A New Approach in Explaining the Effects of Positivism in Understanding the Relationship between Politics and Space within the Scale Concept Framework

In geographic sciences, one of the most important schools of methodology is the school of positivism. This school has had a special function in conceptualizing geographic sciences, including political geography. Political geographers affected by the positivism school believed that the interactions between politics and space will lead to particular spatial form and processes which can be studied only within the framework of this school. One of the consequences of applying positivism is to create the potential for classifying and enclosing space and constructing a geographic scale based on the performance of a government or country. In this research, has been struggled to introduce a new category of how to understand the relationship between politics and geographic space in the positivism methodology within framework of scale. In this research that has applied the fundamental approaches in the philosophy of geography valid documents and bibliographic sources have been used to collect data.  In this study, in the first step, the concepts of space and cognition were defined using descriptive and analytical approaches. Then, the definition of space has been accorded with characteristics of the positivism cognition school. The conceptual content of politics has a special feature which makes it possible to achieve the recognition of space in a specific pattern of positivism. In addition, the political construction of a geographic scale of two national scale, including a state / country and transnational scale, including the transnational scale makes different patterns for studying the relationship between politics and space. The results of these approaches are as follows: National sovereignty remains as the most influential force in knowing how national and sub-national areas operate. Because the prioritization and allocation of resources influenced by the ruling political institutions do not follow similar processes among different countries and generalization, inductive thinking about it is not feasible. Because with the change of political perspectives and with the advent of new leaders, gradually, the natural and human dimensions of the geographic space on the scale of the country are changing and evolving, this view sought to combine space studies with development topics and emphasize on the fact that spatial structures have discoverable features that can be used in spatial organization. But, one of the philosophical foundations of changes in various dimensions of space is the change and rebuilding of policies, and the replacement of new forces in decision making and implementation of these policies in all levels, especially, in the level of nation-state. This process is considered by studying political geography.
In the territory of a country, the sovereignty is the highest power of ordering, which is based on the social contract theory to organize and control the territoriality behaviors of human and social classes in competition with each other. But, there is no such organizing force in the metropolitan area, and the victory in power-based competition determines the extent of state domination. In the international space, there is no such organizing force, too, and victory in competitions determines the limits of state domination. Thus, the most territoriality behaviors and objectives are organized by states. From this perspective, human-made and natural data in relations between countries can create the motivation for territoriality and these behaviors will not be stopped unless the other could be stopped from acting. Geopolitics provides the geographic framework for understanding the conflicts between countries and regional blocks and explains territoriality behaviors of countries based on natural and human geographic data, and finally, leads to studying the consequences of these processes. On the other hand, because of the geopolitical conceptual nature, geopolitical experts cannot necessarily use the empirical approach in recognizing this relationship. In other words, geopolitics in its content has not a quantitative nature and experts should use deductive approaches. Because, in recognizing the geopolitical importance of the regions, qualitative factors such as political economy, ideology and social origins of political leaders also have an effect that does not have the capacity to become quantitative indicators. Historically, the views of many geopolitical scholars have shown that their geopolitical explanations have been created by deductive approaches. Therefore, gaining more power by governments depends on how they pursue the appropriate geopolitical policies. The findings of this research reveal that the element of geographical space has a systematic nature in the positivism, but two national and sub-national scales have different contents with transnational scale. In other words, in the context of positivism, the study of the political dimension of the geographical space is different from two national and transnational political scales. In a national scale, recognizing the relationship between politics and space within the borders of a country includes national and sub-national scales, but in the transnational scale, the relationship between sovereignty and space is the result of a kind of territorialism that exists between countries and builds geopolitical concepts and ideas. Moreover, since politics, both national and sub-national and transnational, contains elements and components that have little quantitative capability, consequently, researchers should pay more attention to positivism. Therefore, applied geopolitical studies have been more widely considered in the positivism methodology as the explanation in the methodological dimension takes on operational dimensions