The influence of Nietzsche on this proposal cannot be overstated, his shadow hangs over the master-slave
dynamic of Kojève and discussions of morality, from On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic. His notion of
der letzte mensch (the last man) from Thus Spoke Zarathustra is key in discussions of the post-historical man
in Fukuyama. Nietzsche’s last man is illustrated by a group of “wretched” humans who lack ambition,
individuality and creativity, who are content to seek only comfort and security, in direct contrast to the
Übermensch (Superman), an imaginary superior being who rejects this so-called slave morality. Fukuyama
accepts elements of this Nietzschean critique of “rational modernity” and the tragedy of post-human life,
most notably by incorporating “And The Last Man” into the title of his 1992 book.
In the 21st century, Fukuyama’s thesis has been subject to significant strain. Triumphalist his original article
was not. He warned of the risks of Islamic terrorism, of identity politics, of ongoing conflicts both in the
historic world (the global south), such as the Indo-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir, and the post-historic
world, for example the Troubles in Northern Ireland. In response to critiques and ongoing structural shifts,
Fukuyama has clarified two elements of his thesis to date. The first is a re-evaluation of economic liberalism,
in response to widening wealth and income inequality in the western world. Fukuyama has spoken out
against unregulated capitalism and called for “more socialism”, in that regulation and redistribution
programmes are necessary to sustain a liberal democratic system.
French president Emmanuel Macron is a
self-confessed Hegelian (Getty)
Fukuyama has also condemned neoconservatives, who used his
ideas, along with those of Strauss, to justify the use of force to
spread democracy around the world. In his article “After
Neoconservatism” in 2006, he compares his “kind of Marxist”
original thesis of a long process of evolution towards liberal
democracy to those on the right in America who were Leninists
in their artificial and forced application of his thesis to pre-
democratic states such as Iraq. Fukuyama also famously warned
that his concept thymos, the desire for recognition, can be
superseded by a megalothymia, the desire to be recognised as
superior, as in Nietzsche’s Superman. He warned in his 1992
book that ambitious and egoistic individuals, exemplified by “a
[property] developer like Donald Trump”, could be unsatisfied
by universal and equal recognition and lead to a “resurgence” of
History. Fukuyama did not predict the events and structural
factors that led to the latter’s surprise election in 2016, but to
believe that any single event has “disproven” the end of history,
as a long process of evolution, would be based on a simplified
understanding of Fukuyama’s thesis.“The End of History?” is both the product of centuries of theorising on modernity, history and philosophy
as well as the culmination of an extraordinary academic career. Yet, Fukuyama’s piece was equally seminal
as it marked the opening shot of the frenetic debates over postmodernism. By internationalising and
popularising the debate over the end of History, the question of what comes next was inevitably posed.
From Kojève, to Strauss and Bloom, the answer is not good. To accept an end to History is, in many ways,
to embrace a “crisis of modernity” as Strauss predicted. Fukuyama theorised that men were never as free or
as human as when they were fighting for their rights.
Kojève’s idea of ‘philosophical contemplation’ at the end of History has, for some, led to the threat of