Archives

Archives

OPEN SOCIETY: POPPER’S DEFENCE OF RATIONALITY

Abstract

Popper stressed on the critical or rational attitude, where ‘reason’ must be open to criticism, a readiness to be criticized and eagerness to criticize oneself. This critical attitude of rationality should be extended as far as possible. To Popper, this demand for the extension of critical attitude can be found in ‘critical rationalism’. Popper elaborates principles for political action and prescriptions for historical and social science method from this critique. Popper has shown that almost all political philosophies besides having their roots in social and historical development are also rooted in rationality, logic and scientific method. Rationality, logic and scientific approach all point to a society which is centrally organized, planned and ordered as a whole.  Such a society is always open and pluralistic where opposing views are expressed and contradicting aims are explored more. Everyone is free to investigate problem-situations, to propose alternate solutions and where everyone is free to criticize the proposed solutions of others, and even those of the government, its prospects or applications. Above all, it must be a society where the government’s policies are changed in the light of criticism.

Key Words: Historicism, Open society, falsification.

The core of Popper’s social and political theory was developed and published in his works The Poverty of Historicism andThe Open society and its Enemies. It can be viewed as an application of falsifications to the area of social interaction to some extent. They were not only intended as a defence of freedom against the more obvious impulses towards totalitarianism and authoritarianism but also against the tendencies towards large-scale planning. Both these works focused upon the justifying ideas, primarily theories of knowledge. Popper stressed on the critical or rational attitude, where ‘reason’ must be open to criticism, a readiness to be criticized and eagerness to criticize oneself. This critical attitude of rationality should be extended as far as possible. To Popper, this demand for the extension of critical attitude can be found in ‘critical rationalism’. (Popper, 1992, p.115) Popper elaborates principles for political action and prescriptions for historical and social science method from this critique.

 

Popper has shown that almost all political philosophies besides having their roots in social and historical development are also rooted in rationality, logic and scientific method. Rationality, logic and scientific approach all point to a society which is centrally organized, planned and ordered as a whole.  Such a society is always open and pluralistic where opposing views are expressed and contradicting aims are explored more. Everyone is free to investigate problem-situations, to propose alternate solutions and where everyone is free to criticize the proposed solutions of others, and even those of the government, its prospects or applications. Above all, it must be a society where the government’s policies are changed in the light of criticism. (Magee, 1973, pp.74-78)

            The ‘closed’ and ‘open’ societies represent ‘ideal types’ of two different stages of social and cultural evolution. The social structure has the character of closed society in which the lower biological needs are dominant where all social life is guided by myths and rigid taboos. That is, a magical attitude prevails which prevents any distinction being made between the regularities of nature and social customs. There is no scope for self-doubt and personal moral responsibility in the closed society where changes come about more by the introduction of new magical taboos than by rational attempts to improve social conditions. The breakdown of the closed society began when new intellectual values and methods of acquiring knowledge arose together with an original style of politics, i.e., through the emergence of the new tradition of critical thought. This tradition questioned and discussed dogmas instead of merely accepting them. To Popper, the tradition paved the way for the emergence of scientific method. With this a new faith in reason, freedom and the brotherhood of all men emerged. Thus, science is distinguished from other myths because it is accompanied by a second order tradition of criticizing myths.(Stokes, 1998, p. 51)

            The abstraction of ‘open society’ is one of the most significant contributions of Popper to contemporary political thought. There is a sharp contrast between this self-critical democratic policy from the political Dark Age of closed and tradition bound pre-scientific tribal societies. Comparisons with the authoritarian societies, which are based on the misguided scientific assumptions of historicism overwhelmingly, favour Popper’s social attitude. This conception of open society acts both as a minimalist ideal to be sought after and as a celebration of the achievements of modern rationality and liberal democracy. Its importance lies in its apparent capacity to limit the impact of the inevitable errors and to contain potentially harmful social tendencies. (Stokes, 1998, p. 55-56)

