In this classic work, Thomas Sowell analyzes the two competing visions that shape our debates about the nature of reason, justice, equality, and power: the “constrained” vision, which sees human nature as unchanging and selfish, and the “unconstrained” vision, in which human nature is malleable and perfectible. He describes how these two radically opposed views have manifested themselves in the political controversies of the past two centuries, including such contemporary issues as welfare reform, social justice, and crime. Updated to include sweeping political changes since its first publication in 1987, this revised edition of A Conflict of Visions offers a convincing case that ethical and policy disputes circle around the disparity between both outlooks.
A Conflict of Visions
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Save up to 70% when you rent your textbooks on Amazon. Keep your textbook rentals for a semester and rental return shipping is free. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Sowell, an economist and author (The Economics and Politics of Race, etc.), presents a provocative analysis of the conflicting visions of human nature that have shaped the moral, legal and economic life of recent times. For the past 200 years, he writes, two visions ofor "gut feelings" abouthow the world works, have dominated: the constrained vision, which views man as unchanged, limited and dependent on evolved social processes (market economies, constitutional law, etc.); and the unconstrained vision, which argues for man's potential and perfectability, and the possibility of rational planning for social solutions. Examining the views of thinkers who reflect these constrained (Adam Smith) and unconstrained (William Godwin) visions, Sowell shows how these powerful and subjective visions give rise to carefully constructed social theories. His discussion of how these conflicting attitudes ultimately produce clashes over equality, social justice and other issues is instructive.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Library Journal
This latest work by Sowell examines two competing visions which shape our debates about the nature of reason, justice, equality, and power. These visions are the "constrained" vision, which sees human nature as unchanging and selfish, and the "unconstrained" vision, in which human nature is malleable and perfectible. The book builds a convincing case that ethical and policy disputes are ultimately based on the differences in these visions. It covers a wide variety of political, philosophical, and economic thought. Although occasionally abstract, this volume is an important contribution to our understanding of current social issues. Recommended for large public and all college and university libraries. Richard C. Schiming, Economics Dept., Mankato State Univ., Minn.
Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Thomas Sowell has taught economics at Cornell, UCLA, Amherst and other academic institutions, and his Basic Economics has been translated into six languages. He is currently a scholar in residence at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has published in both academic journals in such popular media as the Wall Street Journal, Forbes magazine and Fortune, and writes a syndicated column that appears in newspapers across the country.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
311 of 326 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Why do liberals berate conservatives as hard-hearted, morally repugnant, selfish caricatures of cartoon fatcats; while conservative will grant the liberals' their good intentions but remind them that road to hell is paved thusly by their wooly-headed, ivory tower schemes? And why are liberals castigated as slick, short-sighted, and interest group-driven, while conservatives are lampooned as dumb, corrupt and morally evil?
These are just two of the questions tangentially answered by Thomas Sowell in this important book on the taxonomy and structure of our political debate. This work is sure to stand for the remainder of the century as *the* reference point from which dueling political frameworks are engaged.
Sowell's main thesis is that contrasting visions of human capability, knowledge, perfection, and self-interest underlie two very different visions of humanity, and it is on these visions that political ideology, debate, and worldview rest. Sowell's two visions are named, rather unhelpfully, the constrained and the unconstrained vision. No gold star here for Sowell on Marketing. So instead, I'll use Pinker's terminology, as I was introduced to this book via Steven Pinker's Blank Slate.
The Tragic (constrained) vision of human nature views man as possessing foibles, incentives, and the desire to act in his own self-interest. The Tragic "sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited and unhappy choices available, given the inherent moral and intellectual limitations of human beings." Thus, the perfection of governance in the Tragic Vision is the American Revolution with its checks and balances. Further, history should guide us, as the unknowable tradeoffs between different policies and procedures have been ironed out through unstated practice. The Utopians are to be scorned for their theoretical leanings that have little to do with the real world: "Hobbes regarded universities as places where fashionable but insignificant words flourished and added that `there is nothing so absurd, but may be found in the books of Philosophers."
The Utopian (unconstrained) vision holds that man has not yet achieved his full moral potential, and that that potential is essentially perfectible. It is "foolish and immoral choices explain the evils of the world - and that wiser or more moral and humane social policies are the solution." So while there are incentives that actually work in the here and now, this fact is somewhat irrelevant to the achievement of true justice. The Utopian holds that "potential is very different from the actual, and that means exist to improve human nature toward its potential, or that such means can be evolved or discovered, so that man will do the right thing for the right reason, rather than for ulterior psychic or economic rewards." So the Utopian "promotes pursuit of the highest ideals and the best solution" in the hopes of achieving this perfect man. And if the masses are slow in catching on, then it is the role of the intellectual vanguard to lead them there - even if in the short run, the masses are unhappy with the results because they have not yet achieved the ability to see the future. Their thought is that reason should guide us, but reason as determined by the best and brightest: professors, government workers, elected and unelected officials. In this regard, the French Revolution with its lofty ideals and disposal of the past is the perfection of governance.
Sowell, who is the Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at Stanford, certainly has his preferences in this debate, but keeps them entirely off-page here and lays out, in a remarkably even-handed portrayal his case.
Political visions are uncommonly linked across diverse fields of inquiry, that these two competing political visions have been dominant in the last two centuries (to throw in a bit of materialism here - perhaps due to the Industrial Revolution?), and extending from initial premises, each is a logical, coherent, cogent interpretation of the world that nonetheless conflicts absolutely with its counterpart. The implications are fascinating:
"While believers in the unconstrained vision seek the special causes of war, poverty, and crime, believers in the constrained vision seek the special causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society.
"While the constrained vision sees human nature as essentially unchanged across the ages and around the world, the particular cultural expressions of human needs peculiar to specific societies are not seen as being readily and beneficially changeable by forcible intervention. By contrast, those with the unconstrained vision tend to view human nature as beneficially changeable and social customs as expendable holdovers from the past."
In sum, this will be the groundwork for philosophical and political discussions for generations to come. Sowell has quite clearly pointed out the different premises. Now it is up to us to understand, argue, and resolve.
These are just two of the questions tangentially answered by Thomas Sowell in this important book on the taxonomy and structure of our political debate. This work is sure to stand for the remainder of the century as *the* reference point from which dueling political frameworks are engaged.
Sowell's main thesis is that contrasting visions of human capability, knowledge, perfection, and self-interest underlie two very different visions of humanity, and it is on these visions that political ideology, debate, and worldview rest. Sowell's two visions are named, rather unhelpfully, the constrained and the unconstrained vision. No gold star here for Sowell on Marketing. So instead, I'll use Pinker's terminology, as I was introduced to this book via Steven Pinker's Blank Slate.
The Tragic (constrained) vision of human nature views man as possessing foibles, incentives, and the desire to act in his own self-interest. The Tragic "sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited and unhappy choices available, given the inherent moral and intellectual limitations of human beings." Thus, the perfection of governance in the Tragic Vision is the American Revolution with its checks and balances. Further, history should guide us, as the unknowable tradeoffs between different policies and procedures have been ironed out through unstated practice. The Utopians are to be scorned for their theoretical leanings that have little to do with the real world: "Hobbes regarded universities as places where fashionable but insignificant words flourished and added that `there is nothing so absurd, but may be found in the books of Philosophers."
The Utopian (unconstrained) vision holds that man has not yet achieved his full moral potential, and that that potential is essentially perfectible. It is "foolish and immoral choices explain the evils of the world - and that wiser or more moral and humane social policies are the solution." So while there are incentives that actually work in the here and now, this fact is somewhat irrelevant to the achievement of true justice. The Utopian holds that "potential is very different from the actual, and that means exist to improve human nature toward its potential, or that such means can be evolved or discovered, so that man will do the right thing for the right reason, rather than for ulterior psychic or economic rewards." So the Utopian "promotes pursuit of the highest ideals and the best solution" in the hopes of achieving this perfect man. And if the masses are slow in catching on, then it is the role of the intellectual vanguard to lead them there - even if in the short run, the masses are unhappy with the results because they have not yet achieved the ability to see the future. Their thought is that reason should guide us, but reason as determined by the best and brightest: professors, government workers, elected and unelected officials. In this regard, the French Revolution with its lofty ideals and disposal of the past is the perfection of governance.
Sowell, who is the Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at Stanford, certainly has his preferences in this debate, but keeps them entirely off-page here and lays out, in a remarkably even-handed portrayal his case.
Political visions are uncommonly linked across diverse fields of inquiry, that these two competing political visions have been dominant in the last two centuries (to throw in a bit of materialism here - perhaps due to the Industrial Revolution?), and extending from initial premises, each is a logical, coherent, cogent interpretation of the world that nonetheless conflicts absolutely with its counterpart. The implications are fascinating:
"While believers in the unconstrained vision seek the special causes of war, poverty, and crime, believers in the constrained vision seek the special causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society.
"While the constrained vision sees human nature as essentially unchanged across the ages and around the world, the particular cultural expressions of human needs peculiar to specific societies are not seen as being readily and beneficially changeable by forcible intervention. By contrast, those with the unconstrained vision tend to view human nature as beneficially changeable and social customs as expendable holdovers from the past."
In sum, this will be the groundwork for philosophical and political discussions for generations to come. Sowell has quite clearly pointed out the different premises. Now it is up to us to understand, argue, and resolve.
155 of 162 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Dr. Thomas Sowell's book, "A Conflict of Visions" is an attempt to explore the primary, if unarticulated, philosophy of historical conservatism and liberalism. His thesis is that conservatism has a tradition of operating by a vision of humans that sees them as 'constrained.' Some characteristics of this view are:
(1) Humans have generally selfish natures.
(2) Human reason, while valuable, is quite limited.
(3) Because of this, society grows by evolution, not central deliberate planning.
(4) Social decisions generally involve not 'solutions' but 'trade-offs' (how much good for how much downside?)
(5) Procedural fairness, rather than results-based fairness, is the key to a just society.
Conversely, Sowell writes that the liberal tradition operates on a vision of humankind that is 'unconstrained.' Features include:
(1)Human selfishness is a quality that can be overcome by reason and education.
(2) Human reason, when used properly, can trump human impulses, emotions, and feelings.
(3)The planned society is best. Non-planned societies = chaos.
(4) While policy trade-offs might be a good short term solution, reason can discover true solutions that are equitable to all.
(5)Procedural fairness is not fair so long as disperate outcomes result.
Sowell backs up his thesis with impressive research, citations, and quotes. This is refreshing becuase it makes sure he is not simply creating strawmen. From the conservative side, his quites tend to come from Edmunde Burke, Adam Smith, Freidrich Hayek, and Oliver Wendell Holmes. From the liberal side, his quotes tend to come from William Godwin, Marquis de Condorcet, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Ronald Dworkin. (As one who has read all of these authors, I can assure the readers that there are no strawmen here.)
The only murky part of the book is that Sowell makes this vision sound too simplistic. While he acknowledges that not all thinkers will fall into either one or the other category (and even has a chapter on Marx and Mill - two thinkers that borrow from both sides), some of his choices of people and quotes to exempify each 'side' are less clean-cut than one might like.
As a libertarian, it is strange to me to see Edmunde Burke (who valued tradition more than most anything) Friedrich Hayek (who valued the innovation of capitalism more than anything) in the same group. (And Holmes is not necessarily the best jurist to exemplify 'strict construction' of the contitution). [It would have been interesting to see, then, an appendix on the ideological divorce of libertarianism and conservatism.] On the other 'side,' I kept thinking that, although William Godwin might be a good example of someone who believed reason to be virtually omnipotent, he was also a liability to Sowell's case, as Godwin did not believe in a planned society whatever and in fact, was an anarchist who was against planning in any form!
While the examples aren't perfect, Sowell didn't intend them to be. All in all, it is a good book and I think Sowell's argument is a good one, and for the most part, true. For some other books in a similar vain - exploring the ideological divide between sides - try George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" and E.J. Dionne's "Why Americans Hate Politics."
(1) Humans have generally selfish natures.
(2) Human reason, while valuable, is quite limited.
(3) Because of this, society grows by evolution, not central deliberate planning.
(4) Social decisions generally involve not 'solutions' but 'trade-offs' (how much good for how much downside?)
(5) Procedural fairness, rather than results-based fairness, is the key to a just society.
Conversely, Sowell writes that the liberal tradition operates on a vision of humankind that is 'unconstrained.' Features include:
(1)Human selfishness is a quality that can be overcome by reason and education.
(2) Human reason, when used properly, can trump human impulses, emotions, and feelings.
(3)The planned society is best. Non-planned societies = chaos.
(4) While policy trade-offs might be a good short term solution, reason can discover true solutions that are equitable to all.
(5)Procedural fairness is not fair so long as disperate outcomes result.
Sowell backs up his thesis with impressive research, citations, and quotes. This is refreshing becuase it makes sure he is not simply creating strawmen. From the conservative side, his quites tend to come from Edmunde Burke, Adam Smith, Freidrich Hayek, and Oliver Wendell Holmes. From the liberal side, his quotes tend to come from William Godwin, Marquis de Condorcet, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Ronald Dworkin. (As one who has read all of these authors, I can assure the readers that there are no strawmen here.)
The only murky part of the book is that Sowell makes this vision sound too simplistic. While he acknowledges that not all thinkers will fall into either one or the other category (and even has a chapter on Marx and Mill - two thinkers that borrow from both sides), some of his choices of people and quotes to exempify each 'side' are less clean-cut than one might like.
As a libertarian, it is strange to me to see Edmunde Burke (who valued tradition more than most anything) Friedrich Hayek (who valued the innovation of capitalism more than anything) in the same group. (And Holmes is not necessarily the best jurist to exemplify 'strict construction' of the contitution). [It would have been interesting to see, then, an appendix on the ideological divorce of libertarianism and conservatism.] On the other 'side,' I kept thinking that, although William Godwin might be a good example of someone who believed reason to be virtually omnipotent, he was also a liability to Sowell's case, as Godwin did not believe in a planned society whatever and in fact, was an anarchist who was against planning in any form!
While the examples aren't perfect, Sowell didn't intend them to be. All in all, it is a good book and I think Sowell's argument is a good one, and for the most part, true. For some other books in a similar vain - exploring the ideological divide between sides - try George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" and E.J. Dionne's "Why Americans Hate Politics."
126 of 134 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Any thoughtful observer of political and social discourse is forced to note the ironies and disjuncts in specific beliefs from time to time. Conservatives often support restrictions on behavior in order to effect security, while liberals preach freedom but are happy to truncate it in order to marshall the resources to support their favored victim classes. Either side, if honestly introspective, ought to be troubled about why this is. Thomas Sowell, one of America's most thoughtful and intellectually honest commentators explains just why this is and traces the origin of the question to the Enlightenment and post-enlightenment thinkers before and shortly after the French Revolution. He describes the key dichotomy as between the "constrained" and "unconstrained" views of human nature, which view mankind as flawed or perfectable, respectively. Another author describing comparable distinctions in international relations, Robert Kaplan, uses the terms Realist and Idealist to discuss the same cleavage. In setting this out, Sowell manages to produce a genuinely Aristotelian approach to modern thought that is extremely worth reading. What's more, he does all of this in a very readable, approachable prose that it more enjoyable to read than any text on such deep subjects ought to be. It's one of the very few books that improves the reader while giving pleasure in doing so.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
3.0 out of 5 stars
A tough read
The narrative could be written better. Much of it could have been condensed. Many chapters were redundent but I found them accurate.
Published 24 days ago by Steven D. Crosby
5.0 out of 5 stars
Love this book
I love this book, as I do others of Thomas Sowell. I will not go into detail on this book as a lot of people do in these reviews. Read more
Published 1 month ago by Fox
5.0 out of 5 stars
Typical Sowell incisiveness.
The title pretty much describes the book. It's not an easy read but worth the extra effort required to understand what's being presented.
Published 3 months ago by curtis anderson
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Fundamental Read
This is a must read. It is my favorite among the many Thomas Sowell books I've read. Sowell establishes a dichotomy that explains why, for example, a person who favors high... Read more
Published 3 months ago by Jeff
4.0 out of 5 stars
Vintage Sowell
Those with a conservative perspective on history, the future, and life in general will learn a lot from Dr. Sowell's offering. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Edward I. Melton
5.0 out of 5 stars
Required reading for concerned citizens
Dr. Sowell does a spectacular job examining the opposing visions in our ongoing national debate about governing. Read more
Published 6 months ago by Retlawokreps
5.0 out of 5 stars
Simply the Best Book I've Ever Read
This book should be standard reading for every college student. You have to wonder why people keep arguing over the same facts. Read more
Published 10 months ago by Veil_Lord
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great price
Have not read as yet but book arrived on time and in great shape. It is Thomas Sowell so I expect to enjoy it.
Published 11 months ago by L. Horner
5.0 out of 5 stars
Bold Examinations
This is a wonderful work by Thomas Sowell. It is a bit challenging to read at times, but, as you do the context and implications of what he is explaining becomes painfully clear. Read more
Published 12 months ago by Bdawgfl
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Conflict of Visions - Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is an American Treasure.
His knowledge and understanding of economics is nonpareil.
He may be the greatest thinker of our time. Read more
His knowledge and understanding of economics is nonpareil.
He may be the greatest thinker of our time. Read more
Published 13 months ago by K. Mihara
Books on Related Topics
(learn more)
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
So You'd Like to...
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > History > World
- Books > New, Used & Rental Textbooks > Humanities > History
- Books > New, Used & Rental Textbooks > Social Sciences > Political Science > Political History
- Books > New, Used & Rental Textbooks > Social Sciences > Political Science > Political Ideologies
- Books > New, Used & Rental Textbooks > Social Sciences > Sociology
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Social Philosophy
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Ideologies & Doctrines > Conservatism & Liberalism
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Political Science > History & Theory
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Sociology
