From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Arguments Supporting Fukuyama 2 Islamic democracy? 3 Nietzsche's Last Man 4 Connection to Straus? 5 link 5.1 Rebuff 5.2 Good grief! 5.3 The graph is "cheating" 5.4 Title

[edit] Arguments Supporting Fukuyama

One of the arguments supporting Fukuyama is the democratic peace theory. While this in itself is true the article also mentions that ethnic wars and refugee's have declined in number. I'm pretty sure this can't be true. I've taken several political science classes at the University of California at Irvine which say just the opposite, that the end of the cold war brought about a huge increase in ethnic and intrastate conflict. Rob 06:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The concept of the End of history has been ridiculed by many, especially after the September 11th terrorist attacks. For the Hegelian dialectic to end, human nature would have to change (IMHO). Chadloder 08:11 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to explain what the 'end of history' thesis actually means, becuase people insist on making the most basic of all mistakes and confusing 'history' with 'events'. In fact it wouldn't matter if there was a nuclear war, and most human life was wiped out: Fukuyama would simply reply that it would take a few more millenia for parliamentary democracy to flourish. Also I changed 'retracted' to 'qualified': Fukuyama has never retracted his end of history thesis, for the above reason. A much better critique of Fukuyama would be to state that his theory was in no way new: Hegel and Kojeve had fundamentally said much the same thing (as Fukuyama admits). (BScotland).

I think because of some of this the article is a bit too charitable to Fukuyama. With such a wide definition his thesis is essentially silly and improvable. The fact that there are still philosophies which, at least potentially, offer a challenge to liberal democracy is a very valid critique of his thesis. Moreover the line of defense you lay out would, in and of itself, invalidate his thesis. If Democracy was destined to triumph then history (as he defines it) couldn't have ended because it never really existed. Furthermore such long range criticism opens him up to a counter Marxist critique of people like Meghnad Desai who would say that Marxism WILL eventually triumph but perhaps not for centuries or millenia.

---

There is another problem I see with this ideology. Like Marxists, Fukuyama sees history as a progressive narrative that builds towards a dramatic conclusion (though the author concludes that this finality would be far from "utopic"). The emergence of Islamic fundamentalism provides a dramatic counterexample, as others have mentioned.

Not only is this a new movement, but it also is a challenge to the progressive narrative claim. The adaptation of this ideology, for better or for worse, would revert the world to the 12th century. Is democracy the champion ideology? Seemingly, yes. Would it be difficult to destroy due to the power of the nations that have adapted it? Again, yes.

For these reasons, Fukuyama sees no possible challenge once the world has adapted democracy, a very Cold War-esque perspective. He fails to note that the antagonist doesn't have to be an outside force - the system could collapse due to internal failings including, but not limited to, economic catastrophe.

--Hohenstauff 23:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

See also Universal History. Fukuyama (and Marxists) claim legitimecy from Hegel's "Hegelian Dialectic", the idea that history as a progression towards a better state. Most professional historians see this as flawed, it is coming up with a Universal Theory on history first (induction), cherry picking the facts to fit your model, and ignoring the contradictions. Rather, real history is done via deductive reasoning, looking at all the facts and coming up with conclusions. Hegel, and Fukuyama and Marx, were philosophers (to put it kindly), not historians. Stbalbach 00:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally I am baffled as to why people still insist that 'Islamic Fundamentalism' (a phrase used in the West, and only in the West, to describe many different ideologies and religious beliefs) offers a 'fundamental' challenge to Parliamentary democracy. To reiterate, whenever such states have been established they were quickly defeated by the superior military powers of the democracies. Moreover, the appeal of (for example) Osama Bin Laden is wildly overstated in the West. Opinion polls, even nowadays (for example) state that for most Palestinians the most admirable political system is.....Israel's. The idea that Arabs actually enjoy living in US backed dictatorships is a pervasive (and vaguely racist) myth. On the contrary, it is the fact that such dictatorships exist and are enthusiastically supported by the US that is the cause of much Arab militancy. George Bush is despised because he is seen as being a hypocrite when he talks about democracy, not because he promises democracy per se.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have not been defeated bu democratic states. Moreover your analysis is locked into a paradigm which sees the state as the only legitimate and meaningful international actor. A lot of commentators in the west have seen fundamentalist Islam, and especially the developement of what some have termed "viral Al Qaeda" as a direct challenge to the hegemony of the state system in international affairs. Moreover I think it's entirely valid to talk about Fundamentalist Islam as at least a potential challenge to liberal democracy since a number of the philosphers of Fundamentalist Islam see it in precisely that way.

