Rating: 
Summary: Clear Analysis of Important Topic
Review: "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.
Rating:
Summary: Enlightening Book That Makes You Think Very Hard
Review: "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!
Rating:
Summary: Thomas Sowell is a clear-thinking genius
Review:
In A Conflict of Visions, Sowell looks at two basic competing visions of humanity: the "constrained," which views human nature as changeless and basically selfish; and the "unconstrained" view which sees us as perfectable, more malleable beings. Sowell sees most of our ethical, economical and policy problems as a reflection of the tension between these two views.
This is an excellent, well-thought-out book, deserving of the attention of all thoughtful people. Joseph (Joe) Pierre
author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books
Rating:
Summary: A primer on the roots of the culture war.
Review: Most of us who regularly engage in political debate are frequently frustrated by the apparent lack of sense in our opponents' responses to our arguments. Whatever the issue,
we lay out our case in an orderly manner, but we find that no one on the other side seems capable of grasping it. Instead of vigorous but constructive debate, we end up either screaming at each other or deciding against continuing the exchange. We are convinced that our opponents are either too dense to be worthy of further effort or are motivated by some truly unsavory considerations. We end up discussing controversial issues with only those who already agree with us, and this is hardly a good practice in a nation increasingly susceptible to the consequences of faction. The problem, as Dr. Sowell points out in the first part of this insightful book, is that we and our opponents are usually talking past each other. We and they are starting from different "visions" of how the world (human nature) operates, and the fundamental assumptions upon which each side is basing its arguments are buried several layers beneath the surface issues that are the focus of our attention. Without resolving this underlying disagreement -- this conflict of visions -- the debate on surface issues will continue to prove futile. There are two perspectives that, between them, dominate the modern world: the "constrained" and the "unconstrained" visions of human nature. The constrained vision, the one upon which what is loosely termed "conservative" thinking is based, holds that the civilized demeanor of man is but a thin and fragile barrier against his immoral inclinations
and his amoral animal nature. Successful social and political policy is based, therefore, on proven methods of restraining these undesireable traits to a degree that will engender security and prosperity for society. This view also recognizes human nature as immutable, so that each generation, accepting or rejecting the experiences and traditions (institutionalized experiences) of the past, decides whether or not the veneer of civilization will remain intact. In contrast, the unconstrained vision holds that man is basically good and that it is only the unfavorable circumstances in which he finds himself that cause him to fall short. If we gain enough knowledge on how to improve those circumstances, this view holds, then we can eliminate the disagreeable aspects of human behavior (there is no immutable human nature) and make the world a better place in which to live. It will take a few who are enlightened and good enough to lead the rest of us out of our current predicament, and only our stubborn resistance to these "anointed" few can retard our ascension to the secular heaven that they will create for us. The French Revolution was the first major laboratory for the implementation of this vision, and this century in particular has suffered the bloody consequences of its messianic zeal. After describing the two visions, Dr. Sowell uses the rest of the book to demonstrate how each perspective leads to the positions taken on current issues. It is clear from his explanations that he subscribes to the constrained vision, but he leaves it to a subsequent work, The Vision of the Anointed, to detail the workings of the unconstrained vision and its destructive effects as the predominant vision of our times. Together, these two volumes provide the reader with an understanding of the basis of the prevailing nonsense. This understanding, combined with a deeper understanding our our own philosophical foundations, can be a great aid in turning our nation to the right path.
Rating:
Summary: Essential to understand contemporary public debate.
Review: An excellent book. I know of nothing else published in the last several decades that sheds more light on the underlying structure of all facets of contemporary discussion on public policy. However, the book's insights also illuminate far more widely than that: just one important example would be how people choose to raise and discipline their children. The book examines, from a scholarly and historical perspective, the two primary sets of underlying assumptions people hold about human nature. Since these assumptions are usually not consciously considered or questioned by an adherent of either camp, and since a person then usually presumes these assumptions are obvious facts describing the world, an adherent of an opposing camp in any debate appears, at best, severely misguided to, at worst, underhandedly malevolent. The two sets of assumptions (called by Sowell: Visions) contradict each other, so both cannot be true (neither might have been, at least, in all of their particulars). However, Dr. Sowell waits until his subsequent book, "The Vision of the Annointed," to adduce the historical, sociological, and psychological evidence that decides which of the Visions indeed reflects reality. I recommend reading "A Conflict of Visions" first since it prepares the stage and does not take sides. I think a reader would find "Vision of the Annointed" somewhat polemical and tendentious otherwise, especially if he or she subscribed to that Vision whose tenets are in there debunked. (This strategy would help the reader to maintain an open mind; a person unconvincibly reading a book is wasting his time.) I found Sowell's tone very forgiveable since he decries, obviously sincerely, the destructive effects on countless lives spanning centuries (and continuing) of the state policies derived from the mistaken and failed Vision; while salutary courses of action, based on the alternative Vision, were always available, usually discussed, and often ignored.
Rating: 
Summary: A Wonderful Analysis of How Core Beliefs Differ
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read
Review: Conflict of Visions reprensents one of the rare books that everyone should read. The premise is simple. There are two major views of the world and which view you follow predisposes you to particular side of various political issues. What makes this topic even more important for Americans is that both visions of man (fallen and perfectable)is part of our national character. Our religous heritage commits us to the fallen nature of man, but our spirit requires giving everyone a "second" chance (perfectablity). Dr Sowell's writing is clear and to the point. He introduces each topic and then develops both sides of each topic according to the logic of each vision. Note that while the following 2 books in the "vision" series espouse the constrained (fallen nature of man)vision this book is apolitical.
Rating:
Summary: A tremendous explanation of ideological politics.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The good is enemy of the best
Review: Dr. Sowell wrote an amazing book, that deeply impressed me since the first page I read, attaining a level that I only knew previously in Karl Popper, Friederich Hayek and, perhaps, Murray Rothbard. The author depicts the main characteristics of the two antagonic ideological visions that, at least since the 18th century, fight each other in the western world's political arena, not unusually at a very hot level - the constrained vision (or the right / conservative) and the unconstrained vision (or the left / liberal), being himself, as it is widely known, an obvious follower of the constrained vision. Summing up the finely erudite analysis of dr. Sowell, we can conclude that, contrarily to the unconstrained vision, the constrained one prefers common sense to emotion, reality to utopia, the best world possible to the ideal world, the real man of ever to the new man, and reformation to revolution, resulting that differences from the way each one faces that same man: the constrained looks him as an imperfect and decayed creature, with unchangeable vices and tendencies, so, to her, the most effective policy that can be taken is the one that tries to conciliate such a nature with common social good, puting the first working for the profit of the second; inversely, the unconstrained, facing man as a small god, believing blindly in the unlimited capacities of reason and in the complete maleability of man's characther, intends to built, in her most radical version, paradise on earth, but, despising simple truths about human nature, only reachs...hell. This a superb book that I highly recommend to everybody, specially persons from the conservative and non-political correct family.
Rating:
Summary: The Philosophies Behind the History.
Review: 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."
|
