Current Events > I don't get why the End of History guy said he was 'wrong'

(+) Yeah! (+)

"The theory is wrong because society can actually move backward"

Doesn't necessarily falsify it, since it will probably just move back to the same end point anyway
---

context
---

Doe posted...

context

Wut

Context is that if there is a terminal point to a state of affairs, going backward doesnt mean the terminal point ceases to be
---

Maybe I just like the sound of my own opinion -_-
---

tyler perry's medea lack of context
---

YukihoHagiwara posted...

tyler perry's medea lack of context

That's the wrong Medea unfortunately. Hide your kids.
---

Francis Fukuyama right?

I read End of History in high school, around 2001.

In short, it's a sort of historical dialectic like Hegel or Marx, but is designed to show liberal democracies are the natural and almost irreversible result of the dialectic. He also believed, at the time, in the moral imperative of moving the dialectic along, which is why it was very popular in neo-conservative ideology.

To date, Fukuyama has recounted elements of his theory.

tl:dr

Soviet Union falls, proves the superiority of liberal democracies -- everybody will obviously choose this system of government now.

Spoilers

They don't, and that's the problem or are doing so at vastly different rates and free countries can turn back to tyranny.

---

I read one of his books on the development of governments over time(still have the 2nd one to read) and he's clearly brilliant and well-studied. Enough that it's difficult to believe he would believe that there was ever an end-point. Human society will never stop changing or developing. Or regressing.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

I read one of his books on the development of governments over time(still have the 2nd one to read) and he's clearly brilliant and well-studied. Enough that it's difficult to believe he would believe that there was ever an end-point. Clearly he was just intoxicated by the (seeming) triumph over Soviet Communism. Human society will never stop changing or developing. Or regressing.

As Western democracies, we are still hungover with the effects of the fall of the USSR, and believe that history will bend our way because of some historical inevitability.

---

Sounds like both Marx and Fukuyama want a teleological history. But if the logic of regression applies then it seems that politics is still mostly going to be cyclical?
---

The thing about inevitability is it's easy. It strips responsibility from actors in the present as a logic of what we do must be right because we are right to do permeates individual and societal level decisions. That line of reasoning is circular and justifies choices as right within the closed system and shuns critical thinking that would otherwise reveal flaws in action and planned action. It also breeds the dark corners where the true foes multiply: complcency and apathy, and their pox of a child, powerlessness.

imo of course, whatever

---

I guess the most basic way to put the original thing I was thinking about would be, a cyclical phenomenon and a terminal phenomenon are both teleological. Idk, triviality.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Sounds like both Marx and Fukuyama want a teleological history. But if the logic of regression applies then it seems that politics is still mostly going to be cyclical?

That's the conceit of the model. Some political ideologies and theories do not see history as cyclical. Any one time may appear to be cyclical, but the bend of the line is is up.

Sort of like this. You have a scatter of points on an x/y plane. Some of the points are closer to the x, some on it, and some the y, and some on it, and some just mixed somewhere between the axis. But when you draw your line of best fit, the line maps at pretty much 45 degrees. Your perspective on life is limited to one point on the plane, and can actually be behind a point that had already been mapped. From your perspective, history is repeating, but to the observer who sees more points or them all, can see things are not truly cyclical or repeating.

or something likely that

---

I think nearly all dialectic theories would shun a true cyclical model of history. I can't say that without real research, but I am fairly confident at the arm-chair level. I think by almost definition, a dialectic system has an ultimate sublimation and undeniable truth the process will reveal. I think an interesting question is once that truth is revealed, will it be identified as such and will people accept it? Or in turn, if it is accepted, what prevents it from slipping away into the void?

The truth is the truth even when it's hidden. The truth of such a dialectic could exist, be adopted, and then relinquished independent of its identity of "the truth." That's why I've always had problems with dialectic models personally. They take for granted that humans are enlightened enough to know the truth at the end of the tunnel, adopt it, and recognize it in perpetuity. Short some sort of spiritual or psychological evolution, I highly doubt the possibility of that outcome.

---

I know for Hegel, the dialectic of spirit is supposed to culminate in the state system. But that is kinda of silly because that is just where the world order was when dialectics was refined into the 19th century model.

And some people do think the state system is the terminal point.

But then we get Alexander Wendt with another teleological theory about why a one world state is inevitable.
---

Have you read Samuel Huntington? I think he provides a good overview of the issues that face the creation of one world systems. Not that these issues preclude the development of such a system, but the sort of a hurdles out their to such a system taking root.

---

Have not, no. I don't read a lot because I rarely retain information anyway. Much prefer getting the gist of the idea and subsequently ruining it. >_>

One world state might be going too far, regional blocs, though? That seems to be a possible outcome.

Edit: oh. Wait. RIP EU.
---

For the record, I'm out of the game on this. I spent my grad school years trying to get a doctorate in political theory. It was a struggle, and I didn't know how to really sell my research. I also dealt with some depression in grad school. I love the topic, and I've read tons on it, including lots of philosophy as well. I'm just not up-do-date with contemporary voices in the field or leading journal research. I got my MA in American Government and Public Policy (which included 15 or so grad hours in political theory), but I am not affiliated with a research institution now.

I do not want to present anything I've said as the best or rightest perspectives. I feel informed on the issues with some expertise, but all of what I said is my opinions based readings, in some cases, I did almost 20 years ago.

---

Go look for a synopses of Huntington's Clash of Civilizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations


---

furb posted...

For the record, I'm out of the game on this. I spent my grad school years trying to get a doctorate in political theory. It was a struggle, and I didn't know how to really sell my research. I also dealt with some depression in grad school. I love the topic, and I've read tons on it, including lots of philosophy as well. I'm just not up-do-date with contemporary voices in the field or leading journal research. I got my MA in American Government and Public Policy (which included 15 or so grad hours in political theory), but I am not affiliated with a research institution now.

I do not want to present anything I've said as the best or rightest perspectives. I feel informed on the issues with some expertise, but all of what I said is my opinions based readings, in some cases, I did almost 20 years ago.

That's fine, no one really has the best or rightest opinion anyway... But it's still nice enough to just rehearse or go over these kinds of topics.
---

Pretty much, I like topics like these.

---

furb posted...

Pretty much, I like topics like these.

They're fun, but like I said, it's kinda just like reading off a script. No idea how to make it more interesting.
---