The fascination of Canadian, Australian and other postcolonial writers with the figure of the map has resulted in a wide range of literary responses both to physical (geographical) maps, which are shown to have operated effectively, but often restrictively or coercively, in the implementation of colonial policy, and to conceptual (metaphorical) maps, which are perceived to operate as exemplars of, and therefore to provide a framework for the critique of, colonial discourse. The exemplary role of cartography in the demonstration of colonial discursive practices can be identified in a series of key rhetorical strategies implemented in the production of the map, such as the reinscription, enclosure and hierarchization of space, which provide an analogue for the acquisition, management and reinforcement of colonial power. My initial focus in this chapter, however, will be on a further point of contact between cartography and colonialism, namely the procedures and implications of mimetic representation.

Mimesis, besides providing a theoretical basis for cartographic practice, based now as throughout much of the history of cartography on the possibility of producing a plausible reconstruction of a specific geographical environment, has proved through the ages to be a cornerstone of Western culture. Although the viability of mimetic representation has been repeatedly contested at least since the time of Plato, mimesis has consistently provided a means of promoting and reinforcing the stability of Western culture. Yet, as theorists of colonialism such as Homi Bhabha and Edward Said (among others) have shown, mimesis has also historically served the colonial discourse which justifies the dispossession and subjugation of so-called ‘non-Western’ peoples; for the representation of reality endorsed by mimesis is, after all, the representation of a particular kind or view of reality: that of the West.