Based on Foucauldian notion of power, J.B. Harley argues that maps served both as instruments and representation of expanding European influence into the world. Harley's argument rejects the conventional notion of modern cartography as objective and scientific, and therefore superior than other traditional modes of mapping. Instead, according to Harley, "all cartography is an intricate, controlled fiction." Based on such development of scholarship, this section asks us to think about alternative ways (other than accuracy) to compare between so-called "Western" maps and aboriginal maps. One of them is the range and degree of workability or usability. Do you agree with the author's claim that "Western" maps are more universal, compared to aboriginal maps that are more culturally specific? And can this factor really explain why "Western maps are more powerful" than others?

This section is linked to earlier sections in that Aboriginal Australian maps raise the following questions:

• What are maps, and what are their functions?
• What are the differences between map and other graphic representations (picture, diagram, etc).
• What is the map's relation to the landscape it depicts?
• What is the meaning of reading the map?