The
end of the last millennium unexpectedly saw a revival of Hegelian
philosophy in the person of the American historian and philosopher of
politics, Francis Fukuyama. His book ´the End of History and the
Last Man´ was inspired by recent events that had taken place in
world politics from the seventies of the last century onward. These
events suggested to Fukuyama that Hegel might have been right after all
(despite the disapproval and the neglect of virtually all philosophers
in the academic world of the twentieth century), in his suggestion that
history unfolds according to a definite teleological plan. For Fukuyama
saw the spreading of liberal democracies and the collapse of
totalitarian regimes, so prevalent in world history from the seventies
onward, not as an accident. He argued that these events could be
explained by referring to Hegel´s central philosophical idea of
´recognition´. He further believed that insights into the
metaphysics of history would teach us that there was, as Hegel
believed, a definite end to history and that human consciousness
evolved towards a last stage, where all internal contradictions, that
were the cause of the unfolding of history, would eventually be
reconciled. This last stage presented us the ´last man´,
viz. the historical human being that would have no need to evolve any
further and would thereby conclude history.
Hegel
saw history as the evolution of consciousness. This evolution was
propelled by an inner necessity of Spirit, the Weltgeist, that was both
substratum and cause of all subjects and all objects in the world.
Spirit was dynamically at work in history in resolving its own inner
contradictions. One of the basic contradictions of Spirit was the
opposition between the being and the non-being of its Self, that was
finally resolved by the coming into existence of the universe. But this
was only the first of a whole series of ensuing contradictions in
consciousness that finally were to be resolved by Spirit. This would in
the end result in Spirit becoming conscious of its own freedom and
self-determination, viz. its own limitless being. As history is
concerned this is to be seen as Spirit unfolding itself metaphysically,
with the aim of becoming Self-referential. To be more concrete: human
consciousness as manifestation of Spirit evolves (both as will and as
necessity) to a level where it wants to and will be completely free and
self-determinate, resting in and for its Self. Or to put it in the
language of mysticism: consciousness wants to be its Self.
Mysticism
as a science discusses the implications of this unfolding of Spirit for
the individual human being. But mysticism is aware of the fact that
this quest for Self-determination is not an isolated process. It takes
place against a certain cultural background, in a definite social
setting. The consciousness of an individual is to a certain degree
molded and supported by the collective consciousness it finds itself
nested in. When individuals ´pop up´ to higher forms of
consciousness, there have to be social factors conductive to this
development also. That´s the reason that sociological and
historical studies like the one presented by Fukuyama are also
illuminative for our knowledge of mysticism. Though it was not the aim
of his study to explain the conditions for mysticism to occur -in fact
mysticism was not on his mind when he wrote the book-, his findings can
nevertheless be used in a study about mysticism like this one. But let
us first return to the main theme of Fukuyama´s book.
Fukuyama
wants to show in his book that the rise of democracy as the prevalent
form of government in our global communion is eventually inevitable.
History has used our planet as a testing ground for all kinds of
governments, but only one was to succeed in the end: liberal democracy.
All others failed, succumbing by their own ´internal
contradictions´, like the failure of coming to partition of
powers, or not supplying their citizens enough economic welfare. The
major competitors of liberal democracy, fascism and communism, lost the
race with democracy at the end of the twentieth century and now there
were no more serious alternatives left. Monarchy and dictatorship had
already lost the battle at the beginning of the twentieth century. Only
in South-America and Eastern Asia are there authoritarian regimes to
remain, but in order to survive and remain competitive, they are forced
to open up their economic markets. This opening was or will show itself
to be the flipping of the lid of Pandora´s box. With economic
liberalism out, political liberalism will not remain in. So in the end
these regimes also, like communist and fascist regimes elsewhere in the
world, have to give in to the demand of the people for greater freedom.
Especially when a larger middle class establishes itself and asks for
more fingers in the pie. Such a class will definitely come with the
rise of more economic prosperity for more people in society.
Besides
consulting Hegel´s Phenomenology of Spirit, Fukuyama urges us to
read Plato´s Republic in order to understand the dynamics of
history here involved. For it is Plato who has given us the psychology
of politics, so to speak. We must turn to him if we want an answer to
the question which form of government (which politics) will be
successful and why so. This reading of Plato will give us a better
understanding of the directionality of history. For according to Plato
only those politics will be successful, that comply with the
fundamental psychology of man. The form of government a state chooses
must be natural to us humans. Otherwise politics wont work and will not
last. Now the psychology of man has three fundamental aspects that all
have to be acknowledged, all have to have their due in the construction
and the constitution of the state. These three psychological aspects
(layers) are: Reason, Desire and Thymos. The central theme of
Fukuyama´s book is that liberal democracy is so successful and
will prevail in the end, because she, more than any other form of
government, succeeds in integrating all three aspects of this
psychology in her constitution. So let´s discuss the reasons why
democracy meets the demands of Reason, Desire and Thymos the best. This
will offer us the opportunity to raise some questions and suggest some
criticism.
