In the upcoming issue of Foreign Affairs, Francis Fukuyama has an article called “The Future of History,” which compares recent ideological debate, using the Tea Party and Occupy movements as examples. While the basis of the article is about the “decline of the middle class” and its effect on liberal democracy, the author brings up an interesting fact at the start. He points out that in recent years, the left-wing has suffered a “failure in the realm of ideas.” It has been the right-wing that has been the party of ideas, challenging liberalism’s current “dominance” in society. Meanwhile, the Left has only been able to respond to its critics with a “return to an unaffordable form of old-fashioned social democracy.”
Fukuyama suggests that this “absence of a plausible progressive counter-narrative is unhealthy, because competition is good for intellectual debate just as it is for economic activity.” But when dealing with reform, one of the most often heard critiques is that the suggested alternative is “unrealistic” for one reason or another. To have a plausible or realistic alternative, we have to have some idea of what will work and what won’t work, but is it possible to actually know such things?
We all tend to have some sort of preconceived notion of what will work, but do we not limit ourselves in terms of potential alternatives by relying on these notions? This also points to the argument that some (John Ruggie comes to mind) have made that we do not possess the methodological tools to know “what comes next.” So is it even possible for people to create/construct a counter-narrative? If changes requires the construction of such an alternative, does this mean that we need to start being unrealistic? Just imagine the parliamentary/congressional debates that might occur if being realistic was thrown out the window (you thought we had a problem about things not getting done nowadays!).
How does change happen then? If we don’t possess the tools necessary to develop alternatives, then alternatives must present themselves in reality. In my mind, this doesn’t bode well for the ability to make changes in society, but it does fit with how society has changed historically. By this I don’t mean change how an actor/organization behaves, but deeper forms of change, systemic change, that affects the “building blocks” of our social relations. The Peace of Westphalia, dropping the atomic bomb, etc., these are the kinds of significant moments of change that I am talking about, but they come with grievous amounts of death and loss. Even more so, when they occurred no one could have known the long-term implications of these events. No one could have known that the idea of sovereignty could shape behaviour in international society as much as it has or that nuclear weapons could balance the playing field between great powers and lesser powers.
This would imply, then, that change is an accident; it is a byproduct of other events. It may be depressing to think that we are not in control of our own destinies, our ability to respond to the need for change, but the reality is that I think that we are destined to bounce around through history, smashing into obstacles, with no real control. Letting go of our preconceived notions of our ability to change our circumstances (the world) may be exactly what we need for change to occur. Stop trying to control things and let things just happen this is rich coming from me, a real nitpicker and control nut and, WOW I really sound like a guidance councilor right now.
Though, this is where the problem lies, how could I or anyone else know this? Just a bit frustrating, eh?
andrewblencowe 