福山播客（一）：历史的终结与最后的人

这是选·美的第 1026 篇文章

翻译了福山四篇播客内容，前三篇是关于历史终结论的论述，之前用了三篇文章做了介绍，这是完整的中英文翻译版本，第四篇是福山关于公共政策专业教育重塑的思考。

很多人认为福山对未来的预测错的离谱，但是在听过福山的观点之后会发现他本人并不是这样看待的。在不到一个月之前，福山又做客Ezra Klein Show,， 谈了他的新书，对很多东西的看法还是很具有启发性的。而下文中的播客内容，前三篇的内容串联了福山至少五本书的内容，分别是母本《历史的终结及最后之人》，关于科技对历史终结影响的著作《我们的后人类未来：生物科技革命的后果》，关于人类历史的演进对历史终结影响的著作《政治秩序的起源：从前人类时代到法国大革命》《政治秩序与政治衰败·从工业革命到民主全球化》，关于身份政治对历史终结影响的著作《Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment》，在谈到自己的结论时，还提到了亨廷顿的理论对历史终结论的影响，涉及到的三本著作是《变化社会中的政治秩序》《第三波：20世纪后期的民主化浪潮》《文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建》。一起来听一听福山对自己观点的阐释吧。

翻译并非逐句按照字面意思翻译，存在不通顺和理解错误之处还请指出。翻译以及分享已获得教授许可。

选·美获授权

对于福山的观点，我记得在第一次阅读社会科学出版社收录于《国际学术前沿观察》丛书的时候有这样一段前言：

“作为中国读者，我们希望在阅读该书过程中一定要注意采取批判态度。作为一名西方资产阶级学者，福山的反共立场是十分鲜明的，书中不乏较为露骨的词句（为尊重作者著作权，本书未作删改）。对于其立场及观点，我们是不能接受的。对于其研究方法，我们认为明显偏颇。比如，书中他自始至终未分清共产主义和社会主义的基本概念以致将传统社会主义（指实行中央计划经济体制）与作为人类一种远大理想、实现之日将十分遥远漫长的共产主义混为一谈，甚至还将社会主义、极权主义、法西斯主义相提并论。这些可以清楚地反映出其学术视野的片面与局限，希望读者一定要加以鉴别和批判。”

嗯，一定要批判一下，所以为了批判的方便，文中内容在我听力能力之内未有修改。而对于政治理论和政治实践之间的关系，引用一段我在Facebook收到的反馈，来自莊小渃：

“這些學者的研究都有一定的價值，給人們實踐和依循的參考，但也就僅止於此了，社會改變不是說出來的，只能夠一代代人的實踐。當我們小民落在社會、國家這麼龐大的集體洪流時，首先，要比氣長才能看到改變（這是曾經熱血青年的我私人給的一點建議，當然你可以完全不接受）要活的有力量又不委屈自己（的原則）是很大的考驗！比方，學者作研究的桌子、電腦、屋子、燈光、門簾和偶爾休憩的沙發都有賴社會百工的分工合作；接地氣是很重要的，特別是經濟獨立才能思想獨立（套一句我的老師李敖說的話）。歐美民主選舉政體，今日觀來其實是有些瑕疵的；英日丹麥等國的君主立憲，也有或多或少的問題。我沒有足夠的能力和知識評估中國的未來。但未來不就在每一位諸位身上嗎？只要動手實踐，在自己能力所及的範圍，持續下去，日起有功，一定會改變甚麼的！”

这是一篇汇总文章，大部分内容于之前的三篇笔记中均有提及。至于福山对于政治实践的思考，收录于他关于重塑公共政策教育思考的播客中。由于篇幅的限制，第四篇内容将在下一篇文章中进行呈现。

This is Stanford Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law podcast. We are studying why governments fail. We are going to talk about economic and political development at home and around the world.

Today we are listening to Francis Fukuyama, the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli institute of Stanford University.  Welcome to the CDDRL democracy world.

This is a podcast on the End Of History in retrospect. The single question I’ve been asked most incessantly since 1989 is, “Well, what about the end of history? Doesn’t X invalidate the thesis that you articulated back then?” where X is something that has happened in the newspapers and on television, some big events in international politics. This question is usually asked by somebody that did not understand the original concept of the end of history, and who has not read my book The End of History and the Last Man, published in 1992. So the purpose of this podcast is simply to go over that hypothesis and to explain what I meant by it, and to explain the ways which my thinking since then have actually changed. It would actually be strange if the passage of almost thirty years time did not lead to a certain evolution in the way that I thought about the world. But nonetheless it is important to distinguish between reasonable critiques and ones that are silly or based on simple misunderstandings.

这是回顾“历史的终结”理论的一期播客。自1989年以来我一直被问到的一个问题是，“X事件的发生不正好意味着你当时提出的那个理论是无效的吗“这里的X指的是报纸和电视上所报道的一些国际政治中的重大事件。这个问题通常是由那些不理解“历史的终结”理论的人提出的，而且他们也没有读过我在1992年出版的《历史的终结及最后的人》 （点击“阅读原文”可达本书亚马逊链接） 这本书。所以这个播客的目的只是去回顾这个理论并且去解释我通过这个理论所要传达的意思，以及解释从那之后我的思想发生的改变：因为这篇文章已经发表快要三十年了，如果这三十年来我的思考方式没有发生什么进步和迭代反而是奇怪的。而对于评论来说，区分哪些是有理有据的，哪些是浅薄的甚至是基于对我理论的误解的也是很重要的。

Let’s begin with the discussion of the title of my original article “The End Of History? “ that appeared in the journal The National Interest in the summer of 1989. “History” as I was using it was the history with a capital “H”. There are other words that people use to describe the same phenomenon today as more likely to be spoken of as development or perhaps modernization. The End of History was meant more as the goal rather than simply a termination so that the End of History was raising the question: what is the terminal point or what is the goal of the development process or the modernization process.

让我们从讨论最初于1989年夏天发表在《国家利益》期刊上的那篇论文“历史终结了吗？”开始吧。在这里，我把英文History的首字母大写了，所以这里的这个History, 用今天的时髦的词汇表达出来就是“发展”或者“现代化”的意思。所以The End of History这个理论所要探索的是一种目标，而不仅仅是一个终点，也就是说The End of History是提出了这样的一个问题：人类发展或者现代化的目标是什么；哪些现象的出现会证明现代化的终点达到了？

The phase the End of History was not the one originated to me. It was used first by the great German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel was the first historicism philosopher meaning that you could not interpret thought or human institutions without understanding their historical evolution.  His mode of thinking was taken over by Karl Marx who in a certain sense had the most famous version of the end of history. Marx argued that human societies evolved. They modernize from primitive feudal ones up through bourgeois societies. And the end of history for Marx was a communist utopia. This was his prediction and his hope. The simple argument I made was that in 1989 it didn’t look like Marx’s version of the end of history was going to work out. We were never going to get that communist utopia. Mikhail Gorbachev was putting Soviet Union through [perestroika and glasnost] accepting the basic principles of modern liberal democracy and therefore if there was to be an end of history, it wasn’t going to be communism. It was going to be some form of liberal democracy connected to market economy.

The End of History这个概念并不是我的原创，它最先是被伟大的德国哲学家黑格尔所使用的。黑格尔是第一位历史主义哲学家，这个学派所倡导的是必须研究与解释人类历史发展，基于这些解释才能认真了解社会与政治。之后，卡马很好的继承了这一学派思想的衣钵，而卡马在某种意义上，提出了我们所知道的最有名的历史终结理论。卡马认为人类社会是不断发展的，它们现代化的路径是从原始的封建社会一路发展到资本主义社会，最终卡马认为人类的历史将会终结于共产主义：这是卡马所预言并且寄予希望的。但是在1989年，我提出的论点是卡马的历史的终结的理论不太可能行得通，人类社会的发展永远都到不了共产主义：当时的现实是，戈正在苏联进行改革开放，并且接受了现代自由民主思想的一些基本原则。所以说如果历史的发展有一个最终目标的话，从那个时候来看，它不会是共产主义，它应该是自由民主和市场经济相结合的一种模式。

The idea of the end of history was taken up again in the 1930s and 1940s by Alexandre Kojève. Kojève was a Russian French philosopher who led perhaps one of the most influential seminars in the mid-twentieth century, a seminar in Paris that included many of the great intellectual lights of the post-war period: Raymond Queneau, Georges Bataille, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jacques Lacan, Raymond Aron and Éric Weil. Kojève argued that Hegel was fundamentally right that history had ended. He asserted moreover that history ended in the year 1806 at the time of the Battle of Jena when the Prussian monarchy was defeated by Napoleon.

黑格尔和卡马之后，The End of History的观念在1930和40年代的时候又被人们重新拿出来讨论，引导这场讨论的就是俄裔法国哲学家亚历山大·科耶夫。当时科耶夫在巴黎组织了一系列围绕黑格尔的研讨会，常来听讲的都是当时法国最重要的知识分子，包括雷蒙·格诺，乔治·巴代伊，莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂，雅各·拉冈，雷蒙·阿隆等人。科耶夫提出的观点认为黑格尔的思路大体上是正确的，并且科耶夫认为历史已经发展到终点了，我们现在所处的就是后历史时代。他更进一步的认为历史的终结发生在1806年耶拿战争之后，当时拿破仑率领的军队打败了普鲁士的君主制。

《亚历山大·科耶夫：哲学，国家与历史的终结》

Now note, this was an assertion that was made right on the eve of the Second World War, in a tumultuous early 20th century that had seen the First World War: the killing of millions of people,  the Bolshevik Revolution and was shortly to see the Chinese Revolution and the liberation of much of the what came to be known as the Third World from the colonial domination.

但是注意啦，这个断言所提出的时代，恰恰是第二次世界大战的前夜，在此之前，伏尸百万的第一次世界大战刚刚结束，布尔什维克在俄国取得了革命的胜利，一种新的意识形态出现了，而不久之后，人类又将目睹发生在我国的红色革命以及第三世界国家摆脱殖民统治的独立浪潮。

On the surface this is an absurd statement. But when a brilliant thinker like Alexandre Kojève makes something that sounds like an absurd statement, you need to think a little bit below the surface as to what he really meant. He was being ironic but in a certain sense he was pointing to an important truth, namely that the world had not progressed substantially beyond the principles of the French Revolution, that is to say beyond a political system based on the twin principles of liberty and equality, the principles of modern politics. And for all the storm that occurred in the 20th century or in the years since 1806, fundamentally what we were seeing was simply the spread of these principles from the metropolitan area to the provinces of the world.