Summary

The End of History Francis Fukuyama (1989)

Outline
 Introduction
 Theme
 Explanation
 Background
 Theoretical framework
1. Karl Marx
2. Hegel
3. Kojeve
 Hegel’s idealism
1. Idealism
2. Battle of Jena
3. French Revolution
 Paul Kennedy
 Max Weber
 China as an example
 Soviet Union as an example
 Threats to liberalism
1. Religion
2. Nationalism
 Implications of the end of history
 Conclusion
Introduction:
This article was written by a Japanese American scholar Francis Fukuyama, in
1989 summer. Afterwards he wrote a complete book “The end of history and the last
man”. This article was written by observing the post cold war changes in the world.
Theme:
The core theme of this article is the victory of western liberal democracy over
other ideas as the author writes,
“The end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of western
liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
Explanation:
By the term “end of history” the author doesn’t actually mean that the history will
end. Fukuyama didn’t interpreted history in terms of events but in terms of ideas. By
saying the end of history he actually wants to say the end of ideological evolution of
mankind after reaching a final idea of western liberal democracy that is going to prevail
in the world.
Background:
Now a question arises that how Fukuyama perceived the end of history or the
victory of the idea of western liberal democracy? This article was written in 1989 after
the disintegration of Soviet Union and the end of Cold War. The author says that
watching the flow of events in the international world one can see a fundamental change.
If we study the history we can easily observe that western liberal democracy is the idea
which proved itself against many ideas like that of fascism, Nazism, authoritarianism and
then after cold war communism. And he believes that it is obvious that the victory of
western liberal democracy against all these ideas over the past years shows the strength of
this idea. He says that changes n the national climate of the two communist powers also
justify Fukuyama’s point.
Theoretical framework:
Fukuyama gave certain references to prove his argument. He said that the notion
of the end of history doesn’t originally belong to him. Its greatest propagator was Karl
Marx who believed that the world history would end with a communist utopia. And the
idea of history as a process with a certain beginning, middle and end was given by Hegel.
It is the misfortune of Hegel that most of the followers of Marx interpreted the work of
Hegel through Marxism. Hegel believed that the history would reach its highest point
when the rational form of states would become victorious. And Hegel’s idea of these
rational states resembled that of west. As mentioned above that Hegel’s work was
interpreted with Marx’s one, an effort was done to preserve the work of Hegel and it was
done by a Russian scholar Alexander Kojeve.
Kojeve tried to keep the work of Hegel safe from Marxist interpretation. It should
be noted that Kojeve believed that Hegel had achieved enough knowledge of his subject
and didn’t added anything in Hegel’s idea. Though he talked about universal
homogenous states as the final state but considering Hegel’s work complete he left
teaching and started working as a bureaucrat in European Economic Community.
Hegel’s idealism:
Fukuyama was very much influenced by Hegel’s idealism, Hegel was of the view
that the relationship between ideal and real world was only apparent. He believed that
every material thing is influenced by an idea. Hegel was the first philosopher to speak the
language of modern social science. He speaks of man as a product of historical and social
processes. Two events influenced Hegel thought. The first was the French Revolution
which was considered as the end of history by Hegel as the principles of Equality, Liberty
and Fraternity (Modern day liberalist principles) were given in French Revolution.
Second was the Battle of Jena in 1806, in which according to Hegel, the ideals of the
French revolution i.e. Napoleon won against the Prussian monarchy with the principles of
French Revolution.
Paul Kennedy:
The author mentioned his idea in terms of economic ideologies that how different
scholars tried to prove their arguments in their favor. He mentioned Paul Kennedy’s
“Rise and Fall of Great Nations” in which he said that great powers decline over
economic extensions. The highly industrialized states can spend 3-7 percent of their GNP
on defense. He put forward this argument under the umbrella of the idea that man is a
profit maximizer which is the core belief of anti-capitalist theories.
Max Weber:
Max Weber wrote a book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”
Where he rejected the idea of man as a profit maximizer. He says that man values leisure
over income by giving the example that if we increase the piece work rate, the labor
productivity should increase but the practical results are total opposite. Men have to make
a choice between leisure and income and this choice has its roots in religion and culture.
