J. McKenzie Alexander‘s The Open Society as an Enemy revisits Karl Popper’s foundational work on the concept of the “open society” in relation to contemporary threats to democratic values, from the rise of populist nationalism to digital surveillance. This timely, engaging book puts forward a bold proposal for multifaceted social engineering to create more equal and democratic societies that leaves some questions around global applicability and practical implementation, writes Mazlum Özkan.
The Open Society as an Enemy: A Critique of How Free Societies Turned Against Themselves. J. McKenzie Alexander. LSE Press. 2024.
In The Open Society as an Enemy, J. McKenzie Alexander revisits the foundational ideas of Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies, offering a contemporary critique of the forces that undermine democratic values and threaten the ideals of open societies. Alexander identifies four dimensions of the Open Society – cosmopolitanism, transparency, intellectual openness, and communitarianism – and examines how each has been distorted in the modern era. From the rise of populist nationalism and digital surveillance to the echo chambers of public discourse and the fracturing of communal bonds, Alexander argues that these distortions have fuelled polarisation, inequality, and authoritarianism. His solution lies in what he calls “multifaceted social engineering,” an ambitious approach to systemic reform that addresses interconnected challenges holistically. Alexander’s work is timely, engaging with pressing global issues such as wealth inequality, the commodification of personal data, and the erosion of public trust. However, his approach raises questions about how it can be practically implemented.
Popper famously argued against utopian social engineering, warning that attempts to reconstruct society as a whole risk authoritarianism and unintended consequences due to the limitations of human knowledge. Instead, Popper advocated for piecemeal social engineering, where specific issues are addressed incrementally to avoid destabilisation. Alexander acknowledges these concerns but contends that piecemeal reforms are insufficient to tackle today’s complex, global crises. He introduces the concept of multifaceted social engineering as a more robust alternative, advocating for systemic approaches that consider the interdependence of economic, social, and political challenges.
[Alexander] frames open borders not merely as an economic or political issue but as a moral imperative, a cosmopolitan vision for a more just and equitable world order that resonates throughout the book
This is where Alexander departs most clearly from Popper, suggesting that the interconnected nature of modern problems demands a more ambitious framework. For example, Alexander links the erosion of intellectual openness with the economic incentives driving social media platforms, arguing that both must be addressed simultaneously. His metaphor of a fitness landscape, first proposed by Sewall Wright in 1932, underscores the need to move beyond local optima to achieve global solutions. The fitness landscape, a foundational concept in evolutionary biology, maps genotypes to their fitness, conceptualised as a “landscape” of peaks and valleys. This perspective marks a significant contribution to the ongoing dialogue about reforming liberal societies and how it might be done. and how it might be done.
Alexander is not the first scholar to grapple with these issues. His exploration of transparency, for instance, resonates with Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, which critiques how tech companies commodify personal data to consolidate power. Similarly, his discussion of cosmopolitanism echoes Joseph Carens’s The Ethics of Immigration, which defends open borders on moral and economic grounds. What makes Alexander’s approach unique is how he brings together these ideas into a single framework, linking economic inequality, division, and environmental damage.
One of Alexander’s key strengths is his nuanced analysis of the forces undermining each dimension of the Open Society. On cosmopolitanism, he critiques the rise of closed-border policies fueled by populist leaders who exploit economic anxieties and xenophobia. Central to his argument is the concept of the “birthright lottery,” a term popularised by Ayelet Shachar, which Alexander highlights how birthplace creates unfair advantages or disadvantages. Alexander illustrates how this mechanism perpetuates global inequality, locking billions into cycles of poverty while bestowing privileges on others without merit. He thus frames open borders not merely as an economic or political issue but as a moral imperative, a cosmopolitan vision for a more just and equitable world order that resonates throughout the book.
Such a proposal builds on arguments by thinkers like Thomas Piketty in Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom, who emphasise the structural inequalities that hinder global justice. Alexander suggests that dismantling these structural barriers could unleash economic growth and human potential on a global scale, though he acknowledges the formidable political challenges involved.
