NEVELIN, Patrick e WERGIN, Caresten.

Projects of scale-making: new perspectives for the

anthropology of tourism. Etnográfica [Online], vol. 13 (2), 2009. p. 315-342.

- problema a ser tratado no artigo: “We argue that in order to fill this gap and arrive at more general
theoretical considerations, anthropological research on tourism needs to alter its perspective on
place and go beyond spatial and demographic distinctions into small or large, central or marginal. In
order to attain this perspective, we follow recent reconsiderations of the concept of scale as an
analytical term.” (p. 318)

- Manson (2008)

- “Glick Schiller, Caglar and Guldbrandsen (2006), in a critique of the identity focus within
migration studies, have developed the concept of “city-scales” to show the multifarious processes
that are at work since the disintegration of nation-states has rendered locational factors
indispensable for income-generating activities of cities competing within the global economy. This
approach is in line with Uitermark (2002) who identifies processes of “re-scaling” in the post-
fordist era as changing regimes of regulation that move the negotiation of social contracts,
redistribution and welfare from the national to the supra-national as well as the regional scale.
(p.319) VER AS REFERÊNCIAS

- brenner 2001 critica das terminologias

- The second step goes back into the history of social anthropology, where the notion of scale has
been approached from numerous perspectives. These perspectives correspond to the
“epistemological continuum” introduced by Manson (2008) and outlined above. realist notions have
analysed scale in terms of population numbers and social networks which were regarded as
indicators of increasing complexity (e. g. Berreman 1978). Hierarchical notions of scale have been
prominent in most works on the effects of colonisation and globalisation. They have determined
global versus local distinctions (e. g. kearney 1995) but have also been analysed in more complex
reworkings of centre-periphery relations as highlighted, for example, in the debates on mega-cities
as centres of accumulation and decision-making (Sassen 2000; Swyngedouw 2004). Esse segundo
ponto, sobre as hietrarquicas, me parece a abordagem mais comum sobre o problema. VER
AS REFERÊNCIAS.

Brenner , neil, 2001, “The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structura-
tion”, Progress in Human Geography, 25 (4): 591-614.

MAnSon , Steven, 2008, “does scale exist? An epistemological scale continuum for com-
plex human-environment systems”, Geoforum, 39: 776-788.