Francis Fukuyama talks his book

Posted on by

In Quillette, he writes,

In a wide variety of cases, a political leader has mobilized followers around the perception that the group’s dignity had been affronted, disparaged, or otherwise disregarded. This resentment engenders demands for public recognition of the dignity of the group in question. A humiliated group seeking restitution of its dignity carries far more emotional weight than people simply pursuing their economic advantage.

That seems to be the thesis of his new book, Identity.

In the podcast of Lilliana Mason and Ezra Klein, I recall them saying that the future in the U.S. might see a contest between a “social justice” party and its opposition. They mock the opposition (“who could be against social justice?”). But that is exactly the problem. When one side believes that it has complete moral superiority, then this deprives the other side of dignity. Win or lose, moral arrogance is a very divisive political force.

I have not decided whether to read Fukuyama’s book. Based on what I have seen so far, I do not see any new insights.

17 thoughts on “Francis Fukuyama talks his book”

  1. Probably a good call. Steve Sailer starts his review today of Heather Mac Donald’s The Diversity Delusion by comparing it favorably to the Fukuyama book:

    “In her new book The Diversity Delusion, Heather Mac Donald takes on identity politics far more forthrightly than Francis Fukuyama dared to in his new book Identity, which I reviewed last week.

    Just compare their subtitles: Mac Donald chose How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture, while Fukuyama went with The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, even though “dignity” is hardly the first word suggested by identity politics. As I foresaw:

    Nor do I expect the upcoming Supreme Court nomination hearing/teen sex comedy to be a high point in the history of American dignity.

    Interestingly, both Fukuyama and Mac Donald studied literary theory at Yale under deconstructionist Paul de Man, a remarkable con man who successfully sailed with whatever tide.”

    In his earlier review of Fukuyama, Sailer wrote “Identity turns out to be fairly reasonable if you read all the way to the end, but the initial bulk of the book consists of Fukuyama going to undignified lengths to assure the politically correct that he’s not going to do any of the crimethinking he sneaks in later on.”

    • For what it is worth, I don’t think that Fukuyama’s approach is a discredit to him. The sort of people receptive to “crimethinking” don’t need Fukuyama’s book, but the politically correct aren’t likely to ever seriously engage with the straightforward arguments of someone like MacDonald. However, the politically correct are the people who actually need to hear the arguments, so you have to present them to the politically correct in ways that they will not notice. It’s just your typical seducing and corrupting of the young, which has been going on since Socrates’ time.

  2. But why does this happen at some times but not others? There seems to be an over-estimation of the capabilities of these political groups. The more likely explanation is that they react to the circumstances rather than create them.

    The dignity of groups is legitimately affronted, but by change, not politics, which just tags along and causes very little of what is going on. For a time, the political sides just snipe at one another in standard fashion, but since no one is actually solving any of the new political challenges, eventually the pressure builds, and the sniping becomes sharper and meaner. Eventually the frustration is sufficient for these types of political leaders. They cause a chaotic reset.

    Rinse and repeat.

  3. Well, there’s always Hayek’s The Mirage of Social Justice (Volume 2 of Law, Legislation, and Liberty).

    In these circumstances I could not content myself to show that particular attempts to achieve ‘social justice’ would not work, but had to explain that the phrase meant nothing at all, and that to employ it was either thoughtless or fradulent. It is not pleasant to have to argue against a superstituion which is held most strongly by men and women who are often regaded as the best in our society, and against a belief that had become almost the new religion of our time (and in which many of the ministers of old religion have found their refuge), and which has become the recognized mark of the good man. But the present universality of that belief proves no more the reality of its object than did the universal belief in witches or the philosopher’s stone. Nor does the long history of the conception of distributive justice understood as an attribute of individual conduct (and now often treated as synonymous with ‘social justice’) prove that it has an relevance to the positions arising from the market process. I believe indeed that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be if it were in my power to make them ashamed of ever again using that hollow incantation. I felt it my duty at least to try and free them of that incubus which today makes fine sentiments the instruments for the destruction of all values of a free civilization – and to try this at the risk of gravely offending many the strength of whose moral feelings I respect.

    As with most things, unconventional modification is really negation, and transfer of aims to different ends and terminal values. The joke is that “Military music is more military than music.” Meaning it is more about satisfying the needs of military organizations (e.g., a beat one can easily march to) than about satisfying aesthetic tastes and impulses. “Military Justice” is likewise more about the efficient management of a military unit with a view of balancing good order and discipline with the capacity to accomplish the unit’s missions and the best interests of the service, and not necessarily to make sure transgressors “get what they deserve” in some cosmic moral sense.

