The End of History? Paul Bacon SILS, Waseda University IR201

Summary of main argument In The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama controversially argued that that the end of the Cold War signals the end of the progression of human history. Fukuyama famously argues that ‘What we may be witnessing in not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.’

Hegel and Marx We now have the answer to one of the most fundamental questions of political science – ‘how best to organize human society’. Fukuyama's thesis is an obvious reference to Marx. However, Fukuyama reverts back to the work of Marx's original source, Hegel (and especially Hegel as interpreted by the French thinker Alexander Kojeve). Both Hegel and Marx offer teleological theories.

A common misunderstanding… The most basic error in discussing Fukuyama's work is to confuse ‘history’ with ‘events’. Fukuyama does not claim at any point that events will stop happening in the future. What Fukuyama is claiming is that in the future (even if totalitarianism returns, or if fundamentalist Islam becomes a major political force) democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term. However, democracy may experience ‘temporary’ setbacks (which may, of course, last for centuries). Fukuyama argues that ‘the victory of liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness, and is as yet incomplete in the real or material world’.

Democracy Fukuyama's thesis consists of two main elements. First, Fukuyama points out that the number of democratic states has expanded to the point where the majority of governments in the world are ‘democratic’. He also argues that democracy's main intellectual alternatives, which include Nazism, Fascism, Communism, nationalism and religion have been discredited.

Thymos Second, there is a philosophical argument, taken from Hegel. Hegel sees history as consisting of the dialectic between two classes: the Master and the Slave. Ultimately, this thesis (Master) and antithesis (Slave) must result in a synthesis, in which both manage to live in peace together. This can only happen in a democracy. The Platonic idea of ‘thymos’ and the ‘struggle for recognition’ are important here.

The end of history – when? Fukuyama’s thesis is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. For example, it is frequently claimed that Fukuyama believes that history ended in 1989 (with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War). In fact, following Kojève, Fukuyama believes that history ended in 1806, with the Battle of Jena. (Napoleon on horseback). Since the French Revolution of 1789, democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives.

Criticisms of the End of History thesis Some critics have suggested that Islamic fundamentalisms such as Wahaabism (as represented by the Saudi Arabian government, the Taliban and Bin Laden) offer an intellectual alternative to liberal democracy. However, Fukuyama argues that Islam has little intellectual or emotional appeal outside the Islamic ‘heartlands’. In order to provide genuine competition for liberalism, a competing belief system must have global appeal. Moreover, when Islamic states have actually been created (for example in Afghanistan), they were easily defeated militarily by the powerful democracies.

Criticisms of the End of History thesis Marxism is another End of History philosophy. Therefore Marxists have been amongst Fukuyama's fiercest critics. Marxists claim that capitalist democracies are still riven with poverty, inequality and racial tension. They also reject Fukuyama's reliance on Hegel. According to them, Hegel's philosophy was fatally flawed until Marx ‘turned it on its head’ to create historical materialism.

Criticisms of the End of History thesis Fukuyama concedes that there is poverty, racism and sexism in present-day democracies. However, he argues that there is no sign of a major revolutionary movement developing that would actually overthrow capitalism. Whether such a movement will develop in the future remains to be seen.

The Environmentalist Challenge There is also the environmentalist challenge. Environmentalists argue that the capitalist economies' propensity towards growth will eventually collide with the Earth's natural ‘limits to growth’. Some radical alteration in the socio-economic situation of the West would then have to take place.

The Clash of Civilizations Numerous other intellectuals and thinkers have disagreed with the End of History thesis. For example, Samuel Huntington, in his essay and book, The Clash of Civilizations argues that temporary conflict between ideologies is being replaced by the ancient conflict between civilizations. The dominant civilization decides the form of human government, and the dominant civilization will not remain the same over time.

A justification of US style democracy? Some argue that Fukuyama presents ‘American- style’ democracy as the only ‘correct’ political system and that all countries must inevitably follow the this example. However, many Fukuyama scholars claim this is a misreading of his work. Fukuyama's argument is only that in the future there will be more and more governments that use the framework of parliamentary democracy and that contain markets of some sort. There will remain a substantial variety of different political systems that remain broadly democratic and free market oriented.

The Whig interpretation of history? It has also been argued that Fukuyama's notion of ‘The End of History’ is merely a Hegelian articulation of the Whig interpretation of history. However, as the latter sections of his book make clear, Fukuyama is no liberal optimist. Instead, Fukuyama is a pessimist, influenced by Nietzsche, who sees the end of history as being ultimately a sad and emotionally unsatisfying era. In the book, Fukuyama also raises the question of whether we have in fact reached the end of history. Nietzsche’s conceptions of the Last Man and the First Man are important here.