Reason
Fukuyama
shows that the progress of reason in history has in an important way
contributed to the rise and success of liberal democracy. The major
part of this contribution comes from natural science giving us the
opportunity to control nature and her resources. Because of the advance
of natural science this control over nature and her resources enables
us to prosper economically. Day by day we are inventing ways of how to
produce commodities the best and the cheapest way we can. By this
ongoing development of applied natural science we are theoretically
able to give all citizens of our state the economic and financial
stability they need for their satisfaction. Even with the reservation
that this is ´only theoretically´ so, we must admit that
science itself strives to make things better, like eg. in the case of
the depletion of natural energy resources where science already has
shown us how we can find new ways to tackle this problem (like eg.
letting engines be fueled by hydrogen etc.). That science is often
thwarted in finding solutions is often a matter of political decision
making. But science itself wants to offer solutions to economic (and
other) problems.
So
reason has contributed to economic development. In doing so it has
cleared the ground for liberal democracy to stabilize itself, because
the fight over resources will die down when more people become
economically satisfied. It is hard for democracy to come to power in a land where large numbers of the population are
on the brink of starvation. In these states minority groups will want
to seize power in trying to get their hands on the few resources left.
Economic shortage never was a friend of democracy. But science, by
creating the technology for setting up lines of mass production, made
the establishment of a well-to-do middle class and a reasonably fed
lower class possible.
There
is yet another reason why science has contributed to the rise of
democracy. This is because of the promoters of science, the scientists
and the intellectuals. They can only do their job in a climate of free
exchange of thought and ideas. For this reason they promote liberal
democracy as the constitution that serves their interests the best.
They do not like a controlling government looking over their shoulder.
And because they are often the leading edge of the country, they will
take, in their role as intellectuals, the lead in establishing free
democracy in their country. This is the great ´danger´
communist regimes like China are facing right now, that the (juridical,
sociological, politocological, but others also) intellectuals will lay
bare the shortcomings and the inner contradictions of their political
system, like Russian intellectuals already in 70´s and 80´s
had done. Remember the revolt at the Tiananmen Square was largely
instigated by students and intellectuals in and outside their campuses.
So not only science itself but also its promoters and scientific
workers are a threat to non-democratic systems.
But
not only as science, but reason in men themselves (in a more Hegelian
sense) urges men to recognize themselves as free citizens and free
moral agents. When citizens are educated to a proper degree they will
find democracy the most reasonable form of government. Reason can find
many arguments in support of this, like the lessening of revolutionary
tension in society when minority groups are respected and given their
ballot or the greater participation of a greater group of competent
politicians in decision making. The cry for ´human
resource´ is met the best in a system where all people are
invited to give their best to the community. Thus according to the
dictates of reason.
But
are all ´inner contradictions´ resolved in modern liberal
democracy? What about the poverty of some (minority) groups? What about
the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a ´happy´ few?
What about the environment, that sorry and revengeful victim of our
demands for free trade and liberal economy? What about the starvation
of a great percentage of our world´s population? Is this dreaded
outcome really the end of history? Fukuyama acknowledges these to be
the problems of modern liberal democracy. But still he wants to speak
of an ´end to history´ because all these problems
will not lead to the abolishment of democracy herself. In fact these
problems can best be addressed within such a democratic form of
government. Sure, he says, democracy has her pathologies right now
also, but history does not need to develop any further to new forms of
politics. Democracy is fully capable of addressing and solving these
shortcomings within her self. So the homo democraticus is really the
last man, as politics is concerned.
mysticism,
reason
and democracy
Democracy
is by far the most reasonable form of government. Fukuyama is right on
this one. But, since democracy is formed by and constituent of
individual member citizens, we must ask ourself the question, whether
man, as he is right now at this point of history, is really such an
acclaimed paragon of reasonableness, capable of raising democracies all
over the world and thus making an end to history. Or is there still
something missing in man, something which still has to grow, to evolve?
If not so, then Fukuyama is right. Then contemporary man is really the
´last man´. But we can all see from the daily facts of life
that reason and man are not always synonymous. Man as he is right now
is often more violent, unsociable, self-centered, cunning than
reasonable. And if the members of a democracy are not that reasonable,
then democracy itself will lack reason also.
