconceivable but that will no doubt someday arrive, has its roots in global capitalist processes (Castells 2000; Taylor 1996, 1999; Taylor and Flint 2000) – economic (resource availability and funding for knowledge production) and political (need, policy, and resource allocation). Technology is often developed by, or via the funding and good graces of, states looking for advantage over competition in different political and economic realms (Taylor 1999). As is now well documented, so it is with mapping technologies and their evolution as well. In regard to thematic and state political mapping, the French were some of the most voracious in developing and using maps for geopolitical means – both domestically and for imperialism (Konvitz 1987). They developed the most advanced topographic maps of the era, and were pioneers in the mapping of "moral statistics" and economic variables (Robinson 1982). Two other world powers, the British and Dutch, used maps for imperial and capitalist expansion (Biltcliffe 2005; Sherman 1998; Short 2001), developing navigational and mapping technologies along the way, most famously the chronometer (Sobel 1995). With evolutions in mapping technology, the power of maps, as well as the use of them, has diffused both downward (vertically, from large scaled institutions to small scale ones) and outward (horizontally, from core institutions to average individuals). This diffusion is inherently geohistoric and seemingly systemic – with the development and diffusion of mapping technology on the capitalist market, maps have gone from being used almost entirely used for state control (territorial imperialism), to state governance (domestic auditing), to sub-state sectors of society (companies, non-profits using maps for competitive leverage), to the living room (use of GPS and online mapping software to help us make life more efficient). Taylor and Flint's framework is very useful for placing different studies in sync with one another regardless of scale and the institutions being analyzed.

Geohistorical Analysis: Explaining the Past, Outlining Future Potentials

Perhaps the best benefit of using Taylor and Flint's geohistorical framework is that it allows us to place nearly all research concerning political maps and the political nature of mapping technology into different geographic and temporal contexts that are linked to one another. My main critique of GIS and society and historical literature concerning political maps is that it has largely been case- or time-specific, and not looked at political processes leading up to the case at hand or necessarily followed the diffusion of an idea away from its place of origin. A geopolitical framework will allow us to do this. Moreover, it may help us track not only past developments but predict the political trajectory of future map uses – e.g., unconventional political map use (i.e., terrorist cells); geodemographic data and mapping; location based services (LBS); and more.

Part II: The Evolution of Political Mapping

The geopolitical framework presented above will contextualize my analytical research on political thematic mapping; I also believe that it will allow for the enhancement of currently existing literature that is sporadic and, at best, random in its analysis of political mapping. The second part of my framework focuses more squarely on how I plan to analyze the evolution of political thematic mapping within this geopolitical framework. Here I will largely borrow from cartographic historians, who I believe were too quickly dismissed by post-modern critics as inconsequential (e.g., Pickles 2004).

Contrary to Pickles (2004) who espouses that chronological and cartography-oriented historical analysis is not useful, MacEachren (1979) argues that one can best analyze the historical development of thematic mapping, and more importantly discover gaps in our knowledge concerning its evolution, through cartographic analysis of maps and mapping techniques. He proposes breaking the analysis down into three distinct realms (MacEachren 1979).

First, one should analyze maps by the visual variables utilized to represent a particular theme (e.g., point, line, or area). Second, one needs to diagnose the map via the nature of the data being mapped (physical environment or social phenomenon). Finally, you can break down the purpose of thematic maps by the type of data being mapped (qualitative or quantitative). This methodology, MacEachren argues, allows for the systematic building of knowledge concerning thematic maps and allows us to critically evaluate what is known and what is not. I will use MacEachren's framework to categorize and critique the efficacy of different political maps and answer my forthcoming research questions. However, I will also add a fourth dimension to his original three – the medium of map delivery.

The technology of mapping has changed so rapidly over the past 25-years that even the medium upon which maps were assumed to be inscribed is no longer a given. Paper has given way to LCD and in the near future we can only presume it will lead to something else. The medium of presentation changes the dynamics, and political efficacy, of political mapping, because different visual variables will be used depending on how maps are distributed, e.g., television cannot show as nuanced a map as paper (Gauthier and Aber 1988; Gilmartin 1988; Monmonier 1989), although with new HDTVs even this truism is changing. Today, political maps, created by both government agencies and rogue bloggers proliferate online and are likely to be more influential than many official government maps.

