This article examines the challenges of contemporary green transformation through the lens of Richard Rorty's neopragmatism and Ralf Dahrendorf's sociology of life chances. The text's central thesis is that sustainable development cannot be merely a technocratic project based on climate data, as language is the infrastructure of policy, not its neutral mirror. The author argues that ignoring human experience, fears, and cultural roots—the so-called ligatures—in the name of administrative necessity leads to exclusion and social resistance. Using Karl Popper's three worlds theory as an analytical filter, the article advocates a shift from imposing top-down, moralizing solutions toward procedural humility. True effectiveness of change depends on redescription of problems in a way that respects individual dignity and expands their real options. Instead of constructing labyrinths of indicators, a dialogical process must be developed in which sustainable development becomes a shared project, not a ritual of degradation, thus protecting the foundations of social solidarity in times of permanent crisis.
Contemporary debate on sustainable development often gets bogged down in technocratic jargon, ignoring the human dimension of transformation. This article analyzes this challenge through the lens of Richard Rorty’s neopragmatism and Ralf Dahrendorf’s sociology of life chances. The reader will learn why language serves as the infrastructure of politics, how to avoid reducing human beings to mere indicators, and how Popper’s triangulation of the three worlds allows us to design changes that respect individual dignity and genuinely expand the scope of human choice.
Language as a tool: why data is not enough for change
Language is not a neutral mirror of reality, but a tool for orientation. Treating it as an objective representation of the world leads to political hubris and the silencing of opponents. Instead of seeking foundations in metaphysics, we must ask about the utility of our vocabulary in resolving conflicts. The language of transformation affects the dignity of citizens: when we describe their world as "obsolete," transformation becomes a ritual of degradation rather than a promise of a better tomorrow.
To avoid the pitfalls of neopragmatism, we must maintain procedural humility and take responsibility for the consequences of our descriptions. Instead of moralizing, we should engage people in dialogue, recognizing that science provides data (World 1) but does not settle questions of justice (Worlds 2 and 3). Integrating these perspectives protects us from reductionism and epistemic violence.
Vocabulary as infrastructure: why the language of change excludes
Vocabulary is the infrastructure that defines the boundaries of what is politically possible. Technocratic approaches often fail because they ignore ligatures—our cultural and emotional roots. To include people in the processes of change, we must move away from imposing ready-made biographies toward an architecture of possibilities. Dahrendorf teaches that life chances are a blend of options and ligatures; without options, bonds become oppression, and without bonds, options become a void.
Systemic barriers, such as the hermetic language of experts or bureaucratic hyper-regulation, deepen inequalities. Sustainable development then becomes regressive, shifting costs onto the most vulnerable. True emancipation requires removing barriers, not paternalistically choosing for the citizen. We must design institutions that treat dissent not as a malfunction, but as a valuable source of knowledge regarding the real-world effects of change.
Neopragmatism in a trap: between cynicism and hard foundations
Avoiding the traps of authoritarian environmentalism and neoliberal consumerism requires a multi-channel epistemology. We must integrate natural and humanistic knowledge so as not to lose the human element in the data. In the age of AI and permanent crisis, change must occur in the sphere of biography so that norms can influence matter. Sustainable development as an open process, based on fallibilism (the recognition of one's own fallibility), is more effective than utopian decrees.
Popper’s triangulation of the three worlds allows us to avoid the technocratic labyrinth where indicators replace life. Instead of building systems that erase human experience, we should create frameworks where responsible choices are available to everyone. Only then will transformation become a shared project rather than a form of domination, protecting the foundations of social solidarity.
Summary
Sustainable development should not be a technocratic exercise in resource management, but an attempt to find meaning in a world of volatility. The key is the redescription of problems in a way that respects individual dignity. Will we be able to design a future where technology serves humanity rather than becoming a tool for erasing its biography? Ultimately, the quality of our vocabulary determines whether transformation becomes an act of solidarity or a new form of oppression. Will we become our own greatest adaptation, or hostages to a system that has forgotten its addressee?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF
📚 Based on
Sustainable Development and Life Chances: A Redescription From a Neo-Pragmatist Perspective Olaf Kühne, Irina Silina, Karsten Berr
(2026)
Springer ISBN: 9783032201812
👤 About the book's author
Irina Silina
Ruhr University Bochum
Dr. Irina Silina is an academic researcher and economist who holds a doctoral degree (Dr. rer. oec.). Her research interests span social sciences, economics, and sustainable development, with a particular focus on the intersection of theory and practice. She has been affiliated with institutions such as Ruhr University Bochum and has contributed to research regarding regional policy, economic development, and neo-pragmatic perspectives on sustainability. Her work often involves critical analysis of global development goals and the application of social science frameworks to contemporary challenges. She has collaborated with scholars such as Olaf Kühne and Karsten Berr on interdisciplinary projects exploring the sociocultural dimensions of sustainable development and life chances.
