The ‘End of History’ Has Us Stuck in Postmodernity

Ever since the end of the first Cold War, we have as a society (in the West predominantly) found ourselves in what has been deemed the post-ideological society. After George H.W. Bush proudly announced that the US had won the Cold War, he claimed the world now no longer needed to concern itself with which ideology was the better one — communism had failed, and liberal capitalism won. It was almost announced through a statement of relief, as in “thank God we can put that discussion to rest!” Around the same time, American political scientist Francis Fukuyama published his paper The End of History? followed by the book The End of History and the Last Man, declaring again the victory of liberal capitalism over all other ideologies. The end of the Cold War marked ‘the end of history’, the end of the progressive arc of history which for centuries had advanced us across systems of state governance towards the end station where we now find ourselves.

This was a pivotal moment in our recent history, because it grounded us in a reality without alternatives. Whereas the 20th century had unfolded as an arena of competing modernist ideologies (such as communism, socialism, fascism, and capitalism), the 21st century was to be different. Afterall, the postmodern currents of the second half of the 20th century had done its due diligence in deconstructing what were considered potentially dangerous modernist ideologies should they be left to their own devices, to take form freely without any concern for their blindspots and shortcomings.

The big problem with postmodern thought is that as compared to modernist ideologies, it does not present any solutions or political alternatives. For the most part, it remains content with criticizing and deconstructing, but not so much in building new and “better” ideological systems for the future. Although capitalism was not exempt from postmodernist critique, the lack of proposed alternatives from postmodern movements led Western post-Cold War capitalist leaders to comfortably announce liberal capitalism as the ideology to end all ideologies, and no other voices were strong enough to argue otherwise. This means that the most recent and potent counter-hegemonic thought movement was never truly counter-hegemonic at all. Indeed for a half dozen decades, no one had bothered or succefully managed to come up with any alternatives to it. Postmodern thought served its purpose well as a tool of social deconstruction, but that’s about it. It is a tool, not a political ideology.

Or at least that should have been its intention. But in a ‘post-ideological world’ with no counter-hegemonic ideologies, we have not been able to advance from postmodernity; it’s as if we are too afraid to even engage in modernist territory of laying out any type of grand narratives that could serve as compasses for our activism. After spending decades poking holes at “grand narrative ideologies” such as Marxism, Anarchism or Fascism, we have been conditioned in treading lightly when we talk about social progress and historical materialism (in many ways understandably so). But in a world in desperate need for ideological alternatives to capitalism, we are left with nothing to offer.

This is clearest particularly in how we frame our political activism and social critique, which currently finds itself stuck in taking an ironic distance to its very own cause. How does one earnestly engage in political activism while incapable of imagining alternatives to the system one lives in? It’s impossible. By extent, the way we tend to approach our own political activism in our own countries is so different than how we extend our criticism over other non-Western countries. We have an easy time in the case of countries like say China, Venezuela, Iran, the USSR or North Korea of talking about ‘systemic failures’. We understand that what would be needed would be a complete top-down restructuring of the state, and that in short “the whole system must go” (and ideally should resemble that of our own ‘close-to-perfect-but-not-really’ Western liberal countries). Yet for us in the West currently standing at the metaphorical end station of ideology, we find ourselves incapable of applying the same train of thought to our own activism — ironically it being the only confine in which we can actually act (as much as we want to, unless we rely on diverse forms of imperialism or interventionism, we can’t do much about the systems of other countries). We only have power at home, but it remains unexercised, due to our current ideological gridlock.

Indeed, whether we like it or not, our activism at home is tame and rather ineffective. Climate change is still worsening by the day, income inequality continues to grow, welfare services continue to be cut as we find ourselves in a never ending race to the bottom for the sake of endless growth and competitiveness. Say what you want about the Soviet Union, but the simple fact that a legitimate political alternative existed in the world did coerce a lot of Western governments to take the grievances of their own respective working classes more seriously. The implication was always there: “you either concede to some of the demands of the working class or you risk finding yourselves with a soviet-style revolution on your hands”. This led to the concept we now know as ‘class compromises’ that happened mainly during the mid-20th Century and essentially built our modern welfare states as we know and love them. Without the Soviet Union, and with the widespread Fukuyamaist understanding even amongst the working class that communism/socialism is not a viable alternative, there isn’t much pressure left keeping our own leaders in check thus allowing capitalism to run unfettered. This is in my opinion the biggest downside of the unipolar, uni-ideological world, as all we are left with is postmodernity and its weapon of choice: distanced irony.

This is particularly visible in the way we have come to criticize our own systems of power. All the Colberts, Stewarts, John Olivers and Trevor Noahs of our world , as well as shows like South Park or the Simpsons, regularly take punches at systemic symptoms night after night with a strong degree of distanced irony. And while irony is fine in the way that it allows us to laugh at our own misery, it does not do much to present and advance counter-hegemonic alternatives. To quote Lewis Hyde:

“Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time it is the voice of the trapped who have come to enjoy their cage. This is why it is so tiresome. People who have found a route to power based on their misery — who don’t want to give it up though it would free them — they become ironic.”

Political commentary soaked in irony hence presents itself as an impotent form of activism, in that it only serves to reinforce and legitimize the system within which it extends its ironic criticism. This would also explain while so many of the late night talk-shows and comedy specials are hosted on multi-million dollars media networks owned by the richest individuals on our planet. Should their criticism be succinct, sincere and truthful (ie. non-ironic), they most likely wouldn’t be given the large platform they are offered. Night after night they take cheap sarcastic shots at certain policies or politicians, everyone has a laugh and we go to bed feeling as if we are engaged in advancing social progress by participating in “sticking it to the man”. Yet ‘the man’ is the very individuals and system which host and promotes these ‘comedians’ on their networks while paying them enormously generous salaries.

Grand narratives and distanced irony do not go together. Yet what we would need at this point in time is rather an honest form of anger with a targeted, focused plan of action. For all of their flaws, modernist ideologies were far more concerned with and versed in achieving political goals as these were understood as being the core of all social progress. Theory and practice (i.e. activism) go hand-in-hand, and you can’t have one without the other. I would argue that after decades of advancing postmodernist thought and critical theory, it is about time we start reconsidering social alternatives that are sincere in their aims. This doesn’t mean for example rehashing 20th century Leninism, but rather advancing a form of more enlightened 21st century movements and ideology that learned from the mistakes of the 20th century through the use of postmodern deconstruction.

We cannot continue living in postmodernity — it offers no plan of action, no aim, no compass, and completely fails to envision a future world that is better than the one we have today. Conversely then postmodernism successfully established itself as the ideology of the capitalist ruling class as they were able to co-opt political commentary and activism, making them impotent due to an over-reliance on distanced irony, and hence maintaining the status quo that serves them well. In order to get out of this predicament, it is crucial that we move past this approach and focus on redesigning an “activism with a purpose”. Yet as we still find ourselves in the midst of the ‘end of history’, this may be easier said than done. It starts with freeing ourselves from the shackles of ideology, by realizing that we are — whether we like it or not — still deeply stuck in it.

History never actually ended, and as the contradictions of capitalism and the cracks in the system start becoming more and more apparent, we will learn sooner or later that our current economic paradigm is but one amongst others on the road of history towards progress. And given the time pressure put on us by climate change and our potential imminent extinction, the sooner would be better.