Abstract

By questioning influential works, we intend to introduce alternative perspectives in various aspects of the study of residential segregation in Chile, from methodological perspectives to conceptual interpretations. The discussion criticizes four aspects of these works: 0 their method of stratification, which defines social groups through categories that are highly variable over time; ii) their measure of segregation, which neither consider suburban areas nor solve the scale problem; iii) their connection with social problems, which presents certain biases of spatial reification; and iv) their proposals of public policies, which point out lines of action that are founded in debatable premises. Given the considerable influence of these studies in the discussion of pro-mixture public policies, we consider important to establish links with the specificity of our social, historic and cultural contexts, elaborating a critical rationality that extends beyond an excessive empiricism.