Customer Reviews

A Conflict of Visions

5 star:		(62)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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 apved thusly by their wooly-headed, ivory tower schemes? And why are liberals castigiated 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.

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."

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.

"A Conflict of Visions" is an historical/philosophical analysis and exposition of the two major views of human nature - called the Unconstrained Vision and the Constrained Vision --that have dominated mainstream Western European and American political debate for the last 350 years or so. Sowell explores the different views, and the consequences of holding those views, on a number of important issues: liberty, equality, freedom, justice, etc., of a number of well-known Western European and American political writers, both historical and current (e.g., Locke, Hobbes, Burke, Condorcet, Godwin, Rousseau, among the historical figures and G.B. Shaw, O.W. Holmes, Ronald Dworkin and Milton Friedman among the more recent). "A Conflict of Visions" stands on its own and may be read to great benefit without any prior acquaintance with Sowell's work, but it can be most fully understood as one third of a trilogy, the other two parts of which are: "Knowledge and Decisions" and "The Vision of the Anointed".

The Constrained Vision more or less asserts that (1) human beings (whether individually or in groups (e.g., legislatures)) are incapable of broad knowledge (i.e., at the societal level) about the effects of their actions, that therefore societies are better off relying on structures (e.g., markets, cultural traditions) that in some sense collect (or in the case of traditions, have collected over time) the limited knowledge of many independent actors, (2) that the Law of Unintended Consequences is alive and well, (3) that human nature is basically self-oriented (if not downright selfish) and (4) that, because of these profound limitations, only suboptimal "trade-offs", not "solutions", are possible on most important social and political issues. Adherents to The Constrained Vision -- definitely -- do not believe in the "perfectibility of man". This view has most often been associated with thinkers that most would characterize as "conservative".

Believers in The Unconstrained Vision basically believe the opposite: that humans are so-called "blank slates" whose human nature is not innate, but is more or less completely determined by their environment, and that large social improvement/political projects are possible because human beings are capable of knowing much about the consequences (at the societal level) of their social actions. People holding this view do believe in the Perfectibility of Man, and this view, not surprisingly, has most often been associated with thinkers that most would characterize as "liberal".

The analysis is very clear (typical for a Sowell book), easy to follow (also typical) and is fairly even-handed, especially for someone like Sowell, who more or less holds the Constrained Vision (as does this writer). While he uses strong versions of each Vision as foils to explicate the analysis, he also is clear that many positions along the Constrained/Unconstrained spectrum are possible and have been held by writers, and that some famous thinkers (e.g., Marx and Mill) have actually held hybrid versions of the Constrained and Unconstrained Visions.

None of the writers discussed is a scientist of any kind, much less a scientist in a relevant field; and most of the writers discussed wrote before anyone knew (or certainly understood well) what a gene, a neuron or a hormone was. Because of this, after finishing "Conflict of Visions" (and, if you're up for it, the rest of the trilogy), one is dying to know the answer to the question: what does "science" currently say about Human Nature - which Vision does the generally accepted empirical evidence support: Constrained or Unconstrained?

Several (conflicting) books (all well-written) that help fill out the debate include: "The Blank Slate", by Steven Pinker, "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins, "Guns, Germs and Steel", by Jared Diamond, "Human Natures", by Paul Ehrlich and "Nature via Nurture", by Matt Ridley. Ehrlich (famous for making a series of wildly wrong predictions of environmental disasters, and for losing several high-profile bets about the environment to the late economist, Julian Simon) and Pinker (evolutionary biologist/psychologist at MIT who studies the brain and language), for example, strongly disagree about mostly everything, and there is no broad consensus that emerges from these books, read together (Ehrlich and Diamond give more weight to environmental factors - Pinker and Dawkins more to genetic/evolutionary factors. Ridley attempts a modern synthesis of the positions).

What does seem to be true, however, is that two (sometimes inconsistent or at least not wholly consistent) views are gaining ground: (1) most basic (and some not so basic) human drives are increasingly believed to be genetically determined (and many, though clearly not all, of these are "antisocial" or "selfish"); but that (2) this genetic determination can be very complex, including complicated interactions among genes (or more accurately the proteins they express) and between genes and the environment (broadly conceived - e.g., whether a person is well fed, has access to good medical care, is raised in a stable, loving environment, etc.).

Sowell, in "A Conflict of Visions", helps organize in a sensible analytical structure a great deal of the core thinking (some not even explicit) of the two main camps of traditional Western political thought over the past few hundred years. It provides a lens for a deeper understanding of the original profound thinkers analyzed in the book, and makes one want to return to them for re-reading. In this sense, as well as many others, it is a very good book.

Why do the supposedly "intolerant" seem more tolerant of disagreement than the "tolerant"? From the time I began to think critically about politics, I was puzzled by the different ways in which people of the left and right saw each other. When I argued with a conservative, I was always treated with civility by my opponent; we could agree to disagree about a given topic, and then go on to something else. But when I argued with a liberal, I often would be personally criticized for my lack of compassion. Since my intentions were good regardless of the side of the debate that I was on, I couldn't figure out why one side saw me as misguided, but the other saw me as mean and unfeeling -- or, to put it another way, why those on the left, who preached "tolerance," seemed so intolerant of disagreement.

Dr. Sowell's book was a revelation. It seems that this civility gap, as I like to call it, is quite old. It stems from the "conflict of visions" for which the book is named. People of the "constrained" vision see limits to what human beings -- and particularly government -- can accomplish. Hence they do not try to solve every problem for every person. They see attempts to solve unsolvable problems as idealistic and misguided, but in no way evil. People of the "unconstrained" vision, on the other hand, believe that all problems can be solved if everyone is virtuous enough. So they see people of the "constrained" vision -- who seem to them unwilling even to try -- as lacking in virtue.

