Mendacious Intellectuals
[The following is an excerpt from a recent book writ by the mouse. MM criticizes the conclusions reached by Francis Fukuyama in his erstwhile best seller, "The End of History and the Last Man." The critique has since taken on greater importance. Fukuyama's belief that so-called "liberal democracy" constitutes the literal end of history, misses the point . . . as the excerpt from MM's critique perhaps makes clear. It's not "democracy" that is the ideal, but civilized behavior. Madison and other framers recognized that atrocities could just as easily be committed by democratic majorities as by dictatorial tyrants. But the idea that democracy is the end of history, and that what democracies do with their bombs is of no concern, does seem to play well in Paducah.]
Dr. Fukuyama suggests, in the opus cited, that history has come to an end. To understand what he means by this, one must first see that by “history” Fukuyama does not mean the record of “events, even large and grave events.” He means “a single, coherent, evolutionary process” as reflected in “the experience of all people in all times.” If that quoted description of what he means still leaves you wondering what he means, let me put it this way: he means the word “history” in a narrower sense than most people usually think of it; he means that history’s unfolding has revealed (to him) an inexorable upward evolution, with governments grounded in liberal, democratic principles gradually replacing governments grounded in slavery, feudalism, and dictatorial rule. He’s referring to a Great Spirit, an Hegelian invention that’s presumed to be moving history onward and upward, and because Fukuyama regards liberal democracy as a flawless model (at least in its fundamentals), he claims the Great Spirit has finally succeeded, and that liberal democracy will endure forever. Hence, The End of History....
In taking the position that liberal democracy has finally arrived, and that it cannot be improved upon, Fukuyama may have begged the question. If presidents, governors, and prime ministers, acting on behalf of liberal, democratic governments, order and direct the commission of atrocities similar to those committed by feudal lords, slave owners, and dictators, Dr. Fukuyama would be compelled to argue that the fault lies not in the form of government but in the men themselves. And if it were pointed out to him that no form of government, by itself, will change men into angels, the fault again must lie, not with the government, but with the men. Finally, Fukuyama does not seem to have suspected that a government run by angels (or philosopher-kings) would produce marginally better results by less democratic methods. He was, thus, deprived of the opportunity to admit that healing the neuroses of liberal democracy’s leaders would create circumstances in which a government grounded in something other than liberal, democratic principles might operate more effectively. He has arbitrarily chosen to measure “progress” by simply referring to ideological changes. But if real history has had something to do with a diminution (or acceleration) of man’s inhumanity to man (for example) then measuring the frequency and severity of atrocious acts would be appropriate, and the form of government irrelevant.
. . .
But if the struggles of Hegelian “first men” were actually pissing contests between libido-driven madmen, what then would we say about the triumph of the so-called slave class? What if the real thread running through history has not been a struggle for recognition, but a striving of man’s existential freedom to discover and to live by the dictates of right living? If that has been the case, then in history’s approach toward an end point we would expect to see among the “last men” a gradually unfolding awareness of the illness of history’s “great men” and a diminishment of ignorance. We would expect to see the irrational search for recognition being replaced by an intensifying attempt to identify what is good for man and what is not.
[So far, the Mouse has seen no such trend . . . unless it be found in diatribes such as his own.]
Dr. Fukuyama suggests, in the opus cited, that history has come to an end. To understand what he means by this, one must first see that by “history” Fukuyama does not mean the record of “events, even large and grave events.” He means “a single, coherent, evolutionary process” as reflected in “the experience of all people in all times.” If that quoted description of what he means still leaves you wondering what he means, let me put it this way: he means the word “history” in a narrower sense than most people usually think of it; he means that history’s unfolding has revealed (to him) an inexorable upward evolution, with governments grounded in liberal, democratic principles gradually replacing governments grounded in slavery, feudalism, and dictatorial rule. He’s referring to a Great Spirit, an Hegelian invention that’s presumed to be moving history onward and upward, and because Fukuyama regards liberal democracy as a flawless model (at least in its fundamentals), he claims the Great Spirit has finally succeeded, and that liberal democracy will endure forever. Hence, The End of History....
In taking the position that liberal democracy has finally arrived, and that it cannot be improved upon, Fukuyama may have begged the question. If presidents, governors, and prime ministers, acting on behalf of liberal, democratic governments, order and direct the commission of atrocities similar to those committed by feudal lords, slave owners, and dictators, Dr. Fukuyama would be compelled to argue that the fault lies not in the form of government but in the men themselves. And if it were pointed out to him that no form of government, by itself, will change men into angels, the fault again must lie, not with the government, but with the men. Finally, Fukuyama does not seem to have suspected that a government run by angels (or philosopher-kings) would produce marginally better results by less democratic methods. He was, thus, deprived of the opportunity to admit that healing the neuroses of liberal democracy’s leaders would create circumstances in which a government grounded in something other than liberal, democratic principles might operate more effectively. He has arbitrarily chosen to measure “progress” by simply referring to ideological changes. But if real history has had something to do with a diminution (or acceleration) of man’s inhumanity to man (for example) then measuring the frequency and severity of atrocious acts would be appropriate, and the form of government irrelevant.
. . .
But if the struggles of Hegelian “first men” were actually pissing contests between libido-driven madmen, what then would we say about the triumph of the so-called slave class? What if the real thread running through history has not been a struggle for recognition, but a striving of man’s existential freedom to discover and to live by the dictates of right living? If that has been the case, then in history’s approach toward an end point we would expect to see among the “last men” a gradually unfolding awareness of the illness of history’s “great men” and a diminishment of ignorance. We would expect to see the irrational search for recognition being replaced by an intensifying attempt to identify what is good for man and what is not.
[So far, the Mouse has seen no such trend . . . unless it be found in diatribes such as his own.]
posted by Benedict S. at 9:50 AM
1 Comments:
Interesting thought: there may be a meaning but we can't learn it by thinking.
But "what does it get us" to know the truth? Perhaps only the satisfaction of knowing the truth. Religious ideas became useless and dangerous only when they became objects of public policy. As personal holdings, they perhaps served us well, if nothing else, "as a relief from certain kinds of fear."
[I may have quoted William James wrong. He may have said, ". . . certain kinds of pain."]
Post a Comment
<< Home