Core Theme- Perspectives

Knowledge as a map

One of the central metaphors we use in TOK and one which you will find scattered
through the subject guide is the notion of knowledge as a map. The idea behind this
map metaphor is to think of the construction of knowledge as a way of ‘navigating’
the world around us. Earlier we made a distinction between ‘facts’ (the way the world
is whether we ‘know’ it or not) and ‘knowledge’ (a set of beliefs we think accurately
represent those facts). The ‘map’ of the world in this case is our knowledge about the
world. What we say we know about the world and how the world really is are distinct: our
attempts at constructing knowledge is like trying to develop a map which tells us what is
out there and how to get around in that world. As individuals we find ourselves lost in a
world of knowledge. Everyone seems to know something we don’t know. Everywhere
there is something more to know. Some things we need to know (such as how to keep
ourselves healthy, how to find our way home, the facts that we need to pass an exam or
to do our job). Some things we’d like to know (how to play the drums, what people are
really thinking about us, or more about the subjects in school we’re really interested in).
But as the discussion of the puppet masters shows, there are also a whole range of
people trying to pass their knowledge on to us or to get us to know certain things rather
than others. Navigating this world of knowledge is just as much of a challenge as
navigating the real world around us. To help us get around the real world – the world of
mountains, rivers, cities and roads – we use maps. These maps pick out certain features
of the world and we use them as guides to help us get around. In navigating the world of
knowledge, we might also think about the maps that we create. In this section we will
explore this way of thinking about how we create and use maps to navigate the
world of knowledge.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, however, let’s just play with some maps. Which of the
maps shown do you think is most accurate? Each map presents the globe in a slightly
different way and it is important to identify the differences between the maps.

1
Core Theme- Perspectives

2
Core Theme- Perspectives

3
Core Theme- Perspectives

4
Core Theme- Perspectives

5
Core Theme- Perspectives

ACTIVITY

1. Consider the six maps.

Look at Map 1. Identify what you think is accurate about it.
Now consider Map 2. Is it more or less accurate than Map 1?
Repeat for Maps 3, 4, 5 and 6 and rank all the maps in order from most to least
accurate.

2 In small groups, discuss how each person ranked the various maps.

Which maps were generally thought of as ‘accurate’ and why?

Which maps were generally less accurate and why?

3 What general claims can you make about the question ‘Which is more
accurate?’ based on this exercise?

4 Were the maps more or less accurate for the same reasons?
You might have suggested Map 1 was accurate for one reason, but that Map 3 was
equally as accurate, but for a different reason.

You might have found that there was some agreement and some disagreement. The
accuracy of the maps depends mostly on what you mean by ‘accurate’ and this
depends largely on what sort of information you want to know. If you are wondering
where countries are in relation to one another, then Maps 3, 4 and 5 will do that job well.
If, however, you are wondering what geographical features you might expect to find in
certain places (mountains, deserts, oceans, jungles) then perhaps Maps 1, 2 and 6
would be more useful. All the maps could tell you what was directly north or south or east
or west of some point, but some present their information in a way that makes this easier
than others: Map 6 uses these directions but it makes this information hard to read.

6
Core Theme- Perspectives

Map 3 has exactly the same information as maps we are used to seeing, but it
simply places south at the top as opposed to the normal convention of placing
south at the bottom.

In order to read or follow any map, we must be aware of how the map works and what
conventions and assumptions are written into the creation of the map.

The cartographer (map maker) would have made a decision about how to lay out the map
and this required them to decide both how to represent the world and what to represent.
Maps 1, 2 and 6 ignore the human and political features of the world (cities and
countries) and instead opt only to tell the reader what the world looks like. Maps 3, 4 and
5 decide to show only the human and political features. Each map also makes a
decision to orientate itself in a certain direction. This decision is most obvious in Map 3,
given that it offers an orientation (the south is at the top) which we normally don’t
see. This decision, however, doesn’t mean that the map is any less accurate in its
depiction of the facts; it’s simply that we don’t normally see south at the top. The point is
that we cannot read a map effectively – we cannot see how it tells us anything about
reality – unless we understand and accept these conventions.