As briefly mentioned earlier, beyond instigating a paradigm shift from data communication to data exploration, the last 25-years of technological development have also promoted the metamorphosis of cartography into a new science altogether (Taylor 1994) – geovisualization. Maps have always been visualization tools (Wood 1994). However, with the rapid development of spatial technologies over the past two decades, mapping via geovisualization is becoming increasingly more accessible, powerful, and integrative with other technologies (MacEachren 1995). Whereas, traditional maps were limited in their representation of spatio-temporal data – to the traditional seven visual variables (Bertin 1983) – new technologies have drastically increased the dimensions of geographic data that one can represent on maps (Acevedo and Masuoka 1997; Dorling 1994; Dykes 1997; MacEachren 1994b, 1995; MacEachren et al. 1994; MacEachren, Brewer, and Pickle 1998; Monmonier 1989, 1990; Peuquet 1994). Moreover, rather than being limited to one "optimal" representation of spatial data, technology allows the map user to interactively compare, contrast, and reconstruct, i.e., re-symbolize, spatial data to suit her needs (Dykes, MacEachren, and Kraak 2005; Kraak 1998). The map user can now communicate back and forth with a map, in a limited sense, to create the visualization that she wants. This development has significant implications for the future of political mapping.

By adding medium to the model, it will be possible to gauge the influence of technology on the style of maps being created and diffused – something of particular importance in the case of political maps. As mediums change, it is hypothesized that cartographic techniques and motives will as well. Moreover, adding medium to the model now allows for more thorough analysis of future maps using the same model, as certainly the medium of maps will change even more in the future – i.e., how long until we are looking at maps on our two-inch iPod screens?

Summary of the Theoretical Model

By utilizing a cartographic framework for analyzing political thematic maps and then placing this analysis into a geopolitical context, not only will I analyze the cartographic usefulness and utility of political maps throughout history, but I will also link these maps' development to geopolitical contestations and technological developments occurring at different scales and over time. With this synthesized theoretical framework, I am able to conduct a systematic, geohistorical, comparative analysis of political mapping beginning in the 1700s and still occurring today. I argue that not only is it possible to incorporate map history within geopolitical theory, but it is a necessity. For post-structuralist approaches largely fail to properly take into account the roots of power and contestation behind political maps due to their focus on the state and predisposition to view maps as tools for suppression. Without a doubt, states have been the primary investors and benefactors of political maps. By default, this means that we cannot truly understand the role of mapping in politics, or geopolitically, by focusing our research on individual states. We must look at the global system they operate in – the capitalist market. Moreover, as Taylor and Flint's multi-scalar framework establishes, states are not the only geopolitical units using maps. In order to truly understand political mapping, including its evolution and diffusion, we need to have a framework that envelops all political institutions – from the state to the household. My framework does these things. Next, I will lay out my research questions as they will be framed using the above model.

RESEARCH PROBLEM & QUESTIONS

Now that it is established that there are holes to be filled and theoretical bridges to be linked in the history of political cartography, in this section I will lay out my specific research questions. My research will not only fill several of the noted gaps in research on political maps but also attempt to incorporate a multitude of analytical approaches into one holistic framework. Beyond using my research to explain how geopolitical mapping has evolved to where it is today, I hope to make several predictions about what new techniques and types of political maps might be developed, as well as what new types of political agents might create and use political maps in the future. The history and future trajectory of geopolitical mapping is undoubtedly a large theme to cover in a single dissertation. My research questions will not only spell out what I will specifically look at, but they will also act as safeguards to limit the scope of my research.

Booth et al. (1996) argue that the best way to structure a research project is to retrace one's thought process concerning the topic. They hypothesize that this allows one to quickly uncover gaps in the logic of the argument (Booth, Colomb, and Williams 1995) – e.g., does particular anecdotal evidence warrant a hypothesis? Moreover, by tracing the history of one's thinking, a clearer picture of why one has chosen particular research questions will become apparent. I have heeded Booth et al.'s advice and outlined this Research Problem section into four parts: (1) the practical problem that initiated my foray into the topic of geopolitical mapping; (2) the practical questions that stemmed from my thinking about this problem; (3) the subsequent research questions that, if adequately answered, may provide solutions to my practical questions; and finally, (4) the methodology, which is a crucial link in ensuring that the answers to my research questions help me get to the heart of the practical problem. The final stage is finding a solution to the practical problem – something that no single piece of research can ever do, but this dissertation coupled with future work may strive to this end.

