Fukuyama, Francis

https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/fukuyama-francis-1952-0

PERSONAL:

Born October 27, 1952, in Chicago, IL; son of Yoshio (a Congregationalist minister and educator) and Toshiko (a potter) Fukuyama; married Laura Holmgren (a homemaker), September 8, 1986; children: Julia, David, John. Education: Cornell University, B.A., 1974; graduate studies, Yale University, 1974-75; Harvard University, Ph.D., 1981. Religion: Protestant.

SIDELIGHTS:

Following a stint as senior staff member of the political science department of the RAND Corporation, Francis Fukuyama captured attention worldwide in 1989 after penning an essay on the current state of history. Called „The End of History?,” the sixteen-page article appeared in the foreign policy journal National Interest and became the topic of considerable debate. In his thesis, Fukuyama, who was then working as deputy director of the U.S. State Department’s policy planning staff, contended that history had evolved to its logical end: that of liberal democracy. Fukuyama’s notion of „history,” as explained by Toronto Globe and Mail contributor Jeffrey Simpson, is „the struggle for universal acceptance of the most effective and just organization of human society.”

Based in part on the ideologies of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Fukuyama’s argument centers on the fact that one form of government will ultimately win out over all others. Fukuyama maintains that his assertion that liberal democracy has been victorious has been validated by the reunification of Germany and the collapse of Communism. According to James Atlas in the New York Times Magazine, Fukuyama suggests that „history is a protracted struggle to realize the idea of freedom latent in human consciousness. In the 20th century, the forces of totalitarianism have been decisively conquered by the United States and its allies, which represent the final embodiment of this idea.” The end result, predicts Fukuyama, will be „a very sad time,” as people turn to solving technological troubles rather than fighting ideological battles.

Fukuyama’s essay, which he later expanded into the 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man, would continue to be the subject of much debate in the years following its hardbound publication. While some commentators have agreed with the author’s delineations, others argue that liberal democracy certainly will be challenged by Third World countries and religious fundamentalists. Some critics pointed to the problems of drugs and poverty in U.S. society as further evidence that liberal democracy may not be the key ideology. In response to such debate, Fukuyama told Atlas: „The last thing I want to be interpreted as saying is that our society is a utopia, or that there are no more problems.” He added: „I simply don’t see any competitors to modern democracy.”

In his 1995 book, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Fukuyama argues that „economical success depends only partly on the factors customarily emphasized by economists: markets, competition, technology and skills,” according to a contributor to the Economist. George Weigel explained in Commentary that „Fukuyama has come to agree that there is life after history” and that the results of this „post-historical” period will be determined by civil society; „‘a complex welter of intermediate institutions, including businesses, voluntary associations, educational institutions, clubs, unions, media, charities, and churches,’ of which the most crucial is the family,” according to Weigel. The detailed case studies in the book illustrate how „the level of ‘trust’ in a society or nation is the key variable determining its capacity to compete in the modern world.”

Many critics praised Trust for its interesting thesis and engaging style, but faulted Fukuyama for his book’s omissions and for failing to prove his thesis. An Economist contributor remarked that „despite the plausibility of its opening argument, despite Mr. Fukuyama’s clear writing and hard work, Trust is not convincing.” According to Norman Stone in Management Today, the book has serious „mis-statements” and „several … huge omissions.” In the New Republic, Robert M. Solow called the book’s central thesis „interesting, even plausible, but not very original.” Within the book’s argument, Solow maintained, „there are too many escape hatches, too many spineless terms, too many ways to rationalize exceptions.”

In New Statesman & Society, Anthony Giddens echoed Solow’s belief that Trust lacked a convincing argument for its thesis; Giddens nevertheless described the book as „a work of considerable intellectual substance, engagingly written and ambitious in content.” In a Forbes review, Steve Forbes described the book as „fascinating, disturbing, well-researched … [and] timely.” „Fukuyama is not particularly alarmist in his book,” summarized Perry Pascarella in Industry Week: „The quiet man leads us to see that unrestrained individualism harms society, the economy, and ultimately, the individual. He convinces us that we will have to settle for a less viable society and less productive economy until we find a way to rebalance individualism with community.”