The fact is (and it is a fact) that there is currently no serious alternative to Parliamentary democracy. Neither is any likely to develop at any point in the near future. It may well be the case that at some impossibly distant future time, some alternative will be found, but let's face facts. When I die, the country i live in (the UK) will still be a parliamentary democracy, as will all of Europe, as will the US, as will Australia. It is also highly likely that most of Africa/South America will stay democratic, because there is no serious intellectual alternative. Even if capitalism did 'collapse': so what? People would just go about recreating it, becuase, to repeat, no serious alternative has been developed.

[edit] Islamic democracy?

"(...) either they will become Islamic democracies (like Turkey) or they will simply disintegrate." I wonder if "Turkey = islamic democracy" is the author's opinion, or an interpretation -and what does it mean in the first place? Can you call France a 'christian democracy'? Just like France, Turkey is a secular democracy. Gandy.Phoebus 23:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. Change it if you want. I merely meant that an 'Islamic' government currently rules the country, but as you correctly point out, this doesn't make Turkey an Islamic democracy.

[edit] Nietzsche's Last Man

Was Nietzsche's concept of the Last Man explicitly implied in the title? The article makes no mention of it per se, though it sounds implied, so I added a link at the end.

Addition to Anonymous User's above post:

More recently, if "Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Bioechnology Revolution" suggests that biotechnology will enable us to control our evolution and make ourselves unequal, seems to me that regardless of race, one could truly become a Ubermensch... Perhaps this is a question for the main Fukuyama page? (I'm no expert, so I don't know.)

Max Way 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connection to Straus?

Hi all,

I'm curious as to the Fukuyama's possible connection with Leo Straus, especially as Fukuyama does not desire the neoconservative label associated with Paul Wolfewitz (sp?) and other of Straus's pupils. There doesn't seem to be any source for this connection... I could be wrong, but as an interested student using these articles as launching points for research some measure of citing would be helpful.

Regards,

Max Way (Renaissance College Student)

Max Way 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See Fukuyama's book "American at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy." There's a chapter on Strauss.

[edit] link

http://www.marion.ohio-state.edu/fac/vsteffel/web597/Fukuyama_history.pdf#search='end%20of%20history'

[edit] Rebuff

Part of the problem with this article, and in the criticisms of the book, is a misunderstanding of Hegelian dialect. There is no end to dialectic. Government must reconcile itself with legitimacy concerns presented by dictatorial processes. Perhaps it's helpful to think of anarchy and totalitarianism as dialectical theses. The two theses conflict in a dialectical process. The resolution of the conflict is a synthesis. Empirically liberal democracy thrives, given certain constraints on technology and industry. Keep in mind this is a ruff theoretical model. In reality there are no pure totalitarian, liberal democratic, or anarchic systems. And the dialectical components are far more complex and ever changing then three simple types.

Also, if a particular manifestation of liberal democracy were to fail for one reason or another, little can be said about the ideology itself. This is why Fukuyama is interested with the trend and records of history in making his empirical claims.

Collingsworth 05:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good grief!

Democracy, dictatorship and other forms of government are merely manifestations of the rule of law. If this was the 'end' Fukuyama is referring to, it took place a long time ago when humans first had to live together in groups. Forms of governance are not invented, they are a natural result of evolved social behavior. Surely I'm not the only non-notable person to believe this??Pendragon39 19:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You possibly are the only one to believe it! Lucas

Oh no!! I'll have to write a book ;)Pendragon39 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well good luck, you must really be a dedicated Pantheist. Lucas

I believe in the theory of Evolution, no room for God or Humanists there... I believe I will entitle my book The End of Everything and the Last Bestseller Pendragon39 15:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good title, better write it before someone else does! By the way, the theory of evolution covers biology, ie, living organisms, not systems of government, nor physics, nor cosmology.--Lucas

Evolution determines a number of traits in living organisms, including social behavior. Systems of governance are a result of social behavior. In other words, philosophical constructs don't compell us to organize ourselves the way we do, evolution does. Viva la limbic system! You're very right I must hurry, the question is - if I write it, will they buy it? Perhaps the very same question that once confronted Mr. Fukuyama :)Pendragon39 23:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sure evolution might do alot but does it do everything? I mean, is the moon a result of evolution? The moon has managed to survive and reproduces its position every day, it represents the survival of the fitest satellite. What about an atom? Is the theory of evolution a result of evolution? This is why evolution is really just for biology not cosmology or physics nor politics.

I think you would fail to make an interesting link from genetic mutations all the way to the French Revolution. Then again you sound ambitious. But since many people are interested not in the atoms of our genetic predispostions, which are there most of the time in human nature, but in the novel arguments of the time, eg, little known ideas like liberty, fraternity and equality; so your book might not, I'm sorry to disappoint, become, as you suggest, a bestseller.

Perhaps we should consider moving this discussion to the page on evolution or determinism.--Lucas

Evolution does not do everything. To claim that it does would be more or less a philisophical argument (ie. causation). In the case of the moon, it represents one possible result of the evolution of our solar system. This is a new field in astronomy and (I think) an interesting one! Since the moon possesses few traits favourable for its survival, it's existence would depend largely on the 'mercy' of the laws of physics. There is much more I could write, including the theorized role of Jupiter in Earth's early development.

I believe you are interpreting my choice of title as having to do with physics and cosmology. I was being sarcastic. Fukuyama or his publishers did not choose 'the end of history' as a literal meaning. The title is designed to manipulate people into buying his book. Would you blame me for wishing to do the same?

Indeed, I would say that physics is the bedrock upon which evolution and all other processes can occur. Ergo, the Theory of Everything.

My problem with Fukuyama is less about uncovering specific genetic mutations (sociobiology) than considering the effect of evolution on 'modern' human behavior (evolutionary psychology). Forms of governance are linked to instinctive behaviors such as territoriality and dominance. Perhaps if Mr. Fukuyama had hung around a few EP's (or anthropologists) he might agree that concepts like democracy were 'conceived' long ago.

The more I read about these subjects the more interesting it gets. The extent of current human knowledge is so vast it is easy to ignore what another field of science might have to contribute to the field you have chosen. I don't know where we could move this discussion. Within Wikipedia it's like all your talk pages belong to us! Pendragon39 17:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, sounds like you're a hard core scientist. How far does one have to go with science, before it becomes religious? Not that I've anything necessarily against that or other religions except that they often suppress the instincts. Though I'm not sure how good evolution is for social matters or cosmology, seems like it would just say in a god-like voice: "ask no further! it evolved so and that is all". Two problems with your idea of evolution is that it is very retrospective and perhaps falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy (eg, you survive an accident and explain it as such and such, obviously however, if you hadn't survived you would not be there to explain it). Secondly, it seems like your form of it could apply to almost anything, eg, the survival of the moon, of a particular atom, etc. and so, in the end, it fails to explain anything in particular, and just becomes like a redundant tick in our wordage, like a habit of bad language. One place to go with this would be the wiki page on memes, look there, for example, at the criticism of memes (these were meant to be like social genes but seem to have become a bit of a flop) for more info.

For me evolution is most interesting in saying that animals are related not just by genus as was always thought, but also genetically (which only some ancient Greeks used believe).

By the way, someone did try applying evolution to politics once, he took power around 1933.

--Lucas

I don't know why you feel evolution would apply to everything. Please see Psychological_adaptation As an example, the brains ability to invent and use tools has transformed human society to a far greater extent than evolution. But innovation is too general a concept to be categorized as an EPM.

