In his The New Nature of Cartography, cartographer John Brian Harley analyzes a number of aspects of both modern maps and their colonial-era predecessors. A common thread of this analysis is that Harley asks the reader to examine maps through various contexts, including those of cartographers, society, and other maps. In one of his discussions of the many possible relationships between the cartographer and the map, Harley asks the reader to reflect upon the position that contemporary map-making companies act as the cartographer. Specifically, Harley argues that the modern cartography industry has corrupted its primary export simply because of its fiscal motivation.

Harley claims that “cartography acquires a corporate image” (Harley 41) because of the increasing size and scope of modern map businesses, and that this has affected the content of their mass-produced maps. While these maps may not have the intricate commentary and artistic flair that world maps from several centuries ago had, Harley asserts that one form of content that can always be seen by an eagle-eyed observer is the “financial balance sheet” (Harley 41). One apparent implication of Harley’s claim is that the overwhelming majority of modern maps are inherently biased because of their commercial origins. This argument is valid, as it is clear that the industrial scale production of paper and laminated maps necessitates a common worldview that as many customers as possible will support. This argument can also be scaled down to individual countries and markets rather than simply a global perspective, as maps manufactured specifically for sale in one country or region could differ greatly from others that are made by the same company.

My initial interpretation of this is that such a company could potentially create a map that is factually incorrect but is accepted as truthful in a target market, mass produce this map on an industrial scale, and then advertise it to potential customers in this market. In this scenario, these customers would be compelled to buy these maps because they would validate and reinforce their worldviews rather than forcing them to confront geopolitical realities. Moreover, this trend of falsely-based maps could easily expand their regional prevalence into clothing, tapestries, jewelry, and other popular commercial mediums.

Another interpretation of this claim is that it can also be enlarged to encompass not only maps created by corporate entities, but also by individuals to be sold via websites such as Etsy. While the creation of copies from a print-to-order platform such as Redbubble may not directly involve the original artist with its industrial production, the artist’s work could theoretically be mass produced and therefore the artist would be profiting from daily orders. What makes this scenario surprisingly more worrisome than the corporation is that there are no checks and balances for what is created and sold. In the corporation, the artist or group of artists would create a map, but it would still have to survive a lengthy and bureaucratic process of review from the company’s management. Likewise, the artist needs only to consult themselves. Admittedly, both of these processes can result in either intentionally or unintentionally misleading maps, but the possibility for greater distortions and factual inaccuracies are much higher in the case of the individual artist. 

Naturally, Harley would have been unable to predict the phenomenon of print-to-order e-commerce when he published The New Nature of Cartography, but one must wonder if his opposition to inherent bias that originated from a “financial balance sheet” (Harley 41) was applicable to all contemporary for-profit maps or simply those created by corporations. As a whole, the text would appear to indicate the latter, as Harley’s stance towards cartography is generally critical towards businesses and governments rather than specific individuals. Perhaps this speaks more to Harley’s thesis, a generalized form of which asserts that maps are a type of text that have inherent biases and narratives which are rooted in the contexts of their cartographer, other maps, and society.