No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 June 2011
Fukuyama's thesis of the end of history evoked a great deal of attention because it seemed to provide the ideological foundation for a new round of US hegemony, the ideological gloss for a new American assertiveness. The mood in US debates at the time had been pessimistic, while global political realities, in particular the weakening of the Soviet Union, provided opportunities for a new American assertiveness. Setting forth an ideological stance for the post-Cold War political dispensation, Fukuyama's essay filled the ideology gap.
1 Fukuyama, F., ‘The End of History?’, The National Interest 16 (1989) 4.Google Scholar
2 Fenby, J., ‘The end of history is bunk’, The Guardian Weekly, 1 October 1989.Google Scholar
3 Blumenthal, S., ‘New Conservative Journal Aims to Alter U.S. Foreign Policy’, International Herald Tribune, 17 October 1985.Google Scholar
4 E.g. Inside the Shadow Government (Washington 1988).
5 Fukuyama's previous publications include The Security of Pakistan: A Trip Report and The Future of the Soviet Role in Afghanistan: A Trip Report, both published in 1980 by the Rand Corporation and written with assistance from Pakistani intelligence and military officers; Counterspy, 5:4 (1981) 27–30. His other publications include ‘Patterns of Soviet Third World policy’, Problems of Communism 36:5 (1987) 1–13; ‘Asia in a global war’, Comparative Strategy 6:4 (1987) 387–413; ‘Gorbachev and the Third World’, Foreign Affairs 64:4 (1986) 715–731; ‘Nuclear shadowboxing - Soviet intervention threats in the Middle East1, Orbis 25:3 (1981) 579–605; ‘New Soviet strategy’. Commentary 68:4 (1979) 52–58; with Rosen, S. J., ‘Egypt and Israel after Camp David’, Current History 76:443 (1979).Google Scholar
6 Fukuyama, F., The End of History and the last Man (New York 1992).Google Scholar
7 But see ‘Responses to Fukuyama’ in The National Interest 16 (1989) 19–35Google Scholar; 17 (1989) 93–100. Friedman, J., ‘The new consensus: I. the Fukuyama thesis’, Critical Review 3:3–4 (1989) 373–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Trofimenko, H., ‘The end of the cold war, not history’, Washington Quarterly 13 (1990) 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 E.g. Frank, A.G., ‘No End to History! History to No End?’, Socialfustice 17:4 (1990) 7–29.Google Scholar
9 Fukuyama's essay is included in Hall, S., Held, D. and McGrew, T. eds., Modernity and its Futures (Oxford 1992).Google Scholar
10 Kojève, A., Introduction à la lecture de Hegel (Paris 1947).Google Scholar
11 Knutsen, T.L., ‘Answered Prayers: Fukuyama, Liberalism and the End-of-History Debate’, Bulletin of Peace Proposals 22:1 (1991) 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Fuller, Timothy in ‘More Responses to Fukuyama’, The National Interest 17 (1989) 93.Google Scholar
13 Fukuyama, ‘End of History’, 8.
14 Ibidem, 10.
15 Ibidem, 43.
16 Ibidem, 45.
17 Ibidem, 45–46, 48.
18 Ibidem, 134.
19 Ibidem, 9.
20 Ibidem, 118.
21 ‘Responses to Fukuyama’, 28.
22 Fukuyama, ‘End of History’, 14, 15.
23 We may refer to e.g. Williams's, Eric classic, Capitalism and Slavery (London 1944)Google Scholar. Williams's work has been criticized for its empirical data, but not to the extent that his basic argument concerning the relationship between slavery and capital accumulation in Europe is overturned.
24 A theme discussed by James, C.L.R., The Future in the Present (London 1977)Google Scholar and in Pieterse, J. Nederveen, Empire and Emancipation (London 1990) Ch. 14.Google Scholar
25 See Ringer, B.B., ‘We the People” and Others: Duality and America's Treatment of its Racial Minorities (New York and London 1983)Google Scholar. Foner, Ph. ed., We the Other People (Urbana 1976).Google Scholar
26 Quoted in Honour, H., The New Golden land: European Images of America from the Discoveries to the Present Time (New York 1975) 215Google Scholar. For more extensive discussion see R.F. Berkhofer, Jr, ‘Democracy, American liberalism, and Indian policy in the nineteenth century’ in: Berkhofer, and Robert, F. Jr., The White Man's Indian (New York 1978).Google Scholar
27 Quoted in Curtis, L., Nothing but the Same Old Story (London 1984) 57.Google Scholar
28 Mehta, U.S., ‘Liberal Strategies of Exclusion’, Politics and Society 18:4 (1990) 427–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Ibidem, 429–30.
30 Parekh, B., ‘The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy’ in: Held, D. ed., Prospects for Democracy (Oxford 1992) 18.Google Scholar
31 Ibidem, 21, 23.
32 Ibidem, 20–29.
33 Fukuyama, ‘End of History’, 3.
34 Le Nouvel Observateur, February 1991.
35 Fukuyama, ‘End of History’, 15.
36 Ibidem, 16.
37 Wallerstein, I., ‘The Three Instances of Hegemony in the History of the Capitalist World-Economy’ in: The Politics of the World-Economy: the States, the Movements, and the Civilizations: Essays (Cambridge 1984) 37–46.Google Scholar
38 Fukuyama, ‘End of History’, 3.
39 See Pieterse, J. Nederveen ed., Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern (London 1992).Google Scholar
40 For a critique of liberalism from a feminist point of view see e.g. Coole, D.H., Women in Political Theory (Brighton 1988).Google Scholar
41 Huntington, S.P., ‘The change to change. Modernization, development and polities’, Comparative Politics 3:3 (1971) 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar