BRENNER, Neil. The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration.

Progress
in Human Geography 25, 4, 2001. p. 591–614.

- “In sum, traditional Euclidian, Cartesian and Westphalian notions of geographical scale as a fixed,
bounded, self-enclosed and pregiven container are currently being superseded – at least within the
parameters of critical geographical theory and research – by a highly productive emphasis on
process, evolution, dynamism and sociopolitical contestation.” (p. 592)

- autor fala do abuso do termo escala, do seu uso tendo sendo expandido de tal forma que ele perdeu
sua força analítica. Ele tem sido confundido com outras categorias “While such case studies have
significantly advanced our understanding of scaling processes under capitalism, they have also
arguably underpinned a noticeable slippage in the literature between notions of geographical scale
and other core geographical concepts, such as place, locality, territory and space. However, if the
notion of geographical scale is extended unreflexively to demarcate any aspect of sociospatial
processes, then much of the analytical power and theoretical potential of recent methodological
innovations may ultimately be lost, causing scale to collapse into an overgeneralized ‘chaotic
conception’” (p. 592-593) ele desenvolve a ideia dos “limites da escala”.

- Marston aponta a dimensão de gênero no processo de construção social da escala. Isso fica claro
no artigo dela. (p. 596)

- ele fala que a ideia do “lar” ser tomado como escala cai no problema do abuso do termo
escala. Ele não se diferencia de território, rede, etc. Eu preciso deixar bem claro que a
constituição do subúrbio enquanto escala é da ordem da escala de análise, embora, para se
constituir enquanto escala de análise, eu parta da escala de ação dos meus interlocutores. Os
“esquemas” são um fenômeno com outras escalas também de ocorrência.

- “In other words, even though it is repeatedly labeled as a geographical scale, the household
operates more prominently in Marston’s analysis as a sociospatial arena, territory, locale or place
rather than as a geographical scale in the technical sense of the term proposed above. To be sure, the
household does operate as a geographical scale in Marston’s case study, but arguably in less
causally significant and transformative ways than her conceptual vocabulary implies.” (p. 598)
ESSA RESSALVA! É apenas uma escala de análise para um fenômeno, mas que não é possível
tomar “o todo pela parte”.

- Dois significados principais da “políticas de escala”. Um singular e outro plural:

a) In the first, or singular, meaning, the notion of a politics of scale denotes the production,
reconfiguration or contestation of some aspect of sociospatial organization within a relatively
bounded geographical arena – usually labeled the local, the urban, the regional, the national and so
forth. In this singular aspect of the ‘politics of scale’, the word ‘of ‘ connotes a relatively
differentiated and self-enclosed geographical unit. Here scale is understood essentially as a
boundary separating the unit in question – be it a place, a locality, a territory or any other spatial
form – from other geographical units or locations. (p. 599) Seria esse o meu caso….

b) By contrast, in the second, or plural, meaning, the notion of a politics of scale refers to the
production, reconfiguration or contestation of particular differentiations, orderings and hierarchies
among geographical scales. In this plural aspect, the word ‘of‘ connotes not only the production of
differentiated spatial units as such, but also, more generally, their embeddedness and positionalities
in relation to a multitude of smaller or larger spatial units within a multitiered, hierarchically
configured geographical scaffolding. The referent here is thus the process of scaling through which
multiple spatial units are established, differentiated, hierarchized and, under certain conditions,
rejigged, reorganized and recalibrated in relation to one another. (p. 600)

- Ressalta importantíssima: “I would argue, consequently, that singular uses of the politics of
scale are methodologically defensible only to the extent that the distinctive scalar content of the
sociospatial form in question is explicitly investigated and set into relief over and against its other
geographical dimensions.” (p. 600-601). Nesse sentido, é fundamental falar que as escalas do
fenômeno “esquemas” transbordam os limites da escala de análise “subúrbio”. Ela não
encerra um “fenômeno suburbano” enquanto uma escala fechada em si. Todavia, em termos
metodológicos, na tese o fenômeno dos “esquemas” será analisado na escala do “subúrbio”
uma vez que a escala de ação das “malhas” mobilizadas pelos meus interlocutores para entrar
para PMERJ acontecem fundamentalmente nesse recorte em específico. É isso!

- A crítica sobre os termos “local”, “Global”, etc, etc: “The tendency to blend scalar concepts
into other geographical categories continues to be quite prevalent in contemporary human
geography, as is strikingly evident from the long succession of debates on the localities question,
the urban question, the regional question, the national question and so forth. (…) I believe the
problem results in no small measure from the circumstance that our most elementary scalar
terms (e.g., local, urban, regional, national and global) are also commonly used as spatial
qualifiers to connote the substantive sociological content of particular social, political and
economic processes (Cox, 1996). The pervasiveness of this tendency is exemplified, for instance,
in the equation of the neighborhood scale with community cohesion or ethnic identity in the urban
sociology of the Chicago School, in the equation of the local scale with contextual particularity in
British locality studies during the 1980s, in Castells’ (1977 [1972]) definition of the urban scale as a
receptacle for collective consumption processes or in conventional modernization-theoretical
understandings of the national scale as the ontologically necessary arena for economic development
and political democracy (for further examples and discussion of these problems, see Agnew, 1989;
Sayer, 1991; Taylor, 1996; Walker, 1994). Unfortunately, this grammatical inconvenience has
significantly compromised the theoretical precision of many otherwise highly illuminating
contributions to sociospatial theory.” (p. 602).

- “Scalar hierarchies constitute mosaics not pyramids. Processes of scalar structuration do not
produce a single nested scalar hierarchy, an absolute pyramid of neatly inter- locking scales, but are
better understood as a mosaic of unevenly superimposed and densely interlayered scalar
geometries.” (p. 606). Escalas como mosaicos e não pirâmides. Outra metáfora….