I read this after having read similar books with a similar premise: namely, that there exist fundamental and irreconcilable differences between the worldviews of conservatives and liberals, and that all political conflicts are therefore primarily due to different worldviews talking past each other. The books include Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant", Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" and Weston's "The Politcal Brain", and I think my reading of this book was probably unfavourably shaded by these prior experiences. "A Conflict of Visions" was, of course, originally published much earlier, which makes it a little unfair to judge it through the lens of these later books, but unfortunately that's just how it happened. This isn't a bad book, but I'm a little bit weary of the "Democrats are from Venus, Republicans are from Mars" shtick (as one prior reviewer put it), and unfortunately this book just happens to typify the problems I've begun to amass with such approaches to differing political ideologies.

To start with, I'm still not entirely sure what Sowell has in mind by the word "vision" which forms the basis of his theory (namely that political thinkers can be roughly divided into possessing "constrained" or "unconstrained" visions of political problems, leading to conservative and liberal politics respectively). He makes it quite clear that such "visions" indelibly shape the way we are prone to "viewing" certain political problems, and that such "visions" should not be confused with mere value judgements (as, on occasions, the "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions can be shown to be motivated by similar sets of values - the public good, for example), but I don't believe it was ever made explicitly clear quite where such visions originate, how they are transmitted or in what sense they are revealed. If we trust Sowell's judgement that such "visions" do in fact exist in the roughly dichotomous form presented here then there is probably much good sense adumbrated in this book, but the premises of the theory still strike me as being rather too fuzzy and opaquely defined to take his subsequent conclusions in good faith.

Furthermore, I'm not exactly sure what might be said to positively distinguish the political "visions" of Sowell from the political "frames" of Lakoff, or from the emotional-affective categories of Haidt, for example. What specifically does the notion of visions tell us about how people form political allegiances or political beliefs? What predictions about political behaviour can be made from such a theory? And what does the constrained / unconstrained dichotomy of political thought offer in terms of explanatory value that other political dichotomies ("left / right", "authoritarian / libertarian", "nurturing parent / strict parent" etc.) lack?

In any case, surely it's a little too simplistic to place all political ideologies on such a one-dimensional axis? It may be good enough to explain political differences in the overwhelmingly binary politics of the modern United States, but can it offer any insight into the processes that occur in far more pluralistic European systems? To say nothing of the kind of political ideologies that persist in non-Western cultures? How would a Confucian (constrained) socialist (unconstrained) be comfortably explained within this system, for example? Or a Muslim (constrained) democrat (unconstrained)? Or a Hindu (constrained) radical (unconstrained)? Other works of political psychology suffer from a similar inordinate focus on the American political system, but none quite so fatally as this one.

Even in the American example, this book lacks the applicability it may once have had. The last 25 years have seen one side of American politics (try to guess which!) completely fall off the deep-end in terms of their hard shift to the political right, and their conterminous abrogation of reason and moral decency. In this book, the political thinkers contrasted (from the modern age at least) include Godwin and Rawls from the unconstrained side, and Friedman and Hayek from the constrained side. In 1987, these may well have been representative thinkers of the two visions, but I don't think the same could be said today. The passages quoted make Hayek and Friedman seem downright reasonable and moderate in comparison with the poisonous politics of present-day Republicans, and when these two start to appear as voices of moderation then you know that something, somewhere must have gone terribly wrong. I am prepared to accept that there exist principled, decent, well-spoken conservatives, with whom I differ only on matters of "vision" rather than on any deeper principles, but such men and women to not exist in the modern Republican party. It is a party fuelled not by political visions, but rather by the bile of jealous, impotent rage: trying to place them on any conventional political map is an effort bound for failure.

And here is my problem in general with books which try to explain political differences purely in terms of differing worldviews: it overlooks the overwhelmingly obvious fact that one side, even within the confines of their own political "vision", may just happen to be wrong. It seeks to excuse political behaviour that is frankly without excuse. If someone believes that tax cuts are the solution to our current economic malaise, or that gay relationships are fundamentally inferior to heterosexual ones, or that restricting gun ownership will not reduce guns deaths then they don't just happen to possess of different "vision" of politics to my own, they are fundamentally and intractably wrong. There are almost certainly solutions to political problems that exist beyond the narrow focus of my own politics, by the way, but I still feel confident in saying that no present Republican politician is in possession of any of them. When you deliberately abandon the use of evidence and reason, after all, then any conclusion you reach can only find itself in consonance with reality by pure, dumb luck. "Framing" or "Visions" are irrelevant in such an event.

