[lit-ideas] Re: Fukuyama and the End of... well...
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:33:34 -0800
Fukuyama thought that with the fall of Communism the last challenge to
Liberal Democracy had been conquered and that the End of History had arrived
-- with but a few loose ends to be tied up - some minor players who had not
yet accepted Liberal Democracy like the Arab Nations, North Korean and a few
others but nothing to worry about. We may as well declare victory. In that
sense Fukuyama was being descriptive, but he was being predictive by arguing
that the minor inconveniences like the Arab nations would inevitably become
Liberal-Democracies. He was being predictive but merely predictive. He
wasn't advocating that anyone should hasten the process by militarily
exporting Liberal-Democracy.
I would concede that he probably hadn't worked out the details of why the
exporting of Liberal-Democracy wouldn't work when he wrote The End of
History and the Last Man in 1992. As time went on it was reasonable for him
to disapprove of tyrants who opposed Liberal-Democracy like Saddam Hussein.
It wasn't inconsistent of him to want a regime change, but when the Bush
Administration conquered Iraq and proposed to demand that the next regime
there be a democratic one - something seemingly consistent with The End of
History - Fukuyama balked. He didn't see the precursors of Liberal
Democracy in Iraq. This wasn't what he had in mind at all. It wouldn't
have been an evolution of his thinking for him to feel this was all wrong.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq there were theorists who advocated a benign
autocracy as the most suitable replacement for Saddam's regime. Perhaps
Fukuyama wouldn't have objected as much if that were proposed, but to imply,
or permit others to imply, that the Bush administration was carrying out his
theories - putting his theories into effect - was too much for him. While
Liberal-Democracies are inevitable, they develop from within a given nation
by people wanting what they see in other Liberal Democracies. They can not
be forced upon a people from without.
I'm guessing in the foregoing at what went on in Fukuyama's mind. He wasn't
in a good position. If the Democracy failed in Iraq, people would say his
theory was wrong; so he had to distance himself from it at once. If
Democracy succeeded in Iraq and he had distanced himself from it prior to
its success, people might say he didn't have the courage of his theory -
which is kind of what I am saying. On the other hand, by distancing himself
in advance he is taking the honest way out. He never advocated exporting
democracy militarily; so even if it succeeds it won't be succeeding in the
way he anticipated. But if it does succeed and he has predicted that all
nations will one day be Liberal-Democratic, doesn't that fit in with his
theory despite his denial?
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Paul
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:01 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Fukuyama and the End of... well...
Lawrence Helm wrote:
> If I understand you right my answer is this: I tend to lose a bit of
> respect for a theorist who won't take some sort of responsibility for
> those putting of his theories into practice.
I would have that that as an historian of ideas, Fukuyama was being
descriptive, not prescriptive. This theory in TEOH was a theory of what
would happen, given the conditions he thought necessary for them to.
Marx got into a lot of trouble for trying to be descriptive and
prescriptive simultaneously.
I've no doubt missed Lawrence's point.
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
