Fukuyama's thesis is that the end of history has already happened, and that the world will settle into a Western democratic state, if not in political structure than at least ideologically, as he seems to define history more as tracking the ideological patterns that have led up to the present. I think I agree with him for the most part. I think I even put in a question on an earlier forum post about why history hasn't changed very much in a long time- and now I have answer to that question, that we have reached the end of history because liberalism is the idea that looks prettiest on paper.
However, I do have one thing on my mind regarding this theory; how does Fukuyama account for ideological decline? I am thinking specifically of Herodotus and his theory on soft/hard countries I say this, because is it not true that a country as powerful as the U.S. could become complacent and lazy? I would guess that Fukuyama would believe that decline is not ideological in nature, and is really related to the material causes and effects. But I believe that there has been significant decline in an ideological sense, and the material represents the philosophical. There is a lot of political radicalism and greed, really scary stuff that's happening in our government and in positions of power that I believe reflects a change in our core values. I would say that this changing of values might not affect our entire country, but at least the people in power seem to operate under these. Perhaps this has always been true, that our material representation has never always been in accord with our ideological beliefs, and maybe I'm misunderstanding Fukuyama's whole point, but I still think this is worth considering.
I guess this has influenced and finalized my definition of history, because it now actually feels satisfying to write down. I think history is a recording of strictly ideological patterns, with little to no material importance. I think this definition has always been there, but it's been a matter of framing; Fukuyama helped me see my definition in a different and more pleasing way. I am kind of a more East-thinker, so this emphasis on ideas rather than actual events feels more true for me.
I believe that the one section that summed up his thoughts was "But the century that began full of self-confidence in the ultimate triumph of Western liberal democracy seems at its close to be reuniting full to where it started: no to an "end of ideology: or a convergence between capitalism and socialism, as earlier predicted, but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism" (165.) Thus bringing me to the conclusion that his thesis/hypothesis talks about how history has come to an end and the present is gonna settle into a world of political liberalism. We will no longer be in time that we "struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism..." (177), but instead will be indulged into a world that has no excitement, art or philosophy. The world will become very calculated instead of un-planned because we have already seen it all, which is why history is coming to an end.
I am a little conflicted on whether or not to say he made a convincing argument. I think he went into so many different events to show his point, that I got lost and just wanted him to get to the damn point already. I wish he had made a stronger argument in the beginning and given fewer examples, and instead focused on what these events mean to him. I think that I could've understood his point within reading the first and last page.
I, however, do not agree with his case. I'm not exactly turned off by his point because I do believe that we are becoming very calculated and boring. I don't agree with him though because I believe that history is always evolving and nothing can come to end, but the calculation of today may not seem so calculated in the next 20 years, and for the people in 200 years will believe that we were living in an abstract world. I think how people perceive history is a huge thing.
I think that when I am doing my final project I will think about looking at history as a full circle and what it means when you finally have come to the beginning point, but I am not sure if his argument will affect my project in a drastic way. But I think it was a nice way to end the class (or I think it was nice last reading.) It was interesting to see all the different views of history throughout the class, and I am excited to sit down and try to finally figure out what I think History, Science, and Truth is.
Fukuyama's thesis is that history has come to an end. He believes that history is a Hegelian based dialectic process and that history is mostly concerned with ideologies and society. Fukuyama explains that there are no more major contradiction to Western liberalism and that liberalism is the final form of society. The most recent antitheses were communism and nationalism, but both ideologies have recently fallen apart. With no more contradictions there can be no more progress. He thinks that mankind now shares an ideology.
I agree with Fukuyama's argument and i think that he makes a convincing case. Although his argument only is convincing if one agrees with his definition of history. Even after the world has a common ideology and form of society, there are still important economic events and advances in science that are worth documenting and analyzing. Fukuyama's ideas can be important to my final project because my definition of history will be very different if I believe that history has reached completion. Fukuyama also brings about the idea that history is mainly concerned with ideologies and society, another definition altering idea.
As people before have concluded, Fukuyama's idea of history is mostly concerned with history, as process and growth of ideologies and societies. This based in Hegelian intelect where change happens in a cycle of dialectic processes.
Sam's point about maybe we have reached the end of history and it ends in a kind of liberalism is really interesting to me. I kind of agree, because if we are looking at idealogical decline or cycles (something along those lines) then we does seem to go in a pattern. But what at about those actions that are started because of those idealogies/philisophical embodiments. (not sure if I am qute getting across what I mean).
Fukayama's definition of history has made me look at my own, which is more based on events and slightly less on say the ideological part of man, but now I am reconsidering. I am not sure if I agree with him entirely, but as Rachel said, he is very well spoken or in this case written, so I still have to think about my entire response. He was a great read, nice way to end the posting I think.
I found this reading confusing and even a little disturbing (especially the parts about Communism in China. This has to be one of the most biased readings I’ve ever read and I was really upset for most of it). I think Fukuyama’s major hypothesis is: history has ended, in other words stopped progressing, because there are no contradictions since these should be all resolved in universal homogenous state. One of the things he says is that after 1806, the basic principle of liberal democratic state and governmental systems are already fixed and thus cannot be improved upon. He then uses Fascism and Communism as two challenges to liberation and argues that they have already been past time. First of all, I have to say even though for most of the times I don’t appreciate Communism either, it definitely is very VERY different from Fascism in many aspects. Also I just think some people in Capitalism countries just pick on Communism all the time because it is different. But the truth is, if it wasn’t those great leaders and their Communistic beliefs, China could have never won WWII (Oh yeah, the part when he says Japanese Fascism was defeated by the US also frustrates me. Chinese spent 8 years battling, defending our land. At least 35,000,000 Chinese died defending their country, and now he makes it seem like they aren’t getting any credits at all). Also why is Communism against liberation? Is Democracy the only way to liberation? Communism overlaps with Democracy in some ways doesn’t it? Also how old is this reading? Hu Yaobang died 1989, so is this over 20 years old now? Then he makes the case of class and says that black poverty in US is not caused by economic issues, but a left over side effect of racism and slavery. But the latter ones were directed caused by people’s economic thirst, am I wrong? I don’t think this reading is convincing to me (probably because I’m basically too biased to accept any of his points) and I also don't think this helps me with my final project that much.
By claiming that we've reached the end of history, Fukuyama doesn't mean no new events will occur to be history, but the political mode is currently at its more efficient point that no new progression can be made. He's arguing that history is building towards this final state of neo-liberalism and there is no major struggle or intent of change anymore, because "all prior contradictions are resolved and all human needs are satisfied.” (167)
I totally disagree with him and I found it so annoying that I'm almost convinced by his nicely backed up claims. (It looks to me that he's using all these sources to twist up an absurd assertion) And his method of summarizing past to predict the future is such a historical way of thinking that I find it hard to rail against. I think my biggest objection is with his definition of history, which points so much to ideology and human consciousness rather than actual events. This challenges me to think if history is simply politics in the past? I think reading Fukuyama makes me think of history only as the major conflicts that triggers change and I am quite bothered by that idea. (Micro historians too, probably) Even if we follow him and use the dialectic way to look at history, there is still going to be endless conflicts for the betterment of mankind, furthering his so-called final ideological form. History is not simply created by conflicts/major events, and after this reading I'm more convinced of my previous definition of history.
(This is something I realized personally: since we briefly mentioned this reading on Friday, I'm thus very conscious of my attitude towards his claims. And it almost feels to me that I raise objection towards him before I even start to read it. This makes me wonder how the perceivers'/public's attitude towards the "truth" (or those ideas that claim to be true) affect the way they are received or viewed. I think this also echoes a little with Fukuyama's claim that "while man's very perception of the material world is shaped by his historical consciousness of it, the material world can clearly affect in return the viability of a particular state of consciousness" (169).
I didn't totally understand the intricacies of Fukuyama's thesis, but he is very basically saying he believes that end of history has come.
WELL I DID think this for all of the reading except the last paragraph... He talks about the end of history as if it is an inevitable outcome, not as if it has already happened
I think this is a convincing well-proven case, but only if the reader agrees with his definition of History, which I don't. I believe the defines History too narrowly.
I disagree that the end of history has already occurred for the following reasons:
-this only takes into account aspects of human society.
-He doesn't seem to think that history has ended in ALL of the world, which he discusses in the second to last paragraph on p.17
This reading really made me think about how I define History. I think I want to add some of what Fukuyama said but I'm still picking through this reading. This quote on p.175, "the vast bulk of the third world remains very much mired in history" is an interesting concept to me, that everyone has to go through certain stages. I also loved his ideas that "man's very perception of the material world is shaped by his historical consciousness of it" p.167. Even if this wasn't Fukuyama's intention, it made me think about how different history, Science, and Truth is for different people.
Also, Mingwei, I'm interested in talking with you tomorrow about the reading. I didn't even consider that I probably have quite a few biases as well. I'm a little confused about the differenced between communism in Soviet Russia vs communism in China.
To answer the question and rehash what has been said, Fukuyama states that history has come to an end. Liberalism, in all senses, is the final state of society. The world may appear to be changing, but that is only because they are moving closer to this Western ideal, while in fact, humanity has reached the end of its social and political evolution, and it's just taking some people a little longer to catch up. He then proceeds to show us many examples to prove his point, and made quite the compelling argument.
But I don't agree with him. And he doesn't scare me. We (and I assume he) live in a world where Western Liberalism is the ideal. He says that it best answers all the questions, and spend much of his time trying to impress this point upon us. And in doing so I believe he displays the greatest error in his ways. What caught my eye was his statement that class is no longer a concern for the liberal society. This is obviously a tell of the time it was written: I assume in the day and age in America where the economy was better and the classes were happy. But in the light of the past few years it would be absurd to say that class is not an issue in America, a society like the one that Fukuyama describes. And this is my problem with his thesis: of course Western liberalism looks the best, because it was created to solve the issues that we think are most prevalent. But what causes change in society is not the problems that we expect, but the ones that catch us by surprise. Like an economic collapse. I could go on, but to stop myself from rambling I'll keep the rest to: I also think that being inside the "modern" society that is "winning" in the grand scheme of the world makes it seems like you're the best. But just because you have all the answers now doesn't mean that you'll hold all the cards forever. Fascism, say, wasn't something that the world say coming and prepared for. It happened, and it failed, but who's to say something similar won't happen in the future and defeat liberalism? Aaaand rambling, I'll stop.
I think Fukuyama adds to our final project by defining history as something that can end. I'll be honest, I don't know if (or, frankly, think that) that this will impact my own definitions very much, but it's something very interesting to mull over. Perhaps later I'll have come to a greater conclusion, and synthesized this idea into my own thoughts.
Fukuyama's thesis is that the world or at least most of it has stopped changing ideologically as it has reached the final form of government in western liberal democracy. Fukuyama lays down a clear and well thought out argument for his theory but i have several problems with it, in his words "it matters very little what strange thoughts occur to people in Albania or Burkina Faso" what interests me about that statement and his thesis is that if Albania changes from a liberal democracy to another form of governance then what does that say about liberal democracy as the end of political change? if that change is made by a country does that not mean that their new system of government is seen by them as better for them thus invalidating liberal democracy as the be all end all goal of progress?
applying these ideas to my final project:
im going to approach my definition of science first i think and while i mull this over in what i think history is, and if they coincide then i guess i may be screwed. javascript:emoticon('')
Fukuyama says that history is at an end because Western liberal democracy has universalized. At this point, (the end of the cold war) it's only a matter of finishing touches, letting liberalism express itself, but the seed is sown and universalization is inevitable.
Though I really want to disagree with Fukuyama, he is very thorough in his argument, and it's difficult to find a strong counterargument to him. He claims that Western liberalism is, at the most basic level, perfect and cannot be improved upon, that there is no valid dissent to liberalism anymore. I wanted to say that racial disenfranchisement in the United States, a beacon of Western liberalism, is evidence enough that the system is in need of change. But he writes that "black poverty is not the inherent product of liberalism," but the "legacy of slavery," (170).
I still disagree with him that history has ended, and more particularly that the universalization of Western liberalism, even if it is inevitable and permanent, does not entail the end of history.
My understanding of Fukuyama's definition of history is that history is the process of expressing human ideals, and eventually they will be perfectly expressed. I like the Hegelianness of this definition. I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of history ending. But what I really disagree with is that Fukuyama says that human ideals have to be expressed in the form of governments. Historical events happen independent of the government and just because the government stops changing doesn't mean that human ideals cannot continue to be expressed by other means. Historical events happen in art independent of the government. Scientists "make history" all the time and alter our understanding of the world- which I think is what makes history. I think the universalisation of Western liberalism might mark an end to ideological history, but not history as a whole.
Though I may not yet accept the idea, I played with the idea of history having a destination a lot during this reading. Before this reading, I always thought of History as without a destination and Science as having a vague goal of ultimately explaining everything in the universe. Within the first couple pages, History flipped. Before this reading I'd mainly just thought about History and not history, but this reading gave a lot of insight on history. I always thought of History as just describing how things have changed, but this reading emphasized that history was the expression of human ideals. And if this were the case, I thought that eventually those ideals must get fully expressed.
This egalitarian view of western democracy is some bullshit. For someone who stresses the importance of the ideological over the material it seems strange how quickly Fukuyama writes off inequality in liberal western democracy. His stance that " black poverty in the United States is not the product of liberalism, but is rather the 'legacy of slavery of racism'..." (170). acknowledges the persistence of these fundamentalist, nationalistic etc. ideals, but doesn't mention how this controls the implementation of laws that he views as fundamentally egalitarian. Regardless of the laws if they aren't adminstered and treated the same the nation is not truly egalitarian.
Also economic inequity is inevitable in a free-market economy, and where theres inequity there's discontent- and backlash both in very material terms, and in the development of ideologies that do not conform to the norm seem inevitable. Look at Occupy. I think I'm irritated by Fukuyama's views because it seems to diminish the plight of the plight of various groups. Like - 'If you are still struggling with material manifestations of racism, it's okay because ideologically those beliefs are dead in progressive, modern democracy. That struggle that is still in action is invalidated since history has ended.' I guess this outlook made his views of history as ended- as well as history only being something that concerned the large-scale ideological model of the world, rather than a cumulation of individual experiences and understandings, ver problematic for me. Also there's a disconnect between the egalitarian liberal views of modern democracy that he stresses, and the actual legislative behavior of the American Government. Inevitably, it is still a body comprised of humans, (largely rich white males,) with certain biases.
http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/46/59
This interview with fukuyama gives a good sample of fukuyama's definition of history.
Yes it does, thank you Patrick. And he sounds far less pretentious and convincing in this interview.
I just want to say that, it's interesting and at the same time a little absurd to make a claim of ultimate truth in History just like how people do in Science. The way we analysis history to predict future patterns is usually much less confident compared to claiming a truth in Science. To use an analogy of drawing, History in my mind corresponds to sketching with pencils at first and then do a firm solid drawing to set in stone; while Science corresponds to doing a lot of firm drawings directly and have to chance to tear them apart to pick the best one. I guess I think of truth in History reached by approaching it little by little, and truth in Science reached by continuous refutation.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
')