Let's put it in a wider historical context: political ideas emanating from the "constrained" vision of 50, 100 or 200 years ago are rightly scandalous to us now. Segregation? Anti-miscegenation laws? The disenfranchisement of women? Slavery? Absolute monarchy? All of these once fecund political visions have entirely receded from view now, and with good cause. No-one will seriously try to morally defend such views on the basis that their supporters just happened to possess a different (but equally valid!) political vision to our own, we will rightly say that they were blinded (by racism, by sexism etc.) to what would otherwise have been in plain moral sight. They were wrong, and it was good that such worldviews came to be extinguished. In fairness, Sowell does say here (tucked deep into chapter 9) that ultimately political visions must be responsive to the demands of evidence and that we can expect them to shift over time, but that just raises two futher questions. Firstly, if political beliefs are genuinely so fluid, then what possible use is this static dichotomy of "visions"? Secondly, how is it, then, that the constrained visions of politics have invariably been the unsuccessful ones, the ones left withered and dessicated by the brilliant, white light of reason and progress? Why do we still read Paine today and not Burke? Why did Locke's political visions win out over Hobbes'? Why does the arrow of progress point (with the occasional reactionary blip) so unequivocally in one direction?

I don't wish to savage this book: it isn't bad. The readings and quotes from political thinkers across the ages are worth your time. The shallow central thesis, however, probably isn't.

Thomas Sowell is a modern day prophet. He is a genius. This book perfectly outlines different visions of reality and how they inflict their visions upon the world. 10/10 WOULD RECOMMEND

This book gets high mark for its depth of research--Locke, Rousseau, Paine, Burke, Godwin, Hayek, Galbraith, Godwin, Holmes, Blackstone, Smith, Mill, Dworkin, and many others are featured--but ultimately the theory doesn't cohere.

The premise is that there are two incompatible "visions" of society--ways of looking at the world, each with their own hidden suppositions and internal logic. Consequently, there is no common vocabulary and no grounds for reconciliation, forming the basis of much modern political strife. In the terminology of Wittgenstein, they are competing "language games." Sowell identifies these visions as "constrained" and "unconstrained," close approximations of (but not strict surrogates for) "conservative" and "liberal," respectively.

The tone of the book is always even, but the author's bias is nevertheless clear: the "unconstrained" vision (as implied by the name) is unimpeded by practical considerations; it is utopian and idealistic rather than realistic; it is concerned with "results" rather than "processes" (i.e., it "cheats"); it assumes that people are infinitely malleable and in want of malleting (i.e., it is paternalistic); etc. By contrast, the "constrained" vision recognizes basic facts of reality that limit its audacity, such as weaknesses of human nature that make it necessary to be suspicious of concentrated political and pedagogical power.

Sowell's bizarre interpretation of the common law illustrates the point. According to him, "unconstrained" thinkers favor "judicial activism" (a conservative stereotype of the Warren court to begin with). "Constrained" thinkers, by contrast, respect stare decisis (as handed down through the common law tradition) because it embodies the collective wisdom of an evolutionary "process." In other words, conservatives show humility and respect for their forefathers while liberals try to make the law anew. Of course, it is simply not true that legal precedent ever existed independently of sui generis decisions by particular judges. The common law is shaped--one judge and one decision at a time--and there is no reason to think that judicial activism isn't part of that (historical and ongoing) "process." Even worse: Sowell claims that "unconstrained" theorists feel obligated to impose their views on others, and at one point comes close to saying that two parties in a lawsuit can happily co-exist unless a "third party" (the presiding judge) interferes. "If third parties are able to make such judgments [of right and wrong], as the unconstrained vision assumes, those with the power to change these decisions have little justification for their failure to do so." (Presumably the "constrained" jurist assumes no power to settle disputes between litigants? Really???)

