The End of History

Francis Fukuyama wrote "The End Of History" as a way to explain an extraordinary historical event, the collapse of Communism and the ascendancy of Democracy. He saw this event as being an end point in human governance because with it there now was only one alternative in human governance left in the world. Democracy had not only triumphed over Communism but it had also triumphed over all other forms of government known to humankind. Fukuyama said this event also represented the end of an ideological struggle, one to determined the course and nature human governance ought to take. With the triumph of Democracy this struggle was essential over. Fukuyama’s “End of History”, metaphorically, is the end of an aspect of History.

Profound developments in History have been accompanied by new, pioneering philosophies to help mediate and facilitate their impact on the world. The revolution in human governance that Fukuyama brought to our attention is on the whole as profound an event as the discovery of the New World. From that discovery new philosophical thinking emerged to coincide with it. Let me quote what Richard Tarans wrote on the subject in his book “The Passion of the Western Mind”: “The discovery of the New World by global explorers demanded a corresponding discovery of a new mental world in which old patterns of thinking, traditional prejudices, subjective distortions, verbal confusion and general intellectual blindness would be overcome by a new method of acquired knowledge”. I see Fukuyama in this light, as the instigator of a new philosophical thinking that corresponds with the revolution in human governance we have witnessed. Also, he has reinvigorated a debate started long ago by Enlightenment thinkers about the nature and course mutually beneficial government ought to take. As someone said, Fukuyama "opened up large and dramatic vistas that may not have been otherwise discernible".

Fukuyama’s idea of the end of History is problematic in that is had been misunderstood. He acknowledges as much. I know that when I first picked up his book I had difficulty grasping his argument. The End of History is somewhat a misleading title. Many interpreted it, understandably so, to mean that no more history will be made. That, as we know, is ridiculous because as long as humans are around and active, history will be made. History is a documentation of human activity. What Fukuyama meant, perhaps exaggeratedly, but I don’t think he could have gotten our attention any other way, was that the end of a specific history was over, like the end of a chapter.

In “The End of History” Francis Fukuyama says that the collapse of Communism and the parallel ascendancy of Democracy (liberal democracy) represents an “end point in mankind’s ideological evolution”. He based his argument on Hegel’s theory that History, History being that of mankind’s struggle with itself, would end when people would no longer have to fight for recognized and freedom. The ideological evolution Fukuyama refers to is basically about the historical philosophical battle humankind has waged to get recognition and freedom and keep it. After a history of intense empirical competition against other form of human governance such as monarchism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism, Democracy emerged the ideological winner. Though we may not have completely reached the end of history in the Hegelian sense, I think that with the ascendancy of Democracy humankind is well on its way because Democracy is, by definition, the bestower of recognition and freedom.

Ten years after Fukuyama wrote his historic treatise he revisited it with and article entitle “Second Thoughts”. He recognized that History would not end as long as science continues. Science is the chief sustainer of humankind. Humankind needs science to survive and continue. It affords the technology needed to survive and continue. History will be made as long as humankind makes science.