Open Society

About

The term "open society" is widely recognized, particularly in political philosophy and related fields. Its meaning is primarily associated with the work of two key thinkers: Henri Bergson and Karl Popper.

Here's a breakdown of what it means:

Henri Bergson's Conception:

In his 1932 book, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion, Bergson contrasted an "open society" with a "closed society." A closed society is characterized by:

• Tribalism and exclusion: Emphasis on solidarity within the group and suspicion or hostility towards outsiders.
• Static morality: Based on social pressure and habit, focused on preserving the group.
• Closed religion: Focused on maintaining social cohesion through ritual and tradition.

An open society, on the other hand, is characterized by:

• Universalism: Openness to all human beings and a move towards universal moral principles.
• Dynamic morality: Inspired by exceptional individuals (prophets, sages) and driven by creative emotions like love and sympathy.
• Open religion: Rooted in mystical experience and a connection to a life force that transcends the group.

Bergson saw democracy as the political system most aligned with the principles of an open society. Karl Popper's Conception:

Popper further developed the concept in his influential 1945 book, The Open Society and Its Enemies. He defined an open society as one characterized by:

• Individual freedom and responsibility: Individuals are confronted with personal decisions, as opposed to being bound by rigid tribal or collectivist norms.
• Critical thinking and tolerance: Emphasis on the importance of reason, open debate, and the acceptance of diverse viewpoints. No one possesses a monopoly on truth.
• Democratic governance: Institutions that allow for reform and leadership change without violence (in contrast to "closed societies" where change often requires revolution).
• Rule of law: A framework of laws that protect individual rights and liberties.
• Distinction between natural and man-made law: Recognizing that social customs and laws are created by humans and can be changed.

Popper saw totalitarian ideologies like communism and fascism as enemies of the open society because they claim to possess ultimate truth and suppress dissent.

In summary, an open society is generally understood as a society that values individual freedom, critical thought, tolerance, democratic principles, and the rule of law. It is a society that is open to new ideas, welcomes diverse perspectives, and has mechanisms for peaceful change.

The term is also strongly associated with the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros, which support civil society groups around the world working to promote democracy, human rights, and justice. These foundations explicitly draw their name and mission from Popper's concept.

Critique

there are several valid critiques of the "open society" concept, raised from various perspectives. Here are some key areas of criticism:

1. The "Strain of Civilization" and Social Cohesion:

Popper himself acknowledged what he called the "strain of civilization" inherent in an open society. The breakdown of traditional, closed social structures can lead to feelings of anomie, insecurity, and a loss of belonging. Critics argue that this focus on individualism and constant questioning can undermine social cohesion, shared values, and the stability necessary for a functioning society. They may argue that some level of shared tradition and social pressure is necessary for social order.

2. The Paradox of Tolerance:

Popper famously highlighted the "paradox of tolerance," stating that unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If a society is limitlessly tolerant, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Critics point out the difficulty in practically applying this. Who decides who is "intolerant"? How much intolerance should be tolerated before intervention? This can lead to difficult judgments and potential suppression of minority views in the name of defending the open society.

3. Cultural Relativism and the Problem of Universal Values:

The emphasis on openness and tolerance can sometimes be interpreted as a form of cultural relativism, where all values and beliefs are seen as equally valid. Critics argue that this can make it difficult to defend core principles of the open society (like human rights or democracy) against those who hold fundamentally different and potentially oppressive values. Where do the universal values underpinning the open society come from if all values are relative?

4. The Potential for Instability and Disagreement:

The encouragement of critical thinking and open debate, while crucial, can also lead to constant disagreement, polarization, and political instability. Critics worry that an overemphasis on questioning and dissent can make it difficult to achieve consensus and effective governance. They might argue that some level of social agreement and deference to authority is necessary for practical functioning.

5. Naivety Regarding Power Dynamics:

Some critics argue that the open society ideal can be somewhat naive about existing power structures and inequalities. They contend that simply removing formal barriers to freedom and participation doesn't necessarily lead to a truly open society if significant economic, social, or informational disparities persist. Powerful actors can still manipulate the system and limit genuine openness.

