FrancisFukuyama(1992)

TheEndofHistory
andtheLastMan

Source:TheEndofHistoryandtheLastMan(1992),publ.Penguin.
JusttheIntroductionreproducedhere;
Transcribed:byAndyBlundenin1998,proofedandcorrectedFebruary
2005.

ByWayofanIntroduction
ThedistantoriginsofthepresentvolumelieinanarticleentitledTheEndofHistory?whichIwrote
forthejournalTheNationalInterestinthesummerof1989.Init,Iarguedthataremarkable
consensusconcerningthelegitimacyofliberaldemocracyasasystemofgovernmenthademerged
throughouttheworldoverthepastfewyears,asitconqueredrivalideologieslikehereditary
monarchy,fascism,andmostrecentlycommunism.Morethanthat,however,Iarguedthatliberal
democracymayconstitutetheendpointofmankindsideologicalevolutionandthefinalformof
humangovernment,andassuchconstitutedtheendofhistory.Thatis,whileearlierformsof
governmentwerecharacterisedbygravedefectsandirrationalitiesthatledtotheireventual
collapse,liberaldemocracywasarguablyfreefromsuchfundamentalinternalcontradictions.This
wasnottosaythattodaysstabledemocracies,liketheUnitedStates,France,orSwitzerland,were
notwithoutinjusticeorserioussocialproblems.Buttheseproblemswereonesofincomplete
implementationofthetwinprinciplesoflibertyandequalityonwhichmoderndemocracyis
founded,ratherthanofflawsintheprinciplesthemselves.Whilesomepresentdaycountriesmight
failtoachievestableliberaldemocracy,andothersmightlapsebackintoother,moreprimitiveforms
ofruleliketheocracyormilitarydictatorship,theidealofliberaldemocracycouldnotbeimproved
on.
Theoriginalarticleexcitedanextraordinaryamountofcommentaryandcontroversy,firstinthe
UnitedStates,andtheninaseriesofcountriesasdifferentasEngland,France,Italy,theSoviet
Union,Brazil,SouthAfrica,Japan,andSouthKorea.Criticismtookeveryconceivableform,someofit
basedonsimplemisunderstandingofmyoriginalintent,andotherspenetratingmoreperceptivelyto
thecoreofmyargument.Manypeoplewereconfusedinthefirstinstancebymyuseoftheword
history.Understandinghistoryinaconventionalsenseastheoccurrenceofevents,peoplepointed
tothefalloftheBerlinWall,theChinesecommunistcrackdowninTiananmenSquare,andtheIraqi
invasionofKuwaitasevidencethathistorywascontinuing,andthatIwasipsofactoprovenwrong.
AndyetwhatIsuggestedhadcometoanendwasnottheoccurrenceofevents,evenlargeand
graveevents,butHistory:thatis,historyunderstoodasasingle,coherent,evolutionaryprocess,
whentakingintoaccounttheexperienceofallpeoplesinalltimes.ThisunderstandingofHistorywas
mostcloselyassociatedwiththegreatGermanphilosopherG.W.F.Hegel.Itwasmadepartofour
dailyintellectualatmospherebyKarlMarx,whoborrowedthisconceptofHistoryfromHegel,andis
implicitinouruseofwordslikeprimitiveoradvanced,traditionalormodern,whenreferring
todifferenttypesofhumansocieties.Forbothofthesethinkers,therewasacoherentdevelopment
ofhumansocietiesfromsimpletribalonesbasedonslaveryandsubsistenceagriculture,through
varioustheocracies,monarchies,andfeudalaristocracies,upthroughmodernliberaldemocracyand
technologicallydrivencapitalism.Thisevolutionaryprocesswasneitherrandomnorunintelligible,
evenifitdidnotproceedinastraightline,andevenifitwaspossibletoquestionwhethermanwas
happierorbetteroffasaresultofhistoricalprogress.
BothHegelandMarxbelievedthattheevolutionofhumansocietieswasnotopenended,butwould
endwhenmankindhadachievedaformofsocietythatsatisfieditsdeepestandmostfundamental
longings.Boththinkersthuspositedanendofhistory:forHegelthiswastheliberalstate,whilefor
Marxitwasacommunistsociety.Thisdidnotmeanthatthenaturalcycleofbirth,life,anddeath
wouldend,thatimportanteventswouldnolongerhappen,orthatnewspapersreportingthem
wouldceasetobepublished.Itmeant,rather,thattherewouldbenofurtherprogressinthe
developmentofunderlyingprinciplesandinstitutions,becauseallofthereallybigquestionshad
beensettled.
Thepresentbookisnotarestatementofmyoriginalarticle,norisitanefforttocontinuethe
discussionwiththatarticlesmanycriticsandcommentators.Leastofallisitanaccountoftheendof
theColdWar,oranyotherpressingtopicincontemporarypolitics.Whilethisbookisinformedby
recentworldevents,itssubjectreturnstoaveryoldquestion:Whether,attheendofthetwentieth
century,itmakessenseforusonceagaintospeakofacoherentanddirectionalHistoryofmankind
thatwilleventuallyleadthegreaterpartofhumanitytoliberaldemocracy?TheanswerIarriveatis
yes,fortwoseparatereasons.Onehastodowitheconomics,andtheotherhastodowithwhatis
termedthestruggleforrecognition.
ItisofcoursenotsufficienttoappealtotheauthorityofHegel,Marx,oranyoftheircontemporary
followerstoestablishthevalidityofadirectionalHistory.Inthecenturyandahalfsincetheywrote,
theirintellectuallegacyhasbeenrelentlesslyassaultedfromalldirections.Themostprofound
thinkersofthetwentiethcenturyhavedirectlyattackedtheideathathistoryisacoherentor
intelligibleprocess;indeed,theyhavedeniedthepossibilitythatanyaspectofhumanlifeis
philosophicallyintelligible.WeintheWesthavebecomethoroughlypessimisticwithregardtothe
possibilityofoverallprogressindemocraticinstitutions.Thisprofoundpessimismisnotaccidental,
butbornofthetrulyterriblepoliticaleventsofthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcenturytwo
destructiveworldwars,theriseoftotalitarianideologies,andtheturningofscienceagainstmanin
theformofnuclearweaponsandenvironmentaldamage.Thelifeexperiencesofthevictimsofthis
pastcenturyspoliticalviolencefromthesurvivorsofHitlerismandStalinismtothevictimsofPol
Potwoulddenythattherehasbeensuchathingashistoricalprogress.Indeed,wehavebecomeso
accustomedbynowtoexpectthatthefuturewillcontainbadnewswithrespecttothehealthand
securityofdecent,liberal,democraticpoliticalpracticesthatwehaveproblemsrecognisinggood
newswhenitcomes.
Andyet,goodnewshascome.Themostremarkabledevelopmentofthelastquarterofthe
twentiethcenturyhasbeentherevelationofenormousweaknessesatthecoreoftheworlds
seeminglystrongdictatorships,whethertheybeofthemilitaryauthoritarianRight,orthe
communisttotalitarianLeft.FromLatinAmericatoEasternEurope,fromtheSovietUniontothe
MiddleEastandAsia,stronggovernmentshavebeenfailingoverthelasttwodecades.Andwhile
theyhavenotgivenwayinallcasestostableliberaldemocracies,liberaldemocracyremainstheonly
coherentpoliticalaspirationthatspansdifferentregionsandculturesaroundtheglobe.Inaddition,
liberalprinciplesineconomicsthefreemarkethavespread,andhavesucceededinproducing
unprecedentedlevelsofmaterialprosperity,bothinindustriallydevelopedcountriesandin
countriesthathadbeen,atthecloseofWorldWarII,partoftheimpoverishedThirdWorld.Aliberal
revolutionineconomicthinkinghassometimespreceded,sometimesfollowed,themovetoward
politicalfreedomaroundtheglobe.
