Philosophy often serves as a guide for individuals seeking to lead a more meaningful and purposeful life. However, one key concept that is sometimes misunderstood is Henri Bergson’s idea of the open and closed society. This concept plays a crucial role in his philosophy and provides valuable insight into how we can apply philosophical principles to enrich our lives. This article examines Bergson’s philosophy, explains the idea of the open and closed society, and explores its importance in the quest for a deeper and more fulfilling existence.
Key features of Henri Bergson’s philosophy
Henri Bergson was a French philosopher celebrated for his ideas about time, consciousness, and creativity. A central concept in his philosophy is “duration” (la durée), which refers to the subjective experience of time as flowing and continuous, contrasting with the segmented, measurable time of clocks. Bergson argued that our lived experience could not be fully understood using the rigid, analytical methods of science but instead required intuition—a direct, immersive engagement with reality.
He emphasized the difference between mechanistic ways of thinking and organic, evolving processes. For Bergson, life and consciousness were not static; instead, they are dynamic, always in a state of becoming. Creativity, in particular, played a vital role in his philosophy, as he believed it was through creative acts that humans could surpass limits and bring something genuinely novel into existence.
Bergson also explored the concept of the “élan vital” or “vital impulse,” an invisible force that drives the evolution of life and keeps it moving forward. His ideas were influential in various fields, including literature, psychology, and theology, as they challenged rigid, materialistic interpretations of the world. By emphasizing fluidity, intuition, and the power of creativity, Bergson’s philosophy continues to encourage a deeper understanding of human existence and the universe.
What is the open and closed society?
Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, introduced the concepts of the open and closed society to describe two distinct ways human groups organize themselves. According to Bergson, a closed society is one that is more rigid and inward-looking. It focuses on maintaining order, tradition, and group cohesion, often relying on set rules and obligations to ensure unity. This type of society tends to prioritize its own members over outsiders, fostering a sense of exclusivity and security within the group.
On the other hand, an open society, as Bergson described it, is more dynamic and expansive. It operates on principles of openness, progress, and adaptability, welcoming change and innovation. This type of society is not bound by rigid rules or traditions but is instead guided by universal ideals such as justice and freedom. It encourages individuals to think beyond the limits of their own group and to recognize a broader sense of humanity.
Bergson viewed these two types of societies as a spectrum rather than rigid categories, recognizing that societies often exhibit traits of both. The open and closed society reflect different human tendencies—one leaning toward preservation and stability, the other toward progress and inclusion. Both, however, play a role in shaping the way human groups function and interact.
This example sheds light on this philosophical perspective. Imagine a community that remains highly insular, with strict traditions and rigid rules guiding its every action. This could be viewed as resembling a closed society, where security and adherence to norms take priority over change or inclusivity. By contrast, consider a city that welcomes diversity, thrives on innovation, and constantly evolves by integrating new ideas and people. This could symbolize an open society, where creativity and freedom flourish. An example might be a traditional village where everyone conforms to a single way of life, compared to a modern, global city where people from different cultures freely share ideas and collaborate on solving problems. This contrast highlights dynamic aspects of societal values and interactions, shaped by whether they emphasize uniformity or openness. Such examples provide a simple yet thought-provoking way of examining societal behaviours through this lens.
Challenges to Henri Bergson’s view about the open and closed society
Philosophers who object to or reject Henri Bergson’s ideas about the open and closed society often find fault with the assumptions his framework relies upon. One primary criticism is that Bergson’s distinction between the “open” and “closed” societies is seen as overly simplistic or idealized. Critics argue that societies are far more complex and cannot easily be placed into these two rigid categories. For instance, some philosophers highlight how most human societies exhibit characteristics of both “openness” and “closedness” simultaneously, making it difficult to use Bergson’s framework as a practical or accurate form of analysis.
Another common objection stems from Bergson’s reliance on metaphysical and abstract reasoning, which some regard as too speculative or detached from the realities of social and political life. These critics suggest that his ideas, while thought-provoking, lack a solid empirical foundation and do not sufficiently account for historical, cultural, or economic factors that deeply shape the nature of societies. Philosophers with a more materialist perspective, for example, may argue that Bergson’s emphasis on spiritual or moral dimensions overlooks the concrete, structural forces that influence societal behavior and organization.
Furthermore, some philosophers take issue with the normative implications of Bergson’s views. His framing of the “open society” as more progressive or ideal has been criticized as potentially leading to cultural bias or an oversimplified moral hierarchy. Detractors argue that this perspective could overly romanticize certain societies while unfairly diminishing others, especially when viewed through a Western-centric lens. They caution that this could result in an unintended perpetuation of cultural stereotypes or a failure to respect the diversity of forms that human societies can take.
Lastly, Bergson’s approach has been critiqued for not providing enough practical guidance on how societies might transition from being “closed” to “open.” While his philosophical insights can inspire discussions about societal improvement, critics argue that his ideas lack actionable steps or policy proposals that could be applied to real-world challenges. This perceived vagueness leads some to dismiss his framework as more of a conceptual thought experiment than a useful tool for addressing social and ethical issues in a concrete manner.
Why the open and closed society is important to Henri Bergson’s philosophy
Understanding the concept of open and closed societies is fundamental to grasping the core of Henri Bergson’s philosophy.
