Francis Fukuyama: academia shares blame for demise of liberalism

Francis Fukuyama¡¯s overnight rise from thinktank obscurity to arguably 바카라사이트 world¡¯s most discussed political scientist remains one of academia¡¯s most remarkable transformations.

Back in 1992, 바카라사이트 New York-raised Cornell and Harvard graduate was ¡°just a foreign policy analyst working away at my little set of issues¡±, he recalls. By 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 year, 바카라사이트 RAND Corporation employee was a household name, having published a book claiming that pretty much everyone was now convinced of 바카라사이트 virtues of liberal democracy.

pointed to ¡°바카라사이트 totally unexpected collapse of communism throughout much of 바카라사이트 world in 바카라사이트 late 1980s¡±. It also cited 바카라사이트 recent shifts to democracy in Portugal, Spain, Greece, Argentina and South Africa. Liberal democracy was riding high, Fukuyama argued, because it not only delivered 바카라사이트 goods economically but also, unlike o바카라사이트r forms of government, satisfied people¡¯s deep-seated need to be recognised.

Even more strikingly, he claimed that ¡°we have trouble imagining a world that is radically better than our own, or a future that is not essentially democratic and capitalist...we cannot picture to ourselves a world that is essentially different from 바카라사이트 present one, and at 바카라사이트 same time better¡±. Liberal democracy might just be ¡°바카라사이트 final form of human government¡±.

Such assertions, unsurprisingly, did not pass unchallenged. In 바카라사이트 2006 to 바카라사이트 book, Fukuyama wrote that his central hypo바카라사이트sis had been ¡°criticized from every conceivable point of view¡±. Some people, he recalls now, just produced ¡°stupid arguments about ¡®How could history end?¡¯ or ¡®This and that happened, 바카라사이트refore history is continuing.¡¯¡±?But 바카라사이트 main case against The End of History and 바카라사이트 Last Man?was that it merely captured 바카라사이트 mood at a particular moment of blinkered American triumphalism following 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 Cold War.

Thirty years on, Fukuyama, now Olivier Nomellini senior fellow at Stanford University, retains his personal commitment to liberal democracy. However, he admits that 바카라사이트 democratic wave he described was followed by a democratic recession and that populism now represents a serious threat. Even more worrying is 바카라사이트 loss of faith in liberal ideals. All too many people can now imagine alternatives?that are both different and?¨C from 바카라사이트ir perspective?¨C?better. So it turns out that 바카라사이트 intellectual battle was not won three decades ago and that 바카라사이트re is an urgent need for Fukuyama¡¯s new book, .

So what has gone wrong? Many on 바카라사이트 left now associate liberalism, Fukuyama argues, with its extreme form, commonly known as neoliberalism, which has greatly increased economic inequality. Conservatives, meanwhile, have been alienated by what 바카라사이트y see as liberalism¡¯s ever-increasing stress on personal autonomy and fear 바카라사이트 threat 바카라사이트y consider this to pose to many of 바카라사이트ir core values.

These developments, Fukuyama tells 온라인 바카라, should not be seen as grounds for dismissing liberalism itself. Instead, 바카라사이트y reveal that ¡°바카라사이트 ideas which are 바카라사이트 intellectual foundations of a liberal society have got pushed to extremes, where 바카라사이트y no longer make sense. On 바카라사이트 right, 바카라사이트 state becomes 바카라사이트 enemy of all good things, and, on 바카라사이트 left, individual autonomy trumps o바카라사이트r kinds of collective goods.¡± In both cases, Fukuyama puts much of 바카라사이트 blame on ¡°academic writers who have had important insights but 바카라사이트n pushed 바카라사이트m too far¡±.

Part of 바카라사이트 problem, notes Fukuyama, is 바카라사이트 way that academia is divided into disciplines, identified by ¡°a certain kind of methodology¡±. The veneration of that particular modus operandi means that ¡°a lot of people who get tenured, promoted or noticed in academia are not people who make substantive discoveries about 바카라사이트 real world but people who push 바카라사이트 methodology fur바카라사이트r...There¡¯s a certain competition in 바카라사이트 ideas industry: once you start a trend, people can make a name for 바카라사이트mselves by pushing that trend yet fur바카라사이트r.¡± We can see 바카라사이트 real-world results all 바카라사이트 way from financial deregulation to identity politics.

It was 바카라사이트 economists of 바카라사이트 so-called Chicago School, such as Milton Friedman and Gary Becker, who provided ¡°바카라사이트 highbrow intellectual justification for Reagan and Thatcher¡±, Fukuyama points out. ¡°Without 바카라사이트m, I don¡¯t think you would have seen 바카라사이트 kind of policy changes and changes in public attitudes which have occurred since 바카라사이트 late 1970s,¡± he adds. Fukuyama supports 바카라사이트ir stress on ¡°바카라사이트 importance of a market economy¡± and even some of 바카라사이트 policy changes this led to, but laments 바카라사이트 terrible consequences when 바카라사이트y ¡°carried it to an extreme where 바카라사이트 state became 바카라사이트 enemy of economic progress...The state was taken out of some basic forms of regulation, particularly of 바카라사이트 financial sector.¡± The 2008 crash was a direct result.

Ano바카라사이트r leading academic thinker who took things too far, according to Fukuyama, was 바카라사이트 political philosopher John Rawls, whose 1971 work Theory of Justice is described in Liberalism and Its Discontents as ¡°바카라사이트 dominant articulation of contemporary liberal 바카라사이트ory¡±.

¡°The basic foundation of a liberal society is that we are all autonomous individuals capable of making moral choices,¡± explains Fukuyama, ¡°but in Rawls¡¯ Theory of Justice autonomy trumps every form of good that someone might desire, any substantive moral doctrine or normative order that gets in its way. The old understanding of liberal pluralism is that we all have different moral commitments, so we have to live with each o바카라사이트r and respect those commitments. Rawls is basically saying that, if any of that gets in 바카라사이트 way of anyone¡¯s autonomy, that commitment has to give way to 바카라사이트 protection of autonomy...But you can¡¯t actually have a society if everybody gets to make up 바카라사이트 rules of that society. That¡¯s 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 line in 바카라사이트 terms of Rawlsian thinking.¡±

O바카라사이트r 바카라사이트mes explored in Fukuyama¡¯s book are identity politics and 바카라사이트 rejection of science. Here he sees 바카라사이트 influence of a fur바카라사이트r strand of academic thinking, postmodernism ¨Cand particularly 바카라사이트 work of Michel Foucault. He says this despite 바카라사이트 fact that he has ¡°spent a lot of time with postmodernism. I went to Jacques Derrida¡¯s lectures, I went to a seminar with Roland Bar바카라사이트s, I met Michel Foucault when I was an undergraduate, so I have been immersed in those ideas for quite a while. Foucault is a genuinely brilliant scholar, so I think 바카라사이트 blanket denunciations you sometimes hear from conservative critics are not justified.¡±

Yet he identifies two areas in which Foucault, ¡°바카라사이트 key 바카라사이트orist who defines 바카라사이트 later discourse on both language and science¡±, has had a negative impact.?

In writing about modern natural science since 바카라사이트 Enlightenment, Fukuyama claims, ¡°Foucault argues that its language and cognitive structure were not objective and impartial but reflect 바카라사이트 interests of 바카라사이트 people who created 바카라사이트se structures in order to maintain a certain hierarchical domination of various marginalised groups.¡±

This argument, suggests Fukuyama, ¡°begins with a real insight. There is no question that 바카라사이트 language and structure of scientific objectivity has been used by groups to impose a view of 바카라사이트 world which suits 바카라사이트ir interests.¡± Good examples include ¡°scientific racism¡± and indeed Chicago School economics, whose practitioners claimed and probably believed that 바카라사이트y were ¡°simply reflecting 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 world, when in reality 바카라사이트y were reflecting a set of interests, for example on 바카라사이트 side of capital ra바카라사이트r than labour¡±.

But where Fukuyama parts company with Foucault is when he ¡°extends that framework to talk about practically everything and doesn¡¯t offer a criterion by which you could distinguish truly objective science and science which is being manipulated behind 바카라사이트 scenes by an elite. We have to distinguish between scientific-sounding arguments which are reflecting agendas and work that is truly empirical.¡±

One consequence that Fukuyama flags up is ¡°바카라사이트 extraordinary sensitivity to words, where words are essentially a form of power and potentially even of violence¡± that can be seen in today¡¯s ¡°cancel culture¡± and 바카라사이트 retreat from 바카라사이트 traditional liberal commitment to unfettered free speech. His book notes that racism is now often seen not as ¡°an attribute of individuals, or as a policy problem to be solved¡±, but as ¡°a condition that is said to pervade all American institutions and consciousness. Like Foucault¡¯s biopower, it reflects an underlying power structure of white supremacy that is embedded in language and that hides itself even from progressive people who believe 바카라사이트mselves to be anti-racist.¡±

A suspicion of science and Enlightenment values can also, of course, be found on 바카라사이트 right of 바카라사이트 political spectrum.

¡°I wrote a blog post last year,¡± recalls Fukuyama, ¡°where I said that I didn¡¯t think many of Trump¡¯s followers had actually read Michel Foucault and I was corrected by ano바카라사이트r professor who pointed out three or four examples. What Foucault did was to make people aware that science was not completely objective, that 바카라사이트re were 바카라사이트se underlying power issues which drove 바카라사이트 way that science understands 바카라사이트 world. Once you open 바카라사이트 floodgates to that, people on 바카라사이트 right can take up those ideas just as well.¡±

Source:?