Fukuyama builds on the themes of his previous books in 1999’s The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. He examines the „Great Disruption” of the social order that began in the 1960s with rising rates of social distrust, crime, illegitimacy, and divorce; explores their causes; and proposes that human nature will lead to a reversal of this trend. He points out that it is not government policies, but rather social and technological changes—like the sexual revolution caused by the birth control pill and the change from a manufacturing to an information economy—that have led to social upheaval. „Simply put, he contends that the social order responds to change in a pattern of decay and adaptive reconstitution,” as Stephen Schneck wrote in the Review of Metaphysics. „On this basis, Fukuyama argues that the great disruption is not linked to the triumph of democracy and capitalism. In fact, the biological and rational resources of human nature will work and are presently working to reconstitute morality and social order.”

As with Fukuyama’s previous books, The Great Disruption engendered much debate among critics, with some agreeing with the author’s conclusions and others finding flaws in his methodology. Alan Wolfe, for instance, found a contradiction between Fukuyama’s discussion of the Great Disruption’s past (Part I of the book) and his speculation about its future resolution (Part II): „The precise and carefully qualified language of Part I gives rise to vagueness and guesswork in Part II,” the critic observed in the New Republic. „Yet even as Fukuyama speculates, he also speaks with great certainty.” Wolfe went on to write: „Part I seeks parsimonious explanations of complicated realities. Part II offers baroque accounts of relatively uncomplicated realities.” Geoffrey E. Schneider, Winston H. Griffith, and Janet T. Knoedler similarly wrote in the Journal of Economic Issues that „The Great Disruption offers a few interesting insights into the evolution of contemporary institutions. As fascinating as the topic is—the evolution of cultural norms and values in response to technological changes, the relationship between biology and human institutions—Fukuyama’s insights amount to little more than standard sociology with a smattering of game theory, infused with conservative ideology.” The critics added: „It is a frustrating book that oscillates between an evolutionary approach to social science and biological determinism.” Charles Murray, however, observed in Commentary that „The Great Disruption takes on questions that go to the heart of social policy writ large,” adding: „It is written with never-failing lucidity, brings together vast and disparate literatures, and makes one think in new ways about the prospects of post-industrial society. That is quite enough for one book.”

Fukuyama, who has sat on the President’s Council on Bioethics, „is sometimes a philosopher, sociologist, social psychologist, anthropologist, or economist,” Richard J. Coleman observed in the Christian Century. „But preeminently he is a social scientist interested in what makes us tick as social beings and in what political consequences our actions bring.” In his 2002 work, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, the author reassesses his theory that history has ended—not because liberal democracy has failed, but because „there can be no end of history without an end of modern natural science and technology.” The author examines the origins and development of the biotechnology revolution, considering general trends in the field and their potential social ramifications. He argues that new biotechnologies have the potential to destabilize society by creating a „genetic arms race,” as wealthy parents use genetic manipulation to give their children advantages of health, intelligence, and beauty. By creating such „posthumans,” there is a risk of changing the human behaviors that are the basis for modern society and government. The way to prevent this, the author suggests, is through government intervention. „In clear, thoughtful, and at times elegant prose,” a Virginia Quarterly Review contributor noted, „Fukuyama makes a case for preemptive regulation of biotechnological advances in a series of steps.”