It is worth emphasizing that the author denies that the two visions can be "mechanically [translated]...into the political left and right"--an admission which largely undermines his project, since one naturally wonders what predictive power his model even has. He is, after all, articulating two paradigms that are supposed to show how people order their ideologies. But it becomes apparent that people do not adhere to these paradigms generally. In fact, the last chapter reads like an apologetic. When a thinker defies his model, Sowell pulls a "bait and switch" so that one principle of the vision (e.g., government mandates) is interchangable with another (e.g., abstract moral imperatives), and the discrepancy is dismissed as an artifact of the thinkers' different levels of sophistication. Elsewhere he notes that the visions can be compartmentalized, such that a person is "constrained" in one area of thinking and "unconstrained" in another. Of course some allowance should be made for the fact that people do not always fit into neat categories, but after a while his model begins to sound ad hoc.

Even on its own terms, I'm not sure that the model is very useful. For instance, it would seem very superficial to describe environmentalism as an "unconstrained" exercise of central planning per se, rather than a recognition of dangerously real "constraints" on the use of nature. And surely it is motivated by an aversion to short-term greed that is no less inherent in human nature, hence no less of a "constraint" than that of any "constrained" vision. This and other major political controversies are undiscussed in the book, making it just as remarkable for what it doesn't say.

Better recommended: Lakoff's _Moral Politics_ or even Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty."

Really good. A little difficult for Audible, though. I definitely want to re-read at some point.

In Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell explains the anthropological roots of political disagreements. According to Sowell, there are two basic, pre-scientific understandings of human nature and social mechanics, which he calls the constrained and unconstrained views. The unconstrained view believes man is basically good and infinitely malleable, that outcomes are more important than processes, and that enlightened elites can craft social solutions. The constrained view believes man is limited and imperfect, that stable processes are more reliable than discretionary-driven outcomes, and that all “solutions” involve trade-offs. Nobody is consistently constrained or unconstrained and the two visions do not always align with liberal or conservative labels. Understanding the two visions helps explain why people disagree about nearly every political issue: the role and processes of the criminal justice system, the best approach to foreign and economic policy, and the proper ordering of society.

Wow.

Well, I overestimated myself with this one again. I am continually finding myself out of my depth in reading lately. Probably as a result of reading mostly fantasy for three decades. I feel as though I'm being taught to think, it is not necessarily a pleasant experience.

What is this book about? It's about a dichotomy in how people view cause and effect and how that affects everything else people think about, from humanity itself to economics, justice, freedom and questions of morality. Not necessarily about morality itself, as people of both visions tend to agree on broad moral issues. People of both visions believe that everyone should act in the good of everyone else, the problem is that they disagree on who 'everyone' consists of and what 'good' is. A pretty foundational disagreement. The easiest way to understand the difference between the two visions is that they use the same words, but the words have different definitions for each vision. But really, that's just an effect of the deeper philosophical dichotomy, the definitions that arise are perfectly logical once you have accepted the a priori belief systems of whichever vision whose terms you are examining.

If I had to boil down the contents of this book to a sentence, I would say that it's about how the constrained vision sees the universe as too complicated for humans in the abstract and the concrete to predict the effects of causes and the unconstrained visions sees humanity in the abstract as capable of predicting the effects of causes and indeed manipulating causes in order to bring about certain effects. Why did I differentiate between humans in the abstract and the concrete? The constrained vision looks at individuals and sees their flaws and then extrapolates from the individual to the group and says that humanity in the abstract is flawed and incapable of understanding the full effects of individual and group actions on everything else. The unconstrained vision looks at individuals and separates them from what they are to what they could be and believes that the potential can be achieved by letting those who are closest to what 'they could be' to dictate to the rest who are farther from that potential how to act in order to achieve that potential. He didn't really bring it up, but it seems like the unconstrained view would fall in line with the ideas of Plato's Republic, where philosopher kings, someone who is smarter and wiser and more moral than the common man were to dictate the rules by which everyone else is to live.

The unconstrained vision doesn't care so much the manner in which humanity reaches its potential, all that matters is achieving the potential. If a super man tells us that the way for all of us to achieve happiness is to make sure that no one goes hungry and this is to be achieved by all of us giving our food to the king so that he can apportion it out to people, that is what must be done. If it turns out that our neighbor has more need of our food than we do, we must sacrifice for their good because the wisest among us is telling us that is what must be done. On the other hand, the constrained vision is all about the manner in which goals are pursued. If my ability to self determine my own actions and goals must be sacrificed in order to achieve some greater good, then it is not a greater good. If the only way to achieve the potential of humanity is to limit the potential of individual humans and elevate certain humans above others, then it is not worth achieving the potential. And actually, you wouldn't achieve the potential anyway, because the idea that you can achieve humanity's potential presupposes the idea that you know exactly how things will pan out. That you can predict with unerring accuracy how hundreds of thousands of independent variables will interact in order to achieve this utopia. It makes me wonder how anyone who has ever dealt with statistics at all can even hold slightly to the unconstrained vision. The way things interact with each other are far too complicated to predict. We don't even know how it is that we know things. We don't even know what we don't know, how can we presume to know enough to affect the outcome of something as small as whether or not this medication will work in this particular person? Let alone that this particular political intervention will affect an entire populace in a positive way? I look at the unconstrained vision and come away only being flabbergasted at how insanely arrogant the people who hold to it are. I think that's the reason I'm attracted to the constrained vision, it's not perfect by any means, and in some ways I align more with the unconstrained belief system, but at the very least the constrained vision starts with the acknowledgment of my own ignorance. I know that I'm ignorant. I know that I am lacking in wisdom and knowledge, I know that I can't even predict why my digestion isn't working right today, how could I possibly determine the best policy by which to achieve utopia? It seems like the constrained vision is based in humility in many ways, whereas the unconstrained is based in the idea of great intelligence trumping all. And I think that's a dangerous road. People believing that their own intelligence makes them somehow superior always leads to a dangerous situation. Pol Pot thought he knew better than all of his people, and he ended up murdering millions of his fellow Cambodians. The Kim family thought they knew the best way to plant crops and ended up starving millions of their people. Margaret Sanger thought she was smarter than people with down syndrome and other defectives and advocated sterilizing them and putting them in concentration camps.

I thought that the quote that sums up the truth of the world was one towards the end where Sowell said that "Given the inherent limitations of human beings, the extraordinary person (morally or intellectually) is extraordinary only within some very limited area, perhaps at the cost of grave deficiencies elsewhere, and may well have blind spots which prevent him from seeing some things which are clearly visible to ordinary people." I think this is really true and what separates many of the constrained vision from many of the unconstrained vision. To put it more concretely, I would say that many in the unconstrained vision are engaged in hero worship. They look at someone who is extraordinary in one way and assume that they are therefore extraordinary in all ways, whereas someone with the unconstrained vision looks at someone and sees their flaws, but continues to follow them because they believe in the process that the flawed person is upholding. The unconstrained vision tends to ignore flaws until they become so blatantly obvious they cannot be ignored and then immediately decides the person who has the flaws is so flawed they cannot be followed at all and they fall from grace.

Sowell's thesis is that the fundamental source of disagreement between the "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions (which roughly correspond to conservatism and liberalism, respectively) is a disagreement over how constrained we are by human nature. The constrained view sees humans as fundamentally flawed ("original sin", in the Judeo-Christian tradition, although it is entirely possible to come to this conclusion for secular reasons, as I have). This is why those with the unconstrained vision (UCV) ask questions like, "why is there sometimes war, cruelty, and poverty," whereas those with the CV as, "why is there sometimes peace, kindness, and wealth?" The UCV tends to the blame the motivations and/or knowledge of people with power, and thinks all problems can be solved if only the right people with the right ideas and the right motivations can be given enough power to enact those ideas. Those with the constrained vision, OTOH, believe humans are too flawed to trust even the best of them with so much power. They see poverty and misery as the default conditions, and ask how we have managed to rise above it. They look (not for solutions, but) for the best possible trade-offs by supporting institutions and systemic processes (liberal democracy, free markets, separation of powers, limited government, traditional institutions and roles like marriage and the family) that embody the wisdom of experience accumulated by many people, and/or throughout history.

