Introduction
This article exposes the illusion of "value freedom" in the social sciences, arguing that objectivity understood as total neutrality is a myth used to legitimize the existing order. Drawing on the thought of Gunnar Myrdal, the text demonstrates that valuation is an inherent part of the research process. The author proposes a procedural approach to objectivity based on the transparency of premises and mutual control. You will learn how opportunistic ignorance and the rationalization of prejudices affect science and how this dynamic manifests in the business world and ESG standards.
The Myth of Value Freedom: The Illusion of Pure Science
The concept of value freedom promises an objectivity that is impossible to maintain. Myrdal argues that social research is never an act of pure impartiality. The selection of facts is a hidden normative foundation—data remains silent until we ask it a question, and every question arises from a specific interest or order of importance. A fact becomes scientific only after it is deemed significant, which is an act of decision and valuation.
In institutional systems, opportunistic ignorance emerges. This is not an accidental lack of knowledge, but a systemic research evasion—a deliberate choice not to know what would be politically or morally costly. Institutions produce ignorance through selective attention, masking a lack of will to collect data as a supposed "information gap."
Beliefs vs. Valuations: The Demarcation Line
The key to rigor is the distinction: beliefs concern how things are (subject to verification), while valuations concern how they should be. The rationalization of prejudices is a mechanism where raw interest disguises itself as a belief about facts. When practice contradicts ideals, it is cheaper to distort the image of reality than to reform the system. This is how the scientific mask of stereotypes is created.
Myrdal introduces the American Creed as a methodological anchor. This is a set of official ideals (equality, liberty) that serves as a moral auditing tool, revealing the gap between declarations and practice. Often, however, technical language, such as "equilibrium" or "efficiency," serves as a screen for hidden valuations, smuggling in judgments under the guise of cold description.
ESG Standards: The End of Illusions About Business Neutrality
Modern business faces mature objectivity, which Myrdal defines as the transparency of assumptions. ESG standards and reporting (e.g., ISSB) bring this idea into the boardroom. The market demands that valuations be presented as beliefs about financial risk. Transparency of premises is the foundation of rigor, but it is not enough on its own—it must be accompanied by institutional criticism and confrontation with data.
The future belongs to the auditability of valuations. Organizations must clearly articulate the premises of their decisions to avoid accusations of ideologization. Verifying business ethics is becoming an element of risk management, as hidden values make a company uncontrollable and unpredictable for investors.
Summary
The social sciences serve as a tool for democracy's self-healing, exposing rationalizations and making value conflicts explicit. Although ideology can distort evidence, there comes a point where the surrender of facts is inevitable—reality "strikes back" through crises and costs that can no longer be covered up. Myrdal's legacy in contemporary reception is a call for methodological honesty: apparent neutrality is often a form of loyalty to interest groups.
By giving up the comfort of objective distance, science and business can become an arena for the honest confrontation of values. Are we ready to abandon the illusion of neutrality to gain authentic responsibility for the world we shape? Or would we rather remain in the shadows, where prejudices are masked by objective data?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF