Social purpose and autonomy at the end of the end of history: A response to critics

Abstract

That the End of History is over is no longer in dispute, but drift and decay, rather than a restarting of History proper, is the order of the day. In this article, critical discussions of The End of the End of History by Daniel Zamora, Anton Jäger, Nicholas Kiersey and Richard Sakwa are responded to. Zamora’s focus on the displacement of social conflict outside the workplace is discussed as a feature of political disintermediation, creating a boundless sort of politics. An alternative to Jäger’s proposed term, ‘hyperpolitics’, is then advanced, as a means of leaving open the possibility of greater politicisation in the future. A defence of the way left-populist movements are cast as essentially ‘anti-political’ is then ventured, in opposition to Kiersey. Sakwa’s criticisms of our historicism are then turned on their head, before we consider the impact that the Ukraine war may have on History’s putative return. By way of conclusion, the dichotomies of resignation versus autonomy, and compliance versus social purpose, are discussed as the pivots on which History’s return will be decided.