So it
seems that Fukuyama is wrong in asserting contemporary man to be the
´last man´ in history. Another type of human being has to
emerge that is far more reasonable -without the now prevalent
disruptive and destructive emotions-, than the man who is walking the
planet right now. For let´s take eg. the Enlightenment view that
racism is not reasonable. Still a large number of individuals in
society cherish, whether openly or secretly, racist notions. When
different ethnic groups keep on holding these overt or silent grudges
against each other, democracy in the end will prove unworkable. Society
will eventually split because of the ethnic suspicions and prejudices
people bear against each other.
desire
The
second part of the human soul that is the best taken care of by
democracy is desire. Only in democracy the deepest desires of man are
fulfilled. He wants to earn his own livelihood. He wants to accumulate
wealth the best way he can. He wants to have the means to be a
(financially) free and independent citizen. So free trade and economic
competition have to be allowed in our state, if we do not want
man´s deepest desires to be stifled. Only liberal democracy has
thus far in history allowed us free scope to set up enterprises and
contribute to the economic welfare of the country. All other regimes
have set limits to the economic liberalism of the individual. They have
not taken one of the most fundamental parts of the human soul, desire,
into account.
criticism:
Fukuyama himself has criticized this theory, that economic prosperity,
both individual and collective, is best served within a liberal
democracy, by pointing at the accomplishments of the new East-Asian
economies like China, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore, where the success is
not so much due to democratic politics, as well as to the firm grip of
the state in economic planning. These states are so successful right
now, because of their ability to steer the course of their country by
central planning. One could overstate this a bit by claiming that these
states are so successful, because they are not (fully) democratic. In
liberal democracy such efficiency is not always feasible, because of
the rights and claims of many counter groups, like eg. the
environmentalists, that have to be recognized in the course of
planning. Taking the considerations of these counter groups into view
tends to slow down the pace of economic development, at least in the
eyes of many a liberal, who are predominantly focused on economic
success.
But
the criticism of mysticism goes way further than this. This criticism
has to do with desire itself. For mysticism here objects that if the
democratic desirous man of Fukuyama really is ´the last
man´ in history that he is not only a poor chap to begin with,
the way he is now as ´last man´, but that the success of
the democratic state itself depends on future refinements of his
desire. To be more precise: the consumerism of modern democratic man
desires the wrong objects, not only for his own personal well being but
for the good of democracy and the world also. He fails to see that the
liberty to accumulate private wealth is not in the interest of society,
when it is not coupled to a sense of responsibility in caring for
others. We have to see that this consumerism and mammonism might in the
end pose a substantial threat to democracy itself because of the
possibility of undermining social cohesion. When competition and
selfish quest for gain run red hot, democracy itself might become the
victim. Too many people will not make it in the rat race of global
liberal economics. They thereby become potential enemies of democracy
herself. The modern dangers of terrorism show us the urgency of such an
analysis.
Mysticism
agrees with Fukuyama that the last man will be a democrat. But is the
modern day democrat really the last man, one is entitled to ask. The
answer is definitely no. A new type of world citizen has to emerge
first, to resolve all the inner contradictions modern day man still
harbors in his soul. Only with the arrival of the so called leptoid man
(Gerald Heard), who has transfered his desires from outer material
objects to inner spiritual qualities, will democracy have a firm base,
because only then will all the desires of the heart be fulfilled. To
really become a last man, the human heart and mind first have to become
spiritualized to a higher degree. Selfishness and personal enrichment
are not only the enemy of the health and well being of the individual.
They are also the enemy of democracy. A firm and stable democracy needs
a more fair distribution of wealth among her citizens.
thymos
The
third part of the soul Plato wants us to distinguish (and take into
consideration if we want to set up a state in accordance with nature)
is, what he calls in Greek, ´thymos´. This is man´s
passionate feeling for self worth and self esteem. Besides being an
animal rationale endowed with neocortex and frontal lobes; besides
having desires to secure his livelihood, man also takes pride in
himself. This is his deepest and most fundamental passion. This feeling
of self worth he wants to see recognized by others. In the past this
has been the source of the megalothymia,
the high pride and vainglory, of the masters, who wanted to be obeyed
and revered as being superior in might. They enforced their
megalothymic passions on others by violence and waging war. But in
modern day democracy this feeling of self worth is also the source of isothymia, the craving of everyone
to be respected as equal in rights before the law. Everyone´s
self wants to be recognized, when not as superior than at least as
equal. If there are still some traces of megalothymia left in modern
democratic man, then both the individual and the collective search for
a harmless outlet of these passions in sports, commerce, art or
science. We do not want the megalothymia
of one individual run amok in politics. Nowadays such harmful
individuals full of hybris are sent to jail, lest they prove them
selves to be a threat to the very democracy, that fostered and reared
them from the cradle.
