Does anyone have the right to sex? The term can, in theory, be applied to both men and women, but in practice it picks out not sexless men in general, but a certain kind of sexless man:
History should be viewed as an evolutionary process. Events still occur at the end of history. Pessimism about humanity's future is warranted because of humanity's inability to control technology. The end of history means liberal democracy is the final form of government for all nations.
There can be no progression from liberal democracy to an alternative system.
Misinterpretations[ edit ] According to Fukuyama, since the French Revolutiondemocracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system ethically, politically, economically than any of the alternatives. However, many Fukuyama scholars claim this is a misreading of his work.
Indeed, Fukuyama has stated: The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organization. The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in Godnational sovereigntyand their military.
This theory has faced criticismwith arguments largely resting on conflicting definitions of "war" and "mature democracy".
Part of the difficulty in assessing the theory is that democracy as a widespread global phenomenon emerged only very recently in human history, which makes generalizing about it difficult. See also list of wars between democracies.
Other major empirical evidence includes the elimination of interstate warfare in South America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe among countries that moved from military dictatorships to liberal democracies.
According to several studies, the end of the Cold War and the subsequent increase in the number of liberal democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfareinterstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons.
According to Derrida, Fukuyama—and the quick celebrity of his book—is but one symptom of the anxiety to ensure the "death of Marx".
Fukuyama's celebration of liberal hegemony is criticized by Derrida: For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realized itself as the ideal of human history: It is consonant with the current discourse of the Pope on the European community: Derrida points out that Fukuyama himself sees the real United States and European Union as imperfect compared to the "ideals" of liberal democracy and the free market.
Even the author understands that such ideals are not demonstrated by empirical evidence or ever could be demonstrated empirically. They belong entirely to the realm of philosophy or religion, owing their birth to the Gospels of Philosophy of Hegel.
And yet Fukuyama still uses a movement toward empirical observations, which he himself grants are imperfect and incomplete, to validate an idea that is purely idealistic and transcendent of any empirical reality or possibility.
Therefore, Marxists like Perry Anderson have been among Fukuyama's fiercest critics. Apart from pointing out that capitalist democracies are still riven with poverty, racial tension, and the like, Marxists also reject Fukuyama's reliance on Hegel. According to them, Hegel's philosophy was fatally flawed until Marx "turned it on its head" to create historical materialism.
Fukuyama argues that even though there is poverty, racismand sexism in present-day democracies, there is no sign of a major revolutionary movement developing that would actually overthrow capitalism. While Marxists disagree with Fukuyama's claim that capitalist democracy represents the end of history, they support the idea that the "end of history" will consist of the victory of democracy: Although this tends to be an ambiguous word, he uses it in the proper meaning for the time when the book was published.
It has been argued that he might even be a Neoconservative on some points but this has been firmly shot down by him and his use of "ideal" systems which is firmly denounced by many Anarcho-Capitalists of the same rote who believe that no government can be good.
His moral bent is strikingly similar but he does not identify with the founding fathers while espousing the same form of government to avoid petty debates.Welcome to the American Perspectives Volume II eText Website for Houston Community College. Follow the instructions below to redeem the access code found in the Pearson Learning Solutions Student Access Kit that was packaged with your book.
How to Write a Killer Essay Conclusion. and you probably have not come across many books that fully summarize the main points of the story at the end. This does not mean that you can’t restate the purpose of your narrative. It just means that you have to do it in a different way.
history and education. You can find her on Google+. And now it is a nation that wants some things very much. In general, it knows what these things are. At home its people want continued growth, its leaders the stability that growth can buy.
How to End an Essay. The final paragraph of an essay is what ties the piece together into a single, cohesive whole. Coming up with a good ending can be tricky, but understanding what elements it should and shouldn't have will help you. Philip Larkin once said that the modern novel consists of a beginning, a muddle and an end.
The same is, alas, all too true of many history essays. The same is, alas, all too true of many history essays. This past semester at MIT I took a really wonderful class called “Feminist Political Thought” which had a very open ended essay assignment.
I wrote a history of the word “Bitch,” and several of my classmates requested to read the whole paper so I thought I’d post it here.