The Open Society and Its Enemies

Summary

The Open Society and Its Enemies is Karl Popper's two-volume critique of philosophies that claim to know the laws of history and to justify a closed, planned society. Popper wrote it in New Zealand between 1938 and 1943, after the annexation of Austria, as what he later called his war work, and it was published in London by Routledge in 1945. Volume I is titled The Spell of Plato; Volume II, The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath. The text remains under copyright and no full text is included in the library. Popper's central contrast is between the closed society, a tribal order bound by taboo and custom in which individuals do not take personal responsibility for decisions, and the open society, in which people face personal decisions and criticize their institutions. He names his main opponent historicism, the belief that history moves according to discoverable laws toward a destined end, and links it with essentialism and with utopian or holistic social engineering, the attempt to remake society according to a blueprint. Volume I begins with Heraclitus and then devotes most of its chapters to Plato. Popper argues that Plato, troubled by the social upheavals of his time, developed a theory of Forms and of decay from a perfect original state, and that the Republic's account of justice as each class keeping its place, the rule of philosopher-kings, the use of the noble lie and the subordination of the individual to the city amount to a programme for arresting change. Against this he sets what he calls the Great Generation of Athens, including Pericles and Democritus, and above all Socrates, whom he presents as an individualist and critic. He proposes replacing the question 'Who should rule?' with the question of how institutions can be arranged so that bad rulers do as little harm as possible, and defines democracy as a system in which rulers can be removed without bloodshed. A note to Chapter 7 states the paradoxes of freedom, tolerance and democracy. Volume II traces historicism from Aristotle's essentialism to Hegel, whom Popper treats very severely, and then gives most of its length to a respectful but critical analysis of Marx, praising his moral protest against the suffering of early industrial workers while rejecting his prophecy of inevitable revolution. Popper argues that the unrestrained capitalism Marx described has been transformed by piecemeal intervention. The final chapters discuss the sociology of knowledge, the revolt against reason, and whether history has a meaning; Popper answers that it has none of its own, but that we can give it meaning by our aims. The book made Popper widely known. Classicists such as Ronald Levinson and John Wild defended Plato against what they judged an unhistorical reading, and Walter Kaufmann sharply criticized the treatment of Hegel.

Plot or Argument

• Introduction and Chapter 1: historicism and the myth of destiny

  Popper announces the book as a defence of the open society against those who claim that history follows laws. He describes historicism, the doctrine that the task of social science is to predict the course of history, and finds early forms of it in the idea of a chosen people and in later doctrines of a chosen race or class.

• Volume I, Chapters 2–5: Heraclitus, Plato's Forms, and nature and convention

  Heraclitus saw everything in flux. Plato, Popper argues, answered the turmoil of his age with a theory of unchanging Forms and a history of decline from an original perfect state. Popper distinguishes natural laws from normative laws made by human beings, and contrasts biological and naturalist accounts of society with the critical dualism that recognizes our responsibility for our own norms.

• Volume I, Chapter 6: the Republic's account of justice

  Popper reads the Republic's definition of justice, each class doing its own work, as a defence of class rule and of the state's priority over the individual. He contrasts it with the equalitarian and individualist ideas of justice he finds in Pericles' Funeral Oration and some sophists, and offers his own protectionist view of the state as an association for preventing crime and aggression.

• Volume I, Chapter 7: the principle of leadership

  Popper argues that the question 'Who should rule?' is badly posed and proposes asking instead how political institutions can be organized so that bad or incompetent rulers are prevented from doing too much damage. Democracy is the system by which a government can be dismissed without bloodshed. The notes set out the paradoxes of freedom, tolerance and democracy.

• Volume I, Chapters 8–9: the philosopher king and utopianism

  Popper contrasts the Socrates of the Apology, who knew that he knew nothing, with the philosopher-kings of the Republic and treats the noble lie as a departure from Socratic truthfulness. In Chapter 9 he opposes utopian engineering, which aims at an ideal state as a whole, to piecemeal social engineering, which searches for and fights the greatest and most urgent evils one at a time and learns from mistakes.

• Volume I, Chapter 10: the open society and its enemies

  Popper describes the breakdown of tribal society in Greece, the strain of civilization that follows when individuals must take responsibility for themselves, and the Great Generation of Athens. He argues that the attempt to return to the closed society is impossible, and that the way forward lies in the open society, planning as well as we can for both security and freedom.

• Volume II, Chapters 11–12: Aristotle and Hegel

  Aristotle's essentialism, Popper argues, encouraged verbal definitions in place of testable theories and contributed to historicist thinking. Hegel's philosophy of history and the state, which Popper treats polemically, is presented as a link between Plato's historicism and later nationalist and collectivist movements.

• Volume II, Chapters 13–21: Marx's method and prophecy

  Popper credits Marx with serious study of society, with insisting on the importance of economic conditions, and with a genuine moral protest against the exploitation of workers in early industrial capitalism. He rejects Marx's historical determinism and his prophecies of increasing misery and inevitable revolution, and argues that political power, used through democratic institutions, can and did reform the unrestrained capitalism Marx described.

• Volume II, Chapters 22–25: knowledge, reason and the meaning of history

  Popper criticizes the moral theory of historicism and the sociology of knowledge, and defends a critical rationalism that admits its own fallibility and rests on an irrational, moral decision in favour of reason. In the final chapter he denies that history has a meaning in itself, but holds that people can give it meaning through their aims, such as the struggle for the open society.

Characters

• Karl Popper, author

  Austrian-born philosopher of science writing in New Zealand during the Second World War.

• Plato, principal subject of Volume I

  Whose Republic, Statesman and Laws Popper reads as a programme for arresting social change, a reading strongly disputed by classical scholars.

• Socrates, hero of the open society

  Whom Popper presents, chiefly through the Apology, as an individualist who knew the limits of his knowledge.

• Pericles, representative of the Great Generation

  Whose Funeral Oration Popper cites as an expression of democratic and individualist ideals.

• G. W. F. Hegel, subject of Volume II

  Whose philosophy of history and of the state Popper attacks as historicist.

• Karl Marx, principal subject of Volume II

  Whose humanitarian motives Popper respects while rejecting his historical prophecies.

Lessons

• Ask how to limit the damage rulers can do

  Popper argues that political philosophy went wrong by asking who should rule, since every answer assumes the rulers will be good. He proposes instead designing institutions so that bad or incompetent rulers can be removed peacefully and prevented from doing too much harm.

  • Why does Popper think the question 'Who should rule?' is badly posed?
  • How does his definition of democracy differ from rule by the majority?
  • How does Popper's question compare with Montesquieu's and Madison's concern with checks on power?

• Piecemeal reform rather than blueprints

  In Chapter 9 Popper distinguishes utopian engineering, which tries to remake society as a whole according to an ideal, from piecemeal engineering, which attacks the most urgent evils one at a time. Because we cannot foresee all consequences, he argues, reform should proceed by small steps that allow us to learn from mistakes.

  • Why does Popper think it easier to agree on evils to be fought than on an ideal to be achieved?
  • What does the method of trial and error in science have to do with his view of politics?
  • Are there circumstances in which piecemeal reform is not enough? How might Popper respond?

• The limits of tolerance

  Popper's note on the paradox of tolerance argues that a society which tolerates without limit those who would destroy tolerance by force may lose tolerance altogether. He holds that intolerant views should be countered by rational argument as long as possible, while reserving the right to resist those who refuse argument and answer it with violence.

  • What is the paradox of tolerance, as Popper states it?
  • Under what conditions does Popper say a tolerant society may suppress intolerance?
  • How do the paradoxes of freedom and democracy in the same note resemble the paradox of tolerance?

• History has no meaning of its own, but we may give it one

  Popper rejects the idea that history moves by laws toward a predetermined goal and that we must simply cooperate with it. He argues that people are responsible for the aims they choose, and that history gains meaning from the purposes they pursue.

