Skip to main content
  • 84 Accesses

Abstract

In this paper, I shall argue that to no small extent, difficulties in the distinction between open and closed societies derive from unexamined assumptions about what constitutes a closed society. That concept has assimilated a family of concepts — tyranny, despotism, absolute monarchy, dictatorship, and totalitarianism — which has been far less subject to analysis and criticism than those polar concepts associated with liberty, consent, legitimacy, and obligation.1 Concepts of total domination, as I shall refer to them, are political, deployed not only by theorists, social scientists, and philosophers, but also by statesmen and publicists. Such concepts may be applied in a partisan and polemical spirit, and directed to practical purposes: to identify, categorize, and discredit arrangements regarded by the theorists as antithetical to, or incompatible with those making for political freedom or some other good on which he places supreme value. Often the members of a state or of an alliance are mobilized against enemies by attributing to them the desire to impose total domination. Thus the Greeks stigmatized the Persians as despotic in much the same way as the Christians were to treat the Turks. What we need to know about every theory of total domination is its context. Is it framed by those claiming title to exercise total domination, or by political opponents who seek to fix upon their targets a name of sinister repute?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. This point is developed and illustrated with regard to the concept of despotism in my article, “The History of the Concept of Despotism,” in Dictionary of the History of Ideas (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  2. E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Social Anthropology (London, 1951), p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Georges Balandier, Political Anthropology (New York, 1970), p. 4. Balandier gives as the first aim of modern political anthropology: “A determination of the political that links it neither to ‘historical societies alone, nor to the existence of a state apparatus.”

    Google Scholar 

  4. Leon Bramson, The Political Context of Sociology (Princeton, 1961), pp. 18–19.

    Google Scholar 

  5. John H. Goldthorpe, “Theories of Industrial Society: Reflections on the Recrudescence of Historicism and the Future of Futurology,” European Journal of (1972), p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Karl R. Popper, “On Reason and the Open Society,” Encounter, XXXVIII Sociology, XII (1971), p. 278.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Karl R. Popper, “On Reason and the Open Society,” Sociology, XII (1971), p. 278.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (2 vols; 4th ed., revised; London, 1962), I, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. I. Benrubi, Souvenirs sur Henri Bergson (Paris, 1942), pp. 126–127. Cited and translated by Steven Lukes, Emile Durkheim (London, 1973), p. 505n.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Written to thank Celestin Bougie for his book, Bilan de la sociologie Française. Ms. Letter, Henri Bergson to Celestin Bougie, May 10, 1935. The reference: to Henri Bergson, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion (Paris, 1932).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bergson, Deux sources…, p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid., p. 286.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Sociology (5 vols; 2d ed., London, 1877), I, Ch. X, p. 577.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., p. 584.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid., p. 580.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bergson, Deux sources, p. 294.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid., pp. 294–295.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid., p. 295.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Popper, The Open Society…, I, 202.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid., I, 181.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ernest Gellner, “Concepts and Society,” in Bryan R. Wilson (ed.), Rationality (Oxford, 1970), p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1974 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Richter, M. (1974). Some Views of the Closed Society. In: Germino, D., Von Beyme, K. (eds) The Open Society in Theory and Practice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2056-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2056-5_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-247-1630-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2056-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics