An Analysis of Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man: The End of History and the Last Man

by Ian Jackson, Jason Xidias

Francis Fukuyama’s controversial 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man demonstrates an important aspect of creative the ability to generate hypotheses and create novel explanations for evidence. In the case of Fukuyama’s work, the central hypothesis and explanation he put forward were not, in fact, new, but they were novel in the academic and historical context of the time. Fukuyama’s central argument was that the end of the Cold War was a symptom of, and a vital waypoint in, a teleological progression of history. Interpreting history as “teleological” is to say that it is headed towards a final state, or end a state in which matters will reach an equilibrium in which things are as good as they can get. For Fukuyama, this would mean the end of “mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”. This grand theory, which sought to explain the end of the Cold War through a single overarching hypothesis, made the novel step of resurrecting the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel’s theory of history – which had long been ignored by practical historians and political philosophers – and applying it to current events.

112 pages, Paperback

Published July 15, 2017

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Y. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love how simple and objective this book is, but it is WAY too repetitive and some things need to be expanded on (ex. the notes and asterisks).

Fukuyama discusses several topics that are briefly mentioned in the book, including the 'end of history' and the nature of the 'last man' and the last political system. He believes that the US victory over the USSR proved the superiority of Western liberal culture. Some thinkers, such as Huntington and Gray, criticized this view and dubbed it immoral and dangerous (and I agree). He also believes that the last political system (ideal liberal democracy) would spread to all other countries in time, which would then stop the ebb and flow of societies and cultures and create the last man, who would be fully satisfied - so much so that he would lose his heart (or essence). However, most (if not all) of his ideas were adopted from other thinkers. He simply put them together and glorified liberal democracy in the process... Fukuyama also mentioned the influence of technology and the military, among other things. The book did not go into much detail about the latter topics, which disappointed me deeply, but the fact that Fukuyama predicted the dominance of the wealthier states over the weaker states was admirable. Moving on, Fukuyama did not, as Huntington said, understand other societies and cultures, and was very biased in his theory. While the analysis draws a connection between his ideas and 9/11, I believe his ideas were redundant and only served as an excuse for a previously set political agenda. Liberal democracy is not perfect. This world never will be. I am curious to see what other systems will overtake liberal democracy, and I can only hope that they will not be worse than what currently is happening...

[robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Audio. I have heard so much praise for this book that I decided to first listen to an analysis of this heavy book before jumping into it. Based on the analysis, I will happily skip it. I can see that Fukuyama is a very naive altruist believing that the fall of the Soviet Empire proved the infallibility of the liberal democratic capitalistic system over communism, socialism, and autocracies. Despite all the withering recent evidence that liberalism is no guarantee to an eventual solution and conclusion to man's evolution to a higher nirvanic plane. I see his book as just wishful thinking and misguided hope. And there are many, many criticisms of his theories. Even now, Fukuyama is defending his theories saying that, maybe, his "End of History" will take a bit more time. I'll say a LOT more time, if ever. I did find the "analysis" a bit skimpy, simplistic and repetitive.