  • What does Popper mean by historicism, and why does he oppose it?
  • How does his view of human responsibility shape his politics?
  • How might a Christian view of providence agree and disagree with Popper's conclusion?

Context

Popper wrote during the Second World War, after Nazi Germany annexed his native Austria in March 1938 and while Fascist, National Socialist and Soviet regimes claimed to embody the movement of history. In the 1930s many intellectuals believed in comprehensive economic planning or in historical laws leading to a new social order. Popper, a philosopher of science who had argued that knowledge grows through conjecture and refutation, applied the same critical method to politics. He linked his argument with his Poverty of Historicism, first published as articles in 1944-1945.

Composition

Popper wrote the book at Canterbury University College in Christchurch, New Zealand, between 1938 and 1943, with the help of his wife, Josefine, who typed the drafts. Friedrich Hayek and Ernst Gombrich helped arrange its publication by Routledge in London in two volumes in 1945. Princeton University Press published an American edition in 1950, and Popper revised the book and added notes and addenda in later editions.

Reception

The book was widely reviewed and became a standard work of postwar liberal political thought. It provoked replies from scholars who thought its readings unfair: Ronald B. Levinson's In Defense of Plato (1953) and John Wild's Plato's Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law (1953) defended Plato, and Walter Kaufmann's essay 'The Hegel Myth and Its Method' criticized Popper's treatment of Hegel. Others have defended Popper's central arguments about institutions and piecemeal reform while granting the force of these criticisms. The distinction between open and closed societies entered common political vocabulary.

Comparisons

• the-republic

  The Republic is the chief object of Volume I. Popper reads its account of justice and the philosopher-king as a defence of an arrested, class-ordered city; defenders of Plato read the same dialogue as an inquiry into the order of the soul in which the ideal city is a pattern rather than a programme.

• plato-laws

  Popper draws on the Laws for Plato's late political views, especially its regulation of education, religion and travel; scholars who answer Popper point to its rule of law, its persuasive preambles and its accountability of officials.

• hegel-philosophy-of-right

  Popper's Chapter 12 attacks Hegel's philosophy of the state; Hegel's defenders, including Walter Kaufmann, argue that the Philosophy of Right describes a constitutional state with protected individual rights and that Popper misreads it.

• the-communist-manifesto

  Most of Volume II examines Marx. Popper accepts the Manifesto's moral concern for the workers but rejects its claim that history moves necessarily toward the victory of the proletariat.

• hayek-the-road-to-serfdom

  Hayek's book appeared in 1944 while Popper was finishing his own, and Hayek helped secure its publication; both oppose comprehensive central planning, though Popper is more open to piecemeal intervention by the state.

• the-federalist-papers

  Madison's argument that institutions must be built for men who are not angels anticipates Popper's proposal to ask how institutions can limit the harm done by bad rulers.

Quotes

For Students

A reading companion for classical Christian high school students. See the student guide.

Reading Guide

Watch for

• The definitions of the closed and the open society, and Popper's idea of the strain of civilization.
• His definition of historicism and why he thinks it is both mistaken and dangerous.
• The replacement of 'Who should rule?' with a question about institutions in Chapter 7.
• The contrast between utopian and piecemeal social engineering in Chapter 9.
• Where Popper's reading of Plato depends on interpretation; compare his claims with the Republic itself.

Key terms and names

Open society

In Popper's usage, a society in which individuals make personal decisions and institutions can be criticized and peacefully changed.

Closed society

A tribal or collectivist order governed by fixed custom and taboo, in which the individual is subordinate to the group.

Historicism

The doctrine that history develops according to discoverable laws toward a definite end, so that the social sciences should predict it.

Piecemeal social engineering

Reform that attacks particular, urgent evils by small, testable steps, in contrast to remaking society by a complete blueprint.