Allofthesedevelopments,somuchatoddswiththeterriblehistoryofthefirsthalfofthecentury
whentotalitariangovernmentsoftheRightandLeftwereonthemarch,suggesttheneedtolook
againatthequestionofwhetherthereissomedeeperconnectingthreadunderlyingthem,or
whethertheyaremerelyaccidentalinstancesofgoodluck.Byraisingonceagainthequestionof
whetherthereissuchathingasaUniversalHistoryofmankind,Iamresumingadiscussionthatwas
begunintheearlynineteenthcentury,butmoreorlessabandonedinourtimebecauseofthe
enormityofeventsthatmankindhasexperiencedsincethen.Whiledrawingontheideasof
philosopherslikeKantandHegelwhohaveaddressedthisquestionbefore,Ihopethatthe
argumentspresentedherewillstandontheirown.
ThisvolumeimmodestlypresentsnotonebuttwoseparateeffortstooutlinesuchaUniversal
History.AfterestablishinginPartIwhyweneedtoraiseonceagainthepossibilityofUniversal
History,IproposeaninitialanswerinPartIIbyattemptingtousemodernnaturalscienceasa
regulatorormechanismtoexplainthedirectionalityandcoherenceofHistory.Modernnatural
scienceisausefulstartingpointbecauseitistheonlyimportantsocialactivitythatbycommon
consensusisbothcumulativeanddirectional,evenifitsultimateimpactonhumanhappinessis
ambiguous.Theprogressiveconquestofnaturemadepossiblewiththedevelopmentofthescientific
methodinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturieshasproceededaccordingtocertaindefiniterules
laiddownnotbyman,butbynatureandnatureslaws.
Theunfoldingofmodernnaturalsciencehashadauniformeffectonallsocietiesthathave
experiencedit,fortworeasons.Inthefirstplace,technologyconfersdecisivemilitaryadvantageson
thosecountriesthatpossessit,andgiventhecontinuingpossibilityofwarintheinternationalsystem
ofstates,nostatethatvaluesitsindependencecanignoretheneedfordefensivemodernisation.
Second,modernnaturalscienceestablishesauniformhorizonofeconomicproductionpossibilities.
Technologymakespossiblethelimitlessaccumulationofwealth,andthusthesatisfactionofanever
expandingsetofhumandesires.Thisprocessguaranteesanincreasinghomogenisationofallhuman
societies,regardlessoftheirhistoricaloriginsorculturalinheritances.Allcountriesundergoing
economicmodernisationmustincreasinglyresembleoneanother:theymustunifynationallyonthe
basisofacentralisedstate,urbanise,replacetraditionalformsofsocialorganisationliketribe,sect,
andfamilywitheconomicallyrationalonesbasedonfunctionandefficiency,andprovideforthe
universaleducationoftheircitizens.Suchsocietieshavebecomeincreasinglylinkedwithone
anotherthroughglobalmarketsandthespreadofauniversalconsumerculture.Moreover,thelogic
ofmodernnaturalsciencewouldseemtodictateauniversalevolutioninthedirectionofcapitalism.
TheexperiencesoftheSovietUnion,China,andothersocialistcountriesindicatethatwhilehighly
centralisedeconomiesaresufficienttoreachthelevelofindustrialisationrepresentedbyEuropein
the1950s,theyarewoefullyinadequateincreatingwhathavebeentermedcomplexpost
industrialeconomiesinwhichinformationandtechnologicalinnovationplayamuchlargerrole.
Butwhilethehistoricalmechanismrepresentedbymodernnaturalscienceissufficienttoexplaina
greatdealaboutthecharacterofhistoricalchangeandthegrowinguniformityofmodernsocieties,it
isnotsufficienttoaccountforthephenomenonofdemocracy.Thereisnoquestionbutthatthe
worldsmostdevelopedcountriesarealsoitsmostsuccessfuldemocracies.Butwhilemodern
naturalscienceguidesustothegatesofthePromisedLandofliberaldemocracy,itdoesnotdeliver
ustothePromisedLanditself,forthereisnoeconomicallynecessaryreasonwhyadvanced
industrialisationshouldproducepoliticalliberty.Stabledemocracyhasattimesemergedinpre
industrialsocieties,asitdidintheUnitedStatesin1776.Ontheotherhand,therearemany
historicalandcontemporaryexamplesoftechnologicallyadvancedcapitalismcoexistingwithpolitical
authoritarianismfromMeijiJapanandBismarckianGermanytopresentdaySingaporeandThailand.
Inmanycases,authoritarianstatesarecapableofproducingratesofeconomicgrowthunachievable
indemocraticsocieties.
Ourfirstefforttoestablishthebasisforadirectionalhistoryisthusonlypartlysuccessful.Whatwe
havecalledthelogicofmodernnaturalscienceisineffectaneconomicinterpretationofhistorical
change,butonewhich(unlikeitsMarxistvariant)leadstocapitalismratherthansocialismasitsfinal
result.Thelogicofmodernsciencecanexplainagreatdealaboutourworld:whyweresidentsof
developeddemocraciesareofficeworkersratherthanpeasantsekingoutalivingontheland,why
wearemembersoflaborunionsorprofessionalorganisationsratherthantribesorclans,whywe
obeytheauthorityofabureaucraticsuperiorratherthanapriest,whyweareliterateandspeaka
commonnationallanguage.
Buteconomicinterpretationsofhistoryareincompleteandunsatisfying,becausemanisnotsimply
aneconomicanimal.Inparticular,suchinterpretationscannotreallyexplainwhywearedemocrats,
thatis,proponentsoftheprincipleofpopularsovereigntyandtheguaranteeofbasicrightsundera
ruleoflaw.Itisforthisreasonthatthebookturnstoasecond,parallelaccountofthehistorical
processinPartIII,anaccountthatseekstorecoverthewholeofmanandnotjusthiseconomicside.
Todothis,wereturntoHegelandHegelsnonmaterialistaccountofHistory,basedonthestruggle
forrecognition.
AccordingtoHegel,humanbeingslikeanimalshavenaturalneedsanddesiresforobjectsoutside
themselvessuchasfood,drink,shelter,andaboveallthepreservationoftheirownbodies.Man
differsfundamentallyfromtheanimals,however,becauseinadditionhedesiresthedesireofother
men,thatis,hewantstoberecognised.Inparticular,hewantstoberecognisedasahumanbeing,
thatis,asabeingwithacertainworthordignity.Thisworthinthefirstinstanceisrelatedtohis
willingnesstoriskhislifeinastruggleoverpureprestige.Foronlymanisabletoovercomehismost
basicanimalinstinctschiefamongthemhisinstinctforselfpreservationforthesakeofhigher,
abstractprinciplesandgoals.AccordingtoHegel,thedesireforrecognitioninitiallydrivestwo
primordialcombatantstoseektomaketheotherrecognisetheirhumannessbystakingtheirlives
inamortalbattle.Whenthenaturalfearofdeathleadsonecombatanttosubmit,therelationshipof
masterandslaveisborn.Thestakesinthisbloodybattleatthebeginningofhistoryarenotfood,
shelter,orsecurity,butpureprestige.Andpreciselybecausethegoalofthebattleisnotdetermined
bybiology,Hegelseesinitthefirstglimmerofhumanfreedom.
Thedesireforrecognitionmayatfirstappeartobeanunfamiliarconcept,butitisasoldasthe
traditionofWesternpoliticalphilosophy,andconstitutesathoroughlyfamiliarpartofthehuman
personality.ItwasfirstdescribedbyPlatointheRepublic,whenhenotedthattherewerethreeparts
tothesoul,adesiringpart,areasoningpart,andapartthathecalledthymos,orspiritedness.
Muchofhumanbehaviourcanbeexplainedasacombinationofthefirsttwoparts,desireand
reason:desireinducesmentoseekthingsoutsidethemselves,whilereasonorcalculationshows
themthebestwaytogetthem.Butinaddition,humanbeingsseekrecognitionoftheirownworth,
orofthepeople,things,orprinciplesthattheyinvestwithworth.Thepropensitytoinvesttheself
withacertainvalue,andtodemandrecognitionforthatvalue,iswhatintodayspopularlanguage
wewouldcallselfesteem.Thepropensitytofeelselfesteemarisesoutofthepartofthesoul
calledemos.Itislikeaninnatehumansenseofjustice.Peoplebelievethattheyhaveacertainworth,
andwhenotherpeopletreatthemasthoughtheyareworthlessthanthat,theyexperiencethe
emotionofanger.Conversely,whenpeoplefailtoliveuptotheirownsenseofworth,theyfeel
shame,andwhentheyareevaluatedcorrectlyinproportiontotheirworth,theyfeelpride.The
desireforrecognition,andtheaccompanyingemotionsofanger,shame,andpride,arepartsofthe
humanpersonalitycriticaltopoliticallife.AccordingtoHegel,theyarewhatdrivesthewhole
historicalprocess.
ByHegelsaccount,thedesiretoberecognisedasahumanbeingwithdignitydrovemanatthe
beginningofhistoryintoabloodybattletothedeathforprestige.Theoutcomeofthisbattlewasa
divisionofhumansocietyintoaclassofmasters,whowerewillingtorisktheirlives,andaclassof
slaves,whogaveintotheirnaturalfearofdeath.Buttherelationshipoflordshipandbondage,
whichtookawidevarietyofformsinalloftheunequal,aristocraticsocietiesthathavecharacterised
thegreaterpartofhumanhistory,failedultimatelytosatisfythedesireforrecognitionofeitherthe
mastersortheslaves.Theslave,ofcourse,wasnotacknowledgedasahumanbeinginanyway
whatsoever.Buttherecognitionenjoyedbythemasterwasdeficientaswell,becausehewasnot
recognisedbyothermasters,butslaveswhosehumanitywasasyetincomplete.Dissatisfactionwith
theflawedrecognitionavailableinaristocraticsocietiesconstitutedacontradictionthat
engenderedfurtherstagesofhistory.
Hegelbelievedthatthecontradictioninherentintherelationshipoflordshipandbondagewas
finallyovercomeasaresultoftheFrenchand,onewouldhavetoadd,Americanrevolutions.These
democraticrevolutionsabolishedthedistinctionbetweenmasterandslavebymakingtheformer
slavestheirownmastersandbyestablishingtheprinciplesofpopularsovereigntyandtheruleof
law.Theinherentlyunequalrecognitionofmastersandslavesisreplacedbyuniversalandreciprocal
recognition,whereeverycitizenrecognisesthedignityandhumanityofeveryothercitizen,and
wherethatdignityisrecognisedinturnbythestatethroughthegrantingofrights.
ThisHegelianunderstandingofthemeaningofcontemporaryliberaldemocracydiffersina
significantwayfromtheAngloSaxonunderstandingthatwasthetheoreticalbasisofliberalismin
countrieslikeBritainandtheUnitedStates.Inthattradition,thepridefulquestforrecognitionwasto
besubordinatedtoenlightenedselfinterestdesirecombinedwithreasonandparticularlythe
desireforselfpreservationofthebody.WhileHobbes,Locke,andtheAmericanFoundingFathers
likeJeffersonandMadisonbelievedthatrightstoalargeextentexistedasameansofpreservinga
privatespherewheremencanenrichthemselvesandsatisfythedesiringpartsoftheirsouls,Hegel
sawrightsasendsinthemselves,becausewhattrulysatisfieshumanbeingsisnotsomuchmaterial
prosperityasrecognitionoftheirstatusanddignity.WiththeAmericanandFrenchrevolutions,
Hegelassertedthathistorycomestoanendbecausethelongingthathaddriventhehistorical
processthestruggleforrecognitionhasnowbeensatisfiedinasocietycharacterisedbyuniversal
andreciprocalrecognition.Nootherarrangementofhumansocialinstitutionsisbetterabletosatisfy
thislonging,andhencenofurtherprogressivehistoricalchangeispossible.
Thedesireforrecognition,then,canprovidethemissinglinkbetweenliberaleconomicsandliberal
politicsthatwasmissingfromtheeconomicaccountofHistoryinPartII.Desireandreasonare
togethersufficienttoexplaintheprocessofindustrialisation,andalargepartofeconomiclifemore
generally.Buttheycannotexplainthestrivingforliberaldemocracy,whichultimatelyarisesoutof
thymos,thepartofthesoulthatdemandsrecognition.Thesocialchangesthataccompanyadvanced
industrialisation,inparticularuniversaleducation,appeartoliberateacertaindemandfor
recognitionthatdidnotexistamongpoorerandlesseducatedpeople.Asstandardsofliving
increase,aspopulationsbecomemorecosmopolitanandbettereducated,andassocietyasawhole
achievesagreaterequalityofcondition,peoplebegintodemandnotsimplymorewealthbut
recognitionoftheirstatus.Ifpeoplewerenothingmorethandesireandreason,theywouldbe
contenttoliveinmarketorientedauthoritarianstateslikeFrancosSpain,oraSouthKoreaorBrazil
undermilitaryrule.Buttheyalsohaveathymoticprideintheirownselfworth,andthisleadsthem
todemanddemocraticgovernmentsthattreatthemlikeadultsratherthanchildren,recognising
theirautonomyasfreeindividuals.Communismisbeingsupersededbyliberaldemocracyinourtime
becauseoftherealisationthattheformerprovidesagravelydefectiveformofrecognition.
Anunderstandingoftheimportanceofthedesireforrecognitionasthemotorofhistoryallowsusto
reinterpretmanyphenomenathatareotherwiseseeminglyfamiliartous,suchasculture,religion,
work,nationalism,andwar.PartIVisanattempttodopreciselythis,andtoprojectintothefuture
someofthedifferentwaysthatthedesireforrecognitionwillbemanifest.Areligiousbeliever,for
example,seeksrecognitionforhisparticulargodsorsacredpractices,whileanationalistdemands
recognitionforhisparticularlinguistic,cultural,orethnicgroup.Bothoftheseformsofrecognition
arelessrationalthantheuniversalrecognitionoftheliberalstate,becausetheyarebasedon
arbitrarydistinctionsbetweensacredandprofane,orbetweenhumansocialgroups.Forthisreason,
religion,nationalism,andapeoplescomplexofethicalhabitsandcustoms(morebroadlyculture)
havetraditionallybeeninterpretedasobstaclestotheestablishmentofsuccessfuldemocratic
politicalinstitutionsandfreemarketeconomies.
Butthetruthisconsiderablymorecomplicated,forthesuccessofliberalpoliticsandliberal
economicsfrequentlyrestsonirrationalformsofrecognitionthatliberalismwassupposedto
overcome.Fordemocracytowork,citizensneedtodevelopanirrationalprideintheirown
democraticinstitutions,andmustalsodevelopwhatTocquevillecalledtheartofassociating,which
restsonpridefulattachmenttosmallcommunities.Thesecommunitiesarefrequentlybasedon
religion,ethnicity,orotherformsofrecognitionthatfallshortoftheuniversalrecognitiononwhich
theliberalstateisbased.Thesameistrueforliberaleconomics.Laborhastraditionallybeen
understoodintheWesternliberaleconomictraditionasanessentiallyunpleasantactivity
undertakenforthesakeofthesatisfactionofhumandesiresandthereliefofhumanpain.Butin
certaincultureswithastrongworkethic,suchasthatoftheProtestantentrepreneurswhocreated
Europeancapitalism,oroftheeliteswhomodernisedJapanaftertheMeijirestoration,workwas
alsoundertakenforthesakeofrecognition.Tothisday,theworkethicinmanyAsiancountriesis
sustainednotsomuchbymaterialincentives,asbytherecognitionprovidedforworkbyoverlapping
socialgroups,fromthefamilytothenation,onwhichthesesocietiesarebased.Thissuggeststhat
liberaleconomicssucceedsnotsimplyonthebasisofliberalprinciples,butrequiresirrationalforms
ofthymosaswell.
Thestruggleforrecognitionprovidesuswithinsightintothenatureofinternationalpolitics.The
desireforrecognitionthatledtotheoriginalbloodybattleforprestigebetweentwoindividual
combatantsleadslogicallytoimperialismandworldempire.Therelationshipoflordshipand
bondageonadomesticlevelisnaturallyreplicatedonthelevelofstates,wherenationsasawhole
seekrecognitionandenterintobloodybattlesforsupremacy.Nationalism,amodernyetnotfully
rationalformofrecognition,hasbeenthevehicleforthestruggleforrecognitionoverthepast
hundredyears,andthesourceofthiscenturysmostintenseconflicts.Thisistheworldofpower
politics,describedbysuchforeignpolicyrealistsasHenryKissinger.