Thymos
is in the eyes of Fukuyama the most central concept for understanding
the rise and ultimate success of democracy. For even more than by
reason or by desire man is characterized by a need for respect. Any
form of government that does not take this need of its constituents in
consideration is therefore liable to strife and conflict and will in
the end collapse under its own contradictions. This means that
different income and minority groups -in short all communal diversity-
all have to have their due in modern day society. This sounds perhaps
more difficult than it actually is. A human being is adaptable to
changing social circumstances and a lot of the reptilian prejudice,
fear and anger among different groups can be overcome by large scale
public information and education from the cradle. So we see democracy
actually promoting values like tolerance, mutual understanding and
liberalism the most. And -perhaps against all odds- it succeeds pretty
well, considering the reptilian ground wiring of our brain that is
still not totally subdued by our neocortex.
Now
there are according to Fukuyama two opposite dangers threatening
democratic values in society. The first one is:
we
risk becoming secure and
self-absorbed last men, devoid of thymoic striving for higher goals in
our pursuit of private goals (EH p. 328)
This
may lead to a disintegration of civil life, where no-one feels
responsible for the welfare of the community. The disintegration of the
family in modern day society can be seen both as cause and effect of
this tendency. To counter this danger Fukuyama pleads for a
re-assessment of the worth of the family as the basis of all democratic
feeling. It all begins with the home: this is the most existential
class-room for all members of society to learn cooperative values and
mutual respect. Most social problems are a consequence of broken homes
and lack of love, support and education from within a basic family. Not
only trees need roots to secure a healthy life. The first years of a
human being are essential to the rest of his life.
Criticism: Fukuyama does not stand
alone in underscoring the dangers of such a tendency. Many sociologists
and philosophers of culture -especially from the Right wing- warn us
for the disintegration of the family and the lack of participation in
(local) civilian life. Though there is some ground for these warnings,
we sometimes forget that cultural values are never permanent. The
values of the 50´s are not the values of today. We must keep in
mind that humans are more resilient than we sometimes expect them to
be, also in love, morals and responsibility. The family might
disintegrate in the near future, but it might also be replaced by
greater networks of mothers and fathers working together in setting up
healthy conditions for a child to grow and mature. A child may find
love, wisdom and friendship in different homes in the near future. This
will widen his horizon and prevent him to become too solipsistically
and fearfully attached to the warm cushions of his one and only family.
So there may be also advantages in the social changes that now have set
in.
That
local communities, churches, neighborhood centers etc. disintegrate
would be a sure sign of a worsening of life conditions, if these local
bonds would not be replaced by something else, something bigger.
Nowadays people look beyond the narrow confines of their local
communities and create networks that transcend mere locality. Technical
inventions like the Internet have opened up the horizon for most
people. They now associate with and learn from more people than was
ever thinkable and feasible in the days of our elders. These wider
horizons all have their bearings upon our democratic feelings also. The
more, and the more diverse, people we become acquainted with, the more
tolerant we become. People who are confined to their own small local
community and their own (narrow minded) centers of spirituality, are
not such good democrats as needs be. What the world of today needs is a
global mentality preparing the world for a global democracy.
Nationalism, provincialism and localism are not the best promoters for
such a desired evolution of mankind..
So we
need not be pessimistic about the moral strength and resilience of
modern day democratic man. We sometimes forget that individuation is a
necessary step towards higher forms of spiritualizations, towards a
better life. Mysticism shows that when man becomes more and more his
own Self, that the world at large is greatly benefited from it. Yes,
the old may fall apart. This might be frightening to some people. But
something new might also emerge that is better. This we must never
forget. The
second danger Fukuyama stresses is the possibility that the megalothymia of the few might once
again disrupt the democratic tendency of world politics. History might
start again when some people find democracy too boring or not enough of
a challenge for their own sense of self worth:
One
suspects that some people will
not be satisfied until they prove themselves by that very act that
constituted their humanness at the beginning of history: they will want
to risk their lives in a violent battle, and thereby prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt to themselves and to their fellows that they are
free. They will deliberately seek discomfort and sacrifice, because the
pain will be the only way they have of proving definitely that they can
think well of themselves, that
the are human beings. (EH p.
329)
But
Fukuyama himself points to the fact that there is few megalothymia left in Western
democratic man:
Looking
around contemporary
America, it does not strike me that we face the problems of an excess
of megalothymia. Those
earnest young people trooping off to law and business school, who
anxiously fill out their résumés in hopes of maintaining
the life-styles to which they believe themselves entitled, seem to be
much more in danger of becoming last men, rather than reviving the
passions of the first man. For them, the liberal project of filling
one´s life with material acquisitions and safe, sanctioned
ambitions appears to have worked all too well. It is hard to detect
great, unfulfilling longings or irrational passions lurking just
beneath the surface of the average first-year law associate. (EH p. 336)
But
still: there is thymos in man and the greater he is, the more megalothymia he has. So will the
end of history present us the picture of countries filled with flocks
of meek sheep and asses dutifully pulling the carts of economic
prosperity? I do not think so. The democratic man of today is not the
last man, but a new type of man will emerge who directs his megalothymia against himself. This
future man will not try to subdue his fellow man nor will he go
out to conquer nations. He will go inward and will set on a quest to
conquer his own personal self, to brake out of the confinements of his
own seclusion. This is the inner megalothymia
of a Zarathoustra, the man who has transgressed beyond good and evil to
the realm of universality. This future mystical man will truly be the
last man, as Nietzsche (though imperfectly) has already foreseen.
Democracy
is only the first step, to set the conditions right for the emergence
of this new man. In the political freedom of a new global world order
this new world citizen will emerge and try to emend his self, his
fellow man (by offering help) and his society. This will be his true megalothymia, the only real pride
he can have in himself. We are only at the beginning of this new
spiritual history. The beginning of the new millennium starts out
hopeful, as Fukuyama has shown. But these political developments are
only the prelude of a spiritual fugue that has yet to come. Fukuyama
closes off his book with the beautiful simile of all countries heading
like train wagons towards the end station of one single city, the city
of Democracy:
Some
wagons will be pulling into
town sharply and crisply, while others will be bivouacked back in the
desert, or else stuck in ruts in the final pass over the mountains.
Several wagons, attacked by Indians, will have been set aflame and
abandoned along the way. There will be a few wagoneers who, stunned by
the battle, will have lost their sense of direction and are temporarily
heading in the wrong direction, while one or two wagons will get tired
of the journey and decide to set up permanent camps at particular
points along the road. Others will have found alternative routes to the
main road, though they will discover that to get through the final
mountain range, they all must use the same pass. But the great majority
of the wagons will be making the slow journey into town, and most will
eventually arrive there. (EH p. 338)
But we
must honestly ask ourselves if this is the final destination of the
trains. Is the end of history reached when the whole world has come to
the town Democratia and has become democratic? Perhaps at a political
level Fukuyama is right and this really is the case. But man is not
only a homo politicus and
history is not only about politics and forms of government. There is a
history in man that is far more greater and far more glorious. That is
the history of his spiritual evolution. And this is the history that
Hegel also had in mind and alluded to. For when he said that the
Absolute finally was to become Self referent and Self determinate, he
had such a spiritual evolution of Spirit in mind. And like Hegel knew,
this was the real history of
mankind and the world.
that insights into the
metaphysics of history would teach us that there was, as Hegel
believed, a definite end to history and that human consciousness
evolved towards a last stage, where all internal contradictions, that
were the cause of the unfolding of history, would eventually be
reconciled. This last stage presented us the ´last man´,
viz. the historical human being that would have no need to evolve any
further and would thereby conclude history.
power in a land where large numbers of the population are
on the brink of starvation. In these states minority groups will want
to seize power in trying to get their hands on the few resources left.
Economic shortage never was a friend of democracy. But science, by
creating the technology for setting up lines of mass production, made
the establishment of a well-to-do middle class and a reasonably fed
lower class possible. 
not coupled to a sense of responsibility in caring for
others. We have to see that this consumerism and mammonism might in the
end pose a substantial threat to democracy itself because of the
possibility of undermining social cohesion. When competition and
selfish quest for gain run red hot, democracy itself might become the
victim. Too many people will not make it in the rat race of global
liberal economics. They thereby become potential enemies of democracy
herself. The modern dangers of terrorism show us the urgency of such an
analysis.
man will not try to subdue his fellow man nor will he go
out to conquer nations. He will go inward and will set on a quest to
conquer his own personal self, to brake out of the confinements of his
own seclusion. This is the inner megalothymia
of a Zarathoustra, the man who has transgressed beyond good and evil to
the realm of universality. This future mystical man will truly be the
last man, as Nietzsche (though imperfectly) has already foreseen. 
