This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Fukuyama’s “End of History”
Fukuyama’s “End of History” Fukuyama
The “Empirical” Argument: Fukuyama points out that since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, democracy, which started off as being merely one among many systems of government, has grown until nowadays the majority of governments in the world are termed "democratic". He also points out that democracy's main intellectual alternatives (which he takes to be various forms of dictatorship) have become discredited. The “Philosophical” Argument: Fukuyama argues that the original battles for prestige among the first men of history, and the willingness of some to risk their lives in order to receive recognition from another is an unnecessary form of human behavior within a democracy. In essence; the roles of master and slave are rationally understood by both parties to be unsatisfying and selfdefeating. This follows the work of Hegel and an AngloSaxon tradition typified by John Locke's ideas on self preservation and the right to property. The “Institutional” Argument: Finally Fukuyama also argues that for a variety of reasons, radical socialism (or communism) is likely to be incompatible with modern representative democracy. Therefore, in the future, democracies are overwhelmingly likely to contain markets of some sort, and most are likely to be capitalist or social democratic. Fukuyama
According to Fukuyama, since the French Revolution, democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives. Fukuyama does not claim at any point that events will stop happening in the future. What he is claiming is that all that will happen in the future (even if totalitarianism returns) is that democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term, although it may have 'temporary' setbacks (which may, of course, last for centuries). 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. Fukuyama has stated: – “I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "posthistorical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military. Fukuyama
Fukuyama Arguments for: – Empirical evidence has been used to support the theory. Freedom House argues that there was not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the world in 1900, but that today 120 (62 percent) of the world's 192 nations are such democracies. They count 25 (19 percent) nations with 'restricted democratic practices' in 1900 and 16 (8%) today. They counted 19 (14 percent) constitutional monarchies in 1900, where a constitution limited the powers of the monarch, and with some power devolved to elected legislatures, and none today. Other nations had, and have, various forms of nondemocratic rule.
– The democratic peace theory argues that there is statistical evidence that democracy decreases systematic violence such as external and internal wars and conflicts. This seems compatible with Fukuyama's theory, but hardly with the increasing class conflicts that Marx predicted. – The end of the Cold War and the subsequent increase in the number of liberal democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons. Fukuyama
– Marxism: Marxism is another "end of history" philosophy. Therefore Marxists like Perry Anderson have been among Fukuyama's fiercest critics. Apart from pointing out that capitalist democracies are still riven with poverty, racial tension etc., Marxists 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. Fukuyama argues that even though there is poverty, racism and sexism in presentday democracies, there is no sign of a major revolutionary movement developing that would actually overthrow capitalism. While Marxists disagree with Fukuyama's claim that capitalist democracy represents the end of history, they support the idea that the "end of history" will consist of the victory of democracy: communism, in the Marxist view, must necessarily involve a form of direct democracy.
– Illiberal democracy: Fareed Zakaria argued that the spread of democracy might not be accompanied by the triumph of freemarkets, ruleoflaw, and separation of powers. Fukuyama
– Clash of civilizations: Samuel P. Huntington, in his essay and book, "The Clash of Civilizations," argues that the temporary conflict between ideologies is being replaced by the ancient conflict between civilizations. The dominant civilization decides the form of human government, and these will not be constant. – Rise of Authoritarian Capitalism: Azar Gat, Professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University, argues in his Foreign Affairs article The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers that (the spread of) liberal democracy, as argued by Fukuyama, faces two challenges: radical Islam and rising authoritarian powers, two challenges which could "end the end of history". The first threat he considers less significant as radical Islamic movements "represent no viable alternative to modernity and pose no significant military threat to the developed world". The second challenge he considers more significant: the rise of nondemocratic great powers China and Russia, operating under authoritarian capitalist regimes, could pose a viable rival model which could inspire other states. – Chavismo: Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has argued against "the end of history": he argued his case in his September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly. As recently as August 2006, Fukuyama has written in response to Chávez's argument, his main point being that Chavismo is only possible due to the unique oil reserves of Venezuela, and thus will not spread. Fukuyama
Fukuyama Arguments Against: – Jacques Derrida: criticized Fukuyama in Specters of Marx (1993) as a "comelately reader" of Alexandre Kojève "in the tradition of Leo Strauss," who already described U.S. society in the 1950s as the "realization of communism." According to Derrida, Fukuyama — and the quick celebrity of his book — is but one symptom of the anxiety to ensure the "death of Marx." “For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo
evangelize in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realized itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.” Fukuyama
Fukuyama Fukuyama’s Defense: – Democracy's only real competitor in the realm of ideas today is radical Islamism. Indeed, one of the world's most dangerous nationstates today is Iran, run by extremist Shiite mullahs. But as Peter Bergen pointed out in these pages last week, Sunni radicalism has been remarkably ineffective in actually taking control of a nationstate, due to its propensity to devour its own potential supporters. Some disenfranchised Muslims thrill to the rantings of Osama bin Laden or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the appeal of this kind of medieval Islamism is strictly limited. Fukuyama
– Environmentalist: There is also the argument by the environmentalist movement. They argue that relentless growth will conflict directly with the already defined scarce resources the Earth has. – Libertarianism: Some libertarians argue that democracy failed the classical liberal tradition by subordinating individual rights (especially private property) to the public interest, and that democracy is actually a decline of civilization compared to monarchy. – Islamic fundamentalism: Some critics state that Islamic fundamentalism stands in the same relation to 21st century democracy as, for example, Stalinism and fascism did in the 20th century (i.e. as a fundamental intellectual alternative). Fukuyama discusses this briefly in The End of History. He argues that Islam is not an Imperialist force like Stalinism and Fascism: i.e. that it has little intellectual or emotional appeal outside the Islamic 'heartlands'. Fukuyama points to the economic and political difficulties that Iran and Saudi Arabia are facing, and argues that such states are fundamentally unstable: either they will become democracies with a Muslim society (like Turkey) or they will simply disintegrate. Moreover, when Islamic states have actually been created (with the recent instance Afghanistan), they were easily dominated by the powerful Western states. Benjamin Barber wrote about this in Jihad vs. McWorld, as a direct response to Fukuyama's claim. Barber claims that there is only one alternative to "McWorld", and that is Fundamentalism, or Jihad. The Clash of The Clash of Civilizations The Clash of Civilization
The Clash of Civilization The civilizations of the Cold War era were divided into the First, Second, and Third Worlds These are no longer relevant Civilizations are the highest cultural entity that encompass the broadest memberships sharing cultural similarities (religion, linguistic features, ethnicity, etc.) The Clash of Civilizations
The Clash of Civilizations The differences between civilizations are fundamental
The world is becoming a smaller place
Modernization is producing social change at an alarming rate
Nationstates are weakening
Regional movements featuring traditionalist themes are springing up everywhere….usually around religious principles The Clash of Civilizations
The Clash of Civilizations “Westernization” results in a backlash from these traditionalist movements
Religion is exclusive….it paints sharp differences between people….so these conflicts are going to be harder to resolve
Economic regionalism is increasing (economic trading blocs)
There will emerge civilizational “fault lines”
– Asian (Confucian)
Western The clash of Civilizations
The clash of Civilizations Islam and Christianity have been engaged in a cultural war since the Crusades
In the wake of the colonial era, Arab nationalism and fundamentalism has risen
Islam is antithetical to democracy and western values
Islam has “bloody borders”
There is the phenomenon of the “West vs. the rest” (a ConfucianIslamic opposition to the West)
Arms deals between China and the Middle East suggest there is a ConfucianIslamic military threat ...
View Full Document