Butifwarisfundamentallydrivenbythedesireforrecognition,itstandstoreasonthattheliberal
revolutionwhichabolishestherelationshipoflordshipandbondagebymakingformerslavestheir
ownmastersshouldhaveasimilareffectontherelationshipbetweenstates.Liberaldemocracy
replacestheirrationaldesiretoberecognisedasgreaterthanotherswitharationaldesiretobe
recognisedasequal.Aworldmadeupofliberaldemocracies,then,shouldhavemuchlessincentive
forwar,sinceallnationswouldreciprocallyrecogniseoneanotherslegitimacy.Andindeed,thereis
substantialempiricalevidencefromthepastcoupleofhundredyearsthatliberaldemocraciesdonot
behaveimperialisticallytowardoneanother,eveniftheyareperfectlycapableofgoingtowarwith
statesthatarenotdemocraciesanddonotsharetheirfundamentalvalues.Nationalismiscurrently
ontheriseinregionslikeEasternEuropeandtheSovietUnionwherepeopleshavelongbeendenied
theirnationalidentities,andyetwithintheworldsoldestandmostsecurenationalities,nationalism
isundergoingaprocessofchange.ThedemandfornationalrecognitioninWesternEuropehasbeen
domesticatedandmadecompatiblewithuniversalrecognition,muchlikereligionthreeorfour
centuriesbefore.
Thefifthandfinalpartofthisbookaddressesthequestionoftheendofhistory,andthecreature
whoemergesattheend,thelastman.InthecourseoftheoriginaldebateovertheNational
Interestarticle,manypeopleassumedthatthepossibilityoftheendofhistoryrevolvedaroundthe
questionofwhethertherewereviablealternativestoliberaldemocracyvisibleintheworldtoday.
Therewasagreatdealofcontroversyoversuchquestionsaswhethercommunismwastrulydead,
whetherreligionorultranationalismmightmakeacomeback,andthelike.Butthedeeperandmore
profoundquestionconcernsthegoodnessofLiberaldemocracyitself,andnotonlywhetheritwill
succeedagainstitspresentdayrivals.Assumingthatliberaldemocracyis,forthemoment,safefrom
externalenemies,couldweassumethatsuccessfuldemocraticsocietiescouldremainthatway
indefinitely?Orisliberaldemocracypreytoseriousinternalcontradictions,contradictionssoserious
thattheywilleventuallyundermineitasapoliticalsystem?Thereisnodoubtthatcontemporary
democraciesfaceanynumberofseriousproblems,fromdrugs,homelessnessandcrimeto
environmentaldamageandthefrivolityofconsumerism.Buttheseproblemsarenotobviously
insolubleonthebasisofliberalprinciples,norsoseriousthattheywouldnecessarilyleadtothe
collapseofsocietyasawhole,ascommunismcollapsedinthe1980s.
Writinginthetwentiethcentury,Hegelsgreatinterpreter,AlexandreKojve,assertedintransigently
thathistoryhadendedbecausewhathecalledtheuniversalandhomogeneousstatewhatwe
canunderstandasliberaldemocracydefinitelysolvedthequestionofrecognitionbyreplacingthe
relationshipoflordshipandbondagewithuniversalandequalrecognition.Whatmanhadbeen
seekingthroughoutthecourseofhistorywhathaddriventhepriorstagesofhistorywas
recognition.Inthemodernworld,hefinallyfoundit,andwascompletelysatisfied.Thisclaimwas
madeseriouslybyKojve,anditdeservestobetakenseriouslybyus.Foritispossibletounderstand
theproblemofpoliticsoverthemillenniaofhumanhistoryastheefforttosolvetheproblemof
recognition.Recognitionisthecentralproblemofpoliticsbecauseitistheoriginoftyranny,
imperialism,andthedesiretodominate.Butwhileithasadarkside,itcannotsimplybeabolished
frompoliticallife,becauseitissimultaneouslythepsychologicalgroundforpoliticalvirtueslike
courage,publicspiritedness,andjustice.Allpoliticalcommunitiesmustmakeuseofthedesirefor
recognition,whileatthesametimeprotectingthemselvesfromitsdestructiveeffects.If
contemporaryconstitutionalgovernmenthasindeedfoundaformulawherebyallarerecognisedina
waythatnonethelessavoidstheemergenceoftyranny,thenitwouldindeedhaveaspecialclaimto
stabilityandlongevityamongtheregimesthathaveemergedonearth.
