Is This the End of Culture?

In 1992, Francis Fukuyama famously argued that the end of history had arrived—not in the literal sense, but as the culmination of ideological evolution. Liberal democracy, he suggested, stood as the final form of government, having vanquished its rivals in the ideological struggles of the 20th century. Yet, as history continued unfolding, new technological and geopolitical challenges made his thesis appear, at best, premature. And if anyone were still in doubt, the recent reorientation towards internationalism and authoritarianism is a clear indication that history has returned; and in a way that is endangering liberalism and democracy.

Even though history has not ended, we may be facing a different type of extinction: the possible end of Culture as we have known it. Most certainly, we are witnessing the transformation of Culture . The emergence of artificial intelligence—capable of generating, curating, and even redefining meaning — threatens to upend the very processes through which human societies create, transmit, and evolve their practices, solutions to life's problems as well as their cultural identities. Just as the Cold War gave way to an era where political systems no longer seemed to undergo fundamental change, the age of AI may be heralding the obsolescence of culture’s traditional role in human evolution.

Culture as Adaptation and Learning

From the perspective of bio-cultural anthropology, Culture, as a general feature, is not merely a social phenomenon—it is an evolutionary adaptation. Unlike other species, which rely on genetic mutation and natural selection to adapt to environmental changes, humans developed culture as a means of more rapid adaptation. Through shared traditions, knowledge, and norms, humans can respond more rapidly and flexibly than genetic evolution.

This flexibility has been key to our survival. Culture enables humans to learn from one another, pass down accumulated wisdom, and modify behaviors in response to shifting conditions. It allows societies to organize complex economies, construct ethical systems, and innovate beyond the limits of individual cognition. In essence, culture has served as humanity’s “ second genome ,” enabling our species to evolve through information exchange, inter-generational learning, and social change. In this respect, three specific thinkers can add some depth. 

1. Information exchange: Yuval Noah Harari

With respect to information exchange, Yuval Noah Harari's latest book, Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI , provides a valuable perspective. He examines how information networks have influenced human evolution and civilization, from ancient times to the modern era.

Harari explores how societies have utilized information to shape civilizations, influence public opinion, and maintain power. He discusses the role of information in creating societal structures, highlighting how narratives—whether religious, political, or cultural—have been used to unite people and establish order. He emphasizes that information's strength lies in its ability to connect individuals, not necessarily to convey truth.

2. Intergenerational Learning: Margaret Mead

With respect to intergenerational learning, I would like to reference Margaret Mead again, who, in Culture and Commitment: A Study of the Generation Gap (1970), provided a highly relevant framework on how different cultures transmit knowledge across generations and how social change affects these dynamics. Accordingly, she distinguishes:

• Postfigurative Cultures (Traditional Societies): In these societies, knowledge and traditions are passed down from older generations to the young. Children learn mostly by imitating their elders, and cultural change is minimal or slow. Authority figures (such as elders, religious leaders, or parents) hold strong influence over the younger generation.
• Configurative Cultures (Transitional Societies): In these societies, change happens at a moderate pace, and young people learn not only from elders but also from their peers. Social norms and values are subject to reinterpretation and negotiation. Youth culture begins to emerge, and adolescents often look to their peer groups and media for guidance.
• Prefigurative Cultures (Future-Oriented Societies): In these societies, change is so rapid that the younger generation often has more relevant knowledge than their elders. Traditional wisdom may become outdated, and young people teach older generations new technologies, values, or ways of thinking. These societies are often characterized by rapid technological advancements, globalization, and evolving social norms.

3. Social Change: Margaret Archer

With regard to social change, Margaret Archer’s perspective adds a value [see: Archer, M. S. (1996). Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory (Revised Edition)].   She defines culture within the framework of her morphogenetic approach , which distinguishes between structure, culture, and agency. For Archer, culture consists of concepts, beliefs, values, and ideational elements that exist independently of individuals but are mediated through human agency. She argues that culture is both objective and subjective—objective in that ideas and values exist in social structures over time, and subjective in that individuals interpret, negotiate, and transform these ideas through their actions.

For Archer, culture is an “emergent property ”— not reducible to individual thought but also not deterministically imposed by social structures. This helps explain how cultural change happens through interaction between pre-existing cultural structures and human agency. Within her framework, modes of reflexivity are an important aspect to explain culture change. She identifies three primary modes of reflexivity, which describe how individuals reflect on their social circumstances and make decisions:

1. Communicative Reflexivity – People who rely on dialogue with others to make sense of their situations and choices. They seek validation and consensus before acting.
2. Autonomous Reflexivity – Individuals who internally reflect and make decisions independently, prioritizing personal goals over social approval.
3. Meta-Reflexivity – Those who critically evaluate both their own thinking and the social structures around them, often leading to dissatisfaction and activism.

Archer later added fractured reflexivity, where individuals struggle to form coherent plans due to social pressures or personal difficulties. Importantly, meta-reflexivity is integral to Archer’s conception of social and cultural change.

The Automation of Meaning and Learning

Both Mead and Archer did not conceive that technology - rather than people - could become the locus for knowledge-generation, information exchange, learning and reflexivity external to humans. But, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) alters these very processes, challenging us to think about what will happen when they are no longer primarily human-driven.