1. Practical Problem

For a variety of reasons, including the rise of post-structuralism in geography and a lack of theory in historical analysis, no theoretically informed holistic examination of the evolution of political mapping exists. Plenty of research on political mapping exists, but it is often case specific and rarely goes beyond the scale of the nation-state. In the history of thematic cartography broadly, with few exceptions (notably, Black 1997 and Monmonier 1996), political mapping is often overlooked altogether. Without knowing how political mapping has evolved, it is difficult to predict and analyze how political mapping is changing now.

2. Practical Questions

How has political mapping evolved within thematic cartography as a whole, and what impact might the recent paradigm shift to GVis have on its future evolution? How does the current paradigm shift relate to broader geopolitical and technological shifts following the end of the Cold War?

3. Research Questions

1. What is the history of political mapping?
   

• How has political mapping evolved within thematic cartography as a whole?
  
• In what ways and forms has it been embraced and/or rejected by Western states?
  

1. What type of correlation exists between the use of maps for governance and the rise of the modern day state system?
   

• To what extent has the thematic mapping of social statistics been dependent upon the modern state?
  
• To what extent has political mapping been dependent upon and shaped by different domestic and international agendas of powerful states?
  
• What role have state data sources played in the development of political maps?
  

1. How have thematic representations of particular political maps evolved (e.g., election maps, demographic statistics, and geopolitically motivated maps)?
   

• Historical review of decisions concerning the optimal scales for political maps
  
• Historical review of different types of representation (choropleth, isoplethic, dot, etc.)
  
• Historical review of the use of different visual variables in political mapping
  

1. Are there any universal methods of political map use by Western states?
   

• Spatial organization for control
  
• Government legitimacy
  
• Government surveillance
  
• Economic control and growth
  

1. What are some exemplar types of conflicts that the above types of political maps have played a role in?
   

• French, British, German, and American Colonialism
  
  • Imperialism through maps
    
  • Post-colonial mess due to new states being formed off of European map boundaries (e.g., Africa)
    
• French, British, German, and American Moral statistics
  
  • Environmental Determinism
    
  • Population policies
    
  • Nationalism
    
  • Privacy Issues (Geodemographics)
    
• French, British, German, and American Elections
  
  • Gerrymandering
    
  • Propaganda maps
    
  • Visual variable choice (e.g., choropleth over chorodot)
    
  • Third party representation
    

1. In what ways might the production, type, use, medium, and audience of the above traditional political maps be changing from the past?
   

• Is there a historical trend behind how the use of political maps changes with geopolitical epoch – from world power to world power?
  
• With globalization and technological development, how are political maps diffusing beyond the realm of state control and oversight?
  
• What ramifications might such shifts have for political mapping in the future?
  
• How is political mapping diffusing – both vertically (from states to the household) and horizontally (from experts to the masses)?
  

1. Given what we know from the historical research, what are some potential social implications of political mapping as it is currently evolving?
   

• How are the rise of network communication technologies and the deterioration of mass media "national audiences" impacting the role of political mapping?
  
• How might "mapping" become a deterritorialized (i.e., non-sovereign) threat to state power in a similar fashion to Internet technologies?
  
• What changes might geovisualization (GVis) and the Web 2.0 instigate in political mapping?
  

METHODOLOGY

By necessity, my methodology will be a mixed one utilizing multiple types of qualitative methods, as well as some descriptive statistics. My methodological approach can largely be broken down into two separate parts – (1) historical analysis and (2) theoretical critique.

Part one of my methodology will center on the historical analysis of political mapping. To help answer research questions 1-5 above, I will utilize two techniques – a literature review and archival research. First, a literature review concerning thematic and political maps will be conducted to critique what is already known and yet to be understood about the evolution of political mapping. As already noted, plenty of literature exists from a variety of disciplines concerning political maps. The problem is that nearly all studies are episodic or curtailed by a narrowly focused theme. For example, though Monmonier analyzes intentionally biased maps in his now famous How to Lie with Maps, he does not actually trace the history of propaganda map development. Instead, he breaks his topic down into a variety of themes and writes essays concerning different techniques of misleading a populace with maps. Though Wood and Fels offer an aggressive critique of a North Carolina state highway map, they limit their analysis to a single case and project their critique on all maps broadly using an argument based on visual schemata. The authors avoid analysis that traces the power of maps back through time. I will analyze the existing literature using Taylor and Flint's (2000) geopolitical framework based on state competition in the capitalist market; by placing current knowledge within a broader geohistorical context I will be able to piece together the gaps in understanding of political mapping and also better address the social processes behind different political map technologies and developments.

In addition to a literature review, I will conduct archival research on political maps. I will acquire copies or images of maps deemed to be of particular significance from as many map collections as possible. Finding a wide sample of maps to analyze will present a small challenge. However, a variety of bibliographic map indexes exist, as well as online map library catalogues. I will begin my archival search by perusing these sources and visiting the said libraries or securing images of these maps in another manner. I will also search for maps found to be of relevance during my literature review. I will apply for a NSF dissertation enhancement grant to help pay for photos or photocopies of particular maps and to visit British, French, and American map collections. My archival research will tie together numerous studies and approaches and attempt to weave what is known about the history of political mapping together using MacEachren's (1979) previously discussed methodology for analyzing the evolution of thematic cartography.

After completing the historical analysis, Part Two of my methodology will consist of a critical review of contemporary political maps (i.e., since 1994). I will concentrate on analyzing how GIS and information technologies have changed political mapping in the following manner: (1) data availability; (2) representation capabilities (visual variables and techniques); (3) what political themes are actually being mapped (i.e., types of political maps); and (4) who is participating in the creation of "political" maps (i.e., how GIS diffusion has expanded the capabilities of peripheral political actors to use mapping as a political tool). Again, I will use an adapted version of MacEachren's (1979) framework, but this time my fourth dimension of "medium" will be of far more significance, as it is really in the 1990s that alternative map mediums begin to flourish. Having reviewed the current, and ongoing, history of geovisualization's impact on political mapping after already have traced the geopolitical development of political maps since the inception of thematic cartography, I will spend the final analytical chapter of my dissertation hypothesizing as to the trajectory of political maps in the future – their potential diffusion and changing role in geopolitics.

QUALIFICATIONS

Admittedly, the historical component of my research has an extremely narrow definition of "political maps." By limiting my cartographic analysis to map development and use by powerful states, and the national institutions of these states, I will certainly overlook a wide variety of maps associated with other types of political institutions (e.g., social movements, rebel groups, and weak states). Though there is no doubt that maps are useful to all types of political organizations, it can also be argued that most data – the substance of political maps – has traditionally come from strong state governments (Taylor and Johnston 1995). Thus, in reality, states have maintained the power to filter any attempts to create counter-maps against the reality they wish to show simply by controlling the data upon which maps depend. Obviously, this is changing rapidly with geodemographic data collection by private firms, individual GPS data collection, and via other individualized technological developments. I will address these changes in the second half of my research, which looks at how political mapping is evolving beyond state control. For the historical part of my research, though, I limit my analysis to state-endorsed mapping, because states were historically so dominant in funding, overseeing, and producing political maps.

MAPPING POLITICS: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

Thematic mapping is a relatively new technique of visualization. It only gained steam in the early-1800s as a method of displaying spatial tabular data visually (Robinson 1982). Originally, due to a lack of strong, centralized government data collection, thematic mapping was used for displaying environmental data. With the rise of the modern state system and the subsequent data collection and auditing that is now a part of all forms of advanced liberal governance (Dean 1999; Rose 1996, 1999), political maps – in all of their domestic and international guises – have become one of the most influential forms of thematic mapping available. Traditionally such maps have been largely monopolized as tools of the state – the gatekeeper of political and geographic data. As such, the evolution of political maps has been somewhat controlled compared to other types of thematic maps (e.g., weather maps, historical maps, etc.) and these maps have remained very effective tools for dominant political institutions as rhetorical devices, domestic organizational tools, and geopolitical implements.

