The End of the History and The Last Man by Francis Fukuyama, Summary by Syed Atif Hussain

Introduction

The book THE END OF THE HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN is written by Francis Fukuyama. Francis Fukuyama is a former deputy director of USA State Department’s policy planning staff. The book has a very attracting title, which compel a person to think upon that how a technological advanced world could move towards the end of its very own history; does the writer wants to say something in ironical manner or there is something special in the book. There are various sources of information given in this book; the writer has a complete command over the current issues and he has mentioned the past issues with the respect to present world. This book is written in five parts. Each part contained a lot of information. The best thing about the book is its very own Preface, BY WAY OF AN INTRODUCTION.

The Preface

The book has a marvelously written preface, BY WAY OF AN INTRODUCTION. First he has mentioned about the origin of the states and had talked about the Rival theories of the state. Then he has justified the title of the book by making relevance between the concept of “End of History” by Hegel and Karl Marx. According to Hegel the End of History is Liberal State, on the other hand, for Marx, it is Communist State.

Part 1 : AN OLD QUESTION ASKED ANEW

As I have mentioned before that Karl Marx has the idea that there would be the rule of proletariat and that would be the end of the history, but there rose another idea these days this idea is not drawn by any philosopher but this has emerged. It is the idea of liberal democracy. The world order was transforming towards the democracy and the communism was collapsing to a very extent. Fukuyama has stated in the book that “The world is moving toward what we in the West consider decent and humane political institutions-that is, Liberal democracy.” Later he says in accordance that the world was divided between authoritarianism of the Rights and totalitarianism of the Left. Later on when democracy was spreading all around the world, some of the countries were not ready for the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty because they had the threat of communism, terrorism and economic mismanagements.

In the era, communism was dead, and political process was rapidly being replaced by intolerant and aggressive nationalism. Fukuyama has himself commented on liberal democracy in this manner that liberal democracy, that is, the productivity of market-oriented economics and the freedom of democratic politics. In short Fukuyama just wants to say that democracy is a product. Secondly he says that he don’t want to see the communist countries turning into rapid democracy, but for him, it would be very much surprising (if such a communist country transform into a rapid Democracy as soon as possible).

The idea of liberal democracy states that popular sovereignty and individual freedom is ensured. If the people can choose their very own government through secret ballots, party elections, on the basis of universal and equal adult suffrage then we can regard a county as democratic state. Man has passed through various forms of government such as monarchy, aristocracy, fascist and communist dictatorship but at the end the only form of government whish has survived is democracy. The writer has talked about two kinds of democracies: 1. Formal Democracy (Dictatorial Government), 2. Real Democracy (Liberal Democracy).

PART 2: THE OLD AGE OF MAN KIND

It is true that if a man is in the present, there is a great impact of Past on his life. Fukuyama has mentioned various steps of the history which helped us to understand the history, and its gradual evolution towards the concept of democracy. Hegel says, the history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom. That is why for him the end of the history occurs when every man is free. There are many philosophers who have written about the world history but only Hegel is regarded as historicist philosopher. Every philosopher has pointed to the human nature and then has written down about the human nature but this is not the case of Hegel; Hegel thinks that “human nature to have no fixed nature”. Above mentioned are the points of Hegel, but Marx has some other points of view. He thinks a liberal state can not resolve the struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat. And according to Marx, End of the History, could only occur when there would not be any struggle.

In this Part Francis Fukuyama pose a question that is human history directional, cyclical, or simply random path? The question has a lot of importance because Fukuyama has answered the question with a lot of references from the articles. Even he has related the answers to the present situation. Lets see his appoints, he says that there was a time when everywhere there was monarchy, aristocracy and other form of governments; if history is cyclical then it must take a turn and move towards those monarchies and aristocracies but such thing doesn’t happen. Or there must be some Hitler like Germany who may rise again and get the control of these present states but such thing has not happened yet. That means history is not cyclical but it is directional. It is directional and progressive because it has given a birth to a new for of government and that is liberal democracy. There is a new comment writer has about the technology and Nuclear weapon and waste. Technology and nuclear waste are destroying the natural resources. Writer just want to says that the third world countries have mostly the natural resources and the struggle for balance of power and nuclear bombs to an extend has raise the danger for the nature. For Him, technology is deadly; he says; “a given civilization can vanish entirely without leaving any imprint.” A comment on Multinational Companies says that these are working to keep alive the Marxism. On the other hand he has another point of view about the rule of Communism. He believes that under some circumstances the state turned into Bureaucratic Tyranny; bureaucrats hold the all functions of the state and run the State. Several chapters in the book are about the economic reforms (a way to democracy when in the hands of people), Central Capitalism (Sort of Communism, leads us to bureaucratic tyranny), technology (a deadly instrument in the hand of people when it is used for negative purposes; it has improved the lifestyle of a common man, and helped us in shaping the new era), and political intelligentsia (Evolution of Democracy).

