Maps as Tools of Power

Maps are not neutral. They are political artifacts, shaped by the agendas of their creators and the eras in which they emerge. The United Nations’ recent decision to endorse a new world map — Equal Earth — marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate about how we visually represent our planet. This shift is not merely cartographic; it is a statement about cognitive justice, postcolonial representation, and the role of design in shaping global narratives.

For centuries, the Mercator projection dominated classrooms, boardrooms, and digital screens, reinforcing a Eurocentric worldview. But as the UN’s resolution — spearheaded by the African Union — demonstrates, the choice of projection is deeply political. It influences how we perceive geographic importance, economic power, and cultural significance.[1] 

This article examines the Mercator, Gall-Peters, Winkel Tripel, and Buckminster Fuller Dymaxion projections, their advantages, and their political implications. It also assesses whether the UN’s adoption of Equal Earth was the best possible choice — or if another projection might have better served the goals of equity and accuracy.

Equal Earth and the Push for Cognitive Justice
On September 4, 2026, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to encourage the use of world maps that show continents in fairer relative proportions, particularly addressing the long-standing underrepresentation of Africa. The resolution, backed by 164 member states, was a direct response to the Mercator projection’s distortions, which make Africa appear smaller than it is — sometimes even smaller than Greenland, despite being 14 times larger [3].

The Equal Earth projection, adopted by the African Union in February 2026, was the UN’s preferred alternative. Unlike Mercator, Equal Earth is an equal-area projection, meaning it preserves the relative sizes of landmasses. This change is framed as a matter of cognitive justice: the idea that repeated visual representations shape how people imagine economic, political, and geographic. [4]

Graphic designers, educators, and policymakers must recognize that map projections are not just technical tools — they are visual arguments. The UN’s decision signals a growing demand for ethical design choices that challenge historical biases.

For designers, this means:
– Avoiding default projections (like Mercator) that perpetuate colonial narratives.
– Considering the audience and purpose — navigation, education, or political messaging — when selecting a projection.
– Understanding that every projection involves trade-offs between shape, size, distance, and direction.

Advantages and Political Implications 
No map projection is perfect. Each prioritizes certain properties at the expense of others, and these choices carry cultural, economic, and political weight.

Advantages

– Preserves angles and shapes locally, making it ideal for navigation (straight lines on the map correspond to constant compass bearings).
– Familiar and widely recognized, especially in Western contexts

Disadvantages and Political Implications 
– Severely distorts area, particularly near the poles. Greenland appears as large as Africa, and Europe and North America are inflated, while Africa, South America, and India are minimized.
– Reinforces Eurocentrism: By exaggerating the size of Western nations, Mercator subtly reinforces colonial-era power structures. As cartographer Arno Peters argued, this distortion is not accidental but a deliberate tool of imperialism.
– Educational consequences: Generations have grown up with a skewed perception of global geography, associating size with importance.

Design Takeaway:
Mercator’s persistence in digital mapping (e.g., Google Maps) is a reminder that default choices are not neutral. Designers should question why they use it and whether it aligns with their values. 

Advantages

– Equal-area: All countries are shown in their true relative sizes, making it a powerful tool for geographic literacy and social justice.
– Challenges Eurocentrism: By accurately depicting the size of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, it counters the narrative that the Global North is inherently more significant.

Disadvantages and Political Implications 
– Distorts shapes: Countries near the poles (e.g., Canada, Russia) appear stretched, while those near the equator (e.g., Africa) are compressed vertically. 
– Controversial origins: Arno Peters claimed the projection as his own, despite it being identical to James Gall’s 1855 work. This led to accusations of intellectual dishonesty and polarized debates among cartographers.
– Aesthetic challenges: The elongated shapes can make the map visually unappealing, leading some to dismiss it as "ugly" or impractical for general use.

Design Takeaway:
Gall-Peters is a political statement as much as a cartographic tool. It is ideal for educational contexts where size accuracy is critical, but its distortions may limit its use in navigation or artistic applications.

Advantages

– Compromise projection: Balances area, shape, and distance distortions, making it one of the most mathematically rigorous options for general-purpose world maps.
– Adopted by National Geographic: Since 1998, it has been the standard for the society’s world maps, signaling its practicality and broad appeal.
– Better for global connections: Its continuity across oceans makes it useful for depicting transcontinental relationships (e.g., trade routes, migration patterns).

Disadvantages and Political Implications 
– Still distorts near the poles: Greenland and Antarctica remain disproportionately large.
– Less radical than Gall-Peters: While more accurate than Mercator, it does not fully address the size disparities that concern advocates of equal-area projections. 

Design Takeaway:
Winkel Tripel is a safe, balanced choice for general use, but it lacks the political boldness of Gall-Peters or the innovative disruption of Dymaxion.