Critics have praised the author’s detailed exploration of the issues surrounding biotechnology, although many disagree with his arguments for government restrictions. Coleman, for instance, remarked that „one of Fukuyama’s strengths is that he is continually asking what the political implications of the new technology are and how can we prepare for them,” although the critic added that „many will be disappointed with the thinness of Fukuyama’s understanding of those [moral] behaviors and characteristics that are uniquely human.” Guardian contributor Steven Poole, however, found Our Posthuman Future a „pseudish slab of alarmo-futurism,” filled with „repetitive criticism.” While Dan W. Brock wrote in American Scientist that „the book’s central argument against employing this new biotechnology is seriously flawed,” he added that Our Posthuman Future „is a well-written and accessible discussion” of biotechnological advances and issues. In recommending the book, Fredrick R. Abrams noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association that Fukuyama „explores diverse viewpoints and cites a variety of arguments to support or refute them.” The critic also noted that by reading this book „the researcher, politician, ethicist, and theologian would broaden their horizons in a subject that will affect all our futures.”

In State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century Fukuyama borrows from lectures he presented at Cornell in 2003 to discuss the need for state-building and why past efforts to build strong states out of weak ones has failed. He goes on to provide a new approach to building strong states that focuses on the importance of strong institutions within the states that would be able to reengineer economies and political systems. „This is a very useful, intelligent, and short book,”wrote John Fonte in National Review, adding: „One hopes it will become a must-read for State Department policymakers.” A Publishers Weekly contributor predicted that „Fukuyama’s ideas will no doubt be much discussed.”

Fukuyama has long considered himself a neoconservative or a „neocon,” In addition to objecting to liberalism and the active promotion of democracy through political intervention, neocons also played an important role in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which Fukuyama disagreed with and which ultimately led him to break from this political ideology. In America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy, published in England as After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads, the author looks at the history of the neoconservative movement and its influence on the administration of George W. Bush. Fukuyama goes on to discuss the legacy of neoconservatism, which he sees as having gone awry within the Bush administration. Specifically, the author focuses on what he views as the misguided and disastrously planned invasion of Iraq in 2003, noting that the President Bush and his administration did not adhere the principles of neoconservatism. The author goes on to write about his ideas for a new way in dealing with American foreign policy by fostering new international institutions and a demilitarized approach to dealing with international issues, thus avoiding a preemptive war.

Although several reviewers questioned whether or not Fukuyama was distancing himself from neoconservatism because it had fallen into disfavor after the disastrous war in Iraq, many still considered America at the Crossroads an important book. „This is fodder for the politically aware and interested,” wrote Reg Birchfield in the New Zealand Management. „It is a damning indictment of the neoconservative movement’s influence over America’s Bush administration—made all the more compelling because it is told by a former advocate of the neoconservative political philosophy.” Prisco R. Hernandez similarly remarked in Military Review: „America at the Crossroads is a tightly woven, highly personal, and articulate critique of Bush’s foreign policy agenda and its connection with neoconservative thought. As most academic theorists do, Fukuyama highlights the painful gulf that exists between worthy ideals and their practical implementation.” Several reviewers made special note of the author’s decision to change his political views.

For example, Anatol Lieven commented in the National Interest: „It is to be hoped that Francis Fukuyama’s break with neoconservatives will be only the beginning of his journey to new and uncharted shores, and that this journey will be of great benefit to United States thinking and strategy.” Lieven continued: „For Fukuyama is one of the most interesting public intellectuals in America today and has produced very valuable work on an extraordinary range of subjects. He has the ability to toss the cherished shibboleths of the Washington political classes up in the air and juggle playfully with them—should he be willing to break some windows in the process.

Fukuyama is also the editor of and a contributor to Nation-Building: Beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. The book presents a series of essays focusing on the United States’s efforts at nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of the authors compare the efforts of the United States in these two countries with other American reconstruction efforts that occurred in places such as Japan after World War II and Latin America. Stating that „this book is a significant contribution to the very young literature about America’s experience in nation-building,” Benjamin Zyla added in the Canadian Army Journal: „It walks the reader through the various stages of U.S. involvements in nation-building from the time after World War II up until the war in Iraq.” A Bookwatch contributor referred to Nation-Building as „a valuable resource … offering valuable suggestions to reduce future mistakes.”