Given their dominant role as a technology for geopolitical endeavor since their relatively recent invention, it is surprising that no research has attempted to comprehensively categorize and analyze the evolution of political mapping. Several monumental studies have been conducted following the development of thematic mapping broadly, but these studies give ne'er a mention to political mapping in all its forms. For example, election maps are rarely referred to outside of broader discussions concerning gerrymandering (Monmonier 2001), even though today election maps largely shape our imagination of the political landscape at large – recall the question that opened this proposal. Though several studies have analyzed election maps, these studies do not analyze such maps' linkages to thematic mapping and the state more broadly. Studies on other types of political maps frequently focus on special cases or time periods, and thus fail to adequately contextualize themselves within the evolution of cartography more broadly.

My study will address the above shortcomings with current research. In the first part of my research I will explain how political mapping evolved in Western Europe and US from its fledgling and experimental beginnings to its banal use on the evening news today. Moreover, I will describe and predict how the GISciences, contemporary globalization, and computer technology have changed what political mapping is, how it can be conceived, and who maintains the power to create political maps. Finally, I will analyze how technology is reshaping the representations used to show "common sense" political maps (e.g., Presidential election maps) and the geopolitical implications of such changes.

REFERENCES

Acevedo, W., and P. Masuoka. 1997. Time-series animation techniques for visualizing urban growth. Computers and Geosciences 23 (4):423-435.

Agnew, J. 1998. Geopolitics: re-visioning world politics. New York: Routledge.

Aitken, S. C., and S. M. Michel. 1995. Who contrives the "real" in GIS? Geographic information, planning and critical theory. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22 (1):17-29.

Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Andrienko, G. L., and N. V. Andrienko. 1999. Interactive maps for visual data exploration. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13 (4):355-374.

Arrighi, G. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century. New York: Verso. Original edition, 1994.

Bertin, J. 1983. Semiology of Graphics. Translated by W. J. Berg. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Biltcliffe, P. 2005. Walter Crane and the Imperial Federation Map Showing the Extent of the British Empire. Imago Mundo 57 (1):63-69.

Black, J. 1997. Maps and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Booth, W. C., G. G. Colomb, and J. M. Williams. 1995. The craft of research. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Brodlie, K. 2005. Models for collaborative visualization. In Exploring Geovisualization, eds. J. A. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak, 463-475. Oxford: Elsevier.

Buisseret, D., ed. 1992. Monarchs, ministers and maps: the emergence of cartography as a tool of government in early modern Europe. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Castells, M. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd Ed. ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

Cloud, F., and K. Clark. 1999. The Fubini hypothesis: the other history of geographic information science. Paper read at Geographic Information and Society, at Minneapolis, MN.

Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

DiBiase, D. 1990. Visualization in the earth sciences. Earth and Mineral Sciences Bulletin 59 (2):13-18.

Dorling, D. 1994. Cartograms for visualizing human geography. In Visualization in Geographical Information Systems, eds. H. M. Hearnshaw and D. J. Unwin, 85-102. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Downs, R. M., and D. Stea. 1973. Cognitive maps and spatial behavior: process and products. In Image and Environment, eds. R. M. Downs and D. Stea, 8-26. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

Dykes, J. A. 1997. Exploring spatial data representation with dynamic graphics. Computers and Geosciences 23 (4):345-370.

———. 2005. Facilitating interaction for geovisualization. In Exploring Geovisualization, eds. J. A. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak, 265-291. Oxford: Elsevier.

Dykes, J. A., A. M. MacEachren, and M.-J. Kraak. 2005. Exploring Geovisualization. In Exploring Geovisualization, eds. J. A. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak, 3-19. Oxford: Elsevier.

Flint, C. 2001. The geopolitics of laughter and forgetting: a world-systems interpretation of the post modern geopolitical condition. Geopolitics 6 (3):1-16.

Freundschuh, S. M., and M. J. Egenhofer. 1997. Human conceptions of spaces: implications for GIS. Transactions in GIS 2 (4):361-375.

Gahegan, M. 2005. Beyond tools: visual support for the entire process of GIScience. In Exploring Geovisualization, eds. J. A. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak, 83-99. Oxford: Elsevier.

Gauthier, M. J., and H. E. Aber. 1988. Cartographie dans les médias. Sillery, Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec.

