See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332672760

Scale - Introducing Social Geographies

Chapter · April 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 39

1 author:

Quan Gao
Newcastle University
12 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Quan Gao on 26 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Introducing Social Geographies
Chapter x: “Scale”

Quan Gao

Scale is one of the foundational concepts that geographers use to understand social and spatial
relations, along with other geographical keywords like space, place and time. The concept of
scale shapes our geographical imaginaries, enabling us to understand the worlds around us
spatially and differentially. However, scales and their significance to Geography and broader
disciplines are contested. The conventional classification of scales like local, regional, and
global are not taken-for-granted categories in which material and social processes take place.
This chapter therefore offers a brief introduction of scale. The first part will look at the multiple
meanings of scale and its underlying existent status and epistemology. However, there is no
consensus on whether scale actually exists — that is to say, there is no agreement up to date
regarding whether scale has material and concrete manifestations or simply is a conception
imposed by us. The second part will review existing theories and debates around scales. Instead
of arguing which standpoint is more convincing, it puts more emphasises on how we can
employ the scalar imaginaries to real world research. The final summary will outline some
important points of scale.

The multiple meanings of scale

Cartographic scale
In its simplest sense, scale is conceived of as predominantly a cartographic concept; this is the
oldest definition of scale which dates back to the science of cartography in the 18th century. In
this tradition, scale refers to the ratio distance of a map in association with that same distance
on the surface of the earth. According to Sayre (2009), cartographic scale in this sense can be
understood as size, a quantitative measurement unit used to map out some attribute of an object
or phenomenon (e.g. length, volume, and mass). Space and time cannot be quantitatively
observed unless they are divided into specific units that can be used for measurement.
Therefore, the cartographic scale implies the ways we make sense of the worlds. That is, what
we perceive and understand about the worlds around us is conditioned on the concepts we
adopt. Cartographic scale actually provides us a conceptual tool by which we can organise what
we sense in a spatial and temporal manner and therefore understand particular phenomena. To
put it simply, cartographic scale is about how we spatially and quantitatively perceive the
worlds. However, the observational results might vary differently in accordance with the scale
employed. For example, if we explore ethnic minorities or immigrants’ attachment to the place
they live, their degree of attachment might vary in accordance with the size of the place they
perceive — ethnic immigrants might show higher attachment to their ethnic community than
the overall city where they are more likely to encounter social exclusion.

Hierarchical scale
Hierarchical scale is a more qualitative measure, referring to the levels where social practices
and physical processes take place. Hierarchical scale raise very interesting questions: Might
social and physical processes operate at and be sorted into different levels and categories, such
as the local, regional, and global scales? To answer these questions, we need to first
differentiate hierarchical scale as a way of knowing and as the actual relations among social
and physical phenomena.
On the one hand, like cartographical scale, hierarchical scale is also a kind of epistemology-
the way we perceive worlds, albeit adopting a more qualitative and vertical scope. In order to
capture the complex phenomena, geographers tend to deliberately classify and differentiate
phenomena into various scales so that they can be observed and measured more clearly. For
example, the hierarchical scales employed by human geographers vary from the body to the
globe (see picture 1). Peter Taylor (1982) offered an early social theory of scale by drawing on
Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-system theory (see picture 2). Taylor argues that world-system
theory is deficient in explaining the geopolitics of the worlds for it primarily focuses on the
horizontal understanding of space and power rather than how they operate in different levels.
He therefore proposes a political and economic model of scale, which can be classified into
three vertical levels: “the scale of reality (global), the scale of ideology (state) and the scale of
experience (urban)” (Taylor 1982, 24). Taylor argues that capitalist accumulation is a global
scale phenomenon while scale of experience is the social environment we live in. The state as
an ideological apparatus makes efforts to separate experience from reality to reinforce capitalist
accumulation. For example, in an age of globalisation, farmers who plant Cocoa in South
America might perceive their lived experiences at a village level, but they are actually involved
in the commodity chain at the global scale.
Hierarchical scale is particularly important for social geography. Valentine (2001) suggests
that the hierarchical scales from body to global are platforms for analysing specific kinds of
socio-spatial activities. For example, home or household is an appropriate site for analysing
micro social dynamics such as family relationships and gender inequality, while community is
often the site that neighbourhood activism, ethnic congregation and cultural conflicts take place.
But, it is important to remember that social relations often cut across different scales (see social
construction of scale below).

figure 1. figure 2.

