Mappenstance.

 The beginning of it all

The universe is full of questions.  What is the meaning of life? What is Locke’s causal theory of perception? And, most importantly, why on earth are so many girls named Mary in Iowa? Never fear! The answer to all your questions, and more, is embedded in the contents of the ever popular Map of Six Decades of the Most Popular Girls Names. The map, based on data provided by the Social Security Administration, ranges from 1960 to 2012 and is color coded by the year’s dominant name. The ebb and flow of a specific name tells volumes about the mentality of American parents and the thought they put into the names of their children. The names themselves, miniature rhetorical restrictions of gender and personality, create lasting implications on what names are socially acceptable and what names give girls certain “labels”.

From Mary to Lisa 

As the map shows, Americans tend to play it safe when naming their children; note the lack of Apple or Blue Ivy centric names throughout the years. One can assume why this is; a name is a powerful and long lasting device. The name not only describes the person it belongs to, but it also gives clues about the parents who chose the name. Every single name on this map, whether given in 1962 or 2008, is a traditional, conservative, and socially acceptable name to give a child. People given a less socially acceptable moniker are sometimes regarded as less than or different from the general public. Those who choose to give unique names to their children are often in the public eye; while they have no problem fully expressing themselves to the world, they cannot be so sure that their child will fully appreciate their birth name. Moreover, girls given less feminine names are also frowned upon by society. Girls are expected to exhibit noticeably feminine traits, and having a non-feminine name makes a girl stick out like a sore thumb. This map proves just this; the string of “normal” names shows the political power that a name bears. Clearly, there is a standard that women and girls are compelled to abide by, and that standard starts before birth, when a name is chosen for the new baby girl.

A country united

Seven times in the last sixty years have all fifty states logged a common favorite name. There are times when one name remains dominant; others where America favors multiple, trendier names. In 2007 Tennesseans were naming their girls Emma, Texans Emily, New Yorkers Isabella, and Pennsylvanians Ava, whereas Mary was a fan favorite for forty-eight years. Also, I am not sure what is in the water in Hawaii, but there is something about their citizens that like bucking the status quo of the rest of the country and favoring different names entirely. In 2002, Hawaiians loved Kayla and in 1996 Taylor dominated the islands. This trend could also stem from the background of the parents. Either local Hawaiians do not care about social norms enough to conform to traditional baby names, or the non-Hawaiian born residents were bold enough to make the move to Hawaii in the first place that giving a traditional baby name to their daughter was less appealing to them than those living in the continental US.

A house divided

Ashley: New kid on the block or temporary game change?

And thus the balance has been restored to nature

While names often cluster predictably in the same geographic locations, there are some time periods the map shows that are worth another glance. Take as an example the year 1985, in what I term the Jessica vs. Ashley debacle. In this year, 19 states (including population dense NY and CA) favor the name Jessica, while 25 states favor Ashley. Now, I am not a math major, but I know when two and two add up, it normally doesn’t equal five. So how could the country’s most popular name be the one that is favored in six states fewer than its adversary? As stated above, Jessica fans amass in states with a large number of people. Ashley fans, on the other hand, are centered in the Midwest. No offense to North Dakota, but it seems to be the place where popular names go to die. One can only assume that the map is based more on population than the sheer number of states preferring one name to another, although we are never officially told this by the cartographer (a weakness of the map perhaps?) In fact, we are never provided with the cartographer at all. Why did he or she choose to create a time-lapse map? Would any other style of map have delivered the facts better or more clearly than our map does?