China as an example:
The author mentioned in his article that there have been changes in two
communist powers in the world, one is China and the other is Russia. The changes in
China were that during the time this article was written almost 20% of Chinese products
have been markitiized – showing the concern of China towards capitalism. Another factor
which will influence China’s communist character was that 20,000 children of the elite of
China (at the time) were studying abroad. After completing their education they will
come back to China and they will face adjustment problems. Being a part of a liberal
atmosphere for a long time and then returning and adjusting in a conservative communist
state is not a favorable condition for them. We can say that the people’s republic of China
cannot remain unaffected by the liberal powers around the world.
Russia as an example:
Another example given by author is that of Russia which the author
mentioned as “”homeland of the world proletarian” During Gorbachev’s era when the
Soviet Union disintegrated, the choice of CARZ states of liberalism over communism
which was the ideology of their core country showed the universality of western liberal
democracy. It is also reported by émigrés from Soviet Union that the public do not
believe in Marxism-Leninism anymore; especially the elite of Soviet are the major critics
of Marxism.
 Both these states can not be called liberals or democratic since the ruling
parties are communist and they can not publicly accept the defeat of communism as it is
the basic theme of both these states. Criticizing the communism idea for them would be
equal to putting a question mark over their identities. And what the author wanted to say
is that even the opposite communist power couldn’t resist the spell of western liberal
democracy.
Threats to liberalism:
After defeating fascism, Nazism and communism, western liberal democracy may
encounter two more threats and those are nationalism and religion.
Religion is one of the core foundations of most of the states. The rise of religious
fundamentalism has been increased in the past few years within Christian, Islamic and
Jewish traditions. However, only Muslims have given the idea of a theocratic state in the
present world. An idea that is not appealing to the non-Muslim sates.
Other than religion, nationalism is a factor which may cause tensions to the liberal
idea. Both the world war shows how nationalism emerged as a threat to others. At present
there are chances of integrations of nations which may emerge as a future power.
European Union is an example of national integration over the basis of a single Europe
nation.
Implications of the End of History:
End of history has its implications in the world politics. The author discussed that
as the third world doesn’t take active part in the world politics we should focus on the
great powers of the world. He said that Russia and China will not convert completely into
liberalist but it will not become a threat for liberalism. The expansionist behavior of
European states rested on no less than ideal as a basis but European nations are illiberal
as they believe in imperialism. Every nation believes that a stronger nation should lead
the weaker ones, as seen by German fascism in the nineteenth century where Germans
wanted to rule the whole Europe. The implications of the end of history can be seen
throughout the world as even the states who define themselves to be non-western or non-
liberal are observing noticeable changes in them.
Conclusion:
The author said that the passing of Marxism-Leninism from China and then
Russia will mean the death of it as an ideology. The final ruling idea of the history has
emerged and will continue to flourish for a long time. The end of history doesn’t imply
that there will be no future conflicts. There will be events, there will be clashes. The
Kurds, Tamils, Irish, Sikhs and Palestinians will continue to have their unresolved issue.
The change which will come is the replacement of recognition and ideology by economic
calculation, the fact for which author calls the end of history as a sad time.
 Summary
Clash of Civilization Samuel P. Huntington (1991)

Outline:
1. Introduction
2. Theme
3. History of clashes
4. What is civilization?
5. Why civilizations will clash?
6. Fault lines between civilizations
 Orthodox re-emergence
 West versus Islam
7. Kin country syndrome
8. West versus Rest
 Idea of “world community”
 Band-wagoning
9. Torn states
 Turkey as a torn state
 Mexico as a torn state
10.Conditions for torn states
 Elite support
 Public support
 Major groups
11.Confucian-Islamic connection
 Disarmament of West
 China as an arms exporter
12.Implications for West
13.Conclusion
Introduction:
This article is written by Samuel P. Huntington who was a Jewish American
scholar. He has been a part of Harvard University, Department of Government and
Columbia University. This article is written as a response to “End of History” written by
Francis Fukuyama. The author wrote a complete book in 1996 named as “Clash of
civilization and the re-making to world order”. This article was written to elaborate the
post-cold war changes in the world politics.