Karsten Berr
Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen
Dr. Karsten Berr is a German academic specializing in the interdisciplinary study of landscape, urban and regional development, and philosophy. He holds a degree in landscape conservation from the University of Osnabrück and a doctorate in philosophy from the Distance Learning University of Hagen (2008). Since 2018, he has been a research assistant and project leader at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, focusing on the theory and ethics of landscape, architecture, and social-ecological transformation. His work frequently employs neo-pragmatist frameworks and the concept of 'life chances' to analyze spatial planning and sustainability. Berr has held research positions at institutions including the Technical University of Dresden and the University of Vechta, and he has led multiple projects funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).
Olaf Kühne
Olaf Kühne (b. 1973 in Bochum) is a German geographer and sociologist, Professor of Urban and Regional Development at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen. His research focuses on sustainable development, landscape theory, and the social acceptance of landscape change, often from a neo-pragmatist perspective. He is the author of numerous publications, including "Sustainable Development and Life Chances: A Redescription From a Neo-Pragmatist Perspective" (2026).
Mind map: Between Data and Biography: How Not to Lose the Human
Language as a Tool for Democratic Dialogue
Language is not a mirror of objective reality
Neopragmatism treats words as tools for action
Scientific data requires democratic social interpretation
Redescribing problems opens new fields of maneuver
Avoiding technocratic hubris in public policy
Vocabulary as Infrastructure for Social Exclusion
The language of debate sets political boundaries
Defining the problem determines acceptable solutions
Humiliating people destroys their 'vocabularies of meaning'
Expert jargon often excludes citizen experience
Need for procedural humility in transformation processes
Pitfalls of Neopragmatism in Development Policy
Risk of turning debate into a sterile spectacle
Cynical use of vocabulary contingency for manipulation
Lack of firm foundations hinders fighting violence
Necessity of embedding critique into neopragmatic structures
Rejecting technocratic closure in favor of pluralism
A New Grammar of Solidarity and Change
Responsibility for the social effects of one's descriptions
Replacing moral blackmail with open dialogue processes
Fallibilism as an immune system against dogmas
Building reflective 'ligatures' instead of collective coercion
Including people through respect for their biographies
Sustainable Development and Human Dignity
The human as a bearer of memory, fear, and dignity
Institutions must avoid humiliating people in practice
Integrating Popper's 'three worlds' in decision-making
Business must treat sustainability as a justice test
Efficiency without social meaning is well-calculated alienation
Life Chances in the Green Transition
Life chances as a structure of real freedom
Tension between options and social 'ligatures'
Critique of authoritarian environmentalism imposing harsh duties
Rejecting neoliberal consumerism as a class aesthetic
Conflict as a necessary condition for an open society
Emancipation Versus New Forms of Domination
Critique of imposing norms as historical necessity
Distinguishing between necessary change and new domination
Threats from hidden rules of social exclusion
Education as a tool for recognizing imposed bonds
Avoiding paternalism in the name of life-chance justice
Bureaucratic Barriers and Systemic Inequalities
Bureaucracy multiplies procedures at the cost of change
Unequal access to options deepens social divisions
ESG standards as entry barriers for smaller players
Escapism into utopia as a flight from complexity
Protecting citizen time from excessive paperwork
Architecture of Possibility in Institutional Design
Designing spaces for responsible, meaningful choices
ESG must move beyond the theater of reporting
Procedural justice as the foundation for decision legitimacy
Economics must address the distribution of agency
Institutions as infrastructure for freedom, not exclusion
Demanding Realism of Life Chances
Integrating ecology, liberalism, and conflict sociology
Testing policies using Dahrendorf's questions
Rejecting metaphysical thrones for concrete problems
Solidarity requires reflective and voluntary bonds
Realism acknowledging the world's hard material limits
Popper's Three Worlds as an Analytical Filter
World 1 as hard physical reality
World 2 as the domain of intimate individual experience
World 3 as objective products of culture and institutions
Avoiding reductionism through cognitive perspective triangulation
Nature has causal power but lacks a voice
Communication Between Experts and Residents
Epistemic humiliation as a source of social conflict
Triangulation as a procedure for translation between worlds
Principle of charity in interpreting interlocutor rationality
Fear and anger as carriers of knowledge about 'ligatures'
Breaking the technocratic model of one-way data transmission
Multi-channel Epistemology in Practice
Integrating natural, social, and legal knowledge
Mapping challenges through the lens of Popper's worlds
Avoiding disasters by including human experience
Building bridges between declining sectors and the future
Treating resistance as a signal of design error
Landscape as a Battlefield for Meaning
Landscape as an archive of life and palimpsest
Conflict between landscape as a resource and 'ligature'
Epistemic violence as a result of singular perspectives
Procedures must create channels for recognizing knowledge
Economics must acknowledge limits of cost-benefit models
Designing Change Without Contempt
Akrasia as a symptom of unharmonized worlds
Education as training in triangulation and critical thinking
AI as a supporting tool, not an oracle
Procedural justice as a social technology of dignity
Empathy as an epistemic expansion of the field
Avoiding the Labyrinth Without Exit
Sustainable development as a process of continuous learning
Mortality of concepts protects against oppressive use
Triangulation as a method to avoid technocratic traps
Partnership of the three worlds in constant conversation
Redescribing the world as a way to create meaning
📖 Glossary
Neopragmatyzm
Nurt filozoficzny odrzucający język jako lustro rzeczywistości na rzecz traktowania go jako narzędzia do radzenia sobie ze światem.
