Las escalas y el objeto de las ciencias regionales.Una indagación sobre sus relaciones y fundamentos

RESUMEN: El trabajo indaga las relaciones que median la escalaridad con el objeto que distintas teorías regionalistas construyen para pensar la sociedad y su estructuración espacio-tiempo. Se parte de la hipótesis de que toda relación escalar es, simultáneamente, un principio de aprehensión tanto de la espacialidad como de la sociedad en sí. Desde allí se analizan críticamente los aportes de François Perroux, representante de la teoría económica neoclásica, Edward Soja, exponente del giro relacional, y, finalmente, el debate sobre las escalas geográficas.Finalmente, se muestra el carácter accidental de estas teorías, tal que parten de un objeto abstracto y vacío, que sólo pueden llenar con un contenido accidental o determinista.ABSTRACT: This work is located at the confluence of two main problems: the first, the formation of regional science object,and, the second, the spatial structuring of society. The article begins to discuss a basic scaling relationship: the local-global relationship, which, in general admit a confused, partial or incomplete definition: the limits of the local and the global are mutually determined, in a kind of "impassable dialectic", as Alain Lipietz explain. Here we try to "travel through" that Lipietz considered "impassable". This article starts with the following idea: the local-global relationship is simultaneously a principle of spatial apprehension and a step on ontological foundation of social theory. On the basis of this distinction is possible to show how the possibilities of apprehending the spatiality of society are linked to the possibility of apprehending social reality itself. The paper begins studying the regionalism based on neoclassical economic theory, as exemplified the contributions of François Perroux. Them, we studycontributions of the cultural turn in human geography, following Edward Soja’s contributions as main reference.Finally, we analyze a set of theoretical contributions that problematized the "scales" in regional studies, the so-called "scale debate". In other words, we inquireabout the presented hypothesis, different approaches and debates on the spatial structuring of society. In this case, we attempt to test whether the supposed distinctions let think the itinerary of this literature. It must be said that the local-global relationship, in abstract sense, says less than nothing. What means that a social phenomenon is localized or globalized? What type of object becomes local or global? A point in a plane is clearly local versus the infinite space. Generally speaking, a subset is naturally "local" versus "global" set that contains it. But, when a theory of society and its geographical structure use the terms "local" or "global", probably, is trying to go beyond this conjunctive relation. Probably, trying to say something more substantial that ultimately connects human behavior with locations and distances, and belongings and agglomerations, etc. The challenge is to recognize the fundamentals governing this attempt to say something about the social world such that the "local" and "global" acquire a certain sense. Definitively, there must be specified what concepts of the society and of the space they grant sense of the relation between the global thing and the local thing, so that they do not acquire a mere logical value but, on the contrary, they assume a precise definition in the characterization of the society. Here is the problem and the core of this paper thesis: if the object of the social theory is based on the accident, the spatiality of society remains unexplored, and the spatial terms have little substantial value. To understand it, is necessary to separate into its hypothesis elements. For it, a first elementary distinction be done: in general the theories of the society suppose necessarily two qualitatively different types of spatialities: on one hand, an spatiality a priori (to the moment of the formation of the object), and for other one, an spatiality a posteriori (that supports a relation of exteriority with the formation of the object). The spatiality a priori, is located logically in the beginning of the formation of the object, even more, it can be said that it is the foundational metaphor of the object: It is a metaphor of the first order. For Bourdieu, for example, the space contains the "principle of a relational apprehension of the social world", which here can be inverted saying that: the "relational" is a principle of "spatial" apprehension of the social world. This first spatiality, this first "space" of relations, cannot be perceived with senses, cannot be observed, it is an abstraction of the understanding. In the second moment, the theory faces the "space" in a relation of exteriority. But this one is a different "space". It is the material, physical, geographical space. There where the man "realizes" his life. It is a space that operates as material substratum of the human relations. This space a posteriori, is approaching less by means of the senses. This space is (like the space a priori) an abstraction of understanding. It is a similar relation between form and matter in the Aristotelian philosophy. With these suppositions the theories build metaphors of second order. These "work" as a fixing the relation between the space a priori and a posteriori. In other words, the theories work as a mediation between the spatialitya priori and a posteriori. This mediation is, definitively, the concrete content of the social theory. They fix the "space of relations" (or relations like a space) to the "material space" (passive, inert and mute). This separation is the foundation of the accidental object and it is possible to demonstrate how, given the existence of this "duality", the spatiality ranges, inevitably, between emptinesses and contradictions. In general lines, certain common conditions have been observed to the different approaches analyzed: first, the scalar dimension of a regional theory is associated with the ontological suppositions from which it starts. The object that the theory supposes determines the limits on understanding the spatio-temporality of the society.Secondly, when the elementary object of the theory is an abstract object or not historized, this one sends to the darkness of the accident the problem that must investigate, to what one must add that any accidental determination drives to a dilemma between unintelligibility or determinism. These conditions were observed so much for the Perroux case, representative author of the economic neoclassic theory, like in Soja, representative of the relational turn of the geography humanizes, and, finally, to the interior of the scales debate, which it supports in a not clarified ontological problem.Finally, the article concludes that a correct treatment of the object historicity needs a correct treatment of the dialectical ontology notion. Probably, David Harvey is the most renowned geographer who has developed his contributions from this perspective. Nevertheless, many difficulties still must be treated and clarified.In fact, Harvey supports a confused relation with the space and time notions in a dialectical ontology. In general, the Marxist geography and the geography of dialectical inspiration need a critical and detailed scrutiny of his fundamental propositions. Must be study his limits and the likelihood of being a successful program of social research.