Theme:
The author believed that in the new world (post-cold war world) the primary
source of conflicts would be cultural rather than the old political or ideological
differences. Though nation-states will remain the primacy actors but conflicts will
emerge on the basis of civilizations and culture. He believed that the differences among
civilizations and cultures would become the major source of violence in the post cold war
world. He mentioned in his article that,
“The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines for future.”
History of Clashes:
On the basis of the primary actors involved, the author said that after the
treaty of Westphalia (1648) the primary actors of conflicts were princes, monarchs,
emperors for expansion of their power, either military or political. After the French
Revolution, however the actors changed, as written in the article,
“The war of kings were over, the war of people had begun”
Till the end of WWI conflicts were between people or nations, after that as
witnessed in the cold war, clashes between ideologies started, and ending with the victory
of one ideology. Till the cold war, major conflicts were among the Western states. A
Christian American columnist William Lind called it “Western Civil Wars”. After the
cold war, however, the sphere of world politics expanded, including the Non-Western
states as actors and shapers of history rather than being the objects.
What is Civilization?
As the title suggests that this article talks about the clash of civilizations, it
is important to define what civilization actually is. There are two terms mentioned
repeatedly in the article, one is Culture and the other is Civilization. A culture is sum of
attitudes, customs and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from other.
Civilization is an advanced state of human society and the highest cultural grouping of
people which includes culture, religion, lifestyle and their history. The culture in the
village of Italy would be different from that of Germany but both Italy and Germany
would share the same European culture. civilizations are the broadest level of a person’s
identity. They are dynamic, they rise and fall. They may disappear and get buried in the
sand of time. According to Arnold Toynbee there were 21 major civilizations out of
which only 6 are present today.
Why civilizations will clash?
Author mentioned seven or eight civilizations of the contemporary world.
These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin
American and African. He also gives six reasons that may cause clashes among these
civilizations.
These reasons are mentioned below:
First reason is that the differences among civilizations are basic. They are deep-rooted
within the states and their public. And these differences are a product of centuries and
they will not disappear. He clearly mentioned that differences do not necessarily means
conflict and conflict do not means violence. However the most violent conflict in the
history had the factor of these cultural differences.
Second reason is that the world is becoming a smaller place. The interaction among
people of different civilizations is increasing which as a result is highlighting the
differences between civilizations. Since isolation is not possible for any country or
civilization and it is their need to interact with others, it can be observed easily that these
interactions are making the differences more clear. Consider the example of a Muslim
and Western person working together at one place. Muslims don’t eat pork while
westerns do and both of them have their own reason which may be their religion or
culture. While they are together it is impossible for them to not encounter these
differences.
Third reason is the process of economic modernization and social changes which is
weakening the identity of nation-state. An industrialist from Kuwait will be considered a
Kuwaiti while he is in Arab states, but it Europe or America he will be considered an
Arab.
Fourth reason is the role of West. While being at the peak of power it is having threats
from non-Western states, which maybe Arab, Asian, Islamic etc. these non-Western
states are integrating and trying to emerge as a power in the presence of America which is
already a superpower.
Fifth reason is the rigidity of the cultural differences. These are immutable and not
easily compromised as compared to political or ideological differences. For example a
Russian can be capitalist while belonging to a communist state, but he cannot be Estonian
or Armenian. Similarly a person can be half Arab and half French but he cannot be half
catholic and half Muslim.
Finally there is economic regionalism on the basis of common culture and religion
and the expansion of regionalism can cause problems in near future. The cultural
commonalities are overcoming the ideological differences casting culture as a more
dominant factor than political or economic ideology.
The clashes that may emerge as a result of these reasons can be of two levels. Micro level
where civilizations may fight for territory and Macro level where the goals are of broader
perspectives, dominating international institutes, promoting their cultures and values etc.
Fault lines between civilizations:
Fault lines between civilizations are the beliefs and ideas of one
civilization that are in contrast with the other civilizations and can become a reason of
future conflict or violence. The author mentioned two civilizations whose fault lines can
emerge as a major threat to others. One is orthodox and other is Islam..
Orthodox Christianity’s re-emergence after the Cold War proposed a threat to western
civilization. Orthodox being very narrow and rigid in their beliefs have religious
differences with the catholic and protestants. The rigidity of orthodox Christians is the
fault line between west and orthodox.
