The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration

TLDR

Recent writings on the production of geographical scale have opened new avenues of theorization, yet the concept has become analytically blunted by unreflexive blending with core geographical concepts such as place, locality, territory, and space. The essay investigates the methodological danger of this blending by critically reading Marston’s work and the notion of a politics of scale, and proposes eleven methodological hypotheses to address it. The author proposes eleven methodological hypotheses to confront the task of distinguishing scaling processes from other dimensions of sociospatial structuration. A concluding section suggests that our theoretical grasp of geographical scale could be significantly advanced if scaling processes are distinguished more precisely from other major dimensions of sociospatial structuration under capitalism.

Abstract

Fruitful new avenues of theorization and research have been opened by recent writings on the production of geographical scale. However, this outpouring of research on scale production and on rescaling processes has been accompanied by a notable analytical blunting of the concept of geographical scale as it has been blended unreflexively into other core geographical concepts such as place, locality, territory and space. This essay explores this methodological danger: first, through a critical reading of Sallie Marston's (2000) recent article in this journal on ‘The social construction of scale’; second, through a critical examination of the influential notion of a politics ‘of ‘ scale. A concluding section suggests that our theoretical grasp of geographical scale could be significantly advanced if scaling processes are distinguished more precisely from other major dimensions of sociospatial structuration under capitalism. Eleven methodological hypotheses for confronting this task are then proposed.