On the other hand, some geographers argue that hierarchical scale can also be an actually
existing entity and structure, more than being simply a deliberately set spatial category of
analysis. Physical geographers might tend to believe that biophysical processes themselves
take place at different scales. For example, global warming is expected to be a general trend
occurring at the scale of globe, although some smaller unites like mountains and valleys have
their own micro-climate. However, whether the social and economic processes are also
hierarchically structured is a quite controversial question. More discussions on this issue will
be elaborated on the “scale debate” section.
Observational scale and operational scale
Scale can also be classified as observational scale and operational scale. Observational scale
refers to what extent and resolution particular phenomena can be observed and measured
(Sayre, 2009). Extent means the overall area and time period a study intend to cover. For
example, small-scale research typically means research conducted in a small area like
neighbourhood or city blocks. Resolution is the basic unit of measurement research intends to
employ, which determines the precision research can capture. For example, investigation on
urban poverty might capture more precise and detailed information if the smallest unit of an
investigation were households rather than city blocks or census tracts.
Operational scale refers to the spatial and temporal scales at which geographical processes
take place, meaning that scale is an actual entity independent of the way we observe it. The
operational scale might also apply to social and economic processes. For example, the
phenomenon of spatial mismatch — the mismatch between where low-income households
reside and suitable job opportunities as manufacturing firms moved to the suburbs — operates
at metropolitan scale.

Scale as relation and network

In sharp contrast to the ideas of operational and hierarchical scale, some scholars argue that
different scales are neither linear nor functioning independently, but are instead relational.
Understood in this way, it is oversimplified to view scale as the hierarchical entity or spatially
contiguous structure; rather, scale spans the social and biophysical space, and functions like a
network stretching across hierarchical space. The most famous metaphor of relational scale
comes from Howitt’s (1998) examination of musical scales: the overall quality of a symphony
is not a mechanical combination of all notes but determined by not only the individual quality
of each note but also by how one note is positioned in relation to others. Thus, change in any
notes will affect the symphony in the whole scale. Howitt’s central aim is to argue that scale
should be understood relationally, which is a relational element within a complex system and
network rather than the sum of its separate elements.

Theories and debates of scale in human geography

As suggested above, scale is a multifaceted and contested concept. Geographers are rarely
united on what is meant by scale and how or whether it should be operationalised. Over past
two decades or so, the “scale debates” have continued as the concept have been increasingly
proved to have contradictory and problematic meanings. The “scale debates” in human
geography have primarily concerned with three line of inquiries: 1) Whether scales actually
exist; 2) How scales come into being; and 3) Why and to what extent scalar thought is valued
to Geography. These debates are crucial to justifying why “geography matters”.
Geographers who follow a structuralist approach may acknowledge scale’s existence and
thus view it as an existential element that constitutes space and society. From a structuralist
point of view, social and material phenomena are structured by predictable regularities that
exist superior to any individuals or object. Social phenomena cannot be explained unless they
are understood in relation to other phenomena and within a systematic structure. For example,
structuralists tend to break down society into social, economic, political, and cultural
dimensions, within which each domain generates meanings only by interacting with one
another. Some key thinkers on theories of scale (e.g. Peter Taylors and Neil Smith) are
influenced by this approach, acknowledging that the production activities and its organisation
under capitalism is structured by a scaled system. Taylor’s theory of scale (see figure 2) is
primarily concerned with various scales, like urban, nation-state and global levels, at which
capitalism is organised. Another important contributor Neil Smith (1984) advances Taylor’s
arguments by elaborating on how various scales come into existence. For Smith (1984, 135),
scale is the outcomes of uneven development of capitalism: “Capital inherits a geographical
world that is already differentiated into complex spatial patterns. As the landscape falls under
the sway of capital […], these patterns are grouped into an increasingly systematic hierarchy
of spatial scales”. For Smith, capitalism is constantly caught up in the geographical tension
between two opposing needs: capital seeks to be fixed in particular locations in which
accumulation can take place (e.g. capitalism must take advantage of local labour forces), and
capital simultaneously needs to level its economic space across wider locations to achieve
optimal allocation of different resources and thus maximise the rate of profit. In this sense, it
is the very structure of capitalism itself that results in the existence of various scales.
Inspired by Smith's thoughts, human geography has been increasingly concerned with how
and why scales are produced by economic, social and political processes. Many human
geographers therefore interpret scale more as a result of social construction than as an
externally given category. Overwhelmingly, this set of thoughts reflects a social constructionist
approach. Although many human geographers accept constructionist framework, it does not
mean they achieve consensus on the existent status of scale, because constructionist itself
consist of diverse standpoints (see Box X regarding the social construction of scale).

