I remained entirely confused by Harpold’s use of the “dark continent.” At times it would seem that he’s on board with what Soja is calling for: a spatial consciousness that takes into account that space is represented with political interest in mind. Yet can we say Harpold elided the idea that geographies allow for “political domination based on race, gender, and nationality (Soja, 19)” By his uncritical use of the ‘Dark Continent’ as metaphor?
Soja resonates with Sassen’s article from last week in that they both seek to re-imagine the relationship between the global and the local. While Soja focuses on uniting ‘spatial’ and ‘justice’ in order to create coalitions across struggles, Sassen focuses on digitalization for geographic empowerment. Sassen argues that the digital can give local environments global span. So what is Harpold asking? It seems that he at times dismisses the local and everyday for a broader and sometimes clunky critique of dominate forms of space visualization. Does Harpold get us closer to integrating Soja and Sassen’s theoretical frames in the materiality of representation?
How do we consider the non-representational in practices like mapping? Are cognitive landscapes to e accounted for in how space gets represented?
Space: A infinite processes whereby interconnecting systems of global, social, cultural and embodied knowledges inform the value of place. Space is a right.
Place: Fixed in the material and moving freely. Facilitated by place marking objects like maps.
Identity: How you make sense of places’ relationships to the idea of individualism.