23 de Enero de 2018
Portal Educativo de las Américas
 Imprima esta Página  Envie esta Página por Correo  Califique esta Página  Agregar a mis Contenidos  Página Principal 
¿Nuevo Usuario? - ¿Olvidó su Clave? - Usuario Registrado:     


Colección: La Educación
Número: (119) III
Año: 1994


Earlier versions of arguments presented here may be found in our Conceptual Mapping Project Research Reports, Numbers 1, 2 and 3, Occasional Papers Series, Department of Administrative and Policy Studies, University of Pittsburgh; and in our “An Introduction to Postmodern Social Cartography,” Comparative Education Review 38 (May 1994).

1. R. M. Downs and D. Stea, “Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and Products,” Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior, ed. R. M. Downs and D. Stea (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1973) 9.
2. See for example, B. Latour, “Drawing Things Together,” Representation in Scientific Practice, eds. M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1988) 33; and M. Monmonier, Mapping It Out: Expositive Cartography for the Humanities and Social Sciences (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993).
3. R. M. Downs, D. Stea (1973); and C. Hampden-Turner, Maps of the Mind (New York: Collier Books, 1981); R. D. Sack, Conceptions of Space In Social Thought (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980); D. Apter, Rethinking Development: Modernization, Dependency and Postmodern Politics (Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1987); R. H. Brown, Society As Text: Essays On Rhetoric, Reason, and Reality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987); R. Scholes, Semiotics and Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982); H. Lefebvre, “The Production of Space,” Sociological Theory 11 (1993); M. Liebman and R. Paulston, “Social Cartography: A New Methodology for Comparative Studies.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, March 1994; E. Soja, Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory (London: Verso, 1989); T. Barnes and J. S. Duncan, Writing Worlds: Discourse, Text and Metaphor in the Representation of Landscape (London: Routledge, 1992); J. B. Harley, “Deconstructing the Map” in T. Barnes and J. S. Duncan (1992); P. Bourdieu and L. J. D. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992); R. Paulston “Mapping Knowledge Perspectives in Studies of Education Change,” Transforming Schools, ed. P. Cookson and B. Schneider (New York: Garland, 1994); W. Watson, The Architectonics of Meaning: Foundations of the New Pluralism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993 edition).
4. V. Rust, “Postmodernism and its Comparative Education Implication,” Comparative Education Review 34 (1990) 616.
5. In poetry, language can be seen as a way of bringing a world to disclosure where the world and things are carried over and appropriated to each other in the moment of disclosure. In his accessible analysis of Heidegger’s ideas, Timothy Clark illustrates the opening-out and decentering possibilities of dichtung as a mode of appropriation with a poem by Charles Tomlinson which begins:
that looks into itself
a facing
both and
every way
See T. Clark, Chapter One, “Overcoming Aesthetics,” Derrida, Heidegger, Blanchot: Sources of Derrida’s Notion and Practice of Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 20-63. Tomlinson’s poem is found in its entirety in his Written on Water (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972) 31. Like this poem, social cartography may be constituting something new. It does not attempt to merely copy or objectively describe what it appropriates. Rather, it creates new meanings by its spatial juxtaposition of images and signs. Exemplifying dichtung, mapping names “the open clearing whereby any object can emerge for any subject, [and] could not be reduced to the status of that which it renders possible” (Clark 41).
6. S. L. Star, “The Sociology of the Invisible: The Primacy of Work in the Writings of Anselm Strauss,” Social Organization and Social Process: Essays in Honor of Anselm Strauss, ed. D. R. Maines (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991) 265-283. Star’s rules to the study of invisible things include 1) The rule of continuity: Phenomena are continuous. There is no dualism. Objects are created not by reacting to something, but by overleafing stratified networks originating from radically different points. Power is the imposition of a position in such space; 2) The rule of omniscience: Everybody has several viewpoints and every view is only part of some picture, but not the whole picture. The revealing and articulating of viewpoints is the way we can understand something about truth, a fundamentally interactional, social phenomenon; 3) The rule of analytical hygiene—i.e., concepts are verbs, not nouns; 4) The rule of sovereignty: Every standpoint has a cost; and 5) The rule of invisibility: Successful claims to make invisible phenomena visible require the assertion of power and the fundamental pluralism of human interaction.
7. J. Baudrillard, Revenge of the Crystal (London: Pluto Press, 1990) 92.
8. Harley 234-237.
9. R. B. McNee, “Perspective—Use It or Lose It,” Professional Geographer 33 (February, 1981) 12.
10. A panopticon is defined as “a prison or workhouse so arranged that all parts of the interior are visible from a single point.” Although the noun mated with the adjective “spatial” serves to make the point, we believe a better metaphor or vision of social cartography would be “panoptic space.” This phrase, too, requires some clarification if it is to be contextually advantageous to our argument. First, the adjective “panoptic” typically means (1) “permitting the viewing of all parts or elements” or (2) “considering all parts or elements; all inclusive.” Because these definitions require an omniscient perspective, we believe for the purposes of social cartography that to limit panoptic to mean “the total of those parts or elements being offered by the mapper for the readers’ consideration” serves our ambition and requirement. Further, a definition of “space” suited to social and cognitive mapping is that associated with mathematics: “a system of objects with relations between the objects defined.” From this argument, then, the working definition of the “panoptic space” we strive to map in our critical social cartography is: “the total of those parts or elements of a system of objects defined by the social cartographer and presented for the consideration of all in the social milieu.”
11. Baudrillard 63.
12. Baudrillard 35-36.
13. R. Paulston, “From Paradigm Wars to Disputatious Community,” Comparative Education Review (August, 1990) 396.
14. Foucault in Harley 1989, 4.
15. Soja 71.
16. We might, however, take note of several recent feminist warnings to be wary of Soja’s claims for supposedly democratic methodologies that in fact ignore realities of power and inequality. Attacks accusing Soja and others of “foundationalism” and “androcentrism” can be found in R. Deutsch, “Boys Town” and D. Massey, “Flexible Sexism,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9 (1991).
17. Soja 122.
18. Rust 625-626.
19. C. Hampden-Turner 8. Hampden-Turner sees anti-imagists alive and well today in the Puritan—cum—behaviorist intellectual tradition: “Modern behavioral science is thoroughly infused with Puritan ethics, for example, the idea of a scientist as a predicting and controlling agent for scientific determinism; the dogma of ‘immaculate perception’; a preference for visible activity publicly verifiable, and the ‘godly discipline’ of rigorous experimental minutiae. There is the same rejection of speculative questions, of the private imaginings of subjective personality and reconciling schema in general” (1981, 34).
20. See W. J. T. Mitchell, Iconology: Image, Text, and Ideology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
21. R. Raivola, “What is Comparison? Methodological and Philosophical Considerations,” Comparative Education Review 29 (1985) 372.
22. P. Foss and J. Pefanis, “Translators’ Note,” in J. Baudrillard’s Revenge of the Crystal (London: Pluto Press, 1990) 11.
23. Foss and Pefanis 13.
24. Baudrillard 27.
25. R. Paulston, “Comparative Education: Paradigms and Theories,” The International Encyclopedia of Education, eds. T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1994).
26. Soja 7.
27. Soja 119.
28. V. Masemann, “Ways of Knowing: Implications for Comparative Education,” Comparative Education Review 34 (November, 1990) 465.
29. B. Holmes, “Paradigm Shifts in Comparative Education,” Comparative Education Review 28 (November, 1984) 591.
30. Holmes 469. The pragmatist view of constructed knowledge stands in stark contrast to the positivist correspondence theory of truth. For neo-pragmatists like R. Rorty, it would be useless to ask if the vocabulary of one intellectual community rather than another is closer to truth and reality. Rather, different vocabularies—and maps—serve different purposes, and clearly there is no such thing as a purpose that is closer to reality than another purpose. See his “Pragmatism as Anti-Representationalism,” Pragmatism: From Pierce to Davidson, ed. J. P. Murphy (Boulder: Westview, 1990) 3.
31. N. C. Burbules and S. Rice, “Dialogue Across Difference: Continuing the Conversation,” Harvard Educational Review 61 (November, 1991) 400.
32. Burbules and Rice 400.
33. Here our mapping rationale is close to H. G. Gadamer’s call for a critical hermeneutics able to “. . . raise to a conscious level the prejudices which govern understanding . . . to realize the possibility that other aims emerge in their own right . . . to realize the possibility that we can understand something in its ‘otherness’.” See his Truth and Method (New York: Seabury Press, 1975) especially 81-86.
34. Apter 250.
35. Apter 250.
36. Apter 248.