The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post historical period there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual care taking of he museum of human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. Such nostalgia, in fact, will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post historical world for some time to come. Even though I recognize its inevitability, I have the most ambivalent feelings for the civilization that has been created in Europe since 1945, with its north Atlantic and Asian offshoots. Perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again.
Nuances of Fukuyama's 'End of History' hypothesis
After the Soviet Union's collapse, Francis Fukuyama had argued that we reached the 'End of History', meaning that the liberal democracy has won as the most suitable form of arrangement of government.
In the age of rising authoritarian tendencies, people have been quick to point out failure of Fukuyama's prediction. He often tweets about this. The poor Fukuyama might have gotten tired of this.
The point is that there's more nuance to Fukuyama's argument than what's captured by the one line summary. The final paragraph of Fukuyama's book illustrates it better.
Follow on Facebook: @iterativeadaptEmail subscription or RSS Feed: Enter id in the "Subscribe" text box, on the top right of the blog.