Uncharted territories of organizational research: The case of Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies

Abstract

This paper argues that Karl Popper's notions in his work The Open Society and Its Enemies offer an approach to under-explored issues in organizational research, independent of Popper's epistemology. Popper's thoughts on the philosophy of science have largely been rejected in organization studies, and his socio-philosophical notions have hardly been considered. Yet they provide a frame of reference for viewing management trends, such as anti-bureaucratism and collectivist forms of work organization, in a different light. Popper's socio-philosophical notions suggest that 'closed' patterns of thinking are detrimental to a liberal--democratic social order. The paper argues that an outline of the philosophy of openness and closed-ness and an application to managerial concepts allows for insights into whether certain types of managerial thinking stand in contrast to, or in accordance with, a liberal--democratic order. It is concluded that, through the Popperian lens, some supposedly liberationist movements of manag ement (liberation from bureaucracy or from a lack of belonging and emotion at work) possess clear traits of closed-ness and thus resemble the intellectual underpinnings of totalitarianism.

Descriptors: Popper, bureaucracy, collectivism, closed society, critical liberalism

Introduction

In spite of, or simply because of, its fundamental controversies, Popper's publications in logic and scientific methodology have left a lasting impression on the philosophy of natural and social sciences. Because of his epistemological publications, Popper's name is strongly associated with the falsification principle, the criticism of historicism, the positivism controversy in Germany in the 1960s, and with continuing debates on positivism. His social philosophy of the open society has had an impact far beyond academia. The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945: Vols. I and II), first published in the UK, has become well known outside academia, particularly in the field of politics. Various European politicians of different camps have repeatedly referred to critical rationalism and the open society in their political programmes. Popper's social philosophy has even been misused by political parties, as Spinner (1978) points out. More recently, since the end of state communism in Europe, The Open Society and Its Enemies has also been widely read in Central and Eastern Europe (cf. Jarvie and Pralong 1999b).

However, in Western social and political sciences, there is disagreement on the current relevance of The Open Society and Its Enemies and its debates. On the one hand, the term 'open society' is used merely as a catch phrase in political and social philosophy. On the other hand, the open society is regarded as a matter of continuing importance, and problems of closedness are always considered to be very relevant (Spinner 1978; Dahrendorf 1991; Jarvie and Pralong 1999a). Doring (1996: 8) points out that, according to critics, it is not the scientific level, but the passionate and often polemic defense of democracy that accounts for the success of this book. The criticism of Plato, Hegel, and Marx is said to be an expression of personal aversion, rather than a scientific interpretation. According to Doring (1996: 42), Popper himself said later that The Open Society and Its Enemies is more a feature pages supplement to the scientifically argued The Poverty of Historicism (1960). However, the work was clearly wri tten with a scientific purpose. It can be assumed that this confession by Popper can be interpreted more as coquetry, after the event, than that he wrote the book with that awareness in mind.

In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper does not use technical philosophical terminology, but a style that is more readily accessible for those unfamiliar with philosophical terms, thereby meeting his own demands for clear expression and understandable phrases. However, he can be criticized for using a writing style that is not sparing in polemic or defamatory methods (cf. Doring 1996: 41). Nevertheless, Popper has received great support for his ideas on the connection of the Socratic notion of cognitive modesty with the modernist concepts of enlightenment, emancipation and individual freedom. His criticism of intellectual icons such as Plato, Marx and Hegel, the first of its kind, has received similar controversial prominence, and because of the critical capability of The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper's polemics are usually forgiven. As selective and controversial as is his reading of Plato, Hegel and Marx, none of Popper's critics doubts the importance of his work, disclaiming the collectivist he rd instinct and demands for a charismatic or utopian leader, in defense of democracy.

According to Popper, closed forms of society (by this, he meant the totalitarian social orders of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as they were at the time when he wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies) are preceded and accompanied by a pattern of thinking of which collectivism and the assumption of a possible ultimate truth are important parts. Applied to organizations, this approach presents itself as a frame of reference that suggests alternative ways of thinking about management concepts and managerial thinking. This paper outlines this approach and applies it to current managerial thinking in terms of anti-bureaucratism and collectivist forms of work organization. It suggests that the Popperian frame of reference may allow for a re-ordering of the material in organization studies according to whether it reflects closed patterns of thinking, and hence according to whether it is likely to create and propagate tenets of the closed society.