Redeskrypcja
Proces zmiany sposobu widzenia problemu poprzez wprowadzenie nowego słownika, co otwiera nowe możliwości działania i współdziałania.
Antyreprezentacjonizm
Pogląd kwestionujący przekonanie, że wiedza polega na wiernym odwzorowywaniu obiektywnej rzeczywistości przez język.
Infrastruktura pojęciowa
Zbiór terminów i definicji, który determinuje granice debaty publicznej i to, co jesteśmy w stanie uznać za istotne.
Szanse życiowe
Funkcja obiektywnych opcji wyboru oraz więzi społecznych nadających sens ludzkiemu życiu w danej strukturze.
Fundacjonalizm
Przekonanie o istnieniu stałych, obiektywnych podstaw poznania i moralności, którym neopragmatyzm się sprzeciwia w imię pluralizmu.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is data alone not enough to bring about effective social change?
Data describes physical reality, but it does not resolve conflicts over values, the distribution of transformation costs, or the sense of justice that require democratic conversation.
What does Richard Rorty mean by the metaphor of language as a tool?
This means that language is not used to faithfully copy the world (the mirror metaphor), but is an instrument that allows people to cooperate better and reduce cruelty.
How can a dictionary lead to social exclusion?
If the language of debate only recognizes indicators and experts, ignoring the fears and experiences of residents, it excludes them from deciding their own fate before the conversation even begins.
How is redescription different from regular language marketing?
Redescription is fundamental work on a new description of the world, which builds concepts that actually open up new fields of activity, and not just a cosmetic refreshment of entries.
What are the risks of abandoning strong moral foundations in debate?
There is a risk that the lack of foundations will be exploited by cynics for manipulation, but neopragmatism shows that dogmatic certainty leads to even greater violence.
Related Questions
Why, in the context of sustainable development, should language be treated not as an objective mirror of reality, but as a tool for democratic dialogue?
How does the language used to describe social transformation affect citizens' sense of dignity and the effectiveness of change?
How can we avoid the pitfalls of neopragmatism in sustainable development policy without abandoning a humanist dimension of justice?
How can we change the language of sustainable development discourse so that, instead of excluding and moralizing, it truly includes people in transformation processes?
How can we avoid reducing people to indicators and data in the implementation of sustainable development strategies?
How can Ralf Dahrendorf's concept of life chances avoid the pitfalls of authoritarian environmentalism and neoliberal consumerism in sustainable development policy?
How can sustainable development processes unconsciously impose new forms of domination instead of expanding the real life chances of individuals?
What systemic barriers mean that sustainable development policy can deepen social inequalities rather than reduce them?
How can we design institutions and policies for sustainable development so that, instead of imposing pre-defined biographies, they actually expand individuals' life chances?
How can we integrate Dahrendorf's life chances theory with other thought streams to create an effective and humanistic model of sustainable development?
🧠 Thematic Groups
grupa 1: neopragmatyzm i filozofia języka Richarda Rorty’ego jako narzędzia komunikacji
grupa 2: rola języka i słownika jako infrastruktury w procesach zrównoważonego rozwoju
grupa 3: wyzwania społeczne, wykluczenie komunikacyjne i demokratyczna redeskrypcja rzeczywistości
grupa 4: krytyka technokracji i poszukiwanie solidarności w obliczu transformacji ekologicznej
