Embracing the plurality of the carto-sphere

Abstract

This brief commentary responds to Tania Rossetto and Laura Lo Presti’s (2021) thought-provoking article ‘Reimagining the national map’ by offering three points for reflection. Firstly, it highlights the scholarly value of embracing their notion of the carto-sphere as a mode of enquiry into cartography, maps, and mapping practices. Secondly, it draws attention to the theoretical and empirical questions that arise when we embrace the plurality of cartographic knowledges. Thirdly, it raises some ethical considerations to think through if and when making this shift.

Between hyperboles and litotes: The middle passage of everyday cartographic nationhood

“…As Boria (2022) usefully notes, the nation has often been addressed as a ‘pre-packaged’ category, not as ‘a reality here and now’ (Craib, 2022), which, we agree, cannot be fully comprehended without referring to its geo-historical contexts (Carraro, 2022; Craib, 2022). Yet, it is also too vivid and elusive, idealised and practised (Duggan, 2022; Rankin, 2022), conventional and constantly rebooted to not receive further attention and ‘methodological eclecticism’ (Boria, 2022) instead of being so easily abandoned. Nation and nationalism studies (less represented in the commentaries we received) are helpful here since they have been contributing much semantic discussion in the last few years, which, for instance, led us to talk about nationhood as an experience of coexistence rather than nationalism as a category of belonging (as suggested by Craib, 2022).…”

“…In his view, the national map cannot be extended to infinity since it is something endowed with a certain coherence. Similarly, Duggan (2022) asks how far we should go in considering cartographic objecthood without losing the representational features that are proper to every map. In a certain way, the interrogation of cartographic limits is linked to the interrogation of national limits (Rankin, 2022).…”

“…In this reply, we thus present the progression and caveat of both our and their previous arguments. First, when referring to the study of cartographic nations, we see the need for more elastic categories that acknowledge the myriad uses of national maps, 'even if', as Duggan (2022) suggests, 'we don't like some of these uses'. Second, we enthusiastically endorse 'the weight of praxis' evoked by Boria (2022) to build on the idea that the work of imagination, even with the aspiration of creating more progressive cartographies, should always be grounded in specific national contexts and seen in the related material fractures and power dynamics.…”