Much of this understanding and acceptance happens non-consciously – when we see

maps with north at the top, we don’t even think about it. When we see maps with south
at the top, we can quickly change our understanding and get on with the task of reading
it in the same way as other maps we’re more used to. What we often don’t think carefully
about, however, is what these conventions and assumptions written into the maps lead
us to think. Consider the differences between Maps 1 and 2: the physical shapes of
the continents are very different, particularly as you look at the land masses
furthest from the equator. Consider Map 1. This is called the Mercator Projection and
is what happens when you take a spherical globe and try to translate it onto a flat page –
this results in a stretching effect where the land masses get distorted to fill in the spaces
furthest from the equator; the relative area of the far north and south land masses become
disproportionately large compared to the land masses at the equator. If you are not using

7
Core Theme- Perspectives

the map to think about the relative land mass, then this poses no problem. But not being
aware of this distortion might lead you into certain false conclusions. You might, for
instance, uncritically accept that Greenland is about the same size as the continent of
Africa. However, in terms of land mass, Africa is about 14 times the size of Greenland.
While overemphasizing the size of Greenland, the flip side of this is that the size of
Africa is underemphasized. Africa is an impressively large land mass. The entirety of
the USA, China, most of Europe and India could fit within the area of Africa, yet much of
the world treats Africa and its huge countries, people, traditions, cultures and practices
as if it were a homogenous whole. It’s not unreasonable to think this might be because
many maps underestimate its size. Map 2 is a response to this dilemma. This
projection, called the Galls-Peters projection, is an attempt to capture the same
information as Map 1 (where the land masses are in relation to one another, and what
they look like) but with the added information of how big the land masses are.
However, it’s easy to see how the choice to capture this added fact of relative land
size has created its own distortions; the details of the land masses at the north and
south extremes become nearly impossible to read. So, the choice to prioritize one set
of facts has distorted another set of facts.
https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10154672494551939/?t=4

Another consequence of the choices made in building these maps is to consider what we
think of as important or valuable. The presentation of the world in Maps 1 and 2 is
traditional in Europe, while students growing up in the United States might
recognize Map 4 and students from the Pacific Island nations might recognize Map
5. In other words, the decision to place one part of the world at the centre of the map
suggests that the map values certain areas over others. This might simply be
because the map is intended for one audience and not another. Looking at Map 3
however, it might be jarring because it makes it something of a challenge to find your own
country.

There’s nothing bad at work here, but it does lead to some interesting conclusions
about how these values get written into the values we hold today. ‘The Middle East’

8
Core Theme- Perspectives

and the ‘Far East’, for instance, are phrases that make sense if we consider ourselves to
be starting from Europe. Calling the areas around the Arabian Peninsula the ‘Middle
East’ suggests that they have an identity in relation to Europe, but why should that
be the case? Similarly, with the Far East. We might ask ‘far from what?’ Why should the
peoples and countries at the eastern edge of the Asian continent be far from anywhere?
Again, this suggests that Europe is at the centre of it all, but why should this be the
case? By looking at Maps 1 and 2 you might uncritically think that Europe really
does sit at the top and centre of the world. The east Asian countries are pushed off to
the edges. Australia ends up ‘down under’ the globe, but it’s not under anything or down
from anything unless you accept that the northern hemisphere should be at the top.
Considering the choices of Maps 3, 4 and 5 is more interesting. The top or the centre of
these maps lead their readers into thinking about what is important.

Many maps use latitude and longitude to divide the world up and help make
navigating easier, and here again we might find hidden assumptions about what is
important coded into how we describe the world.

https://youtu.be/toyuU6Q1IW8

The starting point for longitude is the ‘Prime Meridian’ and this runs through a place called
Greenwich in southeast London in the United Kingdom. That this starting point runs
through the UK is not an accident. At the time this feature of maps was being developed,
Britain was home to the best maritime knowledge. It was also the greatest military
and colonial power. The strength and knowledge of Britain at the time gave it the
ability to decide that the foundations of the system used to measure the world
begin in Britain. This starting point then has been coded into every navigational
map on the planet today. The Prime Meridian could have been anywhere, except for
the particular strengths of a little country on a little island off the coast of the European
continent.

9
Core Theme- Perspectives
The Royal Observatory at Greenwich is the home of time and space, the Prime Meridian and Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vpc3TSwqkQ

10