Gilmartin, P. 1988. The recall of journalistic maps and other graphics. In Cartographie dans les médias, eds. M. J. Gauthier and H. E. Aber, 83-90. Sillery, Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec.

Goodchild, M. F. 1992. Geographical information science. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 6:31-45.

Harley, J. B. 1989. Deconstructing the map. Cartographica 26 (2):1-20.

Himanen, P., M. Castells, and L. Torvalds. 2001. The Hacker Ethic. New York: Random House.

Jiang, B. 1996. Cartographic visualization: analytical and communication tools. Cartography 25 (2):1-11.

Keim, D. A., C. Panse, and M. Sips. 2005. Information visualization: scope, techniques and opportunities for geovisualization. In Exploring Visualization, eds. J. A. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak, 23-52. Oxford: Elsevier.

Kitchin, R. 1996. Increasing the integrity of cognitive mapping research: appraising conceptual schemata of environment-behaviour interaction. Progress in Human Geography 20 (1):56-84.

Kitchin, R., and M. Blades. 2002. The cognition of geographic space. London and New York: I.B. Tauris and Company.

Kitchin, R., and S. M. Freundschuh, eds. 2000. Cognitive mapping: past, present, and future. Edited by T. Valentine, Routledge Frontiers of Cognitive Science. London, New York: Routledge.

Konvitz, J. W. 1987. Cartography in France, 1660-1848: science, engineering, and statecraft. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kraak, M.-J. 1998. The cartographic visualization process: from presentation to exploration. Cartographic Journal 35 (1):11-15.

Kwan, M. P. 2002. Is GIS for women? Reflections on the critical discourse in the 1990s. Gender, Place and Culture 9:271-79.

MacEachren, A. M. 1979. The evolution of thematic cartography: a research methodology and historical review. The Canadian Cartographer 16 (1):17-33.

———. 1994a. Some truth with maps: a primer on symbolization and design, Resource publications in geography. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers.

———. 1994b. Time as a cartographic variable. In Visualization in Geographical Information Systems, eds. H. M. Hearnshaw and D. J. Unwin, 115-130. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

———. 1995. How maps work: representation, visualization, and design. New York: Guilford Press.

———. 2005. Moving geovisualization toward support for group work. In Exploring Geovisualization, eds. J. A. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak, 445-461. Oxford: Elsevier.

MacEachren, A. M., I. Bishop, J. A. Dykes, D. Dorling, and A. Gatrell. 1994. Introduction to advances in visualizing spatial data. In Visualization in Geographical Information Systems, eds. H. M. Hearnshaw and D. J. Unwin, 51-59. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

MacEachren, A. M., C. A. Brewer, and L. W. Pickle. 1998. Visualizing georeferenced data: representing reliability of health statistics. Environment and Planning A 30:1547-1561.

McLafferty, S. 2005. Women and GIS: geospatial technologies and feminist geographies. Cartographica 40 (4):37-45.

McMaster, R. B., and S. McMaster. 2002. A history of twentieth-century American academic cartography. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 29 (3):305-321.

Monmonier, M. S. 1985. Technological transition in cartography. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.

———. 1989. Maps with the news: the development of American journalistic cartography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 1990. Strategies for the visualization of geographic time-series data. Cartographica 27 (1):30-45.

———. 1995. Drawing the line: tales of maps and cartocontroversy. 1st ed. New York: H. Holt.

———. 1996. How to lie with maps. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 1997. Cartographies of danger: mapping hazards in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 1999. Air apparent: how meteorologists learned to map, predict, and dramatize weather. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

———. 2001. Bushmanders & bullwinkles: how politicians manipulate electronic maps and census data to win elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 2002. Spying with maps: surveillance technologies and the future of privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Montello, D. R. 1995. How significant are cultural differences in spatial cognition? In Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS, eds. A. U. Frank and W. Kuhn. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Oas, I. A. 2002. The spatial dementia of geopolitics: Online agency and U.S. hegemonic decline. Masters Thesis, Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Onsrud, H., J. P. Johnson, and X. Lopez. 1994. Protecting personal privacy in using geographic information systems. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing LX (9):1083-1095.

