Are we screwed tightly in a topology of power-geometries centred around a construed hierarchical scale? Scale is a representational practice deployed by participants in struggles, a practice situated within a community of producers and readers who actively negotiate and construct it (Jones 1998, p. 27. cited in Marston et al. 2005, p. 420 f). Well then, we should beware (less in a defensive but in a offensive manner) of imposed seating arrangement, and answer back the linked attributions. Marston et al (2005) attempt to weave a relational understanding of the two scales ‘global’ and ‘local’. And this requires a re-imagination of their oppositional associates. They present a list of conflated binaries (see p. 421, see also Ley 2004):
For various reasons Marston et al. wants to “expurgate scale from the geographic vocabulary” (p. 422)!
If there’s no such thing as the local or the global, we don’t want to be the local content determined by global form. We don’t want to be naturalized or objectified Anthro-Simians, fitted, inserted or interwoven in events or processes pre-sorted by the scalar apparatus at hand.
Cast the skin → ECDYSIS
Free yourself as a SpaceFlaneur – a flowster, a scalar-transgressive monster, a glocal cyborg!
Jones, K. (1998): Scale as epistemology. In: Political Geography 17, 25-28.
Ley, D. (2004): Transnational spaces and everyday lives. In: Transactions Institute British Geographers NS 29, 161-164.
Marston, S. A.; J. P. Jones III & K. Woodward (2005): Human geography without scale. In: Transactions Institute British Geographers NS 30, 416-432.