Why these names? I could probably name at least fifty girl names off the top of my head, yet the map shows only a handful. Some of the names appear to have a more obvious explanation as to their popularity than others. In the 8^th season of the popular T.V. show Friends, new parents Ross and Rachel name their child Emma. This 2001 episode could be the reason behind the name’s surprising appearance. In 2002, four states favored the name, while in 2003 twenty-two states were partial to it. In fact, Emma was the most popular baby name come 2008. One wonders if there are equally interesting reasons why some of these names are so popular that millions of Americans chose them. Ashley was apparently a more common boy name than girl until the 1960s, while Mary had reigned supreme since 1913, giving her a nearly fifty year long streak. (Pursuant to behindthename.com, remember to cite) It makes sense that Mary would be such a popular choice; the name is biblical, regal, and just downright classy. I don’t even want to start the discussion on why the name Isabella became so popular in the late 2000s, although I have a feeling it has something to do with a certain vampire/human combination. Interestingly enough, the most popular boy names are two fold: Michael (1954-1996), and Jacob (1997-present), both traditional and conservative names fit for strapping young men.  It is possible that this disparity in boy names is particularly damaging to this gender. Imagine being the only Kevin in a class full of Jacobs; how would you feel?

A new millennium, a new champion

What about the map itself? Does it follow what Denis Wood says about all maps being political in nature? The provider of the map, jezebel.com, does not list the specific creator of the map, simply that it was fashioned using the data from Social Security. However, I see no reason to question the intentions of Social Security; unless it is a way for the government to check up on the mentality of American parents, I would assert that the Administration is providing the data in order to appease curious citizens (or providing vital information to our alien overlords; either option is equally plausible). I also would claim that this information is highly accurate, although I would benefit from knowing exactly how the “most popular” category is organized (see again the issue of population of each state v. quantity of states per name).

Does this map have any silences or weaknesses? This is an annually recorded documentation of female names, provided by a government entity. Because it includes all fifty states over a very specific and meticulously recorded time period, I would argue that there are little to no silences (intentional or otherwise) on this map. What would be amazing would be if this map’s creator fashioned a “brother map” of the correlating male names; as previously stated, I have a hunch that most, if not all, the names would be as equally traditional and safe.

What is important to consider as far as this map is concerned is the relationship between each name and time, both on the whole and year by year. Sure, we could have been provided with sixty individual maps that would range from 1960 to 2011. But that collection of maps would not have been nearly as impressive as this time-lapse map is. The passing of time as related to the progression of female baby names in the country adds a whole new level of complexity and fascination to the map.  Because of the specific choices made by the phantom cartographer, the use of a name now takes on a whole different meaning. In 1960, it was the trend to name your daughter what you, your mother, your best friend, your neighbor, and your distant cousin from Nebraska were named. However, as the generation of Mary’s and Lisa’s have become mothers and grandmothers, we have seen, thanks to the map, entirely different trends devour the country and then recede to the annals of time. What names will conquer all others in 2060? Stay tuned for more details, because if a map is created of the Most Popular Girl Names over the past one hundred years, I will be here blogging about it.

Heavy weight champion Sophia may just be in the fight for the long run

-Sarah Abel

Author’s Note: As I am not the most technologically wise person, I am not able to embed a time lapse map within the database that is Mappenstance. However, I can post the link for any and all readers to follow to attain the full and powerful effect that is this map:

http://jezebel.com/map-sixty-years-of-the-most-popular-names-for-girls-s-1443501909

Bibliography:

“Map: Six Decades of the Most Popular Names for Girls, State-by-State.” Jezebel. October 18, 2013. Accessed February 26, 2014. http://jezebel.com/map-sixty-years-of-the-most-popular-names-for-girls-s-1443501909.

“Social Security.” Popular Baby Names. 2013. Accessed February 26, 2014. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/.

Trust me, the inside is much more exciting than the cover indicates.

The famous Lewis and Clark expedition was the first American expedition to explore the western Louisiana and Spanish Territories. Commissioned by then president Thomas Jefferson, the expedition started in May 1804 and ended in September 1806. The expedition’s purpose was to map out the newly acquired Louisiana Territory, to find a more efficient and straightforward route across the Western territory, and to fulfill America’s manifest destiny by staking a claim for the US. The Atlas of the Expedition of Lewis and Clark documents in extreme detail the intricacies of the Western territory. The Atlas, bigger than my torso in size, contains hand-drawn maps created by William Clark himself. If anyone is interested, the Atlas happens to sell on Amazon for around $1,950, but I found one on sale for $250. I would highly recommend giving this historic Atlas, dating back around two hundred years, a chance.