Paradox of tolerance

Popper's argument that unlimited tolerance of those who would destroy tolerance by force may end in the loss of tolerance.

Critical rationalism

Popper's view that we should hold our beliefs open to criticism and learn from error, since no knowledge is certain.

Seminar Questions

1. Comprehension How does Popper distinguish the closed society from the open society?
2. Comprehension What is historicism, and which thinkers does Popper treat as its chief representatives?
3. Comprehension What question does Popper propose in place of 'Who should rule?'
4. Interpretation Why does Popper prefer piecemeal to utopian social engineering? How does this preference connect with his philosophy of science?
5. Interpretation Popper admires Socrates but criticizes Plato. What differences between them does he stress, and how might Plato's defenders answer?
6. Interpretation How does Popper both praise and criticize Marx?
7. Big Question Is it wiser to reform society one problem at a time or to aim at a complete vision of the good society?
8. Big Question Can a free society protect itself against those who would destroy it without ceasing to be free?

Faith Connections

• James 4:13-15 (Scripture)

  James rebukes those who plan as if they knew what tomorrow will bring; Popper's argument that human beings cannot predict the course of history makes a similar point about the limits of human foresight.

• Psalm 146:3 (Scripture)

  'Put not your trust in princes' fits Popper's insistence that institutions should not depend on the goodness of rulers.

• Augustine, City of God XIX and XXII (Church Fathers)

  Augustine teaches that no earthly city can achieve perfect peace and justice, and that the meaning of history lies in God's purposes rather than in any political order; readers can compare this with Popper's rejection of historical laws and of utopian politics, though he draws very different conclusions about meaning.

• Plato, Republic (Great Conversation)

  The dialogue Popper attacks most sharply remains essential for weighing his arguments; students should read Books II-V and VIII-IX before judging whether his interpretation is fair.

Logic and Rhetoric

Central argument: History follows no discoverable law toward a fixed end, so no ruler or party can claim to know where it must go. Social knowledge grows, as science does, by trial and the correction of error. Every ruler may be mistaken or bad. Therefore the best political order is one that allows criticism, removes governments without bloodshed and reforms institutions piece by piece, and philosophies that claim to justify a closed society by historical necessity should be rejected.

Rhetorical device: reframing the question. In Chapter 7 Popper sets aside the traditional question 'Who should rule?' as leading to answers like 'the wisest' or 'the best', and asks instead how institutions can be organized to prevent bad rulers from doing too much damage, changing the terms of the whole debate.

Debate: Resolved: That piecemeal reform is wiser than utopian planning.

Writing Prompts

Essay: Explain Popper's distinction between utopian and piecemeal social engineering and evaluate it, using one historical example of each.

Comparison with The Republic: Popper reads the Republic as a political programme; others read it as a philosophical inquiry into justice in the soul. Using Books IV and IX, argue which reading better fits the text.

Medical Lens

A work of political philosophy with no medical content.

Creative Prompts

• Dialogue

  Write a conversation between Karl Popper and Ronald Levinson about the Republic, each stating fairly the strongest point the other makes about Plato's intentions.

• Classroom

  Choose a problem at school. Have one group draft a complete ideal plan and another identify the single most urgent evil and one small remedy. Compare the two approaches using Popper's Chapter 9.

• Essay

  Popper proposes asking how to limit the damage bad rulers can do instead of who should rule. Compare his question with the answers given by Plato in the Republic and Madison in Federalist 51.

• Fiction

  Write a scene in Christchurch in 1943 in which Popper reads a chapter aloud to his wife Josefine and they argue about whether he has been fair to Plato.

Further Reading

• Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, Karl Popper

  Popper's own account of his life and the writing of the book.

• The Poverty of Historicism, Karl Popper

  The companion work stating the methodological case against historicism.

• In Defense of Plato, Ronald B. Levinson

  A detailed reply to Popper's reading of Plato.

• Plato's Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law, John Wild

• Karl Popper: The Formative Years, 1902-1945, Malachi Haim Hacohen