This is why, for example, conservatives are always accusing liberals of being "elitist", and why liberals find the charge baffling. Liberals want the best and the brightest in charge, whereas conservatives believe that even the best and brightest are really competent in at best a very specific and limited domain. Chomsky may be a great linguist, for example, but he's hardly an expert on geopolitics or history, let alone moral philosophy; there's little reason to expect that he'd be even above-average as a manager or a statesman. It also explains why liberals so often accuse their political opponents of ignorance and malice. Of course conservatives sometimes insult their political opponents as well, but liberals are more often stereotyped as naive, and having "bleeding hearts", rather than as stupid and evil. Intentions count for more in the liberal than in the conservative view. This why hypocrisy is among the most severe of accusations in the liberal lexicon. Conservatives, OTOH, believe that good intentions are the material with which the road to hell is paved. This is why I think "conservative" really is an accurate appellation, in the sense of being more cautious and skeptical about "solutions" that liberals are so eager to propose for the problems many of them make careers out of cataloging.

If you know anything about Sowell, you know which side of this conflict he is on. However, he does a great job of maintaining neutrality in this book. He doesn't present either side as superior, nor does he advocate either perspective. Instead, he simply explains both worldviews, and why they see things the way they do across a range of seemingly unrelated issues.

Sowell is brilliant. This I knew, because I read his Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy. But this was a completely different field and contained so much philosophical research that I was almost convinced he was a different Thomas Sowell.

His main, and, again, maddeningly neutral,* thesis centers on the two different over-arching visions traceable throughout history. His exploration of Marxism was perhaps the clearest and most succinct that I have ever read (seriously). Similarly, his view of the Nazi party was fascinating. I especially loved the last section which, possibly, illustrates the sources of some of the generational disconnect we're experiencing at the moment. I highly recommend this book---If only to help you understand where the other side might be coming from and why it is so difficult, for some, to see your point of view.

*Tell me which vision he prefers? I'm pretty sure you can't get it from this book.

Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions details the role of two alternative worldviews, the constrained and unconstrained vision, and their impact on political discourse. Exemplified by Adam Smith, the constrained vision accepts a given man's inherent limitations and argues for the importance of positive trade-offs and the process of shaping public policy. The unconstrained vision, endorsed by William Godwin, argues for complete solutions to problems and outcome-oriented decision-making based on a belief in man's perfectibility.

This book provides a simple and appealing lens through which to view major dispositional differences among people on opposite sides of some long-standing social, economic, and political debates. And like many powerful lenses, once you’ve taken a look, it’s difficult to unlook. I guess the danger is that once comprehended, these types of frameworks lead one to seek (and find) confirmation everywhere, transitioning from useful theory to unyielding cult. Of course that doesn’t mean that the basic theory is wrong.

I like this book, but I’m not sure that the terms “constrained” and “unconstrained," which Sowell uses to describe the two dispositions, are quite right. Of course Sowell being who he is, can’t help framing the two visions in a way that casts a slightly more flattering light on one side than the other: as competing visions of human nature (i.e., constrained individuals are sensible realists, acknowledging biological limits to human nature, while unconstrained individuals are delusional utopians, who just can’t accept basic logistics). However, this all seems like post hoc mechanistic articulation (to use his jargon). I like better his “fair rules” versus “fair results” dichotomy, which seems equally powerful, yet doesn’t require speculation about possible underlying motivations for these two visions. One vision focuses on keeping the processes that society follows stable and fair, while the other vision focuses on keeping the outcomes as equal as possible among people. Is there really any evidence that these two views spring forth (consciously or subconsciously) from different perceptions of human nature? Particularly these two specific perceptions? Sowell doesn’t discuss them. Besides, it is just as likely that people are basing their visions on other aspects of nature (e.g., liberals see environmental constraints on human expansion or limitations of the free market on economic equality). You can argue that both visions acknowledge natural constraints. One vision sees constraints on human engineering (due to limitations in human reason and understanding of complex systems), the other vision sees constraints on human well-being (due to limitations in the natural world or in organically emergent human institutions).

Another thing I was wondering is whether the relative efficiency with which these two visions produce “societal good” might change over time. While I think that all agree that human understanding of complex systems and human technology have their limits, it would be difficult to argue that cumulative progress hasn’t been achieved over the centuries in these regards. To use one of Sowell’s metaphors, while spoken languages that are consciously constructed by a single person or group may not ever be as rich or useful as a natural language, I would bet that a modern linguist could come up with a much better language than any planned in the past and (more to the point) could probably make some real improvements to an already existing natural language if given the opportunity (natural evolutionary and cultural systems are not perfect, just good enough to be maintained). Regardless the limits on human understanding, we have learned a lot since the Enlightenment. Industrialized countries have been systematically collecting data (on climate, the economy, public health and safety, etc.) for at least a century by now, and I think it would be difficult to deny that government regulations inspired and improved by these data (e.g., mandatory evacuations prior to hurricanes, interest rate adjustments by the Federal Reserve, or seat belt laws) have not resulted in some benefits. Yes, free markets and the rule of law have drastically improved societies that have adopted them over the past few centuries. However, once these systems are in place, perhaps the focus should then be set on successfully applying advancements in human knowledge, compassion, and technology to mitigate some of the odious byproducts of these natural systems (e.g., gross inequality, environmental externalities, etc.). Discoveries such as that microorganisms cause disease, that all races of people possess broadly similar intellectual and emotional capacities, or that pumping excessive carbon dioxide into the atmosphere increases global temperature are relevant to public policy. Although such findings may not be intuitive to humans, they can be learned and applied toward increasing the freedom and well-being of human and non-human organisms. So why not do it, even if we have to tweak the rules? I guess that makes me sound pretty "unconstrained" - more so than I feel. But there it is.

I just suspect that as human resource consumption increases and our scientific knowledge and technology advance, the “realist” vision is ever more becoming the one that can apply new knowledge to anticipate and ameliorate new societal problems. Forget utopia, impressive developments in human culture and government will likely be necessary for societies to simply stay afloat. Maybe Marx was a little bit right after all in hypothesizing an arc of human progress in which some natural constraints can be shed with time, pending scientific and cultural advancements? Let’s hope so, because facts are facts: the human species is growing and depleting, unconstrained. We’re probably doomed. If we can’t have a little faith in human ingenuity, in our ability to somehow engineer a future for ourselves using accumulated wisdom - in a sense, to beat human nature - if we can’t hold dear to a vision of human progress and reason, then truly, all we have is now.

ARE THERE FUNDAMENTALLY ONLY TWO TYPES OF “VISIONS”?

Thomas Sowell (born 1930) is an economist, columnist, and author who has long been associated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1987 book, “The time is long overdue for directly examining the enormous social role of visions and their conflicts. A conflict of visions differs from a conflict between contending interests… where there is a conflict of visions, those most powerfully affected by a particular vision may be the least aware of its underlying assumptions---or the least interested I stopping to examine such theoretical questions when there are urgent ‘practical’ issues to be confronted, crusades to be launched, or values to be defended at all costs… We all have visions. They are the silent shapers of our thoughts… Where visions conflict irreconcilably, whole societies may be torn apart. Conflicts of interests dominate the short run, but conflicts of visions dominate history. We will do almost anything for our visions, except think about them. The purpose of this book is to think about them.”

He suggests, “What both the secular and the religious versions of systemic processes have in common is that the wisdom of the individual human actor is not the wisdom of the drama. Conversely, there are both secular and religious versions of individual rationality, the religious version being one in which the Deity directly decides on individual events, from daily weather changes to deaths of individuals. Fundamentalist religion is the most pervasive vision of central planning, though many fundamentalists may oppose human central planning as a usurpation or ‘playing God.’ This is consistent with the fundamentalist vision of an unconstrained God and a highly constrained man.” (Pg. 51)

He identifies the ‘Constrained Vision’ and the ‘Unconstrained Vision,’ then explains, “Believers in the two visions are thus foredoomed to be adversaries on one specific issue after another. Issues new to both of them—such as compensatory preferences for disadvantaged groups---evoke the same opposition between them insofar as they depend on the implicit assumptions of different visions.” (Pg. 99)

