Elena Albrecht
Modern, real-life socio-ecological decision-making leans heavily on measurable and quantifiable factors for guidance and legitimation. Qualitative or non-measurable aspects such as beauty, well-being or the quality of relationships (care, meaning, reciprocity) are typically underrepresented in these processes.
This paper reflects on the role of qualitative factors in societal frameworks (e.g. governance, legislation and decision-making). Inspired by a real-life case, both the risks and benefits of integrating (or not integrating) these aspects are explored through a conceptual, reflexive approach.
Current decision-making processes, this paper argues, are not neutral when qualitative aspects are excluded. While the pursuit of “the measurable” is intended to maximise objectivity, it can unintentionally create a bias towards the merely functional, inadvertently excluding dimensions that are essential to and constitutive of human and more-than-human life. Ultimately, goals may be undermined when the representation does not adequately reflect the actual goal. For example, socio-ecological sustainability is not accomplished by mere compliance with CO₂ targets; it requires healthy ecosystems and functioning relationships across human and multispecies communities.
In addition, this paper argues that societal frameworks have a shaping effect, actively forming norms rather than merely reflecting them. Hence, excluding qualitative aspects from decision-making reinforces the notion that they are less valuable than measurable traits, generating dynamics that self-reinforce this bias.
The paper invites readers to reflect on and further discuss the effects of metric frameworks in our everyday lives, the role of beauty and other hard-to-measure qualities, and what that means for systemic design.
Keywords: systemic design, beauty, metrics, qualitative dimensions, socio-ecological decision-making, relational values