Butistherecognitionavailabletocitizensofcontemporaryliberaldemocraciescompletely
satisfying?Thelongtermfutureofliberaldemocracy,andthealternativestoitthatmayoneday
arise,dependaboveallontheanswertothisquestion.InPartVwesketchtwobroadresponses,
fromtheLeftandtheRight,respectively.TheLeftwouldsaythatuniversalrecognitioninliberal
democracyisnecessarilyincompletebecausecapitalismcreateseconomicinequalityandrequiresa
divisionoflaborthatipsofactoimpliesunequalrecognition.Inthisrespect,anationsabsolutelevel
ofprosperityprovidesnosolution,becausetherewillcontinuetobethosewhoarerelativelypoor
andthereforeinvisibleashumanbeingstotheirfellowcitizens.Liberaldemocracy,inotherwords,
continuestorecogniseequalpeopleunequally.
Thesecond,andinmyviewmorepowerful,criticismofuniversalrecognitioncomesfromtheRight
thatwasprofoundlyconcernedwiththelevelingeffectsoftheFrenchRevolutionscommitmentto
humanequality.ThisRightfounditsmostbrilliantspokesmaninthephilosopherFriedrichNietzsche,
whoseviewswereinsomerespectsanticipatedbythatgreatobserverofdemocraticsocieties,Alexis
deTocqueville.Nietzschebelievedthatmoderndemocracyrepresentednottheselfmasteryof
formerslaves,buttheunconditionalvictoryoftheslaveandakindofslavishmorality.Thetypical
citizenofaliberaldemocracywasalastmanwho,schooledbythefoundersofmodernliberalism,
gaveuppridefulbeliefinhisorherownsuperiorworthinfavourofcomfortableselfpreservation.
Liberaldemocracyproducedmenwithoutchests,composedofdesireandreasonbutlacking
thymos,cleveratfindingnewwaystosatisfyahostofpettywantsthroughthecalculationoflong
termselfinterest.Thelastmanhadnodesiretoberecognisedasgreaterthanothers,andwithout
suchdesirenoexcellenceorachievementwaspossible.Contentwithhishappinessandunableto
feelanysenseofshameforbeingunabletoriseabovethosewants,thelastmanceasedtobe
human.
FollowingNietzscheslineofthought,wearecompelledtoaskthefollowingquestions:Isnotthe
manwhoiscompletelysatisfiedbynothingmorethanuniversalandequalrecognitionsomething
lessthanafullhumanbeing,indeed,anobjectofcontempt,alastmanwithneitherstrivingnor
aspiration?Istherenotasideofthehumanpersonalitythatdeliberatelyseeksoutstruggle,danger,
risk,anddaring,andwillthissidenotremainunfulfilledbythepeaceandprosperityof
contemporaryliberaldemocracy?Doesnotthesatisfactionofcertainhumanbeingsdependon
recognitionthatisinherentlyunequal?Indeed,doesnotthedesireforunequalrecognition
constitutethebasisofalivablelife,notjustforbygonearistocraticsocieties,butalsoinmodern
liberaldemocracies?Willnottheirfuturesurvivaldepend,tosomeextent,onthedegreetowhich
theircitizensseektoberecognisednotjustasequal,butassuperiortoothers?Andmightnotthe
fearofbecomingcontemptiblelastmennotleadmentoassertthemselvesinnewandunforeseen
ways,eventothepointofbecomingonceagainbestialfirstmenengagedinbloodyprestige
battles,thistimewithmodernweapons?
Thisbooksseekstoaddressthesequestions.Theyarisenaturallyonceweaskwhetherthereissuch
athingasprogress,andwhetherwecanconstructacoherentanddirectionalUniversalHistoryof
mankind.TotalitarianismsoftheRightandLefthavekeptustoobusytoconsiderthelatterquestion
seriouslyforthebetterpartofthiscentury.Butthefadingofthesetotalitarianisms,asthecentury
comestoanend,invitesustoraisethisoldquestiononemoretime.