6. The Difficulty of Defining and Maintaining "Openness":

The very definition of "openness" can be contested. What does it truly mean for a society to be open? Are there limits to openness? Who gets to define these limits? Critics argue that the concept can be vague and difficult to translate into concrete policies and institutions without potentially infringing on other values.

7. Critiques from Communitarian Perspectives:

Communitarian thinkers often critique the liberal individualism inherent in the open society model. They argue that it neglects the importance of community, shared identity, and social obligations for individual well-being and a flourishing society. They may prioritize social harmony and collective goals over individual autonomy to a greater extent.

8. The "Open Society" as a Western Construct:

Some critics from non-Western perspectives argue that the concept of the open society is rooted in Western liberal thought and may not be universally applicable or desirable in different cultural contexts with different values and priorities. It's important to note that these critiques don't necessarily invalidate the core ideals of an open society. Rather, they highlight the complexities, challenges, and potential tensions involved in striving for and maintaining such a society. They encourage a more nuanced and critical engagement with the concept, prompting reflection on how to address its inherent difficulties and limitations.

Recently, some contemporary critiques (like the book "The Open Society as an Enemy" by J. McKenzie Alexander) argue that some of the very aspects considered virtues of an open society (like cosmopolitanism, transparency, and intellectual openness) have been distorted in the modern era and are being used to undermine democratic values. This offers a new layer to the ongoing debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the open society ideal.

Solution

The general solution to the Open Society Paradox (that many apparently favorable features are more complex and problematic) is generally resolve by qualifying open society to "collaborative and open society". As in the OSE Fellowship. Thg 'Collaborative' part addreses the individualistic (selfish) aspect of open society, as well as the potential polarization - in that a collaborative society further seeks common ground. In all cases, a high level of Psychosocial Integration in people is required for open society to work. Open society requires a higher level of responsibility. Thus, an open society calls for absolute empowerment of individauals, so they are not in general retarded in moral, physical, spiritual, professional, and personal development. This can be solved by education, and OSE is engaging this directly in its Immersion Education Programs.

Point by point to the above:

1. Anomie is addressed by inclusion afforded by collaborative, open society - practically and psychologically through the implied personal growth enhancement in a collaborative, open society.
2. Tolerance is addressed by raising the level of play - empowering people to be omnipotent and responsible. Then there will be nothing left to 'tolerate:' gods would have to tolerate demigods in a framework of collaborative and mutual upgrading of society..
3. While cultural relativism states that we should accept other cultures without judgment, it does not mean that these cultures don't suck (Sturgeon's Law). A collaborative approach to cultural relativism states that all cultures suck in some way, and it's up to all cultures to keep evolving and improving while not pointing fingers at anyone. Cultural relativism remains a problem under the assumption that no cultural evolution is taking place, while natural law states that 'the only constant is chance'. Thus, cultural relativism is a faulty mental model. In short - it is the duty of all cultures to improve, including those who call themselves 'highly democratic societies' - as according to the Human Freedom Indexes - the highest score (Switzerland) is 9.1 on a scale of 10, and the USA is 8.6 and declining in 2025.
4. Authority must be defined by merit, not violence. Open society leads to such a definition. Once again - the growth mindset says we must improve meritocracy, and a fixed mindset states that authoritarianism leads to peace.
5. Power dynamics are real, and the solution is to distribute power, as open society claims. It is a fixed mindset that proposes to deal with unfair power dynamics by adhering to authoritarianism.
6. Collaborative literacy involves defining openness clearly. That people do not know what openness is a real artifact of society. For example, people think that the world is collaborative, while in reality the violence of proprietary economics rules. The solution is education towards collaborative literacy.
7. Adding 'collaborative' to 'open society' solves rugged individualism.
8. If my or your culture sucks, improvement is needed. Same argument as #3.

All in all, collaborative open society is on a pathway to self-reflection and critique, thus evolution. Other models do not offer such evolution. So the discussion boils down to the presence or absence of a growth mindset. Fortunately, a fixed mindset is an evolutionary dead end.