The End of History

"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western as the final form of human government." (quoted from "The End of History?", 1989)

I had a discussion with Rick while I was in New York about Fukuyama's "The End of History" and it has stuck with me for a surprisingly long time. Fukuyama, a Hegelian, believes that the advent of Liberal democracy signals the end of history, the last ideological innovation and the final form of government. Hegel himself believed that although his dialectic (thesis + antithesis = synthesis) would constantly move up the ladder of reason as good ideas were filtered out, but Hegel (as well as most Hegelians: Marx, Fukuyama, etc.) believed in the end of history as well. At some point humanity would reach such a high level of comprehension and reason that innovation would not only stagnate in that area, it would eventually stop. Now debating this literal interpretation may be a little harsh, but it certainly represents the substance of all three of these Hegelians' arguments.

In my philosophy courses, I argued vehemently against this sticking point for Hegel. I completely agree with the motion of history and the dialectic; the 20th century is a great example of this principle in motion. Liberal democracy vs. fascism. Liberal democracy refines itself as it emerges victories. Liberal democracy vs. communism. Same deal. Now liberal democracy is in a war of wills vs. Islamic theocracies. Who knows how this will turn out? I think that liberal democracy (and the accompanying capitalism) has a superior understanding of the human soul and the way that humanity works, but to declare an all-out victory this early would be nuts or to presume that the rational side always wins (barbarians anyone?). What if America goes the way of the Roman Empire, is this really a stretch? How much is this "victory" of reason contingent upon our superpower? What if China and India can't make it work? If we have less one billion (all of Western Europe + America) living under this triumphant system, does it really count as a win when most people live under tyranny or inequality?

Furthermore, the whole idea of the end of innovation here is insane. My whole point then (and now) was that we cannot stop developing reason because the human ingenuity constantly creates new problems to be solved. For instance, even if we reached the end of reason with the advent of modern democracy and the writing of the Federalist Papers/Wealth of Nations in the 18th century, not only will it take countless generations for this to fully play out (really, I don't ever think people will lose their fascination with anarchy, utopianism, or new ideas to try out and shake up the system), but we are inventing new conundrums by the day practically. Stem cell research, cloning, interstellar travel, meeting other forms of life eventually, etc. all will require reason and advances in thinking/philosophy to fully comprehend their implications and impact. In a universe of unlimited possibilities, how could we be so arrogant to decide that we will simply figure it all out, get it, and close the book.

Those of you (all three of you) who read this blog know that I am indeed a large fan of the liberal democracy and accompanying market economy. I think that it best fits our current conception of human nature, self-interest, and the spirit which guides men. It has been vastly improved over time and the way that we have structured our governments has become as close to perfect as we've ever had, but there's the rub. AS CLOSE TO PERFECT. Our electoral system still fucks up, still elects people without the popular vote, still does a bad (even horrible) job at protecting citizens from the whims of lobbyist money and their influence, still makes terrible foreign policy decisions despite over 100 years (going back the war with the Philippines in 1899) of experience watching them blow back right into our face. We are not perfect, period. And the idea that we ever will be in the way we govern ourselves is not only a joke, but its borderline dangerously arrogant. The idea that human ingenuity and markets can solve everything, from government to global warming to the ongoing trash/pollution problems, is haughty and extremely risky. And so far I'd hesitate to say that things are set up so well that they automatically fluctuate to the right spots and society allocates its resources perfectly.

I know that these are hard expectations to fill, but when one proclaims that we have reached the end of history, such a big claim must be vigorously defended. I guess the core of my arguments stems from my argument against the concept of utopia. Perfection is unattainable without controlling humanity to a frightening degree, which would not be perfection at all. Right now, yes, I don't see something challenging liberal democracy/market economy in the forseeable future, but to declare that nothing will is another story altogether. There is serious danger in getting comfortable, ceasing innovation, and stopping the search for new knowledge or better ideas. I don't think that the universe will ever stop changing or our understanding of it will ever be perfect, there's just too much to compute. I'm clearly in favor of dynamism and as great as the triumph over communism was, it's a joke to think of it as liberal democracy's last ideological enemy.