Alexander critiques how surveillance capitalism and the commodification of personal data erode individual freedoms while empowering tech giants
A tweet from Donald Trump, recently elected as President for a second term, serves as a striking example of how populist rhetoric frames open borders as a threat to national security and social stability: “Our Country is a disaster, a laughing stock all over the World! This is what happens when you have OPEN BORDERS…” Such language weaponises fear and frames open borders as a source of national decline. It exemplifies populist leaders’ strategy (which the book critiques) of exploiting economic insecurities and stoking xenophobia to justify restrictive policies. In contrast, Alexander argues for a gradualist migration policy, allowing communities and economies to adapt while addressing inequalities. He frames migration as both a moral and economic imperative, emphasising the need for policies that balance challenges with long-term benefits.
Transparency, another pillar of the Open Society, has been weaponised in the digital age. Alexander critiques how surveillance capitalism and the commodification of personal data erode individual freedoms while empowering tech giants. His call for stringent data privacy regulations aligns with works like Evgeny Morozov’s The Net Delusion, which explores the darker side of internet freedom. Yet Alexander’s analysis would benefit from greater attention to grassroots movements advocating for digital rights, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the potential for public mobilisation to drive systemic change.
Alexander highlights how modern tribalism fractures societies, exacerbated by social media algorithms that amplify divisive group identities.
Discussing intellectual openness, Alexander critiques the dominance of echo chambers and the erosion of meaningful public discourse. His argument that safe spaces and no-platforming can sometimes stifle debate is thoughtful, though he acknowledges the importance of creating inclusive platforms for marginalised voices. This tension recalls Cass Sunstein’s #Republic, which explores how social media deepens divisions. Alexander argues that intellectual openness requires fairness and honest engagement, but he leaves open how this can happen in a polarised world.
On communitarianism, Alexander highlights how modern tribalism fractures societies, exacerbated by social media algorithms that amplify divisive group identities. His analysis in Part IV, Modern Tribes connects these fractures to economic instability and structural inequality, showing how such conditions drive polarisation and diminish communal trust. This critique resonates with Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny, which warns about the dangers of groupthink and the fragility of democratic norms. Whereas Alexander focuses more on the psychological and economic mechanisms underlying tribalism, Snyder’s work offers a complementary perspective on how such dynamics can undermine liberal values.
Revolution begins with a change in perspective, a willingness to see new possibilities beyond entrenched divisions.
While Alexander’s framework is ambitious, it raises significant challenges. Multifaceted social engineering requires both political will and grassroots support, yet Alexander devotes limited attention to the role of social movements in driving change. Historical examples like the labour and civil rights movements and contemporary environmental activism demonstrate how bottom-up efforts can complement top-down reforms. Scholars such as Sidney Tarrow in Power in Movement and Charles Tilly in Social Movements, 1768–2004 emphasise the importance of collective action in challenging entrenched power structures. By neglecting this dimension, Alexander’s vision risks being dismissed as overly idealistic or detached from practical realities.
Additionally, while Alexander effectively critiques liberal democracies like the US and UK, his analysis overlooks how challenges such as populism, inequality, and communal polarisation manifest in non-Western contexts shaped by colonial legacies or alternative democratic models. Including perspectives from Asia, Africa, and Latin America would make his arguments more universal.
In his conclusion, Alexander calls for both resistance and revolution – a resistance to preserve what remains of the Open Society and a revolution to reimagine its role in a sustainable, equitable world. Drawing on Gil Scott-Heron’s The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Alexander reminds us that revolution begins with a change in perspective, a willingness to see new possibilities beyond entrenched divisions. The Open Society as an Enemy is an intellectually rich contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the future of liberal democracies. While Alexander’s vision is limited by a lack of practical strategies and global inclusivity, his critique of the Open Society’s value inversions is timely and thought-provoking. For readers interested in the interplay between philosophy, politics, and systemic reform, this book provides a valuable starting point for rethinking the ideals of an Open Society in the face of 21st-century challenges.
Note: This review gives the views of the author and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Main image credit: Gabriella Clare Marino on Unsplash.
Enjoyed this post? Subscribe to our newsletter for a round-up of the latest reviews sent straight to your inbox every other Tuesday.
