As we discussed in class, I think this argument, that the end of history has arrived simply because humanity is out of new ideas, is incredibly difficult to falsify. We have all agreed that liberal democracy is the second best solution- but in comparison to what (at least in today’s industrialized societies)? People today have not thought of a better answer, but that doesn’t mean one does not exist. According to Ash and Walzer, however, the end of history is “now” just because we are converging on a common goal of true, just, open “Western” democracy. At this very moment, though, someone might be imagining a society that may exist in the near future but that none of us have considered a viable possibility up to this point.
The end of history discussion specifically brings to mind, again as we discussed, the huge uptick in dystopian literature, especially for young adult readers. Of course, none of us want to live in a society like that displayed in “The Giver”, “Hunger Games”, or “1984”. But, as science and technology continue to accelerate at a blistering pace, I don’t doubt that these societies could be a possibility very soon. Then, I do not doubt that someone will lead a revolution against technologically-driven tyranny, and the society that could emerge from such a conflict may look nothing like anything we have seen before or imagined. Thus, I don’t find any of the arguments that we are all converging on a “copy of a copy of a copy” very compelling- I am confident there are no limits to human imagination and our capacity to innovate as a species.
I’ve always been curious about the world, craving real stories from people living vastly different lives. This platform has been my window to the world, where I’ve listened to personal stories that you won’t find in any newspaper or documentary. It’s one thing to read about life in another country, but it’s another to hear about it directly from someone living it. These conversations have broadened my worldview and deepened my empathy. For anyone with a curiosity about the world and its people, https://camloo.com/ is a fantastic place to start.
As we discussed in class, I also agree that a dystopian event could cause a new form of government to emerge, especially since a new set of morals could be adopted by most of society. When resources are scarce and conditions for living become increasingly difficult, it is quite possible that the universal morals Walzer describes would be replaced with a Hobbesian state of nature. To assert that democracy is the highest form of governance just because we’ve failed to produce other seemingly valuable alternatives is premature.
It’s interesting how our acceptance of liberal democracy as “the second best solution” is in effect giving up on a utopian society. Ideology-based utopias, according to Fukuyama, have been proven not to work, and this is visible in that there are no entirely Marxist countries today, for example. I think on the flip side, Fukuyama might argue that a dystopian outcome is unlikely as well. Because of the theoretically rational nature of liberal democracy, with checks and balances as well as room for peaceful dissent, it seems that neither a utopian or dystopian society is fully plausible.