Fukuyama’s “The End of History” discusses the conclusion of the Cold War and how it signals the ‘End of History’. Huntington on the other hand argues that the end of ideological conflict after the Cold War will mean not the whole world becoming like Europe, but rather that it will lead to a so-called ‘Clash of Civilisations’. Beinin and Stork would disagree with Huntington on the view that 'Islamist movements' should be viewed as an example of such a rise of civilizational conflict. All these ideas are discussed below.
Fukuyama discusses the conclusion of the Cold War, he thinks that it signals the ‘End of history’ as such that the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government” (Fukuyama 371). Essentially, he believes that by looking at the underlying trends in the sphere of ideology and consciousness, that it is clear that a remarkable transformation has been made towards democratic liberalism, the final destination of every state.
Hegel, Karl Marx’s great German predecessor, proclaimed that history had already come to an end in 1806. Hegel saw the defeat of the Prussian monarchy at the Battle of Jena and the victory of the French ideals of liberty and equality. The Battle of Jena marked the
…show more content…
Nationalism is still extremely powerful in the Third World after the Cold War. It is important to note that nationalism is compatible with ideology, as it “does not offer anything like a comprehensive agenda for socio-economic organisation” (Fukuyama 382). Nationalism can only prove to be a source of conflict when liberalism is incomplete. Therefore, as soon as liberal societies have reached their final stage, the end of history, nationalism cannot pose to be a threat any