Openshaw, S. 1991. Commentary: A view on the GIS crisis in geography, or, using GIS to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. Environment and Planning A 23:621-628.

———. 1992. Commentary: Further thoughts on geography and GIS: a reply. Environment and Planning A 24:463-466.

Peuquet, D. J. 1994. It's about time: a conceptual framework for the representation of temporal dynamics in geographic information systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84 (3):441-461.

———. 2002. Representations of Space and Time. New York and London: The Guilford Press.

Pickles, J. 1992. Text, hermeneutics and propaganda maps. In Writing worlds: discourse, text, and metaphor in the representation of landscape, eds. T. J. Barnes and J. S. Duncan, 193-230. New York: Routledge.

———. 1995. Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems, Mappings. New York: Guilford Press.

———. 2004. A history of spaces: cartographic reason, mapping, and the geo-coded world. London ; New York: Routledge.

———. unknown. Arguments, debates, and dialogues: The GIS-social theory debate and the concern for alternatives, 26.

Piper, K. L. 2002. Cartographic fictions: maps, race, and identity. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Roberts, S. M., and R. H. Schein. 1995. Earth shattering: global imagery and GIS. In Ground Truth, ed. J. Pickles, 171-195. New York: Guilford Press.

Robinson, A. H. 1982. Early thematic mapping in the history of cartography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robinson, A. H., J. L. Morrison, P. C. Muehrcke, A. J. Kimerling, and S. C. Guptill. 1995. Elements of Cartography. Sixth edition ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Rose, N. 1996. Governing 'advanced' liberal democracies. In Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government, eds. A. Barry, T. Osborne and N. Rose, 37-64. London: UCL Press.

———. 1999. Powers of freedom: reframing political thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schafer, W. A., C. H. Ganoe, L. Xiao, G. Coch, and J. M. Carroll. 2005. Designing the next generation of distributed, geocollaborative tools. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 32 (2):81-100.

Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Sherman, W. H. 1998. Putting the British Seas on the map: John Dee's imperial cartography. Cartographica 35 (3/4):1-10.

Short, J. R. 2001. Representing the Republic: mapping the United States. Edited by P. Burke, S. L. Gilman, L. Jordanova and R. Porter, Picturing History. London: Reaktion Books.

———. 2004. Making space: revisioning the world, 1475-1600. 1st ed, Space, place, and society. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.

Smith, C. D. 1996. Why Theory in the History of Cartography? Imago Mundi 48:198-203.

Sobel, D. 1995. Longitude: the true story of a lone genius who soled the greatest scientific problem of his time. Paperback ed. New York: Penguin Books.

Sui, D. Z. 1994. GIS and urban studies: positivism, post-positivism, and beyond. Urban Geography 15 (3):258-278.

Taylor, D. R. F. 1994. Perspectives on visualization and modern cartography. In Visualization in Modern Cartography, eds. A. M. MacEachren and D. R. F. Taylor, 333-342. Oxford: Pergamon.

Taylor, P. J. 1990. GKS. Political Geography Quarterly 9 (3):211-212.

———. 1996. The way the modern world works: world hegemony to world impasse. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

———. 1999. Modernities: a geohistorical interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Taylor, P. J., and C. Flint. 2000. Political Geography: World-economy, Nation-state, and Locality. 4th ed. Essex: Prentice Hall.

Taylor, P. J., and R. J. Johnston. 1995. Geographic information systems and geography. In Ground Truth, ed. J. Pickles, 51-67. New York: Guilford Press.

Taylor, P. J., and M. Overton. 1991. Commentary: Further thoughts on geography and GIS. Environment and Planning A 23:1087-1094.

Tufte, E. R. 1983. The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press.

Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press.

Wood, D., and J. Fels. 1986. Designs on signs: myth and meaning in maps. Cartographica 23 (3):54-103.

———. 1992. The Power of Maps, Mappings. New York: Guilford Press.

Wood, M. 1994. The traditional map as a visualization technique. In Visualization in Geographical Information Systems, 9-17. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Wright, D. J., M. F. Goodchild, and J. D. Proctor. 1997. GIS: Tool or Science? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87 (2):346-362.

Zeigler, D. J. 2002. Post-communist Eastern Europe and the cartography of independence. Political Geography 21:2002.