To show just how old this conflict is and how it has not changed in many generations, Dr. Sowell presents a debate between some leading thinkers of the late 18th century. Dr. Sowell researches and writes like a genuine scholar as opposed to a political pundit, and although from his other books we know where his heart lies, in "A Conflict Of Visions" he is careful to present the debate in a balanced fashion. After you read "A Conflict Of Visions," what you see on TV and in the newspaper will make more sense than before. Enjoy.

Every college and graduate student should be required to read this book because it so clearly explains the reasons why people hold certain opinions about matters of policy, justice, law, and government. Prof. Sowell does not preach in this book, he shows the relationships between sets of ideas, e.g. why liberals are liberals and why conservatives are conservatives, and why both sides are quite predictable. Other reviewers have said this book is difficult to read; I did not find it difficult, but having some previous knowledge of political ideas, such as found in political science or law or history, certainly helps. Just take your time reading it. For over 10 years I have recommended this book to everyone who showed any interest in what people think and why, because this book gives an education that you don't get in college or law school. What is more, after reading this book you can predict the positions that politicians and activist groups will take on just about any issue. Wonderful reading!

Probably the book that best captures the core of Sowell's thought, this will help crystallize the understanding of anyone who has invested a lot of time in observing the back-and-forth, Crossfire-style, argumentation that usually passes for rational political discussion. The underlying assumptions that promulgate the world-views of our pundits and politicians can be seen here, making for a clearer understanding of how political figures, past and present, have arrived at the choices they have made. While reading on the affirmative action debate, say, or the history of Europe between the World Wars, one can see the opposing visions at work. Sowell is careful - as always, but here more than usual - not to take sides, but merely to present the characteristic behaviors and thought processes of the two "visions." As someone who agrees with Sowell most, but not all of the time, I was pleased with the way he stayed on message. A more opinionated book of his is "The Vision of the Anointed" which I also recommend.

"A Conflict of Visions" has made a bigger impact on my life than any book I have read in the past 20 years. In this book Thomas Sowell helps explain how two intelligent, well educated people of similar backgrounds can view the world in ways that are completely different from each other. Reading this book can, at times, be very difficult. I found myself stopping, thinking, re-reading, and highlighting important concepts. At times it felt like I was back in college preparing for a final exam. But the understanding I gained was well worth the effort. Since reading this book, I find myself constantly using the basic principles of Sowell to analyze and understand the opinions that people hold on so many different real world situations. If you have ever struggled to understand how somebody with a completely different view on a political situation can feel the way they do...by all means read this book now!

Dr. Sowell does a remarkable job of explaining the Universal Political Spectrum without using words like Liberal, Conservative, Radical, Reactionary, Left, or Right.

Sowell explains the underlying motivations of the two dominant worldviews, and does so in an evenhanded manner. He makes his case by painting two disparate pictures of human nature, the Constrained and the Unconstrained. He presents these two competing worldviews with the aid of readily understandable examples draw from history, such as Adam Smith and J. J. Rousseau. He then goes on to explain the effect these two competing visions of reality have on the individual's conceptions of such topics as Justice, Power, Knowledge, Law, Honesty, and Equality.

Although this argument, like any other product of man, is far from perfect, it offers a fascinating structure within which to consider ideological issues. Although it is not a panacea that will explain away all confusion, it does offer intriguing explanations for the often polar differences between liberals and conservatives, and why they so often seem to be `talking past each other'.

I highly recommend this book to the beginner and the expert alike. The beginner is likely to find himself stunned, while the expert will be familiar enough with Dr. Sowell to recognize his expertise and admire his skillful writing.

In "A Conflict of Visions," Thomas Sowell compiles a study of the two dominant socio-political ideologies of the day via the idea of "visions"--that is, a received, almost precognitive set of assumptions about human nature and humanity's place in the world. Sowell calls these the "constrained" (i.e. "conservative") and "unconstrained" (i.e. "liberal") visions. The two visions are fundamentally different and, therefore, produce conflicting ideas about such basic concepts as knowledge and reason and conflicting attitudes toward such values as equality, power, and justice. Sowell substantiates his observations of the conflict by quoting often from those authors over the past 250 years who wrote most insightfully and prolifically from the vantage of one or the other of these visions--such writers as Edmund Burke, William Godwin, John Locke, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat Condorcet, Ronald Dworkin and Milton Friedman.

In the conservative vision, human nature is viewed as essentially selfish, and society protects individuals from each other through the various institutions, traditions, religions, and laws that have evolved over the course of history. However, the liberal vision considers human nature as essentially good and hampered only by various power structures and social restrictions (thus progress is made by subverting those institutions and traditions that conservatives prize). As one example of the effect this conflict of visions has on society, Sowell shows that the conservative vision has this view of knowledge: knowledge is as vast as the number of human beings in the world, and thus some form of democracy is the best method of ensuring that that knowledge is well represented in society. The conservative vision sees knowledge as one facet of the human experience, but it does not elevate reason to the highest value in that experience. The liberal vision sees knowledge as the key to solving the world's problems (whereas conservatives believe there are no solutions--rather, there are only "better" and "worse" options). In the liberal vision, the lack of knowledge (that is, rational enlightenment) is the cause of the world's problems. The mass of people are not bad, they are just unenlightened and thus subject to the common errors of the ignorant. Therefore, in this vision, what society most needs are enlightened individuals willing to remake the world on behalf of their brothers and sisters who lack their education and their special knowledge.

Sowell has produced a brilliant and invaluable book. In this age when comedians masquerade as valid pundits and when the talking heads in the media do not know their history--cannot remember even the details of foreign policy in the previous presidential administration--Thomas Sowell shines through as the rare sort of thinker with the potential to clarify the murky political debate in the United States.