Jump to content

Open society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Omnipaedista (talk | contribs) at 10:51, 28 July 2020 (standardized punct.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For the non-profit foundation, see Open Society Foundations.
Part of a series on
Liberalism
Schools
Principles
History
Philosophers
Politicians
Organizations
Regional variants
Related topics

The French philosopher Henri Bergson coined the term open society (Template:Lang-fr) in 1932.[1][2] The idea was further developed during World War II by the Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper.[3][4]

Bergson describes a closed society as a closed system of law or religion. It is static, like a closed mind.[5] Bergson suggests that if all traces of civilization were to disappear, the instincts of the closed society for including or excluding others would remain.[6] In contrast, an open society is dynamic and inclined to moral universalism.[5]

Popper saw the open society as part of a historical continuum reaching from the organic, tribal, or closed society, through the open society (marked by a critical attitude to tradition) to the abstract or depersonalized society lacking all face-to-face interaction transactions.[7]

History

Popper saw the classical Greeks as initiating the slow transition from tribalism towards the open society, and as facing for the first time the strain imposed by the less personal group relations entailed thereby.[8]

Whereas tribalistic and collectivist societies do not distinguish between natural laws and social customs, so that individuals are unlikely to challenge traditions they believe to have a sacred or magical basis, the beginnings of an open society are marked by a distinction between natural and man-made law, and an increase in personal responsibility and accountability for moral choices (not incompatible with religious belief).[9]

Popper argued that the ideas of individuality, criticism, and humanitarianism cannot be suppressed once people have become aware of them, and therefore that it is impossible to return to the closed society,[10] but at the same time recognized the continuing emotional pull of what he called "the lost group spirit of tribalism", as manifested for example in the totalitarianisms of the 20th century.[11]

While the period since Popper's study has undoubtedly been marked by the spread of the open society, this may be attributed less to Popper's advocacy and more to the role of the economic advances of late modernity.[12] Growth-based industrial societies require literacy, anonymity and social mobility from their members[13] — elements incompatible with much traditional-based behavior but demanding the ever-wider spread of the abstract social relations Georg Simmel saw as characterizing the metropolitan mental stance.[14]

Definition

Karl Popper defined the open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society."[15]

He considered that only democracy provides an institutional mechanism for reform and leadership change without the need for bloodshed, revolution or coup d'état.[16]

Modern advocates of the open society suggest that society would keep no secrets from itself in the public sense, as all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are claimed to be the foundation of an open society.[by whom?]

Critical knowledge

Popper's concept of the open society is epistemological rather than political.[17] When Popper wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies, he believed that the social sciences had failed to grasp the significance and the nature of fascism and communism because these sciences were based on what he saw to be faulty epistemology.[18] Totalitarianism forced knowledge to become political which made critical thinking impossible and led to the destruction of knowledge in totalitarian countries.[18]

Popper's theory that knowledge is provisional and fallible implies that society must be open to alternative points of view. An open society is associated with cultural and religious pluralism; it is always open to improvement because knowledge is never completed but always ongoing: "if we wish to remain human, then there is only one way, the way into the open society ... into the unknown, the uncertain and insecure".[19]

In the closed society, claims to certain knowledge and ultimate truth lead to the attempted imposition of one version of reality. Such a society is closed to freedom of thought. In contrast, in an open society each citizen needs to engage in critical thinking, which requires freedom of thought and expression and the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this.[17]

Further characteristics

Humanitarianism, equality and political freedom are ideally fundamental characteristics of an open society. This was recognized by Pericles, a statesman of the Athenian democracy, in his laudatory funeral oration: "advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life."[20]

Arguably however it was the tension between a traditional society and the new, more open space of the emerging polis which most fully marked classical Athens,[21] and Popper was very aware of the continuing emotional appeal of what he called "holism...longing for the lost unity of tribal life"[22] into the modern world.

Caveats

Investor and philanthropist George Soros, a self-described follower of Karl Popper,[23] argued that sophisticated use of powerful techniques of subtle deception borrowed from modern advertising and cognitive science by conservative political operatives such as Frank Luntz and Karl Rove casts doubt on Popper's view of open society.[24] Because the electorate's perception of reality can easily be manipulated, democratic political discourse does not necessarily lead to a better understanding of reality.[24] Soros argues that in addition to the need for separation of powers, free speech, and free elections, an explicit commitment to the pursuit of truth is imperative.[24] "Politicians will respect, rather than manipulate, reality only if the public cares about the truth and punishes politicians when it catches them in deliberate deception."[24]

Popper however, did not identify the open society either with democracy or with capitalism or a laissez-faire economy, but rather with a critical frame of mind on the part of the individual, in the face of communal group think of whatever kind.[25] An important aspect in Popper's thinking is the notion that the truth can be lost. Critical attitude does not mean that the truth is found.

See also

References

  1. ^ • Henri Bergson ([1932] 1937). Les Deux Sources de la morale et de la religion, ch. I, pp. 1–103 and ch. IV, pp. 287–343. Félix Alcan.
    • Translated as ([1935] 1977), The Two Sources of Morality and Religion Internet Archive (left or right arrow buttons select succeeding pages), pp. 18–27, 45–65, 229–34., trs., R. A. Audra and C. Brereton, with assistance of W. H. Carter. Macmillan press, Notre Dame.
  2. ^ Leszek Kołakowski, Modernity on Endless Trial (1997), p. 162
  3. ^ K. R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 2 vols. ([1945] 1966), 5th ed.
  4. ^ A. N. Wilson, Our Times (2008), pp. 17–18
  5. ^ a b Thomas Mautner (2005), 2nd ed. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy ["Open society" entry], p. 443.
  6. ^ Henri Bergson, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion, Macmillan, 1935, pp. 20–21.
  7. '^ K. R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume One (1945), 1 and 174–75.
  8. ^ K. R. Popper, 1945:175–6
  9. ^ Popper, K., The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume One (Routledge, 1945, reprint 2006), chapter 5, part III.
  10. ^ Popper, K., The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume One (Routledge, 1945, reprint 2006), chapter 10, part VIII.
  11. ^ K. R. Popper, 1945:199–200
  12. ^ Wilson, p. 403
  13. ^ Ernest Gellner, Nationalism (1997), pp. 25–9
  14. ^ M. Hardt/K. Weeks, The Jameson Reader (2000), pp. 260–6
  15. ^ Popper, K., The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume One (Routledge, 1945, reprint 2006), chapter 10, part I.
  16. ^ K. R. Popper, 1945:4
  17. ^ a b Soros, George, "The Age of Fallibility," Public Affairs (2006).
  18. ^ a b Popper, K., The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume Two (Routledge, 1945, reprint 2006), chapters 23 and 24.
  19. ^ K. R. Popper, 1945:201
  20. ^ Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, Book II: Pericles' Funeral Oration.
  21. ^ J. Boardman et al., The Oxford History of the Classical World (1991), p. 232
  22. ^ K. R. Popper, 1945:80
  23. ^ Soros, George, Soros on Soros (John Wiley and Sons, 1995), page 33.
  24. ^ a b c d Soros, George, "From Karl Popper to Karl Rove - and Back", Project Syndicate (November 8, 2007).
  25. ^ I. C. Jarvie et al. eds., Popper's Open Society after fifty years (1999), pp. 43–6

Further reading

  • R. B. Levinson, In Defence of Plato (1953)
  • Liberalism as threat to the open society: Charles Arthur Willard. Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy, University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_society&oldid=969952357"