-Sarah Abel

The National Geographic Historical Atlas of the United States provides a very focused set of maps and articles on the history of  the United States of America, from discovery to present.¹ It accounts for over 500 years of American history: mapping the Native American territories, tracing the paths of the Underground Railroad, and concluding in the United States’ relations with other countries. Peering into the articles, maps, and pictures, the reader can sense how the narrative feels like a “campfire setting” of patriotic storytelling. It demonstrates the laborious progression of America’s establishment in the world to its powerful position as a global leader. As this atlas takes us on a nostalgic walk through history, it clearly displays what Susan Schulten explains is the purpose of such atlases: “not to explore the nuances of geography, but to document the evolution of the nation as a sovereign territory”.²

1. National Geographic. Society  Historical Atlas of the United States. Washington D. C.: National Geographic Society, 2004.
2. Schulten, Susan. “The Graphic Foundation of American History” in Mapping the Nation: History and Cartography in Nineteenth-Century [11-40]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2011.

The wait is over. For three weeks during the frigid winter, global citizens get to display national pride as representatives from their country attempt to earn personal and national glory through a series of athletic events. The Winter Olympics physically brings the world together, yet this gathering also demonstrates how culturally, economically and politically different these countries are.  While on the surface, the Olympics are an international sporting event, the game’s scope of influence reaches far beyond the fields of competition. What role do maps have in displaying the complex implications of the Olympics? The map titled “Olympic Games: Medals 1896-2012” utilizes a unique form of visual representation which allows the audience to gather more information about the Olympics than could be gathered by looking at a chart or piece of literature. The map’s ability to spatially account for Olympic dominance allows the audience to understand that the games truly represent one of the largest geopolitical spectacles, not simply a gathering of the world’s best athletes. For those who think the Olympics are just a game, the spatial and visual representation utilized in this map demonstrate that the implications of the Olympics are much more complex and far reaching.

When first glancing at “Olympic Games: Medals 1896-2012”, some regions of the world are nearly unrecognizable due to alterations in the size of each individual country. Cartographer Benjamin D. Hennig exercised his cartographic license when deciding to use a cartogram projection in which each country appears to be smaller or larger depending on how many Olympic medals they have won since the Games’ inception.  J.B. Harley’s claim that “maps function as a kind of language” is evident in our cartogram’s case in how the map communicates a wide variety of information with its viewer. This specific map projection is certainly more useful than a chart or a novel because the audience can see how factors such as geography and colonization play a role in athletic success by using a single snapshot. The cartogram proves that certain countries are inherently disadvantaged in the Winter Games due to differences in climate and national wealth.   For example, the warmer southern hemisphere is nearly unidentifiable in the smaller map at the bottom of the page titled “Winter Games”. Meanwhile, the continent of Europe, which is usually blanketed by a layer of snow and ice, is so swollen that it appears to take up the entire map. Also, based off of a different cartogram which resizes countries depending on GDP per capita (http://jmgis3015.blogspot.com/2009/04/cartograms.html), we can see that the northern hemisphere seems to be more economically prosperous than the southern hemisphere. This economic advantage allows various countries the ability to invest in the expensive equipment and training facilities needed to be successful in sports such as the bobsled or alpine skiing. Also, countries which only recently have gained colonial independence seem to perform poorly in the games compared to countries which have been autonomous for longer periods of time. For example, many African countries which gained independence in the 1960’s and 1970’s are unidentifiable, while colonial giants like Germany, France and England are prominent fixtures on the map. Colonizers cared little about the athletic development in their colonies and tended to focus on exploiting these settlements for economic gain, thus hindering the development of sport in these subjugated areas. Also, during times of social unrest and large scale political upheaval resulting from independence efforts, colonies tend to concentrate more on restoring a stable civil society and less on securing a place on the podium at the Olympics.  The use of a cartogram is not only a visual novelty for many viewers, but also a powerful tool in allowing the audience to better understand the inequalities between different countries by using a projection which is very different from that of a traditional world map.