    “Social Justice” is likewise “not actually ‘justice’ “. It is more about hurting Peter to produce something Paul wants (and which is why Paul votes for your side’s politicians.) Sometimes that’s money, and other times it’s status, legal advantages, or other less tangible benefits.

  4. “But that is exactly the problem. When one side believes that it has complete moral superiority”

    Politically, which side would that be? I read across the spectrum and it seems pretty clear to me that both the left and right think they are morally superior to the other. One reason I read libertarian sites, not that there isn’t some smugness there either.

    Steve

    • Really? Because what I’m getting from a lot of those we think of as aligned with IDW, Alt Right and heterodox weirdos is a strong “don’t preach at me, man” vibe. It’s very HL Mencken, or Gen X. It’s largely the same attitude that once balked at “stranger danger” and other shibboleths of the right-wing Moral Majority.

      The left is now in a position to be such a moral majority, and are dictating the new common sense. So that same vaguely libertarian attitude that was operationally left-wing in the 80s is now right-wing in the 2010s.

      • I would agree with Dain. Maybe the people who write in political magazines or newspapers for a living are convinced of their sides’ moral superiority, but in my interactions with people I know, the conservatives tend to be a lot less self-righteous than the liberals when it comes to politics. That isn’t to say that the conservatives aren’t convinced that they have the right policies for the country; they just don’t seem to take the attitude that your opinions about politics has much of a reflection on your character as a person, while liberals do tend to believe that having the “correct” opinions is a part of being a moral person. The conservatives I know expect disagreement about politics, and are even good humored about it. They expect people to disagree, and even take a degree of pleasure in talking about and disagreeing with other people in a jocular way. I definitely don’t get they vibe from people who are committed progressives.

    • Notice the difference in your words, “morally superior,” and Kling’s, “complete moral superiority.” I’m guessing he added ‘complete’ for a reason.

        • I do think that filling readers of Vox with that kind of bad information is harmless, because readers of Vox dismiss all arguments out of hand to the contrary on that question. Klein’s work had literally zero impact, or it had no more impact than a click-bait microtargeted Facebook ad.

          • It’s like saying that anyone preaching to the choir is harmless, but of course the whole point of preaching to the choir is to work them up into a frenzy so they go out and break stuff.

            As Ezra puts it, “who could be against social justice?”. The only answer is “Nazis” and the response is “silence and persecute them, hound them and try to destroy their livelihoods”.

            People are allowed to voice dumb free speech (your uncle ranting on facebook), but present an argument that really undercuts progressivism at its foundation and you have to go nuclear.

            If polite society starts to buy some of what Murray is selling…all those set asides, seminars, cushy jobs, etc…go away. How do you show you are woke about bias if it turns out there really isn’t much bias? How do you talk about injustice if there is no injustice once you do a few statistical adjustments? How do you justify the programs to fix those disparities if they are logically doomed to begin with?

            Your right that he’s a small player. But there are a lot of him and it adds up. And your right that if progressives only talked and didn’t use force (including getting people fired or getting wacko policies implemented, not just bitching on the internet) they would be someone you could just ignore (haters gonna hate). But they are actually taking down those that disagree with them in ways that count. And its only going to get worse.

  6. I would be interested in Fukuyama updating his end of history idea.

    Mainland China appears to be ever more under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. Ever since Tiananmen Square, China is becoming less liberal, not more.

    The CCP envisions its latest manufacturing push as directed by the state and involving state-owned enterprises. The belt-and-road initiatives, of course, are totally state-directed programs.

    In the US, I despise identity politics. However, in the US the media generally accepts identity-based narratives, while refusing to air class-based narratives.

  7. “Win or lose, moral arrogance is a very divisive political force.”

    I wonder how much of the devisiveness is in the online world of national politics versus on the ground in local communities. Read an article entitled “78207: America’s Most Radical School Integration Experiment” today over at the74million web site (perhaps of null hypothesis watch interest) that provides an interesting example of how radical yet practical, results oriented action overcame the constraints of “ideology as identity” policy thinking freqently encountered in the online national politics environment. The schools there gored a bunch of oxes on both sides, seemingly without regard to party politics and got results. If San Antonio is representative of any other communities, it may be a good sign that there is a future for unaligned radical pragmatics.

Comments are closed.