The End of History

1
The End of History
2

• Subject of the book
• Whether there is a coherent and directional
  history of mankind that will eventually lead the
  greater part of humanity to liberal democracy
  (xii).

3

• Two mechanisms of history 1) Science 2) Thymos
• modern natural science
• by common consensus it is cumulative an
  directional
• has uniform effect on societies
• uniform horizon of economic possibilities
• technology gtlimitless accumulation of wealth,
  satisfies ever expanding set of human desires gt
  homogenization of human societies
• economic modernization unify based on strong
  central state urbanize replace traditional
  forms of social organization, provide universal
  education of citizens universal evolution toward
  capitalism.

4

• Critique of mechanism 1
• Advancing science doesnt explain advancing
  political freedom
• Theres no economically necessary reason why
  advanced industrialization should produce
  economic liberty.
• Human beings are not simply economic animals
  (p.xvi)
• Therefore, why we want popular sovereignty, rule
  of law, is not entirely explained by economics.

5

• Second mechanism thymos (spiritedness)
• human beings desire the desire of others. They
  want to be recognized as human beings.
• Only humans (so far as we know) overcome desire
  for self-preservation for the sake of higher,
  abstract, ideas.
• We will fight over pure prestige, not only over
  food, territory, etc. think of the showdown
  between Doniphon and Valance in the restaurant.
• Spiritedness is like an innate sense of justice
  it is the seat of anger, shame, pride. It begins
  with love of the self.

6

• Master-slave dialectic
• Initiates the drive for esteem. But the master
  derives no satisfaction in being recognized by a
  slave conversely, the slave is not recognized as
  a human.
• Master-slave dialectic perpetuated through
  aristocracy gt overcome by the French and American
  revolutions, popular sovereignty. Universal and
  reciprocal recognition.
• Nothing satisfies humans so much as mutual
  recognition history thus ends with liberal
  democracy.

7

• Thymos added to economics explains advent of
  liberal democracy
• Social changes that accompany industrialization
  liberate a certain demand for recognition that
  did not exist (?) among poorer and less educated
  people.

8

• but does thymos lead to eventual disengagement
  with politics?
• See CRIC Report

9

• Thymotic pride leads to people taking pride in
  their own self-worth (Fukuyama, xix) and
  demanding recognition. This, presumably, results
  in less deferential attitude toward authority
  (See Neil Nevitte, text p.70, 6th edition).

10

• Cultural nationalism is less rational form of
  recognition. Civic nationalism should eventually
  triumph. However, there needs to be a
  less-than-rational attachment to the community
  and an irrational pride in their democratic
  institutions (xix).
• Should cultural nationalism be overcome? Can it
  be overcome?
• Does this mean that some religions and some
  cultural practices are simply inconsistent with
  liberalism? What happens to them?

11

• Effect on International politics
• The struggle for recognition at the individual
  level (which begins history) is replicated at the
  level of the state.
• Nation seek recognition form other nations
• Nationalism is a modern but not fully rational
  form of recognition the source of the bloodiest
  conflicts.
• If war is fundamentally driven by the desire for
  recognition, flourishing liberal democracies will
  help ameliorate conflict.
• A world made up of liberal democracies would
  reciprocally recognize one another as equals.

12

• Liberal Democracy may triumph, but is it good?
• Is liberal democracy prey to internal
  contradictions? (p.xxi)
• Capitalism requires division of labour which
  implies unequal recognition.
• I.e., In such a system there will always been
  rich and poor, powerful and weak. (see Aristotle
  James Madison, Fed 10).
• Do we become last men (Nietzsche), clever at
  satisfying a host of petty wants with no desire
  for true greatness or excellence. Are we
  consigned to bland mediocrity, and being objects
  of contempt?

13

• Wont some individuals rebel against becoming
  last men and seek to be first men? Consider
  Abraham Lincolns essay Address to Young Mens
  Lyceum, Springfield Illinois, 1838.

14

• This field of glory is harvested, and the crop is
  already appropriated. But new reapers will arise,
  and they too will seek a field. It is to deny
  what the history of the world tells us is true,
  to suppose that men of ambition and talents will
  not continue to spring up amongst us. And when
  they do, they will as naturally seek the
  gratification of their ruling passion as others
  have done before them. The question then is, Can
  that gratification be found in supporting and
  maintaining an edifice that has been erected by
  others? Most certainly it cannot. . . . . What!
  think you these places would satisfy an
  Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never!
  Towering genius disdains a beaten path. . . .
  Distinction will be his paramount object, and
  although he would as willingly, perhaps more so,
  acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that
  opportunity being past, and nothing left to be
  done in the way of building up, he would set
  boldly to the task of pulling down.

15

• Or consider the question of religion
• Liberalism requires the separation of church and
  state
• Islam and Judaism present themselves as
  comprehensive moral and legal codes (in Islam
  this is called the Sharia). Consider the recent
  case in Afghan Court.
• If some religions are simply antithetical to
  liberalism, will this trend ultimately lead to a
  religious war in an age of nuclear weapons?