Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:12 pm Post subject: Fukuyama's "End of History"
I won't be able to do the full reading until after 11 tonight so I'm making the thread and doing a start of a post based on the first couple of pages.
I think it's interesting that so far Fukuyama has only used Hegelian, so far I've read very little of Fukuyama's own ideas. From what I am getting from his ideas, he is saying at this point in time man has come to a point where the succession of history will no longer change. I'll come back later when I've read the full reading.
I think that Fukuyama's idea could come in handy when talking about Truth, have we really come to the point he says we are at?
What exactly is Fukuyama’s hypothesis/thesis in your own words? Does he make a convincing, well-proven case? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
How might the ideas apply to your final project?
Fukuyama's hypothesis/thesis is that history has come to an end because of Western liberal democracy. I guess he is saying that our population and world has seen everything there is to see, and because of that, there isn't anything left. I'm stuck between thinking that he made a good argument and that he didn't. I don't agree with him, but I think that it's important to remember that he's not saying (or, at least, I don't think he's saying) that all events are over with, that nothing else is going to happen in the world again, but instead he's saying that there's not going to be an event that will happen that hasn't been like an event that happened before. (I hope that makes sense.)
I think this will help me with my final project because it's interesting to see a definition of history that I disagree with. Fukuyama is too specific and to me, it seems absurd to suggest that history is ending. I guess that's really helpful, because now I definitely know that I believe that history has the possibility to be infinite. And I say "has the possibility" because we don't know for sure, and we'll never know.
A quote that I thought pretty much summed up his thesis:
"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" (p.165)
For me this reading was incredibly dense, and while I don't think I completely understood his concept of the sphere of consciousness, I think I have a pretty clear grasp of his thesis. Fukuyama believes, in a similar way to Marx, that human society has an end point. Unlike Marx, who sees a form of socialism as an end point, Fukuyama believes that Western liberal economics followed by Western Liberal Politics will eventually become the main system of living that every country will follow. He claims that, "Political liberalism has been following economic liberalism, more slowly than many had hoped but with seeming inevitability." (171). He believes that Western Liberal politics have conquered every other form of social policy, mainly communism and fascism, and that it is now the only viable choice. In this way history has ended because society has nowhere left to go.
I think this brings up interesting implications for the history aspect of the final project. It makes me think more about what the goals of the discipline of history are. Are they to discover the most ideal form of social policy? Also why does the fact that multiple countries view the advantages of liberal government negate the ability for other ideas to arise that challenge liberalism?
What exactly is Fukuyama’s hypothesis/thesis in your own words? Does he make a convincing, well-proven case? Do you agree with him? Why or why not? How might the ideas apply to your final project?
His thesis is basically that Western liberalism with take over as the final form human government, causing the "end of history". As he admits, Fukayama's theory is an adaptation of Karl Marx's belief that in order for history to come to a stop, a perfect system of communism must come to power that would solve all problems with modern government. On top of this, Fukayama believes that all nations will eventually adopt this communist utopia of government, after exhausting all other alternatives.
I think this might help with the Final Project because it shows how History could potentially fail to exist, as opposed to defining its existence, like we've attempted to do for the entirety of the class. The benefit there is that it broadens our perspective of the definition of history, and could help us come up with a more accurate, all-inclusive definition.
Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 9 Location: United States
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:12 pm Post subject:
What I believe Fukuyama’s idea to be is that because history is a dialectic process it has a beginning, middle and an end (165). So at some point you get an end of history. Fukuyama thought that the “endpoint” of history was when there were no fundamental contradictions in human life that could not be resolved or fixed by the standing social theory of government. It is when all prior human contradictions are solved and everyone’s basic needs are met.
Ad example he gives is of the Battle of Jena because it put into play the principles of the French Revolution. It was a point where “the basic principles of the liberal democratic state could not be improved upon.” (166) So because they could not be improved upon this meant that the dialectic process was finished, that it was the end of history.
Fukuyama certainty makes a very convincing case with plenty of examples to back it up. It has made me look at history very differently and while it is a confusing concept many things make a lot more sense now after reading his view. I find myself agreeing with him because the process simply makes sense to me. I want to agree with it because it seems clean and methodical and breaks history in to smaller pieces instead of a long thread.
I think that a way these ideas could help in the final project mainly with defining history. This puts a different spin on the other scholars we have looked at and will certainly change my definition of history. I am also wondering if there may be some sort of an end to science as well? Is it possible with all the connections we have made between the two disciplines for science to also have a beginning, middle, end?
I would definitely declare this reading dense. Because it's really dense, I may have missed key things here or there..
I think that basically Fukuyama's "thesis" is that, as a result of the invention (if you can call it an invention) of Western Liberal Democracy and Western Liberal Economics the world is headed in the direction of being completely governed by varying versions of the same politics and economics. I find his notion of "The End of History" fairly interesting. Basically he's saying that history will cease to exist because there isn't anything we can't solve from our modern view of the world. I was wondering, might the future us (in our "perfect" liberal society) look back to history that happened before the big switch to Western Liberal thinking?
He does make a compelling argument but, do I agree with him? Not at all. I think that although back then, in 1989, they may have thought that this whole western liberal thing was the end-all-be-all, There are still many faults that lead me to think that this whole system is not the end-all-be-all.
His ideas on what history is intrigues me and makes me question my own definition of history. Maybe history isn't what we thought it is/was.
What exactly is Fukuyama’s hypothesis/thesis in your own words? Does he make a convincing, well-proven case? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
I had the exact reaction Rachel said we would have at the end of class today. From what I understood, the "End of history" is an ideal utopia where the community is liberal and each individual is "free". While that sounds nice and makes perfect sense to me ideally, it seems impossible that even between two humans you could have a community where each person was happy and satisfied all the time. “The state that emerges at the end of history is liberal insofar as it recognizes and protects through a system of law man's universal right to freedom, and democratic insofar as it exists only with the consent of the governed"(166). I agree with this completely, however, what Fukuyama doesn’t seem to consider is the complexity of human belief and the inherent complexity of the political actions related to those beliefs. For example, what about a religion, or any belief system that incorporates a belief or demands action that dehumanizes others? Utopia, because of the complexity of human behavior makes the assumption of universal satisfaction impossible. Fukuyama can be easily misunderstood when he states that one truth is more valid then an other. Fukuyama is close to saying that some people are more deserving of freedom then others. I know this is not actually what Fukuyama means, but his theory seems vulnerable to this sort of distortion and resulting dystopia.
How might the ideas apply to your final project?
I think this will help my process of finding an answer to the question what is Truth. Not sure why yet though.
Last edited by hcooper2015 on Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
My best interpretation of Fukuyama’s idea, is that he believes that history as a discipline has died because there is nothing new -> meaning no more conflict -> meaning no more progress (he had a very Hegelian perspective). An interesting point he makes is also how in order for history to survive, humanity has to repeat history / live in history -> that is, in order for history to survive, we need to live in the past (yet at the same time, come up with new ideas to have ideological conflict with)? So it seems to be that what to Fukuyama is the end of history is from my perspective a new beginning. Because of these conflicting ideas I'm interpreting, I am confused and not sure what to think. It seems very hard to add words to what Fukuyama has already said, as the points he makes are buried under layers of connections to philosophers, political events, and historical events.
This reading helped me to analyze a discipline (history) in the context as something that could end, and as something that exists because in place of the existence of other things (to me it seemed Fukuyama was saying that we could wither have history or western liberalism, one or the other, because one would take us to a new era whereas the other would keep us in the past).
Ok so this was kind of harder than I expected..
Anyway I think his basic idea was that Western Democracy is the end of history, and that history has an end. He also really agreed with Hegel a lot. I think what he had to say was really intelligently said though very confusing.The being said I did not agree with it. My first big issue is that he agrees with Hegels idea that humans progress in positive ways to get where they need to go. Having learned about things like the holocaust and slavery I find it hard to believe that everything thats happened is positive human progress and that everything sort of happens for a reason. I also just think in general though his logic makes sense in that its well thought out and really smart, his logic doesnt actually make sense in my mind and i just don't agree with/believe him.
How it helps with the project? I definitely think it could affect your view of History, especially if you are hegalian and believe that anything that impacts your history impacts History. But also if history has an end what does that mean for History? etc. Also I know it has something to do with t/Truth somehow but I don't have a fully formed idea yet.
If I could itch my brain, I would (I'm really, really tired). Anyway, from what I could gather from this reading, I was intrigued by Fukuyama's interpretation of Hegel, and the way in which previous events come to define the present. One thing that I found elucidating/interesting about the end of history was not an absolute resolution of conflict/establishing of a utopia: "But at the end of history it is not necessary that all societies become successful liberal societies, merely that they end their ideological pretensions of reperesenting different and higher forms of human society"(173). I'm a little confused -- is he pretty much saying that the end of history is the recognition that ideology is inherently flawed and when applied to the actual world it fails? That we have reached the point where it is pretty much apparent that we are not moving closer to a better understanding of how to govern? Admittedly, I didn't have enough time to read this entire thing thoroughly before eleven, so my thoughts are pretty scattered right now.
Something I was confused about -- why does the post-historical period prevent the existence of art and philosophy? I'm not entirely sure why this is the case -- does anyone else know? This would seem to be a pretty big ramification of his ideas about the end of history.
What exactly is Fukuyama’s hypothesis/thesis in your own words? Does he make a convincing, well-proven case? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
Fukuyama believes that Western liberal democracy, and therefore consumerism is the most advanced level of ideology without conflict that humans will reach, which signifies an end to History. For Fukuyama, much like Hegel, the progress of the state is directly connected to the progress of History, and modern liberalism has reached a point of no contradiction (other than the class system which he believes he gave justification for). He also made the argument that human behavior is rooted in ones cultural and moral identity not a materialistic drive, though many of his contemporaries base their economic theories upon the opposite.
Both on the small scale and as a whole Fukuyama seems to discount the existence of microhistory. When looking for ideologies opposed to that of the West, Fukuyama investigates "only those that are embodied in important social or political forces and movements, and which are therefore part of world history" (169). The implication in this statement is that spheres of consciousness without a critical mass to support them are not considered to be included in the scope of History. The answer is only "found in the consciousness of the elites and leaders ruling them," (168) a statement that fully rejects the legitimacy of microhistory.
Oddly enough, he does acknowledge that his theory leaves "the vast bulk of the Third World" (175) deeply entrenched within history, a fact that seems to directly contradict his sweeping title. He has expanded the hand of the historian beyond the lord/serf model onto the much larger scale of countries with greater/lesser economic power, discounting the history of "weaker" countries entirely. I don't know if he believes these parts of the world will eventually "catch up" and reach the modern liberal goal and if this is not the case, then history will never truly be at the end he has defined.
Fukuyama seems to dismiss the possibility of a stronger ideological system emerging, but I don't feel comfortable dismissing this idea outright. He also claims that the struggle between opposing systems will no longer define our existence, but I don't see why struggles within a singular system cannot have just as large an effect on history. He argues that the issue that is most readily pointed to within the system, the class divide, has actually been resolved in the West, and says that "the root causes of economic inequality do not have to do with the underlying legal and social structure of our society" (170). He uses black poverty as an example of the "legacy of slavery and racism" (170) and not an "inherent product of liberalism" (170).
It seems utterly ridiculous to argue that this issue, among others, is not institutionalized in this country, also to discount the fact that slavery was the very foundation of liberalism. Even ignoring this example and assuming he was right that these were merely lingering effects of past events, it still seems that a tangible historical effect constitutes its continuation. But this may just be a product of my personal definition of History.
The thing that really trips me up is the intrinsic connection between a universal ideological/economic/political system and History ceasing to exist.
How might the ideas apply to your final project?
The idea that history is only created through/around conflict has got me thinking. Also the idea that one's ideological evolution can reach its final states and even if they don't implement their ideals the existence of a "theoretical truth" (169) is enough to be absolute.
Fukuyama’s thesis is a very interesting one. I do not agree with it, and while it is well argued, I think it ignores essential pieces in the puzzle. As I understand it, Fukuyama believed that the “end of history” would be the end of progression of humans because society will have reached the optimal point of a system predicated on Western beliefs, politics, and economics. The major problem with this theory, although good in ideology, is that it fails to address the integration of world culture and religion. People’s ideologies would not just fall by the wayside for the Western system, even if it did create a utopia. Being firmly Western will never be a system that suits everybody and that assumption seems naïve.
This thesis has an interesting effect on our project because it seems to conclude that history ends when we stop progressing and that history is only predicated upon a direction and progression. I disagree, but it is interesting.
When I first looked at this reading, I immediately thought of the end of history illusion- the idea that we assume how we are now is how we're always going to be. It's used mostly on a personal level rather than a national one, and the ideas state that it's a basic human thought process to do so. For example, I think I'm always going to like the same music or think the same way, but it's simply not true.
This reading was the complete opposite of that! It seemed to argue the other direction- that history really was ending and not much was going to change from here on out. I think Fukuyama is saying that while the methodology and the goals of history won't change, the topic will. We will no longer focus on wars and struggle, and instead on "technical problems, environmental concerns". It's an interesting concept. I think he's wrong, or at least being melodramatic, to claim that ALL history will end. Instead, I think the topic will simply switch. The way he uses the word history is interesting too- he uses it to refer to the present instead of the past. History as we know it is still going to be there, what's ending is the addition of NEW history.
Oddly by the end of the reading I was beginning to be convinced. His thesis is that history is the contradictions and conflicts of different political ideas and society has now reached a state where liberalism is taking over and there will be no more conflict in the world and therefore no more history. This is the final governmental state we will reach. He does make a very convincing argument and he clearly is smart but this idea still rankles with me.
I think one reason I find his argument so hard to accept is his own bias and his not addressing that in his argument. As a man living in a liberalist Western country and raised on those ideals his argument that his world is the be-all end-all world model feels skewed and egotistical. Also I think his interpretation of the dialectic is not how I saw it. He speaks of it as something with a beginning, middle and end, but I saw it as an inherently never ending process. The dialectic argues in my view that there will never be an 'end to history' because we are constantly and forever reaching for the unattainable higher synthesis.
Joined: 01 Apr 2014 Posts: 8 Location: United States
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:44 pm Post subject:
I wrote a post at 10:20 and somehow it didn't post... so I'm going to try and write it again, and hopefully I won't forget the things I said before.
Fukuyama argued that history has reached an ultimate synthesis, and the final form of economics and government is Western liberalism. He believed that humanities current problems are not because of the current system, but because of the remnants of past systems (i.e. Black poverty being because of the legacy of slavery and racism, not because of liberalism) (170). I was wondering if he meant that it is not just because of liberalism, or if he meant that liberalism has nothing to do with racism. I disagree that history has come to a closing point, that racism is not directly related to capitalism, and almost everything else he said, but I do think parts of his argument were well constructed. This was my favorite sentence in the whole thing: "For Kojeve, as for all good Hegelians, understanding the underlying process of history requires understanding developments in the realm of consciousness or ideas, since consciousness will ultimately remake the material world in its own image" (169). His application of the Hegelian idea of a general "realm of consciousness" and the political state reflecting this public consciousness demonstrates his idea that liberal democracy was kind of a True answer. His examples were well connected to his argument (liberalist economy preceding liberalist government, he saw liberalism overcoming fascism and communism, etc). I think his view of History is in some ways almost the opposite of microhistory, but also has some connections. They both really value the context of the time and the thinking of the time when looking at the past.
EDIT: I remembered something I said the first time I wrote this and I want to add it. I found it really helpful in understanding his thinking to look at his work in the context of the realm of consciousness of which he was a part. There's a lot of Cold War thinking, and it makes sense why he might think we were at some sort of an "end".
For my final project, this will help me with connections between History and Truth. I was also sort of taken off guard by the idea that a dialectical process could "end". I still do not think it could, but it is an important perspective to include in my thinking and I think it is a helpful contrast to the most recent pieces we read.
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