There comes one more point about the third world countries. This is about the dependency theory and the third world states. “Third world underdevelopment was due to the participation of less developed countries in the global capitalist order”. Once again he has pointed to the capitalist countries, and being trying to make us understand that still the condition of third world countries is due to Capitalist States. Further he makes a point that multi-national are there to keep alive the Marxism. In the different parts of the world capitalism is suitable due to culture and traditions. The new world has the liberal economic principles which are directly the principles of democracy. If you have a strong economy then it is very much suitable for a state to have the Democratic structure in the political sphere.

There rises a question what led us to liberal democracy? The answer is given us by the author of the book. His first point is that industrialization led us to democracy. Because if we see in the context of Marx, if means of production changes then the complete superstructure changes as well. So is the case here. Landlords were turned into merchants and political system could be seen changing and then the emergence of industrialization. While we are talking about the democracy, we must know what our author think abut democracy in the context of industrialization. Well, he regards democracy as a struggle in the context of industrialization. In the very beginning of the book Fukuyama has posed a question of Immanuel Kant, which has the essence in it that if there is a government which is much efficient and provide every kind of facility to its citizen, would that be capable enough to justify with the victims of history, who have remain under too much of problems. Fukuyama has answered the question by saying “yes” because democracy is the only thing which means a lot to us.

PART 3: THE STRUGGLE FOR RECOGNITION

Fukuyama has taken the term from western political philosophy. Plato has written there are three parts of the soul: 1. A Desiring Part, 2. A Reasoning Part, 3. Thymos, or a spiritual part. All this he has mentioned in the preface where he has mentioned about the Plato, and his idea. Fukuyama says that Thymos is an innate sense of justice. This means a man has a sense of justice inside him that allows a person to go for the right and wrong. If we elaborate in more sensible way, it would be like; if a man is treated in a very rough manner the person will definitely be angry, but if a person doesn’t have such sense he will be guilty.

This has nothing to do with anything but the Hegel’s idea which Fukuyama has theft has a lot of importance. This is the concept of Struggle for Recognition. Hegel had a idea to be recognized as a human being. In the history of this point he wants to say that there is a class of leaders, and a class slaves. The slaves always have the wish to be recognized as human beings. While Marx says that man is there but he is not economically known, this is all the major difference between Hegel and Marx’s point.

Fukuyama then coins the term use by Thomas Hobbes this term is known as The First Man. Hobbes First Man struggles for recognition in the state of nature. Hobbes First Man is educated to lesser his desire for recognition to the desire to save his own life, and the desire to give that life with material comfort. The term has been compared and contrasted with the term used by Locke, and Hegel. There is no major difference between Locke and Hobbes First Man, but Hobbes make some points which do not go with the Hegel.

Thymos has been signified as a beast with red cheeks. That means Thymos is an innate sense of Justice. Thymos is such a big thing but it is consisted of some principles of idealism, morality ant ethics. Thymos has places of all the noble merits such as selflessness, idealism, morality, self-sacrifice, courage, and honorability. On the basis of such powerful emotions one can state that Thymos allows a man to overcome its most powerful natural instincts for the sake of what they believe is right, or just.

There are three important chapters further in this part: the Rise and Fall of Thymos, Leadership and Bondage, and The Universal and homogeneous state. These are the Chapters to be described in a single line: Idealism has some importance for some people but not the whole community that is why Thymos is linked with only emotions. Sometimes there would be rise of him and some times there would be fall. Leadership in itself creates a big way for people to see that what they really want, and to what extent a leader could be with them. The Universal and Homogeneous State deals with the idea of Kojeve; he claims that this is almost the end of the history so stand or fall on the power of declaration that the recognition provided by the contemporary liberal democratic state adequately satisfies the human desire for recognition.

