“There is a general consensus that ‘community’ is good” (Barke and MacFarlane 1). While this argument may seem simple, the context behind the statement is deceptively complex. Community, in the hands of varied leaders and planners has distinctly different meanings (1). The single element that combines each of these interpretations is the positive perception of community being the opposite of individualism. Social, religious and construction groups employ an entirely different interpretation of the meaning of community, indicating that there is much more to be considered than a simple boundary drawn on a map.
Communities as a term began as a recognition that groups of people banded together in order to accomplish similar outcomes (Barke and MacFarlane 4). The social structure of a community came to be considered during crucial town and country planning, indicating a growing desire to eradicate the traditional class barriers. Barke and MacFarlane (6) continue on to argue that if there is any one meaning for the term community it resides in the meaningful interaction between individuals. With so many varied interpretations and positions, community can only be perceived, but not completely defined.
The term neighbourhood remains as elusive to define as the much debated community (Martin 361). Differing eras reflect the definition of neighbourhood as the simple form of ‘community’, to the primary influence in individual lives. Fundamentally, the recognition that a neighbourhood can be a community is widely acknowledged, yet due to the spatial factors in the definition of neighbourhood, not every community can be referred to as a neighbourhood (363). Modern studies have reflected the fact that neighbourhoods can be composed of specific cultural backgrounds in one portion, leading these people to profess community, yet the remaining spatial portion of the neighbourhood holds no such values (366). This is clear indication that the physical boundaries associated with the concept of neighbourhood comprise a fundamental difference between itself and communities.
Many modern scholars find that the neighbourhood is based on an ‘ideal’ standard rather than a true spatial understanding (Martin 367). This separation of boundaries is often employed by interested parties to reach their personal goals, with realtors and politicians leading the way. Alongside the perception of exclusive privilege that can be created in the modern neighbourhood, there is the real potential to abuse the term in order to make a financial gain in the associated market (368). The growing recognition is that the term neighbourhoods have a social and physical position in the framework of the cultural framework.
Critical Review
Martin (361) and Barke and MacFarlane (1) papers share a central theme, a clear recognition of the variable nature of the terms Neighbourhood and Community. These twin concepts are social constructs that are employed by the various institutions, individuals and groups in order to achieve a specific goal. Barke and MacFarlane (1) ascribe a positive aspect to the term community, which can be a deceptive assumption. Modern societal values have the capacity to veer to the negative just as quickly and easily as they can build on the positive. It is social and ethical aspects of the referred community that determines the overall capacity for good or bad, not a general standard.
Both neighbourhood and Community are terms delineated for groups of people coming together to accomplish something (Martin 362) (Barke and MacFarlane 1). Yet, in certain instances, the absence of any clear goal, and the inaction of the population can constitute this community. The physical boundaries of the neighbourhood mark a clear contrast to the fluid nature of the term (Martin 363). This recognition places the concept on a similar but varied level from the community; the limitation of the physical space also lessens the opportunities available.
In the end, the ambiguous nature of both neighbourhood and community have positive and negative annotations, with the reality being that there is a social definition needed. While having no boundary, other than the physical nature of the neighbourhood, the interpretation and implementation of the influence that comes with the labelling of any population will be determined by the actions of the individuals.
Community Geography and Mapping Summary
Bunge (32) was among the first to recognize that that field of geography was constantly looking for an innovative method in which to establish workable method. To establish this innovation takes a diligent and ethical approach that builds on fundamental principle in an organized manner. Of primary importance to the creation of a working map is the connection to the underlying society (33). Lacking a true recognition by the population, the map will lose effectiveness as a tool running the risk of being reduced to less than it could be. The creation of any map requires the implementation of a working set of priorities that will serve to build a roadmap for the development of quality data.
“A Map is an Image Proclaiming its objective neutrality” (Krygier and Wood 193). This base description is only a small part of what a map can represent. The abstraction of maps makes it hard to be defined as a mere image or portrayal (193). This argument continues on to illustrate that the best method in which to think of a modern map is similar to a proposition in a graphic format. The objective of affirming the existence of any specific location is achieved with the creation of a map (198). This instrument can be utilized to demonstrate the same affirmation principle repeatedly, making the map an invaluable tool in many instances.
Krygier and Wood (201) argue that each view of the same area, as seen by different maps, is in fact not the same place, but a simple proposition of the existence of the area. Demonstrating the various factors that surround the creation of any map, the political, religious and social aspects dictate that there will no one culture that interprets the area in the same exact manner. There will always be conflicting propositions, making the choice of the correct instrument for the application essential (205). Mapmakers have the unique duty to take responsibility for the maps they create. “Just because the real world can’t be caught by a map doesn’t mean we can’t map the real worldas many ways as we want to” (211).
Technology has had a fundamental impact on the ability to create maps (Crampton 95). With innovations that include instruments such as the Foss and Geoweb, the potential for a rapid expansion of professional range, is coupled with the capacity to split the consensus. There is a direct conflict between the positions of the media and that of the politician, depending on the associated factors that influence each scenario (96). This is a clear indication, that even in the modern era, maps have the ability to create boundaries and infrastructures that bestow a specific advantage or disadvantage to each sector mapped.
The chief disadvantage of the emerging technology lies in the perception of a less than professional application method (Crampton 97). Tools including Wikipedia and open source databases enable a wide range of revisions not based in fact, thereby creating a real concern over the veracity of the instrument. With instruments such as the Geoweb emerging the future potential for a comprehensive, multilevel map application have never been better (98).
Community Geography and Mapping Critical Review
The value of the map and the efforts to create a better form of the instrument has been around since the very first one was created. There is a constant and unending push to find a better method of map making (Bunge 32). This effort, combined with emerging technology has the capacity to allow the accuracy of the map making industry to take leaps forward in terms of physical credibility. Yet, this recognition must be tempered with the reality that each regional power will influence the creation of the maps in order to satisfy their own religious, political or social needs.
Technology such as the Geoweb, which provides an inclusive format for an international creation, has the potential to add the data for the next evolution of the map making philosophy (Crampton 95). Yet, this optimism must be tempered with the admission that the local influences at hand in the creation of the world map, will in turn add their own bias to the end product. This will, in effect, produce much the same results as the regional maps, yet on a grander scale. Alongside this consideration must be the recognition that a certain percentage of the data presented to the Geoweb project will be flawed, due to either a wilful, or not, mistake. This fact will continue to play a crucial factor in the valuation of these forms of maps into mainstream use.
Although some consider the map a mere proposition (Krygier and Wood 201), the argument against that approach is considerable. Maps have the potential to be utilized in real world instances that makes these ‘propositions’, real world experiences. Therefore, the duty of the modern map maker must be to adhere to the strictest possible credibility in order to create the most accurate representation.
Works cited
Barke and Macfarlane. "Communites." 1. 1 (2006): 1-5. Print.
Bunge, William. "The Frist Years of the Detroit Geographical Expetidtion." Field Notes, 1. 1 (1977): 31-37. Print.
Crampton, Jeremy. "Progress in Human Geography." Sage, 33. 91 (2009): 1-11. Print.
Krygier, John and Denis Wood. "Thisi is not the world." Rethinking Maps, 1. 1 (2009): 189-201. Print.
Martin, Deborah. "Enacting Neighborhood." University of Georgia, 1. 1 (2003): 1-25. Print.
