When reading Harley’s Deconstructing the Map, I was most intrigued by the third section of his essay, the argument on maps and the exercise of power. While reading, I actually found myself disagreeing with, or at least questioning, a lot of what he was saying. For example, on page 12 Harley argues that maps encourage the normalization and standardization of sense of place, but I think that maps normalize a more general geographic space. While I agree that maps do simplify the Earth’s geography to its most basic form, I question Harley’s claim that they “invite no exploration” (13). This seems to contradict what he says about the rhetoric produced by different symbols, lines, and decorations on maps. By saying that these “anonymized maps” contribute to conformity throughout the world, is Harley encouraging cartographers to interpret space for people? If so, that is the exact problem that he cites early in his essay, that cartographers intentionally (or unintentionally) use their positions of power to influence their audience. It’s a fine line that he straddles, and an issue that I don’t know has an answer. Again, I agree with Harley that maps are very basic in their nature and provide little information on the character of certain spaces, but on the other hand I would argue that this affords individuals the opportunity to discover the meaning of those spaces for themselves. That being said, the authoritarian nature that Deconstructing the Map explains at the very end of the essay is yet another factor to consider when looking at a map’s effect on space and place. While Harley makes a compelling argument on a map’s influence on the conformity of space, I think the issue is much more two sided than what he writes.