A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

by Thomas Sowell

Book Overview

Controversies in politics arise from many sources, but the conflicts that endure for generations or centuries show a remarkably consistent pattern. In this classic work, Thomas Sowell analyzes this pattern. He describes 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...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0465002056
• ISBN13: 9780465002054
• Release Date: June 2007
• Publisher: Basic Books
• Length: 352 Pages
• Weight: 0.73 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 5.3" x 8.0"

Customer Reviews

Clear Analysis of Important Topic

"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

Cleaving conservatives, compassionates: conflicting concepts

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 inte

Sowell goes straight to the roots of ideological conflict

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.

Single best book about political ideas

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!

To understand the nature of political arguments, read this

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.