The aim of the open society should be to promote criticism and diversity without falling either into violent repression or irreconcilable social division. There should be awareness among the citizens that they are responsible for their own philosophies, science or morality and thereby authority and tradition should be constantly questioned. It is for sure that these creative and critical thoughts will lead to conflicts, but these problems should be resolved by peaceful means. Therefore, the most fundamental requirement for the open society to be a reality is that those in power should be removable at reasonable intervals, without violence, and replaceable by others with different policies. The values of freedom of thought, speech, toleration and individualism are all prospects for motivation and constraint upon individual behaviour.  People with policies different from those of the government must be free to constitute themselves an alternative government, ready to take over, i.e., they must be able to organize, speak, unite, publish and must have a constitutionally guaranteed access to a means of replacing them. Thus, the more substantial differences should be channeled into the democratic process. Actually, what Popper means by ‘democracy’ is the “free-institutions especially those which enable the ruled effectively to criticize their rulers and to change them without bloodshed.” (Magee, 1973, p. 78) Thus, with the widespread appreciation of democratic values and carefully constructed political institutions, new traditions will be created by the open society which will remain viable. Popper’s conception of open society with all its intuitive appeal remains little more than a sketch with the guiding values of freedom, reason, toleration and non-violence.

            Popper gives a higher priority to the advancement of political freedom through democratic practices and maintains that freedom is an essential factor to lead successful life. Though a systematic treatment of Popper’s conception of freedom cannot be found, references to the practical necessity for protecting freedom of speech and thought are implied. Ultimate liberal values of freedom of thought and free discussion do not really need any further justification. (Popper, 1994, p. 157) Freedom has no meaning outside individualism. Conceiving the self as a separate individual, recognizing one’s individual capacities and utilizing them in a humane way is the essence of Popper’s conception of freedom. Freedom must be united with altruism and concern for others. He often quotes Kant’s ethical theory to regard every man as an end in himself always andto never use him merely as a means to your ends. He upheld the spirit of Kantian ethicsof dare to be free and to respect the freedom of others. (Popper, 1994, p. 133)Further, Popper compares Kant with Socrates regarding the freedom of thought where freedom was more significant for them than the absence of constraint.  (Popper, 1994, p. 134)Similar views can also be found in Popper’s awareness of the paradox of freedom. To him, paradox of freedom is the argument that, if freedomis there in absence of any restraining control, it may further lead to very great restraints, since it sets free the bully subjugate the meek. (Popper, 1945, Vol I, p. 265)Popper had conceived freedom in both negative and positive related dimensions. In the negative dimension, it requires protection of the individual, which in turn is an aspect for the positive conception of freedom understood as the self-realization of human capacities which gives importance to critical and rational thought.

            When Popper’s criticism of historicism and utopianism are considered, it can be found that a higher priority is being given to the negative liberty which in fact protects the individuals from planned and ruthless incursions into one’s privacy. For reason to have a continuous progress and for the survival of human rationality, it must be an obligation not to interfere with different individuals and their opinions, aims and purposes. (Popper, 1957, p. 159) Then what is of predominant value is the freedom from political coercion. A different but complimentary significance can be found while examining the principles guiding the open society. In freeing themselves from the collectivist ethic of the closed society, human beings exercise individual initiative and make rational choices upon conscious, critical reflection. Individual initiative and self-assertionis a fact. Interest in the human individual as individual must be aroused. It must be made a priority that another individual is also important in our life and to respect oneself and others. (Popper, 1945, Vol-I, p. 190) Thus, the open society sets free the critical powers of man. Thereby an epistemological importance lies in Popper’s conception of freedom, which tries to fulfill the particular human capacities like, rational, critical thought and the search for truth.

