Immigration, Multiculturalism: the End of History or Clash of Civilizations?

In the early 1990s, two influential political science books were published that sought to make sense of the nature of global politics in the post-cold war era.

Francis Fukyuama’s “The end of history and the Last Man” argued that liberal democracy was the ideological “end point” of human history. By this he meant that there was no viable sustainable alternative to liberal democracy as a form of government. Global politics, for Fukyuama, would be the progressive realization of this end point in practice throughout the world. (globalization, free trade, liberalism etc..)

Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” put forward a radically different argument: History wasn’t over and democracy was not the final form of government, he said. Rather, the post-cold war period would be dominated by the politics of culture. There would be a new set of faultlines: global politics would be about conflict between different cultural groups, which he called “civilizations.”

While there is a lot to say about this debate, I want to focus on one key point. There is an underlying theoretical disagreement between each vision, which concerns the relationship between technology/modernity, political systems, and culture. The End of History (EoH) argument is based on a theory of history and human development that sees technological change as the fundamental driver of political change. According to the EoH theory- technological change (which is “autonomous”) leads to economic change, which in turn produces political change. (If this sounds to you like Marx, you’d be right – Marx’s vision of the “end” was just slightly different) Technology produces economic industrialization/capitalism, which eventually gives way to liberalism and democracy.

The forces behind political change may not be purely determined by economics, but there is a strong link. This is why, according to the EoH argument, North America and Europe developed liberal democracies: They experienced early industrialization and modernization. When the ‘non-west’ is exposed to the forces of globalization and modernity, the EoH theory predicts, liberalism and democracy will follow. Of course, the transition may not be pretty. As for “culture”, the EoH theory says that it will still pervade things like language, dress, religion, and food, the forces of modernization will erase “authoritarian elements”.

For Clashers, this vision of history and political change is completely wrong. Politics and culture are not driven by economics; rather, the opposite. Culture, a common set of underlying beliefs, practices, and perceptions shape political institutions, they would say. For example, Huntington would argue that the reason why the “West” is both industrialized and liberal/democratic is that liberal democracy comes from Christian culture. It just happened to be the case that the Christian part of the world industrialized first. What this means is that countries with authoritarian cultures, like Iran, Russia, and China, might not give way to liberalism and democracy just because they are becoming more economically prosperous and modern. Their underlying authoritarian cultures are not only compatible with modernity, but it is culture, and not economics, that shapes institutions and politics.

Why do I bring this up? I think these two perspectives partially underlie current debates about immigration, accommodation, and multiculturalism in the west. Take the issue of Islam and the West; Clashers, who believe in the primacy of “culture” will likely be of the opinion that the authoritarian aspects of Islamic culture can survive, and even spread, in a liberal democratic environment. EoHers, like myself, argue that liberal democracy, as the ultimate end point, will eventually put an end to the authoritarian aspects of other cultures. All the more quickly, I might add, If people from authoritarian cultures move to “end of history” countries (parts of Europe; the Anglo-West). In the long run, EoHers might believe, there is really no danger to Western culture from multiculturalism and immigration. Clashers are far less convinced. They even see multiculturalism as a threat to western civilization. Moreover, they may even see authoritarian cultural groups as particularly dangerous.

Depending on the view that one holds, different immigration policies follow. For EoHers, who believe not only in the virtues of free markets and in the inherent pull of liberalism and freedom, more immigration is better. People benefit from trade, and the exchange of ideas. Barriers to the free movement of labour persist in most places as an impediment to prosperity. In other words, more immigration will only increase the spread of liberalism and the end of history. For Clashers, immigration policies would be more restrictive in order to protect western institutions from authoritarian and illiberal influences that may eventually undermine them.