- Understanding Social Structures
The idea of the open and closed society plays a key role in understanding social structures and how they shape human behaviour. Open societies are associated with flexibility, innovation, and inclusion, while closed societies tend to prioritize stability, tradition, and conformity. These concepts help to examine why certain groups or communities maintain rigid ways of operating, while others adapt and evolve over time. By exploring these frameworks, it becomes clear how societies balance self-preservation with openness to change, enabling deeper insights into the forces that influence collective behaviour.
- Exploring Human Morality
The distinction between open and closed societies is also important for analyzing human morality. Closed societies often emphasize duty and adherence to strict moral codes, fostering a sense of unity and control. Conversely, open societies encourage broader moral principles, such as empathy and universal justice, that transcend local or cultural boundaries. This contrast allows for a better understanding of how moral systems develop and influence individuals’ decisions, offering clarity on the diverse ways people process ethical challenges in their environments.
- Interpreting Historical and Cultural Change
The idea of the open and closed society provides a lens for understanding historical and cultural change. Societies transition through periods of openness and closure depending on external pressures, internal conflicts, or leadership ideologies. These shifts help explain major events such as cultural revolutions, social movements, and the rise or fall of civilizations. By applying this framework, one can better comprehend the mechanisms behind societal evolution and the factors that drive collective transformation over time.
- Examining Individual and Collective Identity
These concepts also shed light on the relationship between individual and collective identity. Closed societies often emphasize homogeny, pushing individuals to align with the group’s established norms. Open societies, however, celebrate diversity and encourage personal expression, which can lead to richer, multilayered identities. Understanding this dynamic is key to recognising how societies influence individual growth and the role that cultural contexts play in shaping personal and shared identity.
Contrasting Henri Bergson’s philosophy with Plato’s philosophy
Henri Bergson’s concept of the open and closed society offers an intriguing way to differentiate his philosophy from Plato’s. Bergson argues that a closed society is one focused on stability, structure, and uniformity. It is bound by rigid rules and traditions meant to maintain order. An open society, on the other hand, embraces growth, adaptability, and continuous evolution. It encourages creativity, individual freedom, and moral progress.
Plato, however, envisions an idealized society based on his theory of forms, where rulers, or philosopher-kings, govern through their understanding of absolute truths. His vision involves a structured, hierarchical society designed to reflect the unchanging and perfect realm of forms. The emphasis here is on achieving a set state of perfection rather than ongoing change or openness.
The key difference lies in their views on progress and societal flexibility. Bergson’s open society thrives on dynamic change, innovation, and moral fluidity, which contrasts with Plato’s vision of a controlled, harmonious, yet static ideal. Bergson’s philosophy places value on the unpredictable evolution of human societies, whereas Plato focuses on adhering to an eternal, unchanging standard. This distinction highlights Bergson’s emphasis on freedom and creativity, while Plato prioritizes order and immutable truths. These opposing perspectives reflect their broader philosophical differences on the nature of reality and human development.
The Open And Closed Society, Henri Bergson’s philosophy and the meaning of life
Reflecting on Henri Bergson’s view about the open and closed society, whether you agree with it or not, can carry immense practical importance when seeking to live a more meaningful life. At its core, this reflection invites us to examine the way we interact with the world, the kind of life we are building, and whether it aligns with deeper values that resonate with us. Pausing to consider this perspective not only fosters self-awareness but also prompts us to discern whether our social boundaries—whether personal or communal—are contributing to or hindering a life of purpose.
Taking the time to reflect on these concepts helps us clarify what kind of society or environment we wish to cultivate in our personal lives. Are we fostering openness, creativity, and connection in our relationships, or are we inadvertently reinforcing rigidity and exclusivity? These questions are crucial because they push us to consider the quality of our experiences, the diversity of our interactions, and the extent of our genuine engagement with others. Thinking critically about these dynamics helps us identify areas of growth where we may deepen our relationships or widen our perspectives.
On a personal level, examining such ideas can serve as a mirror to our own lives and choices. It reminds us to be intentional with the way we define our values and interact with the world. For instance, incorporating Bergson’s ideas into how we make decisions might inspire us to break free from limiting patterns or step into new realms of possibility. In doing so, we may find ourselves more aligned with a lifestyle that feels truly fulfilling.
Ultimately, reflecting on philosophy isn’t about finding definitive answers but about asking the questions that sharpen our sense of purpose. Whether we agree with Bergson or not, engaging with his perspective pushes us toward introspection and growth. This engagement equips us with a more thoughtful framework for navigating life’s complexities while staying anchored to what feels meaningful and genuine.
Further reading
Bergson, H. (1935). The Two Sources of Morality and Religion. Macmillan.
Ansell-Pearson, K. (1999). Philosophy and the Adventure of the Virtual: Bergson and the Time of Life. Routledge.
Capek, M. (1971). Bergson and Modern Physics: A Reinterpretation and Re-evaluation. Springer.
Kolakowski, L. (1985). Bergson. Oxford University Press.
Lacey, A. R. (1989). Bergson. Routledge.
Mullarkey, J. (1999). Bergson and Philosophy. Edinburgh University Press.
Ricœur, P. (1967). The Symbolism of Evil. Beacon Press.
Shaviro, S. (2009). Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics. MIT Press.