PART 4: LEAPING OVER RHODES

There is a very nice concept given in the second last part of the Book. It seems that it is with the rest to Marx and Communism. There is one thing which clearly could be seen and that is raising the military capabilities it has been happening till today that power full armies capture the state but this must be clarified that they can cause more than a state could hold. Recently we have the example of United States of America. We need to take it in the concept of nationalism and the then we also have to see the realism. The role of realism, which is played on the ground of each level of analysis.

The most important chapter under the part 4 of this book is THE UNREALITY OF REALISM. Definitely this led us to work upon several important issues which have been raised in here. Then is the POWER of the POWERLESS. Later, there is National Interests and Toward a Pacific Union. First of all we all need to know what’s realism. Well that has emerged from the group of people who consider everything in a very realistic perspective. On the one hand we have talked about Thymos and on the other hand we are talking about realism the first major contrast is being emerging here. Then comes the point ‘Power of the powerless’; that means to a very extent it tries to avoid war. Everyone wants to live in a peaceful state of nature, where one can find harmony. In a realist Mind the struggle for power goes on and on. Francis Fukuyama says that the Countries being trying to get freedom and establish them self as a strong democracy. Nationalism is a specifically modern phenomenon because it replaces the relationship of lordship and bondage with mutual and equal recognition.

PART 5: THE LAST MAN

The title of Fukuyama’s book is “The Last Man”. The Last man is the citizen of a capitalist democracy where equality is practiced. Fukuyama posses a question to the reader that will the last man be satisfied with common recognition? Or there must be some other ways to get recognition of superiority. If In the society acceptance and recognition of superiority would be gathered so the last man could avoid boredom while being a democrat. Through out the complete book one thing could be seen and that is Fukuyama’s classical liberalism. He has some other views about the communities. He thinks that each society will demand high respect from the other community; Fukuyama doesn’t want to sacrifice the rights of democratic citizenship to the intolerable communities. Each is bound by it own morality. This may ruin the complete theory of fukuyama’s point of view that is recognition of individual priority. But still there is assumption in history that man is doing something to get the superiority.

Mutual recognition leads to democracy, for him, it becomes a compromise that doesn’t get rid of the urge for superiority. Can we regard it as a cultural product od dominant groups? The struggle for recognition in a very new society is by both male and female. What would happen if a man or women is not satisfied with applicable rules. He also tells us that there would be some laws to satisfy some dominant groups. It could be a capitalist entrepreneurship either a career in foreign policy or Himalayan mountaineering groups.

The idea of boredom in democracy is really a bit phony. It comes to the fact that dominant groups want to use their rights and don't want to be forced by democracy. This is then all about the socialist belief that the lower classes must be the guardians of democracy. What Fukuyama overlooks are the satisfactions within? In the capitalist democracies the option for the recognition of superiority demanded by dominant groups. The capitalist society might have a really great deals of offer but in this context capitalist democracy don’t offer us the "mutual recognition", which is fighting against domination by a powerful nation, class, race, and gender. Fukuyama still favors in the context the liberal democracy but we must keep in mind he is giving the idea whether the Last Man is there to have himself in such a community. Lets us imagine how many rewarding things there are left to do for those whose relations won't get them into the State Department or whose pocket books won't get them to the Himalayas!

And after equality has eliminated the satisfactions of the collective struggle for justice against dominant groups? Well, there will still be collective effort on behalf of making social life more rewarding. This will be the effort of people discussing their differences in an atmosphere of mutual respect. It will be an effort within a community, but not a community in which members try to become superior by advancing community goals. The satisfaction will derive from the joint effort to realize those goals, an effort in which everyone's dignity is recognized. This is, though, a socialist community, not one based on older patterns of domination.

Analysis

The book is well written and has addressed us the collapse of Soviet Union, but at the end only democracy has been evolved and it is the perfect system to run the government. There is liberty, equality, freedom, the popular sovereignty and the liberal economic principles. While the Last Man would have lots the option to be a recognized member of the society. The End of the History and the Last Man has remained a controversial book, but there are various topics upon which we can discuss and fine a far better way to our solutions then described by the author.