Who says up is up?

As you saw from the maps that you were assigned to take a look at this week, there has been a tendency in cartography to place the northern hemisphere at the top of what we consider "normal" maps or globes of the world. In the case of globes at least, this is a practical matter because the lion's share of landmass on Earth is in the northern hemisphere, and, if you've ever tried to locate New Zealand on a globe, you'll probably recall the crick in your neck that you received for your efforts. For flat maps, however, there is no valid reason it shouldn't look like this:

In the case of Stuart McArthur's "Universal Corrective Map," the alteration was prompted by the ridicule directed at the Australian McArthur for coming from the "bottom of the world." And so he designs an upside-down map that places Australia at the top center. His map follows a long pattern of humanity's urge to place itself at the center of things, beginning with the geocentric model of the universe.

In general, the upside-down map is a good exercise for breaking out of the notion that any particular region has a central place in the world or that North always has to be up, but this brings up, for me, another cultural issue that founds the whole question of what (or where) should be at the top of the map. Why is better to be at the top at all? What I mean is that the argument about whether to place Australia at the top or bottom of the map is already predicated on the cultural belief that somehow "up" is better than "down," isn't it?

Here's an experiment that illustrates the cultural foundation of this dichotomy: If, right now, I asked you to point to Heaven, which way would you point? Some of you might point to the local brasserie where you've just discovered moules-frites or foie gras, but most of you would probably point straight up despite the fact that there's no earthly reason for doing so. Likewise, if I asked you to point to Hell, you might point to some fiery, sulfurous cavern beneath the crust of the Earth. Both of these conceptions are culturally determined and based on a long tradition of depicting Heaven and Hell as actual locations. For example, here's Gary Larson's take in The Far Side:

"Up" feels somehow more desirable than "down" even though there isn't any true justification for it, and the same thing goes for other dichotomies such as "left" and "right" (in Italian, the word "sinistro" can mean either "on the left" or "threatening evil"). 

Worrying about why "up" is more preferable to "down" might seem like a silly exercise, but the tendency to dichotomize can have some troublesome real-world effects. More specifically, here's how the Geert-Hofstede "Masculinity v. Femininity" index is defined: masculine cultures prefer "achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material reward for success," while feminine cultures favor "cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life." Isn't it problematic that these particular characteristics are labeled either "masculine" or "feminine"? This is not to say that any of them are inherently good or bad, which I think is the point, but the title of the index seems to me to be a little counter-productive. What do you think?