Advantages

– Minimizes distortion of shape and size: By unfolding the globe onto an icosahedron (a 20-sided polyhedron), the Dymaxion map reduces overall distortion compared to cylindrical projections.
– No "up" or "down": Unlike traditional maps, it eliminates the North-South hierarchy, presenting the world as a single island in one ocean and promoting a global, non-Eurocentric perspectiveen.
– Encourages collaboration: Fuller intended the map as a tool for fostering international cooperation and solving global problems through a holistic, interconnected worldview.

Disadvantages and Political Implications 
– nterrupted map: The unfoldings create visual discontinuities, which can be jarring for users accustomed to traditional maps.
– Less intuitive for navigation: Its unconventional layout may not be practical for maritime or aviation purposes.
– Radical but niche: While philosophically compelling, its unfamiliarity limits its adoption in mainstream context. 

Design Takeaway:
The Dymaxion map is a provocative, visionary alternative that challenges conventional perceptions. It is ideal for educational or artistic projects aiming to disrupt Eurocentric narratives, but its practical limitations may relegate it to niche applications. 

The UN’s adoption of Equal Earth is a symbolic and practical victory for advocates of geographic equity. It addresses the most glaring flaw of Mercator —size distortion — while maintaining a familiar rectangular format that is easy to adopt in textbooks and digital media.

However, was it the best possible choice?

Arguments for Equal Earth:
– Political symbolism: The UN’s decision aligns with the African Union’s call for cognitive justice, sending a strong message about decolonizing global representation.
– Practical adoption: Its rectangular shape makes it easier to integrate into existing systems (e.g., school curricula, media) compared to more radical alternatives like Dymaxion.
– Balanced compromise: While not perfect, it prioritizes area accuracy without the extreme shape distortions of Gall-Peters. 

Arguments for Alternatives:
1. Winkel Tripel: A more balanced compromise that minimizes overall distortion. National Geographic’s adoption suggests it is both accurate and user-friendly.
2.Dymaxion: The most radical departure from traditional maps, offering a truly global perspective that eliminates hierarchical orientations (e.g., North at the top). However, its unconventional format may limit its practicality.
3.Robinson or Eckert IV: These projections, already used by the UN in some contexts, offer aesthetic appeal and moderate accuracy but do not fully address size disparities.

The Missed Opportunity?

The UN’s choice of Equal Earth is a step forward, but not a leap. While it corrects size distortions, it does not challenge the rectangular frame that has defined world maps for centuries. A bolder choice — such as Dymaxion or a South-up orientation — could have further disrupted Eurocentric norms and encouraged a more radical rethinking of global power dynamics.

The political dimensions of map-making:

1) Maps are never neutral:

Every projection involves trade-offs that reflect cultural, economic, and political priorities. Designers must interrogate their choices and consider the subtext of their visuals.

2) Default projections perpetuate power structures:

The continued use of Mercator in digital platforms (e.g., Google Maps) reinforces colonial narratives. Designers should actively seek alternatives that align with their values.

3) Context matters:

The "best" projection depends on the purpose:

– Navigation? Mercator or Winkel Tripel.
– Education or social justice? Gall-Peters or Equal Earth.
– Disrupting Eurocentrism? Dymaxion or South-up orientations.

4) Ethical design requires critical reflection:

The "best" projection depends on the purpose:

– Who benefits from this representation?
– Who is marginalized?
– What narratives does this map reinforce or challenge?

[1] https://newworldmap.org/new-world-map, 15.09.2026, 10:58.
[2] Screenshot: https://newworldmap.org/new-world-map, 15.09.2026, 11:16.
[3] https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/09/1168284, 15.09.2026, 11:23.
[4] https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/un-new-world-map-legal-effect-of-the-equal-earth-resolution, 15.09.26, 11:34.
[5] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Equal_Earth_projection_SW.jpg?utm_source=de.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=imageinfo&utm_content=, 15.09.2026, 12:13.
[6] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Mercator-proj.png?utm_source=de.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=imageinfo&utm_content=original, 15.09.2026, 12:16.
[7] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg?utm_source=de.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=imageinfo&utm_content=original, 15.09.2026, 12:18.
[8] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Winkel-tripel-projection.jpg?utm_source=de.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=imageinfo&utm_content=original, 15.09.2026, 12:20.
[9] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Dymaxion_projection.png?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original, 15.09.2026, 12:29.
[10] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Mercator_versus_Equal_Earth_Projection.svg?utm_source=de.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=imageinfo&utm_content=original, 15.09.2026, 12:36.
[Cover] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Al-Idrisi%27s_world_map.JPG?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original, 15.09.2026, 12:43.