'Where are we?'

A primer for a theory of cognitive mapping.

‘Where are we?’ A primer for a theory of cognitive mapping.

Peter Buwert

There was a location.

In the location was a point.

The point was having an existential crisis.

Where am I?

Then another point appeared.

Hello

Whew!

Am I glad you turned up!

Well here I am.

So anyway I have a question...

Where are we?

Rats!

I was going to ask you the very same thing.

It’s been bothering me for some time now.

Oh. So you don’t know then.

(Thinking)

Hmmm...

Well let’s be logical about this...

I know that I am here and you are there...

Woah slow down there a minute... you’re here and I’m there? I believe you will find that the truth of the matter is that it is I who am here and you who are there.

{Here}

{There}

{There}

{Here}

Hmmm... that is a peculiar observation...

Ah yes of course.

You see, to me it seems very much like you are there and I am here because I am a subject and you are an object, but to you it seems that I am an object and you are a subject and so you naturally assume that you are here and I am there.

In any case, I think that if we are to make any headway in our current predicament we will have to assume, for argument’s sake, that I am the subject and you are the object.

{Subject}

{Object}

{Object}

{Subject}

Why can’t we assume that I am the subject?

I was here first.

Well that doesn’t seem very fair... but I suppose for argument’s sake...

Great! So if I am here, and you are there...

If.

Pardon?

Oh nothing, carry on.

Ok... I am here and you are there. Therefore you must be there to here away from me, and I must be here to there away from you.

So that is where we are!

Here to there There to here

{Here}

{There}

What if I move?

Sorry?

Look, now I am in a different place but I am still here to there away from you.

You’re right.

Well that’s thrown a spanner in the works hasn’t it.

I think we just have to face it. We are stuck in one dimension and can’t possibly have any conception of scale.

re t

ot

he

re

Th

He

ere to

re

he

{Here}

{There}

Just at that moment, a third point appeared.

Hi.

Hello object.

But I’m a subject...

We don’t get to be subjects.

It’s for argument’s sake.

Oh.

Fantastic. Now that there are three of us we can conceive of a second dimension.

It’s true, if we work together we can become aware of a space.

What’s a space?

It’s where we are I think.

Yes of course, if I am here, you are there, and you are way over there; then you are more there to here away than you are.

In fact, now that there are three of us, you are not only more there to here away than you, you are also you to you away from you.

Furthermore; you are not only you to you away from you but also you to here away from me, which is to say that you are less there to here away from me than you to here is there to here.

Wow we really are getting somewhere now.

?

?

Did you understand any of what he just said?

No, not really, in fact I found it quite confusing and convoluted in parts.

Oh come on, it’s actually quite simple.

Let me draw you a diagram.

Eh, say does anyone have a pencil?

You can borrow mine if you want.

Piped up a new voice.

Oh how kind, thanks very much.

That’s very nice, but it’s all a bit dromoscopic don’t you think?

Is that something to do with camels?

No that’s dromedary, the single humped Arabian camel.

Dromoscopy is the illusion of objective movement experienced as a result of subjective movement, it occurs when you move but it looks and feels to you more like the whole world is moving and you are staying still.

How can you claim that your subjective location is the measuring point for all objective distance?

Who made you the centre of the universe?

Yeah, that’s what I said.

In any case your crude method of triangulation centred on subjective location will never be able to satisfactorily answer either your primary or secondary questions, which I couldn’t help overhearing, of firstly ‘Where am I?’ and subsequently Ultimately a system of triangulation based solely on subjective location will only ever be able to respond to the question ‘Where am I?’ with the answer ‘Here’.

And in response to the question ‘Where is here?’ such an inadequate system as this will only ever be able to provide a list of relative distances between immediately perceived objects and the aforementioned inadequate subjective location.

{There to here}

{Here to there}

Fine then smartypants, what do you suggest?

I suggest that your subjective location relative to directly experienced objects must be coordinated with a representation of the unexperienced totality of the space.

But how can we know the unexperienced totality in order to represent it?

It is true that we can never really know the full extent of the totality of a space, but we can create a representation of the space by projecting an Imaginary subject to a position from which we suppose it is able to experience and map the totality.

Is that the Imaginary in the Lacanian sense?

Naturally.

Laca...what?

Jacques Lacan. (The French psychoanalyst.)

Oh Lacan. I hate Lacan.

Me too.

So let me get this straight, you’re saying that a subject can find their location in space by creating an abstract representative map of the space and reconciling this map with their directly calculated subjective location?

Exactly. By coordinating Imaginary representation with subjective location, we can create a cognitive map which we can use to find where we are in relation to the complete space.