Science is (or should be) concerned with developing theories to explain facts. I don't think it has the same attraction as the major religions seem to.

Memes appear to be a theory regarding the spread of ideas and sound bites. This does not involve biology, but rather sociology (as far as I can tell).

Nazi ideology involved eugenics Pendragon39 01:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I dont think it applies to evrything but was suggesting that you seemed to think so, since you were talking about applying it to systems of government. If it applies to government then you could say it applies to all these other things and so it doesn't work. Sociobiology may try to cover animal sociality, I suppose, but I can't see it applying to government, as you seemed to suggest in your first remark, ie, that "Forms of governance are not invented, they are a natural result of evolved social behavior". Government and politics are a little too complex to give any worthwhile description just based on the instincts of tool usage, dominance or territory, since animals also have these, but dont have all the complex flavours of, for example, democracy that we've had since its invention in Greece.--Lucas

I believe it applies to government as it does to groups. Excluding the family unit, groups form and organize themselves in remarkably similar fashion.

It does not apply to tools and innovations. It does not apply to knowledge acquired through language (except perhaps for those memes). As for suicide or murder, I don't know... Pendragon39 00:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be drawing quite an arbitrary line, it applies to government but not to tools ! Forms of governance differed greatly in history only recently democracy came to be. Groups of innovators, those who came up with city democracy, you put down to evolution, but using a tool like a monkey is not! Seems to me democracy is a far greater innovation than any tool, and that social groups are more dependent on language and knowledge than individuals. --Lucas

The democratic process has existed since ancient times. When a group is formed, social interactions occur and they occur in a way that can be predicted. Instinctive behaviors like territoriality and dominance come into play and the eventual outcome is the selection of a leader. One way for a leader to be selected is through consensus. Consensus can mean unanimity within a group or majority opinion. This is the essence of the democratic process and by extension, democracy. Human beings are compelled through evolution to follow this process whenever they form groups (outside the family unit). Undoubtedly there are logical reasons for the formation of groups and the selection of leaders, but they did not have to be taught or examined. It is as instinctive for humans as it is for other species. Only later, when the great philosophers came along, did they codify what evolution had already designed.

Yes, social groups are dependant upon language because language helps us use consensus. Without means of communication, you're forced to use a more ritualized selection process, for example physical competition or competition to demonstrate certain skills. Scientists believe evolution favors methods that pose less risk to the individual.

I don't believe I'm drawing an arbitrary line with regard to tools. Some tools are clearly the result of evolution: spoken language and gestures, bartering, and the use of our hands. The list is quite short. Ballot boxes are clearly human inventions, as are objects and systems created through technology. Does this negate evolution's role in our behavior and interaction with others? I say no! Pendragon39 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You say "Human beings are compelled through evolution to follow this process [consensus or democracy] whenever they form groups". No, only ones that have been brainwashed are compelled to hold such an opinion, well I suppose it is not your fault, blame your parents! So you can go ahead and discover the gene for democracy; pity, I might not have it, anyhow you should really write that book now! Human behaviour in history has changed quite drastically, anyhow behaviourism is obsolete and it is those very types of behaviour that have changed that are interesting, ie, the ones not covered by evolution. Even if it's all from evolution, so what ! Nowadays saying its from evolution has almost as much value as just saying, "its from the past". Does your argument help, no, can you bring such an argument up in legislature, no. Does it obsolete wars, no! Lucas

Note from editor: The rest of this discussion is moved to Talk:Meme.

[edit] The graph is "cheating"

I just think the graph is cheating because its starts off at 35, and I first thought that friendly regimes were down too just a couple, but no. There are 36-37 left. Stop playing with graphs.

[edit] Title

It wouldn't be so controversial or misinterpretted if he had titled it better. "End of History" has an eschatological sound to it. It's unnecessarily dramatic.

"Coming to a theater near you..."

(explosions and car chases)

"...The End of History!...History will end Summer 2007"

Schwartzenegger: "I'll end your history"

Jigen III 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)