Blindspot of a Liberal Popper and the Problem of Community

Abstract

Popper's critique of the philosophical doctrines underlying totalitarian ideology is powerful. Yet, having the regimes of Hitler and Stalin in full view before him, he did not give full and balanced consideration to the range of effects these doctrines can have within actually existing ideologies and regimes. The ideas he correlates with totalitarianism can and do exist in benign forms or tempered by other ideas and by institutions. Moreover, the struggle with totalitarianism is only partly a struggle of philosophical ideas. Political argument and rhetoric appeal to feeling as well as intellect. This tends to be a blindspot of liberalism that often weakens it in the competition with its adversaries.Prejudice is what holds society together. Eduard DegasSir Karl Popper's principal scholarly interests were never in the domain of political philosophy or the social sciences. Had not the rise of Nazi and Communist totalitarianism posed a mortal threat to liberal democracy, he would never have turned his professional attention to political philosophy and the social sciences.The Open Society and I ts Enemies and The Poverty of His toricism, books which Popper called his &dquo;war effort&dquo; (1974,91), present a brilliant and scathing critique of a set of philosophical doctrines underlying totalitarian ideologies. These books represent a defense of liberal-democracy against totalitarian doctrines, which he saw as seducing and misleading intellectuals on whose support liberal-democracy depended.Nevertheless, Popper never really joined the debate about problems of liberal democracy One reason for this is that, although he did not idealize liberal-democracy he did not consider its weaknesses to be all that troublesome. He did not think it should need a defense.' Like Sir Winston Churchill, he thought that, despite all its imperfections, liberal democracy was the best kind of regime we could hope for in an imperfect world. He also thought such regimes were best

Celebrating The Open Society

“…Popper's negative theory of legitimation seems sufficient: it declares democratic government legitimate as long as its citizens can unseat it but do not. Eidlin (1997) will not let go that easily. He says, there is no abstract society, no society without community; taking care of some communal matters is thus essential for the open society; its ideologues who overlook this have a blind spot.…”

“…In discussions of ethics, only Popper and Bunge face it, but there Popper forgets his minimalism and Bunge forgets his systemism (see Laor and Agassi 1990, 72-84). Fred Eidlin's (1997) thoughtful essay on the role of the community in the open society provides an analysis of this issue. He finds a &dquo;blind spot&dquo; in Popper's account: he should have noted the positive role of community in the open society, but he did not.…”

“…He finds a &dquo;blind spot&dquo; in Popper's account: he should have noted the positive role of community in the open society, but he did not. Eidlin (1997) regrets that liberals ignore the community; communalism is popular these days as the latest version of traditionalism thinly masked. He observes that liberals traditionally legitimize power by some theory of some social contract between free individuals, whereas communalists legitimize it as established in communal tradition.…”

“…Right or not, Eidlin's account of the open society differs from Popper's, though in nuance only, and the difference is somewhat metaphysical. Eidlin's (1997) wish is to replace exorcising erroneous popular views with taming them, replacing them with variants immune to extant criticism. It is in line with Popper's philosophy The force of negativism is, indeed, its advocacy of (not a radical dismissal of error but) the patient study and detailed criticism of diverse alternatives.…”

“…25), and it is a bit too arbitrary, as Stokes notes (see below). Like Eidlin (1997), Hall (1997) recommends what has been effectively criticized should be reintroduced in a tamed version; in this case, a weaker variant of historicism may be serviceable. Social wholes, be they nations or classes, are often presented in the literature as groups that share destiny or fate (in the historicist sense).…”