Back to Contents

THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN
Francis Fukuyama, 1992

This is a highly controversial book in which Fukuyama proposed the idea that History as an idealogical evolution of society has come to an end-point. That is, the way people are governed, the political idealogy, has found perfection through liberal democracy. This is of course something that is highly debatable- many societies in the past have made a similar claims that their way of living was perfect and cannot be improved further.

Fukuyama presents his arguments convincingly, and while they are pretty impressive, many critics have pointed out that this book is flawed and self-contradictory. However, one concept that I was attracted to in this book is Man's thymos and the "struggle for recognition".

The book begins by noting that at the end of 20th century, liberal democracy (individual freedom and popular democracy) is the only form of government that has survived intact. Fascism ended with WW2 and communism saw its unexpected collapse in the late eighties. Since WW2, authoritarian dictatorships have collapsed and became democracies (Portugal & Greece 1974, Spain 1977, Turkey 1983, Argentina 1982, Uruguay 1983, Brazil 1984, Paraguay & Chile end of 80s, Nicaragua 1990, Philippines 1986, S. Korea 1987, S. Africa 1990, East Europe and USSR 1989-90). Examining the past 200 years, one finds an increase of liberal democracies. Has the evolution of human society come to an end with liberal democracy, hence "End of History"?

Fukuyama draws the idea from the works of the German philosopher, Hegel, who introduced the concept of Universal History. Hegel viewed history as a result of dialectics between societies, in which those with grave, internal contradictions fail and are succeeded by others that manage to overcome the contradictions. Thus history is a directional progress (as opposed to being cyclical or random). Hegel believed that we have reached the state of the "End of History" with the modern liberal state, which is free from contradictions, ending the historical dialectics.

Karl Marx, who was one of Hegel's follower, agreed with the idea but pointed out that the liberal state had a contradiction which is the existence of class (bourgeois-proletariat) giving rise to inequality. For him, the end of history will be marked by the triumph of communism.

These were all ideas from the 19th century - a time of optimism of historical progress due to the advance of science of technology and spread of democracy. However, after two World Wars, the pessimism brought about by two World Wars and totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin) discredited the concept of Universal History. Modernization theory was viewed as ethnocentric (Western). Fukuyama, however, claims that the concept deserves a revisitation.

The first argument for the concept of historical progress is modern natural science. It is the only social human endeavor that is cumulative and directional and produces historical change that is directional through military competition (modernization by social rationalization) and economic development/industrialization leading to social transformation. It is unlikely, in other words, for modern man to destroy and unlearn all scientific discoveries and go back to living as peasants.

Why the progress towards liberal democracy? The first factor is economic progress. Capitalism (liberal economics) is inevitable for the advancement of science, it succeeds where centralized economies fails. In centralized economies (e.g. communism), there is no freedom to think and communicate, no reward for innovation, no free market competition thus no market price to judge productivity/technological effectiveness. All these lead to economic stagnation and inability to catch up with advanced industrialization of others.

But why democracy? Empirically, there are strong correlation's between socioeconomic modernization and emergence of new democracies. However, it is not a sufficient reason. Empirical evidence show that market-oriented authoritarians (liberal economy but authoritarian politics) do better in terms of economic growth than a liberal democratic state. e.g. NIEs of Asia, Meiji Japan, Imperial Germany). The phenomenon of liberal democracy cannot be explained alone in economic terms.

Fukuyama again turns to Hegel (using Kojeve's interpretation) to answer this question- Man's "Struggle for Recognition" or thymos. The satisfaction of thymos is so fundamental to a human being that it is megalothymia (excess thymos) that has driven historical progress. Life in a liberal democracy provides potential for greater material abundance and satisfaction for a man's desire for recognition or his thymos. Liberal democracy recognizes human beings universally by guaranteeing and protecting their rights. Desire for recognition is thus the cause of choosing a liberal democracy.

Fukuyama moves on next to refuting some possible arguments against his idea - why some countires are unable to achieve a stable democracy, whether culture and nationalism can impede the march towards liberal democracy.

His conclusion is that parts of the world which have achieved a stable liberal democracy is "post-historical", characterized by economic (not military) competition only and thus have reached the end-point of History. The other parts of the world are still "stuck in history" where power politics continue. There is little interaction between the two except for some collisions e.g. Oil, immigration, world order issues.

Having concluded this, the next question is, is liberal democracy self-sustaining? Does it adequately satisfy desire for recognition? Will the Last Man be satisfied to lead a boring existence as "Men Without Chests". Or, will the Last Man has become so bored that his megalothymia drives him to battles again, thus propelling history back to the beginning with all its war and suffering. Fukuyama seems a bit ambivalent at this point, but he seems to think that there won't be the problem of excess megalothymia and thus liberal democracies will represent the final, universal, satisfactory form of goverment. He offers this parable of the march towards liberal democracy:

"...mankind will come to seem like a long wagon train strung out along a road. Some wagons will be pulling into town sharply and crisply, while others will be bivouacked back in the desert...But the great majority of wagons will be making the slow journey into town, and most will eventually arrive there...The apparent differences in the situations of the wagons will not be seen as reflecting permanent and necessary differences between the people riding in the wagons, but simply a product of their different positions along the road (to freedom). " Thymos

Socrates' three parts of the soul consisted of Desire, Reason and Thymos. Thymos can also be called "spiritedness", "self-esteem", "desire for a desire", "recognition of own worth".

Fukuyama argued that it can be used to explain acts in history, e.g. dissidents of ex-USSR, whites against slavery, people against apartheid, why some people are willing to trade their own security, even life, for an ideal.

Because it can be easily confused with Desire, Fukuyama pointed out that " the failure to understand the thymotic component of what is normally thought of as economic motivation leads to vast misinterpretation of politics and political change." e.g. French revolution, American Civil War, Blacks in America, fall of communism, erotic love, debate over abortion. "Revolutionary situations cannot occur unless at least some people are willing to risk their lives and their comfort for a cause. The courage to do so cannot arise out of the desiring part of the soul, but must come from the thymotic part."

However, thymos can also be the source of human evil. Megalothymia is the desire to be recognized as superior by others- it is the dark side of thymos, the desire to dominate. Socrates suggested that the cultivation of a just political order requires both the cultivation and taming of thymos. Machiavelli proposed that a good political order can be created out of man's badness. Badness can be made to serve good ends if channeled thru appropriate institutions. Hobbes and Locke sought to eradicate thymos from politics, replacing it with desire and reason. Trade thymotic pride of aristocrats, a life of war with the prospect of peaceful and unlimited material acquisition. This became the basis of the American Constitution.

In the modern society, megalothymia has been ethically vanquished. In place is the blossoming of the desiring part of soul ("economization of life"- consumer culture) and isothymia (desire to be recognized as equal- respect, dignity, self-esteem)

Historical process is thus an emergence, growth, and eventual decline of megalothymia. Liberal democracy permits outlets for megalothymia, keeping it out of politics and military e.g. entrepreneurship and economic activity, natural sciences, democratic politics, formal snobbery, sports activities,community life. Life in a liberal democracy provides potential for greater material abundance and satisfaction for recognition, whereas life in a nationalist state, the desire for recognition is based on nationality/race and is not rational (same problem as master-slavery on an international scale).

.: 6/13/2002 :.

Back to Contents

© 2002, Leftnwrite. All rights reserved.