The timing of the Olympics is certainly one reason that the map merits recognition as Map of the Week. However, the map is also deserves acknowledgement for its ability to foster dialogues about a variety of topics by using minimal wording. Although the map appears to be objectively displaying the number of medals won my each country, the map also serves many underlying interests as well. Dennis Wood claims that “every map embodies the interest of their authors”, proving that no map is perfectly objective even though it may seem to be. The political undertones of the map are impossible to ignore given that some countries are literally overshadowed by the presence of other nations on the map. The cartogram also allows readers to understand what winning one gold medal means for different countries.  For instance, the US is expected to win numerous gold medals throughout the course of the games, so one individual medal will not cause a countrywide patriotic frenzy. However, if a country like Jamaica or Micronesia were to win a medal, their nation would literally earn a place on the global map and receive various economic and social benefits.  These points prove that the map does not solely represent one interest, but a number of intentions which together render the map an incredibly useful tool for looking at the history and the current state of the world. The map’s combination of unique visual depiction and multifaceted functionality make it more than deserving of the title Map of the Week.

The linking of the past, present (and in some regards) the future proves that “Olympic Games: Medals 1896-2012” is not only an aesthetically novel map, but also intellectually profound one for providing viewers with a current state of the world in a single snapshot. By resizing each country, Hennig allows the map’s audience to understand how a nation’s global prominence can literally grow as more medals are accumulated. The correlation between global influence and athletic prowess becomes apparent on the map, and Hennig should be applauded for his ability to seamlessly intertwine numerous interests into one single map. Will certain countries be able to live up to their legacy in the Games, or will a country nearly invisible on the map be able to bring itself to worldwide prominence? All that’s left to do is sit back, relax and enjoy the global spectacle that is the Olympics.

Bibliography

Harley, J.B. “Maps, Knowledge and Power,” in The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environment, ed. Denis Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels, (277-312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Hennig, Benjamin D.  Olympic Games Medals 1896-2012. (Benjamin D. Henning, 2012). Accesed February 3, 2014. http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=2507.

Meyer, Jerry. World Gross Demostic Product 2004 Cartogram. Jerry Meyer, 2009. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://jmgis3015.blogspot.com/2009/04/cartograms.html.

Wood, Denis. The Power of Maps. New York, New York: The Guilford Press, 1992.

By: Pat Giampietro

Needless to say, the ongoing debate of Creationism verses Evolution in schools in the United States has always been a sensitive topic that people take very personally. But what happens when someone actually creates a map that reveals schools that not only teach creationism, but also are funded by the state? Well, with God and politics both shown on the same map, things become even more personal to the reader. And “personal” is exactly what Slate, an online magazine, was aiming for in posting such a map. They wanted to incite a response from their audience, and they used classic, age-old map-making techniques to accomplish that goal. In writing a partial introductory paragraph for the map, using a color-dotted system, and most importantly, silencing certain aspects of the map, this map-maker wanted his reader to focus on the alarming issue of creationism in schools as a method to promote an evolutionary worldview.

But before we begin to look into the map we should investigate the article, because it provides a context for how we are to view the map. First off, the title itself carries some significance: “Map: Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism”.¹ The fact that the first word the reader will see is “Map” testifies to the power of a map to offer validity to an argument. Suddenly, this blog-post now has an air of authority. “After all”, the reader might think, “this post has a map, and maps just reproduce reality, right?” Wrong! As the eminent cartographer Denis Wood would claim, the map creates a reality.² However, the bias really begins to show in the introductory paragraph. In just five sentences, this little paragraph boldly articulates the purpose of the map and makes it perfectly clear that what the map is showing is a bad thing. In reference to the U.S. map below it, the post claims, “If you live in any of these states, there’s a good chance your tax money is helping to convince some hapless students that evolution…is some sort of highly contested scientific hypothesis as credible as ‘God did it.’” Although most maps are biased in some way or another, this statement unashamedly establishes its bias right off the bat in order to make the map relatable to the reader. The author uses the article to provide a strong context for the map so that the reader clearly perceives this national issue as a personal matter.

But in terms of the map itself, the first thing that strikes me is how messy and unbalanced it seems. Little colored dots of green, orange, and red are disproportionately clustered in some states and lightly scattered in others. But yet, the majority of the United States is left blank. In fact, only fourteen of the forty-eight contiguous states even have these little dots. Now the article seems like a bit of an exaggeration if this map only applies to about a third of the U.S. But what is happening in those fourteen states?

Well, each dot represents a school, and the color for the dot codes for that state’s policy of supplying public funds for schools that might be teaching creationism. For instance, Tennessee and Louisiana are completely covered in green little dots  (which the legend explains is the color for public schools in states where state law permits creationism instruction). But wait a second… does that mean that each school represented by a dot is teaching creationism? No, but that was most likely the desired impression of the cartographer by labeling every single school with a dot, even though the reality is that these schools may not necessarily teach creationism. Our man Denis Wood points out here that maps have a power to “link the territory with what comes with it”.³ Thus each little green dot in these states still calls out to the reader, “I teach creationism!” even though the legend claims that they are simply allowed to teach it.  Another interesting choice the author makes is the use of dots. The chaotic crowding of dots that seem to overflow the borders of Tennessee and Louisiana overwhelm the viewer. But since these creationism policies are statewide, the author could have easily shaded the whole state green to represent that state’s policy instead of using dots. But color-coded dots convey a numerical quantity that would be lost in shading. But regardless of the representation, the color-coding system generalizes the individual situation of each school into a much broader category of “teaches creationism”, the theme of the map. The dots are cleverly “naturalized” in the map by the mass representation of specific schools and comfortably conform to a reader’s expectation of what a map like this should look like. But although we can understand the dots and the colors, there is still so much blank space. This begs the question: what is the map not showing?

And here, lastly, we come to the issue of silences. J. B. Harley claimed that an investigation of the silences of a map will reveal its hidden political messages, and as we have already seen, this map is politically biased.⁴ So what features of this map are silenced? Well, this map does not show the families that send their children to these schools, nor does it show the Bible-Belt culture that these families might have grown up in. Thus, we can propose that many of these families might have no problem sending their children to these creationist schools, if creationism is already integrated in the culture through religion. Yet, the map does not show this, or any other opposing aspect because they would not support the purpose for which the map was crafted. The author might argue that it would be nearly impossible to map “culture”. However I have no doubt that if “culture” supported his interest, then he would have found a way to include it on the map.

Throughout the article and the map, the author is constantly making the assumption that the reader has an understanding of what creationism teaches. And from his three word definition of creationism in the introductory paragraph (“God did it”), he single-handedly calls for the abolishment of creationism in publicly funded schools. Despite this shortcoming, his post is based on a valid argument: the separation of church and state. However, if we move past the politics, we run into an interesting question: are creationism and evolution really that different in terms of explaining how science actually works? No, they are not. But they both offer conflicting explanations for the history of science (the origin; “where did it all come from?”) and the answer to this issue has huge implications for how we view the world. So the purpose of this map is not to necessarily promote evolution or renounce creationism, but in essence, this map is a battleground for an underlying ideology: a battle to win the mind of people to a certain worldview. That is the power of maps, and that is why this map is worthy to be included in the Map of the Week.

D. R. Edmonds

Notes

1. “Map: Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism” Slate. January 26, 2014. See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html#lf_comment=133428970
2. Denis Wood, The Power of Maps (New York: Guilford Press, 1992), 17-19.
3. Wood, 10.
4. J. B. Harely, “Maps, Knowledge, and Power”, in The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation. Design and Use of Past Environments