An Open Society or a Closed Society: Which do you Prefer?

[Kraenen]

Had a couple thoughts when reading about The Open Society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society

The open society is a concept originally suggested in 1932 by the French philosopher Henri Bergson and developed during the Second World War by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper.

Bergson describes a closed society as a closed system of law or religion. As such it is static, like a closed mind. Bergson suggests that if all traces of civilization were to disappear, the instincts of the now-closed society would remain for including or excluding others from it. In contrast, an open society is dynamic and inclined to the ideal of moral universalism.

Popper saw the open society as standing on a historical continuum reaching from the organic, tribal, or closed society, through the open society marked by a critical attitude to tradition, up to the abstract or depersonalized society lacking all face-to-face interaction transactions.

In open societies, the government is expected to be responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are said to be transparent and flexible. Advocates claim that it is opposed to authoritarianism.

Most probably feel closer to the Open Society, but when you think about it, how open and liberal (behaviorally) we want to be depends in great deal on our individual dispositions. For instance I don't like people who are so loud when they walk down the street (sometimes in the middle of the night), with little apparent regard for others. This may seem like a simple point but it's one piece of what makes a society tolerable to live in. I'd rather they were more careful and respectful of others. I also think there are subjects which should be off the table when it comes to having a respectful, polite society. Although sometimes those restrictions should be broken, if what is being said is necessary and true.

It seems in the current discussion on Free Speech there's a lot of reference to government technicality. The government can't censor you, sure, but what about when we consider society as a whole and whether it is relatively free in its ability to speak - or relatively restricted? As I mentioned I'm against complete disinhibition - a society that permissive is boorish and vulgar and unpleasant. And I wouldn't make this illegal, I'd just want to minimize it in any socially normal way possible. A more closed society seems like a nice place to live in, in that regard.

At the same time a closed society usually brings with it the repression of truth for the sake of either stability, power, or politeness, and (from wiki) with it comes the politicization of knowledge. You can see this in the latest Google-memo-gate or any number of other similar cases. There was no government involved. And yet society said this knowledge - this truth - was political and the open discussion of this truth must be punished, or stamped out. It used to be more apparent when the religious right would (not necessarily through government) censor and punish expression of sexuality in almost any sense. In a lot of ways opening society to sex was great. It helped heal the wounds of sexual repression. Yet... there's something we lost that was very admirable when people became more loose with sexual expression (seen in media - tv,movies - also in common discussion). People became more relaxed, nice and all, but having discipline and being able to restrain impulses was gratifying in its own way. Having a common understanding that sexual lives are private holds some appeal in me. I'm not sure why.

Ultimately trying to arrive at any ideal seems to self-destruct with paradox - the more open and free (disinhibited) someone is, the less free someone else is from the person's disinhibited behavior. The ideal may then be some system where both are balanced and kept from getting in each other's faces.

What do you think about the concept of an open society vs a closed society? Are you more in favor of a permissive, open society, or a closed and inhibited one? Again I'm guessing it comes down to individual dispositions - whether someone likes a nice quiet place to live in, or feels comfortable in the middle of mardis gras, should give us some predictive value in guessing their position on this question. I'm sure there's a lot more to discuss than I mentioned - Karl Popper wrote a book called The Open Society and its Enemies which might be interesting.

[Independent voter]

So N Korea is a closed society and S Korea is an open society? More or less?

[I Push Buttons]

"Popper's theory that knowledge is provisional and fallible implies that society must be open to alternative points of view."

"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."

Given the above stipulation about an open society, such a thing is not possible at this time.

Soros argues that besides the requirements for the separation of powers, free speech, and free elections, we also need to make explicit a strong commitment to the pursuit of truth.

I agree with Soros.

But that won't happen in our post-truth 'facts are racist and sexist' and 'global warming is a Chinese hoax to destroy our economy' world.

[elaina]

This is just liberalism and conservatism...

[Kraenen]

This is just liberalism and conservatism...

Instead of purely political movements, I also see the distinction in culture and the way people act on a daily basis.

[Draco-Onis]

Instead of purely political movements, I also see the distinction in culture and the way people act on a daily basis.

Closed off societies tend to stagnate and die in the long run as they lack the capacity to evolve and adapt their views to an ever changing world so the answer is obvious.

[elaina]

Instead of purely political movements, I also see the distinction in culture and the way people act on a daily basis.

It's still essentially the same. Liberalism / conservatism go way beyond just politics. They are ideologies / ways of life. The descriptions you've made of each society literally describe liberal and conservative ways of thinking about the world.

[Kraenen]

It's still essentially the same. Liberalism / conservatism go way beyond just politics. They are ideologies / ways of life. The descriptions you've made of each society literally describe liberal and conservative ways of thinking about the world.

Well sure, that's sort of my point. Free speech for example goes well beyond what the government can/can't do. It's a question of whether you want to have certain subjects discussed in the open and allow for a plurality of perspectives and behavior, or restrict the window of acceptable behavior.

[Ealyssa]

So N Korea is a closed society and S Korea is an open society? More or less?

strangely accurate description. Congratz

[Deleted]

An open society only works internally, or within a group of societies that all share the same values and way of life. Towards the outside it needs a tight border control.