            Popper maintains a clear distinction between the public and the private sphere of individual action. There are several limited purposes for which state power ought to be used, namely to secure equal freedom for all and to overcome concrete and identifiable evils. Any intrusion, upon individual freedom or privacy for such ‘empirical’ purposes may be regarded as the legitimate and proper role of government. It is the private individual initiative to pursue the ‘higher’ metaphysical value such as happiness and the intellectual self-development is a public activity. The positive conception of freedom, understood as self-realization is essentially of a public and social character, necessarily qualified by the equal claims of others. The controlling of individual freedom is demanded by the altruistic value of equal respect for individuals. There are various means through which they are controlled. Democratic institutions are important enough for they protect freedom of expression, ensure equality of treatment before the law, and, wherever necessary, promote limited social reform. Popper thereby brings out the stable relationship between democracy, freedom and equality. (Stokes, 1998, p. 60)

            Popper reported that there should be a strong intervention by the state to secure the conditions necessary for the exercise of freedom. Unqualified freedom is not only self-destructive but bound to produce its opposite. Complete freedom will bring about the end of freedom. So proponents of complete freedom, whatever their intentions are enemies of freedom. There is evidence of a stronger social democratic project that requires firm intervention by the state to secure the conditions necessary for the exercise of freedom. Popper further argues that the state ought to engage in more interventionist programmes of social and educational reform and protect the individuals from economic exploitations. He refers the paradox of economic freedom to a state where there is an unrestrained exploitation of the poor by the rich, and where their economic freedom will be lost completely. So, in an unrestrained economic system, the principle of non-intervention must be given up. The policy of unlimited economic freedom must be replaced by the planned economic intervention of the state to safeguard freedom.An economic interventionism must be demanded instead of unrestrained capitalism.  (Popper, 1945, Vol-I, p.125) Popper further states that the opponents of state-interventionism as such are guilty of self-contradiction. Any decision taken would lead to state intervention where an organized political power is used by the state or the unions in the field of economic conditions. It leads to an extension of the economic responsibility of the state under all circumstances. (Popper, 1945, Vol-I, p. 348) Moreover, if the state interference is not there, then semi-political organizations like monopolies, trusts, unions, etc. may interfere and reduce the freedom of the market. If economic planning is notdone on the basis of economic freedom, it may further lead to totalitarianism. (Popper, 1945, Vol-I, p. 348) The Government intervention guarantees freedom: without itor with too little of it, freedom dies; similarly too much of it also freedom dies.

            Popper imposes strict limits upon the pursuit of equality. Living a modest and simple life in a free and egalitarian society is something really good.  But, freedom is more important than equality; because equalityquite often endangers freedomand if freedom is lost there will never be equality among the unfree. (Popper, 1992, p.36) Although freedom may be expressed through human rationality, the latter also constrains the exercise of individual freedom.

            Popper explained rationality in different ways depending upon the context. To be rational may either mean to be goal oriented, falsifiable, or engaging in problem-solving by trial and error, or being reasonable, critical, self-critical or open to criticism, tolerant, intellectually humble, or to be characterized by the use of argument rather than passion or violence. Initially he used rationalism to cover not only intellectual activity but also observation and experiment. Later, rationalism was used as an attitude that seeks to solve as many problems as possible by an appeal to the reason than to emotions and passions. Further, Popper explains rationalism in terms of practical perspectives and approaches. Thus, rationalism is an attitude of readiness to listen to critical arguments and to learn from experience. In this attitude people may reach some kind of agreement on many problems of importance and even though their demands and interests may clash, but by arbitration may arrive at a compromise which, because of its equity, is acceptable to most, if not to all. Popper labels the rationalist attitude as an “attitude of reasonableness”, which is very similar to the scientific attitude and that, with the help of argument, something like objectivity can be attained. The critical attitude must be accompanied by a belief that by following rationalist procedures widespread social agreement may be attained. Rationalism implies the possibility of social co-operation and something like scientific objectivity. Scientific objectivity, to some extent is based on social institutions. Reasoning must also be conceived as a social process, i.e., the results are social, not individual, products emanating from mutual discussion and argument. (Popper, 1945, Vol-II, pp. 224-25)

