How “critical” is mapping as a method in international relations (IR)? Critical approaches have fundamentally changed the practices of mapmaking in IR. They have replaced geopolitical... Show moreHow “critical” is mapping as a method in international relations (IR)? Critical approaches have fundamentally changed the practices of mapmaking in IR. They have replaced geopolitical representations of a world divided into territorial states with notions of fields, networks, flows, rhizomes, and assemblages. This shift is both conceptual and methodological: It has led to the introduction of new methods of representation, such as multiple correspondence analysis and network analysis. These new methods have, however, been subjected to a strong critique. They are accused of reproducing the very logics of power that they aim to question, and flatten the knowledge they aim to represent. There would be, as the argument goes, an inescapable theoretical and political bias embedded in these methods. This article engages with this debate, which is ultimately about the ontological and epistemological status of mathematical methods of visual representation and, more broadly, about the role of “making” in IR. It argues that practices of mapmaking can still be designed to function as critical tools. To illustrate this argument, this article draws on ongoing research on biometric mass surveillance as part of the Security Vision project. Show less
