Reimagining the national map should also invite a reimagining of ‘nation’ as a category. Maps do crucial work in stitching together the term's two overlapping meanings – nation as territorial state, and nation as group of people – and maps can, in turn, help to interrogate and reconstitute these meanings. In my commentary, I offer three ways that ‘nation’ is at stake in Rossetto and Lo Presti's argument: (1) in distinguishing cartographies of diversity from cartographies of belonging; (2) in distinguishing a pluralism of bodies from a pluralism of perspectives; and (3) in the choice between renegotiating and abandoning the term itself.