Harari, of course, addresses the rise of AI and its potential to reshape information networks. He expresses concern that AI, as "Alien Intelligence," could manipulate human behavior by generating persuasive narratives, leading to unprecedented challenges in discerning truth from misinformation. He underscores the complex relationship between information and truth, bureaucracy and mythology, wisdom and power. He urges readers to critically assess the information networks that shape our world, especially as AI continues to evolve and integrate into society. In a sense, he hopes that AI impels us to activate and exercise meta-reflexivity (in Archer’s sense).

Culture is fundamentally tied to knowledge- and information exchange systems, learning and social change. From oral traditions to the printing press to the internet, each technological leap has expanded the reach and speed of cultural transmission, introducing change dynamics into our social systems. Until now, humans have remained the primary agents of this process. AI introduces a profound shift: for the first time, the mechanisms of cultural production, refinement, and transmission are being automated. This may fundamentally alter the role of culture in human evolution.

AI systems can now generate art, literature, scientific theories, and even philosophical discourse. They do not merely regurgitate existing ideas but synthesize new insights by processing vast amounts of data far beyond human capacity. More significantly, AI is not just a passive tool—it actively shapes cultural evolution. Recommendation algorithms dictate what books are read, what music is heard, and which ideas gain prominence. Increasingly, these systems do not just reflect human cultural preferences but engineer them.

If culture has always been the process by which humans learn, adapt, and evolve, then AI threatens to render that process obsolete. Rather than individuals and societies shaping their cultural landscape through discourse, conflict, and creativity, AI may curate and optimize cultural experiences based on efficiency and engagement metrics. In this scenario, humans no longer drive culture forward—machines do.

The End of Culture?

For centuries, culture has been the glue that binds different societies together, and has served as the source code for identities, traditions, and ways of thinking, and solutions to both shared and particular challenges. It has been passed down through stories, rituals, and lived experiences that define and reaffirm the uniqueness of different human groups.

Margaret Archer likened culture to a vast library, filled with the accumulated knowledge, values, and ideas of past generations. This library is not static—it grows, adapts, and evolves as new knowledge is created and old ideas are contested or reaffirmed. Traditionally, humans have been both the contributors to and curators of the specific and expanding cultural archives of particular groups. Given the diversity of cultures in this world, and the distinct nature of each, human culture is like a collection of distinct libraries.

Now, AI functions as both an automated librarian and an indiscriminate author, drawing from the entirety of the internet, historical records, and global data resources. It does not engage with culture in the same way humans do—it does not interpret, struggle with meaning, or experience cultural shifts firsthand. Instead, it processes vast amounts of information and generates outputs that often feel authentic but lack the lived reality of human experience.

AI may fundamentally reshape how culture works. With its ability to generate art, compose music, translate languages, and even mimic human creativity, AI is no longer just a tool—it is becoming a cultural producer in its own right.

The implications are profound. Traditionally, culture has been dynamic—born of struggle, adaptation, and the human experience. If AI eliminates these frictions, does culture lose its depth? If global AI models homogenize content, do we risk erasing the diversity of human perspectives?

Of course, it is unlikely that culture will disappear. But it may be that we are approaching a point where human-driven cultural evolution slows dramatically. AI doesn’t "experience" in the way we do. It doesn’t suffer, rejoice, or question existence. It processes, predicts, and generates.

Instead of the "end of culture," we may be witnessing its metamorphosis—one that forces us to rethink what it means to create, to innovate, and to share meaning. But the question remains: in a world where AI can create endlessly from the vast repositories of libraries, what does it mean to be human? How will culture itself evolve? And, will culture maintain its central function, namely to help us, humans, adapt to changing conditions?

Fukuyama’s thesis about the end of history rested on the notion that ideological evolution had reached a point of stability—no viable alternative to liberal democracy seemed to exist. Similarly, AI may be ushering in an era where cultural innovation, long driven by human creativity, is no longer necessary. If algorithms can refine and optimize culture, does humanity still need to engage in the messy process of cultural development?

Historically, culture has been shaped through tension—between old and new ideas, between different ways of life, between dominant and marginalized voices. This struggle has fueled revolutions, renaissances, and the formation of new social paradigms. But if AI can efficiently anticipate and manufacture cultural shifts, this organic process may give way to a more managed and stabilized system. AI could, in theory, eliminate the need for cultural conflict by pre-emptively engineering consensus—at the cost of spontaneity and authentic human-driven transformation. Is this perhaps the definition of a fourth stage of culture that Mead did not imagine? We may call it “ non-figurative ”, as knowledge is no longer tied to actual experience and natural objects but is abstract.

A Parting Thought ….

The “end of Culture” may not mean the absence of cultural expression but the cessation of culture as an evolutionary force in human affairs.

In a world where AI generates, curates, and disseminates meaning, culture may no longer function as a biological adaptation for learning and survival. Instead, it may become a controlled, optimized system—an artificial construct designed to sustain engagement, productivity, and social stability. The ability of humans to organically shape their own cultural evolution may fade, replaced by a world where this evolution is increasingly driven by machines.

Whether this represents an ultimate triumph or a profound loss and even a risk is a question that remains unanswered. Perhaps, like history, culture will persist—but as something fundamentally different from what it was before. The key question may be whether humanity will remain its author, or merely its audience.

This article was originally published on LinkedIn in March 2025.

About the Author

Joerg Schmitz is a business anthropologist passionate about exploring human behavior through the lens of anthropology and organizational culture. He is the founder and Managing Director of The Inclusive Leadership Institute (@TheInclusiveLeadershipInstitute). After 35 years living in the US and working with organizations and institutions globally, he currently resides in Bremen, Germany. Connect with him at [email protected] to continue the conversation.