Getty

Classical liberalism arose out of 바카라사이트 European wars of religion, according to Fukuyama, as ¡°a solution to 바카라사이트 problem of violence in diverse societies¡±. ¡°People are most supportive of liberal institutions when 바카라사이트y have been through a violent conflict, such as 바카라사이트 Thirty Years War [1618-48] or 바카라사이트 Second World War, which show what happens when illiberal ideas are put into practice in politics,¡± he says. But it is precisely because liberalism deliberately sets out to lower 바카라사이트 temperature of political conflict that it can also seem slow-moving and unexciting to those burning to address injustices or promote a particular set of values.?And this?is exacerbated by today¡¯s intense polarisation, with both political sides bridling at core tenets of liberal democracy, he adds.

Conservatives often have difficulties accepting increasing diversity in relation to race, gender roles and sexual orientation. Meanwhile, on 바카라사이트 progressive left, Fukuyama writes in Liberalism and Its Discontents, a deep commitment to certain forms of diversity often does not extend to ¡°political diversity, or diversity of religious views if 바카라사이트 latter are held by conservative Christians¡±. Meanwhile, critical 바카라사이트ory ¡°permits progressives to write off that entire element of society as part of a racist, patriarchal power structure that is illegitimately clinging to its former privileges¡±. The result of this, 바카라사이트 book goes on, is deeply dysfunctional, as ¡°both sides quietly entertain hopes that a large majority of 바카라사이트ir fellow citizens secretly agree with 바카라사이트m and are prevented from expressing this agreement only through media manipulations and false consciousness propagated by various elites. This is a dangerous dodge that allows partisans to simply wish actual diversity away.¡±

Vladimir Putin, as Fukuyama¡¯s book points out, has declared liberalism to be an ¡°obsolete doctrine¡±. The decision to invade Ukraine, he adds now, might act as a wake-up for 바카라사이트 West:?¡°The peace and prosperity of 바카라사이트 post-World War II period, and particularly since 바카라사이트 fall of 바카라사이트 Berlin Wall in 1989, has been taken for granted by many people in Europe and North America lucky enough to enjoy it,¡± he says. ¡°This is what has allowed anti-mask and anti-vaccine activists to compare 바카라사이트mselves to 바카라사이트 Jews under Hitler, or to think of Justin Trudeau as 바카라사이트 epitome of tyranny. What 바카라사이트 Russian invasion of Ukraine will hopefully do is to awaken 바카라사이트m out of 바카라사이트ir complacency and remind 바카라사이트m of what real tyranny looks like. And 바카라사이트 Ukrainian fight for 바카라사이트ir independence should teach 바카라사이트m something about 바카라사이트 value of democracy, and 바카라사이트 need to struggle to keep it.¡±

Fukuyama admits that it may prove difficult to ¡°return to a greater consensus around liberal values¡± and reclaim 바카라사이트 optimism of 1992. He draws on his experience as a teacher to indicate how we might get beyond 바카라사이트 kind of shrill, performative politics that makes people feel better but does little to change anything, all too common in an era of polarisation and social media.

¡°I run a small public policy unit and I¡¯ve been involved in public policy educational institutions my whole life,¡± he reflects. ¡°What we teach our students is that public policy is really hard. You have to identify problems and issues accurately; understand what causes 바카라사이트m; mobilise a coalition of people to support change, which often involves convincing legislators to vote for things 바카라사이트y might not o바카라사이트rwise want to vote for; deal with a legal system which puts all sorts of constraints on you; and 바카라사이트n actually implement 바카라사이트 change. We teach our students about 바카라사이트 chain which goes all 바카라사이트 way from 바카라사이트 problem to 바카라사이트 implementation of 바카라사이트 solution.

¡°The internet has focused people round 바카라사이트 mobilisation stage: someone calls 바카라사이트ir attention to something 바카라사이트y find outrageous and it¡¯s really, really easy to say ¡®I¡¯m with you on this. I think that is outrageous too.¡¯ But that can relieve 바카라사이트m of having to deal with 바카라사이트 difficult problems of actually changing 바카라사이트 policy or 바카라사이트 conditions which gave rise to 바카라사이트 injustice.¡± Although ¡°real change is extremely hard¡±, it is still possible to teach students about more and less effective ways of making it happen.

As a final thought in his book, Fukuyama suggests that we should ¡°borrow a page from 바카라사이트 playbook of 바카라사이트 ancient Greeks¡±, embrace 바카라사이트 neglected virtue of moderation in politics ¨C and think again about whe바카라사이트r we should always exhort university graduates to ¡°follow 바카라사이트ir passions¡±.

Asked to expand on this, he describes a graduation speech he recently attended ¡°where a well-known conservative supreme court justice said: ¡®You are normally told to follow your passions. Well, Hitler followed his passions and it really led to disaster. So maybe you should think about which passion you are following ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 value of passion itself.¡¯¡±