Are We At The End Of History?

In 1992, American philosopher Francis Fukuyama published a book titled "The End of History and the Last Man." In it, Fukuyama argues that the advent of Liberal Democracy signals the end of human ideological progress, and that, from this point forward, man will no longer progress socioculturally.  Was Fukuyama right? Have we actually reached the endpoint of our ideological evolution, or perhaps we do have something new to offer?

Liberal Democracy As Human's Best Product

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Fukuyama was more than ever convinced that the Western form of governing, i.e., liberal democracy, will spread across the globe and eventually become the only form of government.

image source

Fukuyama wasn't the first philosopher to make such predictions. Two hundred years before him, German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel made a similar prediction. Fukuyama did say that he identifies with both Hegel and Alexandre Koyeve, who argued that "history has a direction" and that direction is the "birth of the homogenous and singular state."

Naturally, such state would embody the principles advocated by the Western democratic societies, whose model did triumph over fascism, and later over communism. Marx too made such prediction, but he advocated that communism will eventually triumph over capitalism and become the universal ideology. 

How Would This Play Out?

In his book, Fukuyama lays out numerous arguments to support his claim. He, however, warns that the term "end of history" doesn't imply "the end of human civilization." According to Fukuyama, evolutionary and societal events would still occur at the end of history. However, no ideology other than liberal democracy (+ capitalism) would ever again occur and take its place.

The end of history would produce something Fukuyama called "The Last Man." Such person no longer contemplates about ideologies, and no longer has to worry about wars, famine, chaos, and destruction. Such a person is not anxious or worried that someday the system, institutions, and everything in-between would come into question. 

Nietzsche too spoke about such man, who is the complete opposite of his Superman. Nietzsche even argued that Western democracy's purpose is to create such man! The last man is weak, acts cowardly, is depressed and no longer cares about life. Sounds familiar? Such a person seeks comfort instead of the journey, peace instead of confrontation, mediocrity instead of excellence.

Everyone is the same, of the same status, the same wealth, same influence, and everyone follows the same mantra. Consequently, freedom, individualism, and creativity have no place in such a society. Fukuyama doesn't paint such a bleak picture of the said person, but he does generally support Nietzsche's claims.

The End Is Now?

So, have we reached the end of history? Are we the last man? It's hard to tell. Fukuyama's heaven-like vision of the future (today's) world fell short. I will agree that the majority of the world has embraced the tenets of Western Liberal democracy, but I seriously doubt that this will hold indefinitely.

We are, from a historical perspective, the nearest we have ever been to such a state. There are conflicts, famine, and destruction in today's world, but it's nowhere near to the level humans have experienced in the past. Just 100 years ago, most people were hungry, jobless and clothless. Women had no rights, and racism was almost a cultural norm. These things exist even today, but we're making some progress in those fields.

And yet, despite all this abundance, we are unhappy. Though we have solved most of our material problems, we empty inside. Many people experience depression, anxiety, and other psychological struggles. The inequality has never been higher, signaling that the omnipresent Western economy isn't as perfect as we thought it would be. But all these things don't dispute Fukuyama's theory. 

In fact, I would say that we are much like Nietzsche's Last Man. Everyone knows that roughly 90% of the world's wealth is in the hands of 1%, and we consciously and actively choose to ignore it. We know that the wealth of the 1% increases each year, and we ignore it. We know that racism exists, that inequality is a problem, that we are growing colder, and that youth is depressed, anxious, self-destructive and nihilistic. Why do we ignore it? Because we're content, comfortable within our walls, on our gaming chairs, with our hands on laptops, tablets, and smartphones. But despite all this, I have to disagree with everyone, including Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, and Fukuyama.

They're All Wrong

The human condition is one of perpetual, cyclical change. Everything is cyclical. The only way one would ever talk about the end of history is if he/she would assume that the time is linear and that it flows only forward. In such a universe, everything has a beginning and end, including the universe itself.

But even if one would embrace such view of time, the arguments for "The End Of History" fall short in the face of history itself. If anything, history has shown us that everything ends. Many great empires though that they've reached the end of history, empires that lasted much longer than the United States. They all had stable economies (though it is debatable how stable is the US economy, considering its debt), they all had massive armies, and they all had agendas and ideologies. Nevertheless, they've failed.

Why? Because everything eventually fails; that is the only constant of our universe. To assume that we would one day reach some kind of ideal state is foolish. It's perfectly fine to seek such a state, and ensure that all humans are clothed and fed, but having clothes and food means nothing if we lack a direction, a purpose. I believe that such a goal will never be achieved because I think that everything is cyclical. Ancient Greeks believed that political and ideological changes move in circles. Plato, for instance, argued that democracy gives birth to tyranny. And if you take a closer look at today's society, and the leaders of those societies, do you actually believe that they'll deliver the perfect, homogeneous and peaceful state which will mark the end of history? Maybe, but I doubt it.