In philosophy, neopragmatism has enjoyed widespread resonance (for more details, cf. Müller, 2023), and its potential for social science and political science has also been discussed at length (cf., for example, Calder, 2007; Gröschner et al., 2011; Sandbothe, 2005; Selk et al., 2021; Topper, 1995). In the spatial sciences, the response has long been muted (notable exceptions include Barnes, 2008, 2017 [1991], 2023; Jones, 2008; Wood & Smith, 2008). More recently, there has been a renewed interest in neopragmatism (e.g., Berr & Kühne, 2023; Hinz et al., 2024; Kühne, 2023, 2024; Stemmer et al., 2023; Zepp, 2020) based on the discussion regarding a theoretical foundation for regional geography beyond the dichotomous debate about realism and constructivism. It drew not least on the tradition of pragmatist geography, which explored the potential of pragmatism for integrating different geographical subdisciplines and for transdisciplinary approaches (Geiselhart & Steiner, 2012; Hepple, 2008; Steiner, 2014a, 2014b; Wescoat, 1992). The neopragmatist approach to spatial phenomena integrates the pragmatist tradition of utility-oriented thinking into a linguistic-philosophical context, whereby the world is created differently in different vocabularies, without these vocabularies, however, claiming to ‘represent’ a reality outside the vocabulary (Rorty, 1997 [1989], 2021). Spatial categories such as landscape, region, or city, then, are the result of construction processes. However, neo-pragmatism reaches beyond classical constructivist or deconstructivist approaches (cf. e.g.: Aitken & Valentine, 2014; Atkinson et al., 2005; Claval, 2007; Egner, 2010; Kühne & Berr, 2021) with its recourse to the pragmatist tradition: It does not stop at establishing the constructed nature or the contingency of spaces, but asks to what extent scientific attention, in this case to spaces, can contribute to solving social problems, not least by expanding contingency (Edler et al., 2023; Kühne, 2024; Lohmann et al., 2024).