Box X. What is social construction of scale?

Social constructionism
Social constructionism claims that the things we experience in the world are merely
constructed by society and it is our ideas or conceptions that form the basis for the
assumptions about fact and reality. For example, race and ethnicity are not biologically pre-
determined categories but rather constructed by society (see chapter race and racism).
However, there are weak and strong social constructionism: the weak one acknowledges the
existence of factual knowledge while the strong one views reality as purely social constructs.

The social construction of scale

Viewing scale as social construct might be inspired by Henri Lefebvre’s (1984) theorisations
about the production of space, which argues that space is not a physical container but a
production of social relations. Likewise, scale is not necessarily a pre-existing hierarchical
structure that orders the world. It is instead an outcome of the social, economic and political
processes per se. According to Marston (2000), early research on the social construction of
scale addresses at least three sets of theorisations. First, the differentiation of scale produces
and is produced through “the geographical structure of social interaction” (Smith 1992, 73):
scale is an outcome of the structure. Second, the production of scale has material
consequence in the real world. Scale is not purely a tangible conception of reality but has the
real impact on the ways social and material worlds are organised. Third, the framing of scale
is not necessarily fixed and enduring but always open to transformation in accordance with
social and material processes.

Different approaches to the social construction of scale

Political and economic approach: This approach engages in examining how scales are
constructed as material entities in political and economic processes. It does not deny the
existence of scale but does reject scale as a pre-given container in which human activity
takes places. “Something is a social construct” does not mean that it does not exist, because
social constructs might have material consequences or manifestations in the real world (weak
constructionism). The key figures of this approach are Neil Smith (1984; 1992) and Erik
Swyngedouw (1997; 2007). For example, Swyngedouw (1997) argues that scales such as
 “the local”, “regional” or “global” are shaped by the political and economic forces of
globalisation. The global capital has simultaneously made both the global scale and
metropolitan religions more important for capital accumulation, while the national scale is
less significant. Moreover, scales are also shaped by particular actors, organisation and
movements. Local and regional actors might construct “spaces of engagement” (Cox 1998)
that link them to superior levels of institutions and thus enable them to gain more power and
resources.

Poststructural approach: This approach considers scale as fundamentally a conceptual

representation of specific socio-spatial relations and orderings (Moore 2008; Mackinnon
2010), which rejects not only a pre-given sense of scale but also the existence of scales
altogether. Scholars of this approach are concerned more with how social practices and
discourses shape scales than with the wider political and economic structures. For example,
Deckha (2003) argues that scale might be a discursive tool deployed by different actors to
achieve particular forms of power and recognition. He examines the contested scalar
narratives between community and government in urban regeneration, with local actors
resisting government’s agenda of reinserting “the local” into wider global capital.

As we see in the Box X., political-economic and postructural approaches are divergent in the
nature of scale (scale as a set of material relations and structures vs scales as social
representations and discourses). Some geographers therefore started to reflect on the very
question of whether scale is a valuable analytical frame. The most extensive critique came from
Marston et. al’ s (2005) article “Human geography with scale”. They argue that scale is not an
analytically specific concept because it does not have a casually grounded foundation. The
primary difference between vertical geographies of scales and horizontal geographies network
reflects only researchers’ different epistemologies and spatial imaginaries (see table 1).
However, are political-economic and postructural approaches to scales really so
incompatible? Mackinnon’s (2010, 23) recent work seeks to reconcile and combine scale “as a
set of material relations with an interest in the epistemological construction of scale through
particular social representations and discourses", by drawing on a critical realistic philosophy.
Critical realism acknowledges the objects and relations constructed by social actors, discourses
and representations, while also arguing that social construction may, in turn, produce
regularities or material differentiations independent of individual’s conception (see Andrew
Sayer’s (2010) accessible introduction to critical realism). Scale is but not restricted to an
“epistemological construct”, as social construction itself may fix scales as the material
expression of power relations and structures- the consequences of social construction are
actually existing. Mackinnon (2010, 21) there therefore proposes a more compatible
theorisation of scale: “It is often not scale per se that is the prime object of connection, but
rather specific processes and institutionalized practices that are themselves differentially
scaled”.
Finally, to what extant scalar thought have added values to Geography and the broader
disciplines. Regardless of whether scales exist, we cannot deny the facts that scales are
geographical imaginaries which shape how we view the world. Moreover, our geographical
imaginaries are themselves always scaled organised. As we can see in the Box X., scalar
imaginaries not only influence the way we review the world but also have real material impacts
on the real world. This is manifestly evident in the development of cities, which was influenced
by urban planners and policymakers whose ideas are unescapably organised in scalar term. In
other words, we could assume that scalar thought is inherent in our social imaginaries, which
constitutes an intrinsic element of our perception of space.
Box X. How scales matter in the real world

Case 1: Scalar Narratives in Bilbao, Spain (Gonzalez 2006)

Gonzalez's research on Bilbao’s urban regeneration project provides a vivid description of
how different conceptions of scales are narrated by social actors and how the scalar
narratives in turn shape the material processes of urban development.

Bilbao is an old industrial city in Spain, which was undergoing an extensive urban
regeneration during 1990s to early 2000s. During this process, policy actors including city
council, different levels of governments and planning agencies used scalar narratives to
justify an entrepreneurial urban policy and reinforce Bilbao's competitiveness in the global
economy. The local policymakers produced three forms of the scalar narrative about Bilbao.
First, the scalar political project sought to discursively construct “the global Basque city
region”. The government therefore made effort to promote Bilbao from a local city to a
global scale by redesigning the urban landscape. Second, the values of locality were
highlighted as key resources to compete in the global economy (“glocalizing Bilbao”
narrative). The city therefore made efforts to produce a set of distinctive “local” values.
Third, the scalar narratives of the “space of flows” and “network” were adopted by
policymakers to construct different layers of material infrastructure including information
technologies systems and the nodes and hubs that supported this system.

This case study shows that scales not only were socially constructed by different actors who
sought to gain specific power and resources but also, once particular scalar narratives are
established, they shape the material configuration of the city.

Case 2: Multi-scaled secularization in China (Gao et.al 2018a; 2018b)

Secularization is a social process whereby religious beliefs and practices decline and become
increasingly individualized in society. In China, however, secularization is a state-endorsed
policy and a top-down ideological process engineered by political elites. Gao et. al’s (2008b;
2018b) research suggests that the process of secularization is differentially scaled and its
effects varies differently at national and local scales.

Taking the case of a “gospel village” (in which most villagers accepted the missionary work
from the West), they find that secularization as ideological campaigns at the scale of the
nation-state is not homogenous but negotiated by members of local community. At the scale
of the local community, while most villagers accepted secular ideologies and are
disinterested in Christian belief, the inflow of rural migrant workers engaged in Christian
belief has re-invigorated the Church, which was declining. It is the very secular condition of
being (the massive industrialisation and exploitation among workers) that enable migrant to
seek meanings form Christianity and therefore revitalize religion at the local scale.
Therefore, a scalar perspective might help us better understand the contingency and tension
existing between broader social processes and their impacts on local practices of human
beings. In this case, nation-scaled of secularization has a contradictory effect on the local
community.

Table 1 Spatial association of the horizontal and vertical

Horizontal geographies Vertical geographies
 Network Scaffold
Extensive Layered
Horizon Summit
Distance Elevation
Milieu Dominion
Dispersed Stacked
Source: Marston et. al., (2005, 420)

3. Summary
-Scale does not have absolute manifestations, although it provides a way to observe and
measure particular phenomena in terms of size, level, and relation.

-Scale is produced by social processes and relationships so is to change and revision. Therefore,
there are not necessarily fixed scales that structure the world.

-Scale can be seen as a socially constructed product, but social construction of scale might also
have material consequences. Nevertheless, we should focus on how social processes are
differentially scaled rather on scale per se.

-While suspending scale’s existent status, we cannot deny the fact that our social imaginaries
are organised in scalar terms.

Suggestions for Further Reading

MacKinnon, Danny. 2011. “Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics.” Progress in
Human Geography 35, no.1: 21-36.
Marston, Sallie A. 2000. “The social construction of scale.” Progress in human geography 24,
no. 2: 219-242.
Moore Adam. 2008. “Rethinking scale as a geographical category: From analysis to practice.”
Progress in Human Geography 32, no. 2: 203–225.

References:
Cox, Kevin R. 1998. “Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale,
or: looking for local politics.” Political Geography 17, no. 1: 1-23.
Deckha, Nitin.2003. “Insurgent urbanism in a railway quarter: Scalar citizenship at King’s
Cross, London.” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 2, no. 1: 33-56.
Gao, Quan, Junxi Qian, and Zhenjie Yuan. 2018. “Multi-scaled secularization or postsecular
present? Christianity and migrant workers in Shenzhen, China.” Cultural Geographies 25, no.
4 (2018): 553-570.
Gao, Quan, Duo Yin, Hong Zhu. 2018. “Secularisation and resistant politics of sacred space in
Guangzhou’s ancestral temple, China.” Area DOI: 10.1111/area.12512
Gibson, Clark C., Elinor Ostrom, and Toh-Kyeong Ahn. 2000. “The concept of scale and the
human dimensions of global change: a survey.” Ecological economics 32, no. 2: 217-239.
González, Sara. 2006. “Scalar narratives in Bilbao: a cultural politics of scales approach to the
study of urban policy.” International journal of urban and regional research 30, no. 4: 836-
857.
Howitt, Richard. 1998. “Scale as relation: musical metaphors of geographical scale.” Area
30, no. 1: 49-58.
 Marston, Sallie A., John Paul Jones III, and Keith Woodward.2005. “Human geography
without scale.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30, no. 4: 416-432.
Sayer, Andrew.2010. Method in social science: revised 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Sayre, Nathan F. 2009. “Scale.” In A companion to environmental geography, edited by Noel
Castree etc., 95-108. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith, Neil. 1984. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, Neil. 1992. “Geography, difference and the politics of scale.” In Postmodernism and
the Social Sciences edited by Joe Doherty, Elspeth Graham, and Mo Malek, 57-79. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Swyngedouw, Erik. 1997. “Neither global nor local: ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale.”
In Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local edited by In Kevin Cox, pp.
137–66. New York and London: Guilford Press
Swyngedouw, Erik. 2007. “Technonatural revolutions: the scalar politics of Franco’s
hydrosocial dream for Spain, 1939–1975.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
32, no. 1: 9–28.
Taylor, Peter J.1982. “A materialist framework for political geography.” Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 7, no.1: 15-34.
Valentine, Gill. 2001. Social geographies: space and society. London: Routledge.

View publication stats