            It is rationality or rationalism that establishes the rational unity of mankind. For reason to engage in social communication requires non-epistemic or moral rules of social conduct. For this, others and their arguments must be considered seriously. Thus, the attitude of reasonableness includes the moral constraints of toleration, mutual respect and the readiness to compromise. Popper identifies this attitude with reference to the paradox of tolerance, and contends that not to tolerate those who practice intolerance. If a society extends unlimited tolerance, it is likely to be destroyed, and tolerance with it. So a tolerant society must be prepared in some circumstances to suppress the enemies of tolerance. They should not be suppressed until and unless they become a danger. For it should try in all its power to meet such people first on the level of rational argument. But they may be denouncing all arguments; they may forbid all their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and make them to answer arguments by physical power; and the tolerant society can survive only if it is prepared, in the last analysis, to restrain such people by force. Popper considered any provocation of intolerance and persecution as criminal offences and treated it as similar to the criminal offences of murder, kidnapping or slave trading. (Popper, 1945, Vol-I, p. 265)

            Popper also defines reason as a sort of non-violence or peaceful discussion. Majority of the people hate violence and there are many who take it as their primary task bring down or to eliminate violence from human life. Popper hated violence and believed that the fight against it is not at all hopeless. (Popper, 1963, p. 353) To Popper, the attitude of reasonableness is the only alternative to violence. Violence can be avoided only when the attitude of reasonableness is practiced while dealing with one another in social life. Therefore, Popper chooses reason or rationalism, primarily because of its beneficial social consequences. Rationalism comprises principles, which are both epistemological and ethical. Popper maintains that if one is uncertain about whether an action is violent or not, one can hardly be certain about whether to tolerate or resist it. In these matters practical judgements are unavoidable. Popper further explains the attachments to the value instrumental rationality, which stresses the effectiveness of particular means to given ends. An action is rational if it makes the best use of the available means in order to achieve a certain end. It would not be entirely rational or reasonable merely to argue with someone who is an admirer of violence and who is threatening to shoot one. The only sensible response is to control the person by the threat of counter-violence. There are many and strong reservations about the effectiveness of violence. (Popper, 1963, p. 359) To Popper, it is rational in the effort to establish an open, democratic society. His entire philosophy may be regarded as an argument against the moral harm perpetuated by particular ideologies and epistemologies, not only they lead to physical violence but also encourage the attitude of the people which are both instrumentally and inherently violent and thereby curtail a person’s freedom. Moreover they encourage torelinquish personal and moral responsibility for their action. Popper’s own passion for truth and hatred of violence appear to serve as motivations for creating an open society. Democracy provides the overarching institutional context for his social and political theory.

To conclude, Popper strongly believed that societies should be instrumental with problem solving, for living is first and foremost a process of problem-solving. This process of problem-solving consists of a bold proposal of trial-solution, which further subjected to criticism and error-elimination. Thus, Popper wants forms of society, which permit of untrammeled assertion of different proposals, which must be subjected to criticism, followed by the genuine possibility of change in the light of criticism. (Magee, 1973, pp.74-78) A society organized on these lines will be more successful in solving its problems and achieving the aims of its members. A society is practically bound to be more successful if it has free institution. It is not enough for anyone with power to have policies, in the sense of aims and goals, however clearly formulated. There must also be the means for achieving them. If the means do not exist, they must be created. Otherwise the goals, however good, will not be reached.

References:

  1. Burke, T. (1983). The Philosophy of Popper. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  2. Magee, B. (1973). Popper. London: Collins.
  3. Popper, K. (1992). Unended quest: An intellectual autobiography (New. ed.). London: Routledge.
  4. Popper, K. (1957). The poverty of historicism. London: Routledge.
  5. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations; the growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
  6. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge; an evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  7. Popper, K. (1994). In search of a better world: Lectures and essays from thirty years. London: Routledge.
  8. Popper, K., & Notturno, M. (1994). The myth of the framework: In defence of science and rationality. London: Routledge.
  9. Popper, K. (1945). The Open society and its enemies: The Spell of Plato (Vol. I). London: Routledge and sons.
  10. Popper, K. (1945). The Open society and its enemies: The High Tide of Prophecy; Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath (Vol. II). London: Routledge and sons.
  11. Stokes, G. (1998). Popper: Philosophy, Politics and Scientific Method. Cambridge: Polity Press.


- Dr. Faizal N Muhammad *