Between Data and Biography: How Not to Lose a Person

🇵🇱 Polski
Between Data and Biography: How Not to Lose a Person

📚 Based on

Sustainable Development and Life Chances: A Redescription From a Neo-Pragmatist Perspective ()
Springer
ISBN: 9783032201812

👤 About the 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

Introduction

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

📖 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

🧠 Thematic Groups

Tags: neopragmatism Richard Rorty language as a tool sustainable development conceptual infrastructure redescription life chances transport exclusion mirror metaphor solidarity democratic decision dictionary of meaning anti-representationalism cruelty social dialogue