THE END OF HISTORY: A CRITICAL RESPONSE

Katy Penrod
JSIS 201
In The End of History, Francis Fukuyama argues that the end of history is upon us. He
predicts that whereas history up to the end of the twentieth century saw the rise and fall of many
ideologies around the world, the twenty-first century will mark the unabashed victory of
economic and political liberalism (Fukuyama, 1989, p. 3). In order to make this claim valid,
Fukuyama contends that there are no viable ideological alternatives to western liberalism
presently and that none will arise in the future. This is a bold statement, and one that is hard to
disprove or prove because no one knows what the future will hold. Further, Fukuyamas
interchangeable use of the terms western liberalism and liberal democracy is, ironically, too
liberal. Political and economic openness and westernization of culture are two separate things
which should not be grouped into one. While Fukuyama makes a strong case for the ascension
and durability of western liberalism, his dismissal of the rise of possible future ideologies is
presumptuous and his definition of western liberalism/democracy is ambiguous, weakening his
argument overall.
The basis of Fukuyamas argument lies in his assertion that western
liberalism/democracy, while not omnipresent in the world system now, will come to govern the
material world in the long run (Fukuyama, 1989, p. 4). Fukuyama argues that, just as when
Alaxandre Kojeve proposed that the Battle of Jena marked the end of history and the eventual
triumph of the ideals of the French Revolution he was met with opposition and skepticism, so it
is today that when Fukuyama proposes that western liberalism/democracy will eventually
triumph, people are hesitant to believe his claim. But who is to say that thinkers like Kojeve and
Fukuyama will not, in the future, declare another ideology the end of history based on changes
in time and circumstance? Fukuyamas assumption that western liberalism/democracy is the
ultimate form of government discounts the ability of mankind to develop and propose newer and
better ideological alternatives to address a changing world system. While western
liberalism/democracy may be on the rise now, and could potentially be the end of history,
Fukuyama fails to address the equally potential notion that it is not. His argument could have
been better if he had addressed a counter argument, such as the spread of Islam in the Middle

THE END OF HISTORY: A CRITICAL RESPONSE

East, and explained why such an ideology is not a threat to western liberalism/democracys
eventual supremacy.
Fukuyamas assertion that western liberalism/democracy is the final form of government
is also weakened by the fact that he groups the terms liberalism and democracy, two related but
nonetheless significantly distinctive concepts, together. The reason Fukuyama groups the two
terms appears to be because he believes them to be two factors that make up an overarching
ideology. To Fukuyama, who borrows this notion from Hegel, ideology encompasses religion,
culture, and the underlying values of society (Fukuyama, 1989, p. 5). This is somewhat of a leap
from the more widely recognized definition of ideology as a set of ideas or beliefs (usually
secular) of a group or polity, a leap that is not valid. Just because televisions are now
omnipresent in China (Fukuyama, 1989, p. 3), one cannot reasonably conclude that democracy is
going to rise up and take hold there. Cultural values do not equate to political ones, and changes
in a groups culture do not necessitate changes in their politics.
Though Fukuyamas The End of History? is thought-provoking and makes many
interesting predictions about the future of the world system, it has serious weak points. Just as
one could not have predicted when it was published that Karl Marxs Communist Manifesto
would have such a large impact, there is no way of knowing how thinkers of the future may alter
government and culture in the impending world system. Further, though there is no denying the
fact that as the world becomes increasingly globalized, western cultures influence is spreading
and governments are changing, the latter two phenomena are not necessarily causally linked. It
remains to be seen whether or not western liberalism/democracy will become the final form of
human government, but as of now, I remained unconvinced of Fukuyamas claim that it is
inevitable.