Similarly, Islamic culture poses a threat to the west as their differences are more than
thousand years old. There is a common conception of the west that Islam always emerges
and propagates through coercion. The old military interaction between west and Islam is
not going to end very soon. Most recent example of it is the Gulf War. It was said by an
Indian Muslim author, M.J.Akbar that the “next confrontation is going to come from the
Muslims world.”
Kin Country syndrome:
Kin countries are the groups or states which, during war with other
civilizations try to gain support from the members of their own civilization. Consider the
example of Iraq during gulf war. When the U.S led forces ousted Iraq from Kuwait, it
was actually the issue of one Arab state invading other Arab state but after West’s
intervention, Iraqi claimed that “it is not world against Iraq but the West against
Islam”. In this way the Iraqis tried to persuade the Muslim states to help them against
West. In this whole scenario Iraq was the Kin country. Similar cases happened in Soviet
Union and Yugoslavia. States try to achieve their interests by persuading other member
states of their civilization. The Kin country syndrome can become problematic as by
uniting the countries of common culture, a threat can emerge to other civilizations.
West versus Rest:
Since the world politics have come out of the western sphere another
concept have emerged and that is “West versus Rest”. West is at the peak of power in
relation to other civilizations. At the same time it is trying to dominate other states as
well as civilizations through different ways.
The World Community is one of the ideas which the west often uses to achieve its
interest. Through economic integration and IMF,U.S tries to impose its economic policies
over other states. Similarly a problem for west can be constructed as a problem for the
world community through which the other states could be forced to solve that particular
problem along with west. It is often criticized by the non-Western states that, “he values
that are more important for the west are least important worldwide.”
Another concept is that of Band wagoning which means making alliance with the West.
While any state makes alliance with the West have to compromise their interest which
may hurt their public and erupt disturbance among the state as people observe this band
wagoning as hegemony of the west which they may or may not accept. There is another
alternative of band-wagoning which is the torn states.
Torn States:
Torn states are the ones who try to join the west and accept its value and
traditions. The author says that in future people will differentiate themselves by
civilizations and at the same time there will be states which will try to adopt the
civilization and cultural values o other states. Their leaders try to pursue band wagoning
but their civilization and history is different than the west. This concept can be effectively
explained by the following examples,
Turkey as a torn state:
Turkey is the most profound torn state. It is basically a Middle Eastern
Muslim state. The late twentieth century leaders of turkey followed the tradition of
Attaturk making Turkey a secular modern state. They allied Turkey with the West in
NATO and in the Gulf War; they also applied for membership in European Union. At the
same time elements in Turkish society have supported an Islamic revival.
Mexico as a torn state:
For the United States Mexico is the immediate torn state. Mexico is
attempting to imitate United States and to join North American Free Trade Area. Their
efforts to become a North American rather than being Latin American make Mexico as a
torn state. But Mexico cannot publicly accept the fact as Latin America is a total different
civilization than North America. Though not a successful one but still Mexico is a valid
example of torn state.
Conditions for torn state:
For any state to become a torn state, there are three conditions that should
be fulfilled.
1. The political and economic elite of that particular state should generously support
the idea.
2. The public should be willing for the redefinition.
3. The dominant groups of that state shouldn’t oppose this convert.
If any condition is left, there are chances of violence within that state.
Confucian-Islamic connection:
After the cold war, west introduced new idea “disarmament”. The western
states started reducing their arms and suggesting the other states to do the same. While
west started reducing their arms at the same time non-western states are increasing their
arms. When the author talks about Confucian-Islamic connection, he is actually talking
about china as an exporter of arms whereas most of the states where it exported them
were Muslim states for example Libya, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. The flow of weapons is
going towards Middle East from East Asia. And this connection is a threat for west.
Implications for west:
Now after observing these cultural differences and their consequences
what are the implications for west? Since the differences among civilizations are basic so
it is better for the west to not impose its civilization over others as a serious response can
come from other states. It is better for the west to focus on its own civilization as other
states are trying on their own to become modern without being western.
Conclusion:
The author believes that at the end there will be no universal civilization
but a homogenous mixture of civilizations each of which have to learn to co-exist with
other without causing problems for others.