LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  May 2002

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE May 2002

Subject:

Fukuyama and 'end of history'

From:

John Landon <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 28 May 2002 19:15:45 EDT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (155 lines)

I am reposting this to reconsider the issue of Darwinism in relation to Marx
here in another post. This interview of Fukuyama actually illustrates a lot
of the confusion over Darwinism and ideology.


Fukuyama wobbles on 'modernity'
http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006D901.htm
'I have not jumped off the modernity boat'
by Helene Guldberg

Having spent much of my youth campaigning against America's military
involvement in the Middle East and Latin America, it was slightly surreal to
be sitting sipping coffee in a Soho teahouse with a former foreign policy
adviser to the Reagan administration. Francis Fukuyama seems to have no
qualms about openly defending the USA's power to impose its will around the
world.


Yet Fukuyama comes across less as a Hawk than as a genteel and very likeable
man. And here we were discussing the impact of 11 September upon Fukuyama's
famous 'End of History' thesis, and putting the case for human
exceptionalism. Fukuyama proclaimed in 1989 that History (with a capital H)
had ended, because 'the major alternatives to liberal democracy had exhausted
themselves'. But after 11 September, many argued that we were not at the end
of History but were witnessing a 'clash of civilisations'. Fukuyama was put
under a lot of pressure to defend his thesis, but took some time to put his
head above the parapet.


'It was a serious challenge and I spent a lot of time trying to think through
exactly how serious it was', he says. 'There was a group of radical Islamists
who rejected Western values lock, stock and barrel, and did not want any part
of modernisation. So it did suggest that the universality of Western values
has certain limits.'
__________________________________

I am struck by the confusion of terminology in this interview, the confusion
created by the postmodern misuse of the term 'modernity', the incoherence in
Fukuyama's position vis a vis Kojevian historical materialism, somehow
Hegelian, mixed with Nietzsche.

The confusion over the term 'modernity' springs from the persistent
misunderstanding of its proper meaning, and the understandable impulse of
Fukuyama to defend it in relation to a thesis of universal history taken from
Hegel, but incorrectly. Thus now he is in trouble with the Huntington idiocy,
to say nothing of the biotech revolution which is confusing him.
Hegel's meaning as to the 'end of history' is probably correct, although we
can't be sure, but not in the sense of endorsing liberal capitalism. The 'end
of history' is a complex model based on absolute idealism and is very
difficult to grasp. But it amounts, perhaps, to saying that the active
generation of history in relation to passive 'not yet free men' comes to a
close leaving the 'end of dynamic' history operating on passive man. This
says nothing about the endstate of political systems, although, no doubt,
Hegel might be construed along liberal lines, keeping in mind his complex
ambivalence, his severe critique of civil society buried in his bluff about
Prussian reaction, etc etc.. This view may, again, not be Hegel but my own,
but the point is that Fukuyama is grafting Kojeve inherited historical
materialism via Marx on Hegel, to get his capitalist 'end of history'
gimmick. No idealism, no Hegel, unless Marx, and not even then.
The result is that he is, surprisingly, actually confused when someone
challenges him with Sept 11, as not be the end of history. Remarkable, and
sad. I suspect it is the end of history but this has nothing to with
postmodern views on modernity, or Sept 11.
One should note also the hopeless confusion by bringing in Nietzsche. Here
and in the original book that he wrote. The 'end of history' has to be
neo-liberal, and that leaves equality up in the air, so a dash of Nietzsche,
I guess, will take care of that in the whole package.

How about a time out for the eonic version? How about it? There we see the
eonic effect whose core is the eonic sequence of emerging civilization, the
third sector of which is what we are confusing with modernity, and whose
transitional falloff generates what we sense as the 'postmodern'. This eonic
transition, essentially the 'early modern', terminates around 1800, and
presto we find Hegel, with flawed symbols but a stunning intuition completing
his Phenom to the tune of Napoleon. It is a first class effect, and Hegel,
casting about for a means to express his intuition both scores a bull's eye,
and blunders at the same time. It is not by this reckoning the end of
history, although it might be the end of the eonic sequence as system
generation is replaced by full 'free action' in the language of the model.
But it is the end of the transitional effect, and this leaves whatever is in
its place  a very strong and enduring candidate for persistent stability, and
people like Marx in 1848 really up the creek if they want to complete the
transformation toward full equality. Whatever this means, it is clear that
the misuse of the term 'end of history' creates a hopeless muddle, as does
the addition of Nietzsche who simply isn't helpful for understanding this,
unless you care to simply destroy liberal systems and modernity both.  So
passing beyond the liberal system with its sudden eonic mystique is hard, but
surely not impossible, since, as Marx clearly suggests, the process of
globalization following in the wake of the modern transition will discover
the complete absence of liberal societies, what to say of their regression.
The Hegelian insight here was brilliant, but flawed. We need a different kind
of universal history, and the eonic model shows the way to one.

From where did we get globalization as a concept, apart from its obvious
empirical reality? Which seems to be misjudged all of a sudden as the 'clash
of civilizations'?  Hegel is not clear here, he didn't use this term. He is
focussed on the French Revolution. A close look here shows globalization as a
jack in the box just here with Napoleon. So its there in the symbolism.
What Hegel couldn't quite grasp, and he is accused of Eurocentrism is that
the process of universal history which he saw acting through, e.g. his
Germany in seemingly chavinist terms, is a localized sequence in a
globalizing whole.

Here Hegel is caput. And the eonic model can clarify what is going on much
better.
This gets confusing in small doses. The whole model is needed. But Fukuyama
has made a mess of pottage out of Hegel, and the confusion of debate is
considerable.

The clash of civilizations so-called with Islam is real enough. Fukuyama's
model is fairly clear here, but there is no law of history that enjoins
liberal capitalism in theory, although in practice it is hard to see how in
the next century any other alternative. Failure to see this point requires
looking at the dynamics of Marx's thinking in 1848, and this has little to do
with Marx. But the confusion over the replication of 1789 in globalizing
contexts as this automatically generates a breakdown in liberal thinking and
the impulse toward socialism is classic indeed. That moment in its
permutations is the whole game in a nutshell. It is worth remembering also
that the Bolshevik revolution was the world's most complicated bourgeois
revolution. This kind of irony means the original idea is not to be sneezed
at. The problem then is seen to be resolved, but never solved, by the
realization that there are no civilizations to clash, only collisions in the
process of globalization permuting 1848, in the medley and distraction of
nationalism emerging amidst internationalism. So that's it. One global field
in the wake of a 'phase boundary' we call the modern. The problem with this
cute system is the first come first serve cases in what they call the 'west'
try to prevent the process from completion. So the system unwinds short of
completion.  The term 'western civilization' has no status then.  Islam,
clearly, is in trouble. It is futile to call it however a 'civilization'. It
is like the Holy
Roman Empire in the time of Napoleon. There is no law of history that says
they have to replicate the whole process, but that is just what we are seeing
in slow motion.  The term 'modern' needs to be replaced. The 'end of history'
concept is so muddled it is useless at this point. Hegel's system is in any
case a rather stark case of idealist thinking. It is hard to see how this
mystique could be grafted onto technological evolution plus Nietzsche and
used to justify western capitalism, but that's what the State Department got
away with. Poor Fukuyama.

These questions need a whole new model and brand new terminology, then
perhaps we could be rid of this nonsense of Huntington versus Fukuyama which
is driving me bananas. Bananas! The left right and upside down is in a
muddle, no wonder the Islamic world doesn't buy it.

Check out http://eonix.8m.com for the eonic model. Hegel's a great
philosopher, but his philosophy of history is done for.  Upgrade now!



John Landon
Website on the eonic effect
http://eonix.8m.com
 [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager