Akhir Sejarah dan Manusia Terakhir

LastMan

Fukuyama in his books draws history is a single, coherent evolutionary process when taking into account the experience of all peoples in all times; it is not an open – ended, but goes to an end point. Fukuyama stands on Hegel’s idea: there is a coherent development of human societies from simple tribal ones based on slavery and subsistence agriculture, through various theocracies, monarchy, and feudal aristocracies, to modern liberal democracy and technologically driven capitalism. This idea believes history will end when mankind has achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings. But the end of history  doesn’t mean that the natural cycle of birth, life, and death will end, or important events would no longer happen. It means, rather, that there will be no further progress in the development of underlying principles and institutions, because all of the really big questions have been settled. It is a quiet interesting basis of theory.

The development term itself is constituted by elements such as improvement, progress and growth from point to point moving to the end point, and according Fukuyama’s definition, history furthermore can be understood as development of all aspects of human life of culture and civilization as well as the institutional system in it. And if it’s so, the topics are raised to what end the human life of culture and civilization as well as the institutional system in it are moving and what factors drive its development of human life of culture and civilization as well as the institutional system in it. Fukuyama’s data presentation leads to an argument, and stands on Hegel’s idea, that capitalism of liberal-democracy state will be the end of history process. It is driven by two factors namely e the logic of modern science and the struggle for recognition. The economic logic of modern science together with the struggle for recogni­tion lead to the eventual collapse of tyrannies.

The logic of science, a set of scientific method which is stimulated by various interrelated circumstances including the development of the postulation method in mathematics, the unprecedented expansion of modern technology, and recent advances in the biological, psychological, and anthropological sciences, has given an advanced technology for human societies. It turns out an improvement in modern production possibilities of economic.

Countries are exposed by modern economic production possibilities, suspected by advanced technological, tend to replace their traditional forms of social organization like tribe, sect, and family with economically rational based on function and efficiency, and provide for the more modern and universal education of their citizens. Societies become more homogeneous regardless of their historical origins or cultural inheritances and linked with one another as we can prove from the impact of information technology through the role of social media recently. The advanced technology in other side gives an opportunity to societies for equal distribution of welfare with its ability to access global resources and markets. The logic of modern natural science will seem to dictate an evolution in the direction to capitalism. In this factor Fukuyama explains the logic of modern science essentially is an economic interpretation of historical change; economic development progress is driven by technology which rooted in the logic of modern science, have an impact on the changing history of society.

But, this statement provides a challenge, why societies should lead to the capitalism – liberal – democracy while some facts show that capitalism can even be achieved by some non-liberal democracy countries. The historical mechanism represented by modern natural science with its economic interpretation is insufficient to explain a phenomenon of democracy. It is for this reason the book turns to an account that seeks the whole of man from other his side. To do this, Fukuyama returns to Hegel’s non-materialist account of history, based on the struggle for recognition, the second factor.

Man wants to be recognized as a human being with certain worth or dignity. The propensity to invest the self with a certain value, and to demand recognition for that value, is what in today’s popular language we would call self-esteem.  People believe that they have a certain worth, and when other people treat him as though they are worth less than that, they experience the emotion of anger. Conversely, when people fail to live up to their own sense of worth, they feel shame, and when they are evaluated correctly in proportion to their worth, they feel pride. This worth in the first instance is related to his willingness to risk his life in a struggle over pure prestige. The desire for recognition, accompanying with emotions of anger, shame, and pride, are critical parts of the human personality to political life. It acts as enabler the whole historical process.

The desire to be recognized as a human being with dignity drove two primordial combatants at the beginning of history into a bloody battle to the death to seek to make the other recognize their humanness by staking their lives in a mortal battle. Natural fear of death led one combatant to submit, and the relationship of master and slave was born. The stakes in this bloody battle at the beginning of history was not food, shelter, or security, but pure prestige.

The outcome of this battle was a division of human society into a class of masters, who were willing to risk their lives, and a class of slaves, who gave in to their natural fear of death. But the relationship of lordship and bondage, which took a wide variety of forms in all of the unequal, aristocratic societies that had characterized the greater part of human history, failed ultimately to satisfy the desire for recognition of either the masters or the slaves. The slave, of course, was not acknowledged as a human being in any way whatsoever. But the recognition enjoyed by the master was deficient as well, because he was not recognized by other masters, but slaves whose humanity was as yet incomplete. Dissatisfaction with the flawed recognition in aristocratic societies constituted a contradiction that engendered further stages of history.

The contradiction inherent in the relationship of lordship and bondage was finally overcome as a result of the democracy revolution of French revolution and American revolution. These democracy revolutions abolished the distinction between master and slave by making the former slaves their own masters and by establishing the principles of popular sovereignty and the rule of law. The inherently unequal recognition of masters and slaves was replaced by universal and reciprocal recognition, where every citizen recognizes the dignity and humanity of every other citizen, and where that dignity was recognized by the state through the granting of rights.

The striving for liberal democracy ultimately arises out of the part of man  that demands recognition. The social changes that accompany advanced industrialization appear to liberate a certain demand for recognition. As standards of living increase, as populations become more cosmopolitan and better educated, people begin to demand not simply more wealth but recognition of their status. The struggle for recognition leads them to demand democratic governments that treat them like human being and recognizing their autonomy as free individuals. If people are nothing more than desire and reason, they will be content to live in market-oriented authoritarian states like some countries under military rule. Communism is being superseded by liberal democracy in this time because the realization of communism provides a gravely defective form of recognition. It all explains why in the end, the last man in history is guided by the choice of capitalism democratic liberal.

This book was written in 1992, divided in five chapters.  A number of data to predict future condition from the perspective at that time, of course, was considering current political situation and the forces of that day. Even so, some of the predictions was conveyed by the book proved accurate today. This book is contained with rich in historical data and quite interesting for reference.

Iklan

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s