Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

amc.sas.upenn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#21

Post by beepbooptheory »

netcan wrote: post #7

Quoted post unavailable.

What, in your mind, was 20th century politics defined by?

Edit: like I get the economism here feels reductive to you, I think, but I just think it would at least be equally absurd to say they were predominantly defined by identity issues. As is shown in the essay, our concept of identity is intractable from globalism and modernity. So I'm just not sure what the obvious issue is here. If we admit that it is nuanced, then you have to explain where the lines of that nuance are obvious, and economism is a good tool for that.

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#22

Post by guerrilla »

retrac wrote: post #17
guerrilla wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that he admitted that he was wrong? I believe he wrote a book on it.

Yes, it's pretty clear he was falsified. (China didn't go liberal! Shocker.) Doesn't mean his ideas weren't thought-provoking. But it's probably best to think of such political science as political philosophy.

> Yes, it's pretty clear he was falsified.

Okay, it wasn't clear to me that was your view from your comment.

> political science as political philosophy

I think he stepped out of that realm when he tried to make a prediction and justify it as correct.

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#23

Post by skywal_l »

borepop wrote: post #3

Also Francis Fukuyama: history ended in 1992.

Well his history ended in 1992. The guy spent a life becoming an expert on Soviet imperialism and in a few days most of his knowledge became obsolete. I could see how he could say something like that.

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#24

Post by guerrilla »

fallingknife wrote: post #20
guerrilla wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also ignores all the material demands of the groups involved in identity politics, as if they don't intersect (A LOT!) This is inane.

What are the material demands of those groups? There seems to be a general demand for special treatment and privileged legal status based on membership in their identity group, but symbolic issues seem very much at the center of identity politics.

When a group is disproportionately excluded from the education, economic and other systems of society due to, for example, racism or sexism, they tend to have disproportionately worse economic outcomes (sometimes extremely so.) This is almost always recognized by that group of people and a strong motivating factor from overcoming their systemic disadvantage.

> demand for special treatment and privileged legal status based on membership in their identity group

Usually they're just asking for equal treatment, but if you mean things like affirmative action then this is obviously just society paying off its debt to the group for previous exclusion or jump-starting things to get closer to an equal society.[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Origins

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#25

Post by beepbooptheory »

guerrilla wrote: post #22
retrac wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's pretty clear he was falsified. (China didn't go liberal! Shocker.) Doesn't mean his ideas weren't thought-provoking. But it's probably best to think of such political science as political philosophy.

> Yes, it's pretty clear he was falsified. Okay, it wasn't clear to me that was your view from your comment. > political science as political philosophy I think he stepped out of that realm when he tried to make a prediction and justify it as correct.

I think there is just not a shared definition for "history" among people who here that line in a vacuum, vs more Marxisty type people. "history" is a very particular thing for Marxists. even in his book you are talking about, it is talked about on those lines, not in an everyday concept of history.

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#26

Post by jacknews »

Now I realise you have to produce many words to fill a book, but a more succinct argument would be appreciated, and this seems to be all over the place, with pat explanations of recent history, which is probably much more complex in reality.

And is the argument really about 'identity', or just 'status'?

IMHO, economics is flawed at it's core, because people do not just value material wealth, but relative, social wealth, aka status, in fact, almost above all. That also explains twitter, facebook, instagram, etc.

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#27

Post by uejfiweun »

I hate identity politics as much as the next guy, but I think a lot of Fukuyama's takes here are pretty bad. He repeatedly paints massive groups with a large and indiscriminate brush. For instance:

"The right seeks to cut off immigration altogether and would like to send immigrants back to their countries of origin."

Uh, what? The United States is a nation of immigrants and we all know it. I don't think anyone wants to send immigrants back, it would be illegal and unconstitutional as well as impossible. Now, restricting ILLEGAL immigration on the other hand? Yes, basically everyone on the right supports this. But not wanting illegal immigration is literally on the other side of the map from not wanting any immigration at all and sending back immigrants.

I don't lend much credence to this guy anyway, considering that he thought history ended in 1992, as other comments have mentioned. But I think just as important as identity politics is defining the opposing side by the worst ideas of its supporters. For example, defining Democrats by "defund the police", or defining Republicans as the party of "white nationalism". There are tons of people on both sides who don't believe in this crap and are dedicated to the core ideals of economic prosperity for all and expansion of opportunities. Tuning these crazies out would go a long way to calming down the discourse in this country, but I don't think essays like this really help the situation.

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#28

Post by isoskeles »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #21
netcan wrote: post #7

Quoted post unavailable.

What, in your mind, was 20th century politics defined by? Edit: like I get the economism here feels reductive to you, I think, but I just think it would at least be equally absurd to say they were predominantly defined by identity issues. As is shown in the essay, our concept of identity is intractable from globalism and modernity. So I'm just not sure what the obvious issue is here. If we admit that it is nuanced, t…

Really, it’s just a shitty comment that probably doesn’t belong in any discussion and should be ignored. “Huh?!” This doesn’t pass as substantive in any way whatsoever. Don’t waste your time thinking about it.

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#29

Post by guerrilla »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #25
guerrilla wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, it's pretty clear he was falsified. Okay, it wasn't clear to me that was your view from your comment. > political science as political philosophy I think he stepped out of that realm when he tried to make a prediction and justify it as correct.

I think there is just not a shared definition for "history" among people who here that line in a vacuum, vs more Marxisty type people. "history" is a very particular thing for Marxists. even in his book you are talking about, it is talked about on those lines, not in an everyday concept of history.

I don't understand why this comment is here. It's a good thing to point out to people that don't know what he meant, but within his own framework he was incorrect, which he admitted. The social relations we see today are not the ones he originally predicted and there's absolutely no guarantee that it won't get "worse" or go in a completely different direction.

Re: Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics

#30

Post by Gimpei »

jacknews wrote: post #26

Now I realise you have to produce many words to fill a book, but a more succinct argument would be appreciated, and this seems to be all over the place, with pat explanations of recent history, which is probably much more complex in reality. And is the argument really about 'identity', or just 'status'? IMHO, economics is flawed at it's core, because people do not just value material wealth, but relative, social weal…

Ego rents are very much a part of modern economic theory. As are any range of cognitive biases (see behavioral economics), institutional frictions, spatial constraints, and on and on. It's a wide tent. Some say too wide.
Post reply on HN