The Open Society and Its Enemies

In his conclusion of The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper tackles the question of the meaning of history. To do so, Popper compares the way applied and theoretic scientists and historians operate. He also attempts to determine the extent to which history can be generalized. The author informs the reader that the purpose of his book has been to provide a “critical introduction to the philosophy of society and politics” (463). He did so through the prism of analyzing historicism in the realm of society, politics, and morality because of its profound impact on humanity since the dawn of Western civilization (463).

Science, he argues, is far more than a body of facts. It depends on the interests of the scientists. In pure and applied sciences, a point of view is the scientific theory used for that specific purpose. Science involves the testing of hypotheses and theories with the goal of predicting future events (465-67). The field of history is much more complex, Popper asserts (467). Historians, and especially contemporary historians, often specialize in specific periods and events of interest to them. Therefore, historic generalizations and locating certain unifying principles are some of the key problems in this field. However, it is possible, in a very limited way, to assess and generalize the history of a particular subject, such as economic relations (469-70).

Despite their differences, both hard sciences and history operate with a point of view. However, it is almost impossible to arrive at a testable theory at the level of scientific requirements in the field of history. Furthermore, not all historic interpretations are created equal (471). For these reasons, Popper makes a controversial statement that history “has no meaning” (474). He asserts that there is no such thing as the history of mankind (475). However, specific histories, such as that of political power, do exist:

It is hardly better than to treat the history of embezzlement or of robbery or of poisoning as the history of mankind. For the history of power politics is nothing but the history of international crime and mass murder (including, it is true, some of the attempts to suppress them). This history is taught in schools, and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as its heroes (475).

Popper’s suggestions are not unlike those of Postmodernists, such as the French thinker Jean François Lyotard (1924–1998), who analyzed the collapse of the grand, or totalizing, narratives. If Popper were to use this later Postmodernist terminology, he would refer to the history of mankind as a key metanarrative of Modernity. Popper’s position on history—and its control over us—is also not unlike that of radical freedom of the French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980). Popper asserts that individuals must themselves “become the makers of [their] fate” (483).

Popper concludes this critique on an optimistic note. Since history has no meaning, it is up to us to attribute meaning to it (482). He considers “the dualism of facts and decisions” very important (482). Science has already provided us with sufficient facts, but we are the ones who must decide what to make of them and how to live our lives.

Throughout this text, Popper returns to the subject of historicism and Christianity—whether the all-powerful Church of the High Middle Ages or the impact of Marx’s morality on Christian movements of the 20th century—and his conclusion is no exception. The author asserts that historicism is incompatible with authentic Christianity. He briefly discusses historic critiques in a similar vein, such as that of the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who was also critical of Hegel (479). Popper believes that historicism conflicts with any religion that relies on conscience (483).

The author also argues that the theory of God’s Revelation and His judgment in history is not unlike the idea of using material success as a metric. At the same time, one of the central aspects of Christianity is the notion that success is not definitive. Christianity, Popper argues, is the source of hope rather than historicist certainty. The author also questions whether the success of the Church as an institution is actually the success of Christianity as a religion. He also asks which Church Christians want to align themselves with—the Church of the early martyrs, or the Church of the Inquisition (476-78). As was the case of Popper’s analysis of the Middle Ages, here, too, he is sympathetic to early Christian heroism and critical of the powerful institution of the Western Medieval Church, which opposed social progress.