Excellent!

Splendid!

Hooray!

Top notch!

Well now that we have straightened out that bowl of spaghetti there’s just one thing that still bothers me.

Yes?

Why are we here?

End.

Cognitive Mapping: A Spatial Model for a Politically Effective Public

I: Location (Ideology) A map is a representation of a space. Its purpose is to convey certain information about that space with a view towards:

1. Providing a new understanding of that space.

2. Facilitating purposeful movement within the space.

A map only becomes meaningful and useful when its representation can be reconciled to its object through a coordination with subjective location.

Understanding of immediate subjective location is found through personal experience. An understanding of the unexperienced totality of the space can then be conceived through use of representative mapping in relation to this experiential data.

Mapping is vital in social as well as physical space. Fredric Jameson writes that “the incapacity to map socially is as crippling to political experience as the analogous incapacity to map spatially is for urban experience.”1 Jameson called location in social space ideology following Louis Althusser’s definition of ideology as “the representation of the subject’s Imaginary relationship to his or her Real conditions of existence.”2 As with any location, ideology is found through coordination of experienced existential data with abstract scientific data.

Existential data is gathered through active participation and interaction with the social political world immediately surrounding the individual. Abstract data relating to the unexperienced structures of society is calculated and projected independently from directly lived experience.

The coordination of these two dimensions allows the subject to create a representation of the totality of society with a conception of personal location in this space: a cognitive map.

1. Nelson C, Grossberg L ed. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Illinois: University of Illinois press; 1990. p.353 2. Jameson F. Postmodernism: or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso; 1991.

II: Triangulation (Exposure and Conflict) In order to purposefully navigate a space, a subject must be able to perceive the spatial relationship between objects in that space, and in relation to their own location.

Triangulation is the recognition of a spatial relationship between at least three points in a space.

In the cognitive map of social space, distance is triangulated between ideological positions. This distance is perceived in ideological conflict.

If all individuals in a group were to hold exactly the same opinion, there would be no discernible difference between any expressed opinions in that group. Therefore there would be no perceivable distance between ideological location in the cognitive map of that group. If there is no conflict, there is no relative space, only ‘here’.

Space in the cognitive map is created and expanded by perception of ideological conflict.

Exposure to diverse and conflicting ideologies creates larger and more accurate cognitive maps. Exposure to only similar ideologies and insulation from conflict causes fragmentation and extremism in society as groups gravitate towards false normalities caused by small inaccurate cognitive maps.

III: Freedom of Expression (Access and Visibility) To avoid fragmentation and extremism in a society, it is vital that the ideological positions of all members of that society are available for all other members to see.

Access to the whole group should be available for the whole group. There must be arenas which all can access without fear of exclusion and which offer the means and conditions which allow ideological positions to be made visible.

These are spaces in which genuine ideological conflict can take place, but most importantly they are media through which this conflict is made visible to the public.

These public media can be anything which facilitates an encounter with a conflicting ideology through either experience or argument.

IV: Choice (Involvement and Pedagogy) Political discourse is ultimately pointless if there is no possibility of actual change coming about as a result of it.

For political discourse to be purposeful, there must exist a real choice to be made which will effect an actual change in the real world.

For a cognitive map to be effective, it must be a representation not only of the reality of the way things are, but also of the way things could be.

The possibilities of the real choices available to subjects acting in a space which can make a real difference to the nature of the space and the society within it must be made visible.

Pedagogical culture is culture which exposes not only ideological positions, the factors which construct society the way it is, but also the truth that the space of society is not static but constantly reshaped by its active members.

In exposing the position of the subject as an active element located in this world, pedagogical culture can create a new perspective in the public, shifting attitudes of political activity from passive observation to active involvement.

In summation; the preconditions for the public to be able to be politically active, are; that each member must inhabit an ideological position within public space, and be able to recognise the positions of others in relation to their own location and to their abstract projection of the totality of the space.

In order to be able to take part in effective political discourse, the public must have access to, and be exposed to, a wide range of diverse and conflicting ideological positions, and must have the means to also freely broadcast their own ideologies to the same wide audience.

Finally, in order to be actually politically effective in the real world, the public must become aware of the reality of the choices facing them, and of the actual abilities and limits they have in influencing the conditions of their own and others’ existences.

The text of this book is based around excerpts taken from my undergraduate dissertation, which is entitled: “Cognitive Mapping: An approach towards a visual culture for a politically effective public�

Find out more at PeterBuwert.com

Where are we?

“The incapacity to map socially is as crippling to political experience as the analogous incapacity to map spatially is for urban experience.� Fredric Jameson

Peter Buwert