A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

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.


Clear Analysis of Important Topic   November 3, 2003
39 out of 39 found this review helpful

"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.


Sowell goes straight to the roots of ideological conflict   June 7, 2000
David C. Moses (Taipei, Taiwan)
36 out of 37 found this review helpful

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   February 14, 2000
Dial911book (Rockin, ON)
32 out of 33 found this review helpful

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   December 27, 1999
Michael Wendt (Vernon Hills, IL USA)
42 out of 45 found this review helpful

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.