It is our view that thinking in terms of a dichotomy between abstract and concrete research, and equating the geographical (and especially the local) with the concrete, are key problems in the debate over locality studies. We would argue that the seeming impasse between the abstract and the concrete can be substantially alleviated through the recognition and adoption of different levels of abstraction. In the first part of our commentary we set forth the concept of levels of abstraction, and use it as a backdrop for evaluating the polarized positions which have emerged. We would further argue that once the abstract/concrete, global/local and other dualisms are recognized not to be parallel to one another, the locality can no longer be viewed as the realm only of the concrete. In the second part of our argument, then, we turn directly to the issue of locality studies. We show how the adoption of a methodology incorporating differing levels of abstraction can facilitate the rational abstraction of those socio-spatial structures that underlie the existence of locality per se, beyond which lies the capability to understand particular localities.