badgenome said:
I don't think he's right, although arguably according to the way he worded his claim he is also incapable of being wrong. He was just being a typical academic, trying to be too cute by half. If you define the end of history as the pinnacle of political (not cultural, nor technological) evolution because no progression is possible beyond that point, and then stipulate that any change for the worse represents regression rather than evolution and is therefore not the continuation or resumption of history... well, that leaves very little to argue over except whether or not liberal democracy is really the farthest point we are capable of reaching. It mangles the definition of the word "history" beyond the point of recognition. Human history is fraught with examples of societies taking huge leaps backwards or sliding into complete ruin altogether through sheer decadence, returning all the way to barbarism. Of course, Fukuyama acknowledges that such set backs can happen but insists that these are just "events" and not part of "history" as he defines it and waves it away as all being just temporary, even though by his definition temporary can mean centuries. I really think he was just caught up in the triumphialism of the time and attempted to be provocative by playing word games. I have to admit, it is a hell of a book title. He certainly captured the zeitgeist with that one. But rereading it now it already seems hilariously dated. |
"History" is not going to end, of course, but European-style social democracy does seem to be the terminal point of political evolution, where basic needs are guaranteed by society but economic freedoms are sufficient to allow for a robust private sector and freedoms of thought are likewise guaranteed.
The changing economics due to the march of technology would largely prevent a backslide to barbarism, short of total nuclear war destroying all of our systems, and we can observe in modernity that countries that achieve democracy rarely stray too far away from some form of democratic rule (which can be observed in many of the anti-communist juntas in South America or Greece, where democracy was restored not because the juntas did anything wrong, but because the people now expected to have it and would not accept otherwise).
I have to look in more to Fukuyama's specific thought, though. His was a name that was thrown around a lot in my major in college, but we were never taught much of it beyond the boiled-down version.
The Arab Spring being a largely home-grown, spontaneous event does demonstrate that the Middle East is nearing democratic maturity, but the problem in uneven urbanization and social development (where the urbanites are ready for democracy but the rural majority just wants sharia theocracy) is what upsets it in the near time.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.