He acknowledges, however, that “The entire spectrum of social visions cannot be neatly dichotomized into the constrained and the unconstrained, though it is remarkable how many leading visions of the past two centuries fit into these two categories. Moreover, this dichotomy extends across moral, economic, legal, and other fields. This is highlighted by the fact that those economists … who hold the constrained vision in their own field tend also to take a constrained vision of law and politics, while those with the unconstrained vision of law… tend to favor economic and political policies which are also consistent with the unconstrained vision.” (Pg. 113)

He says, “The crucial different between the constrained and the unconstrained visions of man is NOT in their perceptions of people AS THEY ARE. What fundamentally distinguishes the two visions is their respective perceptions of human potential. The average person as he exists today is not seen in more optimistic terms by those with the unconstrained vision. On the contrary, some of the most sweeping dismissals of the current capabilities of ordinary people have come from those with the unconstrained vision… In short, the gap between the actual and the potential is grater in the unconstrained vision than in the constrained vision. So too is the gap between the existing masses of people and those who have advanced further toward the intellectual and moral potentialities of man.” (Pg. 138)

He notes, “Visions differ both morally and intellectually. Moreover, social visions differ in some respects … from visions which play an important role in science. A central question from a moral perspective is the extent to which different social visions reflect differences in value premises. A central question from an intellectual perspective is the very different history of visions of society and visions underlying scientific theories of natural phenomena. It is also useful to understand whether social issues represent conflicts of values, of visions, or of interests.” (Pg. 204)

He argues, “Definitive evidence cannot be expected on the grand general sweep of a vision... When hypotheses deriving from a particular vision are contradicted by evidence in the form in which they are first asserted, they may nevertheless be salvageable in a less extreme or more complex form. Evidence is not irrelevant, however. ‘Road to Damascus’ conversions do occur, and … the repercussions on one’s general vision may lead to a domino effect on other assumptions and beliefs. Responses to evidence---including denial, evasion, and obfuscation---likewise testify to the threat that it represents.” (Pg. 206)

He gives an example: “Cyril Burtt [was] a scholar whose research dealt with the issue of hereditary versus environmental causes of differences in mental ability… of DIFFERENTIAL constraints on different individuals and races. Burtt’s belief [was] that mental ability was largely hereditary… Only many years after Burtt’s death, and after his studies had become an accepted part of the scholarly debates on this issue, did some statistical inconsistencies in his data begin to attract notice, and then suspicion. Further investigation raised further suspicions. Eventually, even some of Burtt’s strongest supporters---notably Professor Arthur Jensen---concluded sadly that Burtt had FALSIFIED the data.” (Pg. 207)

He summarizes, “The analysis here is not intended to reconcile visions or determine their validity, but to understand what they are about, and what role they play in political, economic, and social struggles. The question is not what particular policy or social system is the best but rather what is IMPLICITLY ASSUMED in advocating one policy or social system over another…. Both constrained and unconstrained visions are ultimately concerned with social results. The unconstrained vision seeks directly to achieve those results socially---that is, through collective decisions prescribing the desired outcomes. The constrained vision considers it beyond the capability of any manageable set of decision-makers to marshal the requisite knowledge, and dangerous to concentrate sufficient power, to carry out their decisions, even if it were possible.” (Pg. 225)

He concludes, “An analysis of the implications and dynamics of visions can clarify issues without reducing dedication to one’s own vision, even when it is understood to be a vision, rather than an incontrovertible fact, an iron law, or an opaque moral imperative. Dedication to cause may legitimately entail sacrifices of personal interests but not sacrifices of mind or conscience.” (Pg. 232)

For those of us who consider Sowell typically as an empirical, fact-based analyst, this book is probably quite disappointing; his “constrained”/”unconstrained” dichotomy seems simplistic. But, caveat emptor…

I am absolutely awestruck by this work and expect to revisit it many more times.This books, as is another book by Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy, is now my reference and a guide to understanding the socioeconomics.

In “A Conflict of Visions”, Thomas Sowell attempts to explain how people's different views on human nature could place them in two divergent groups, groups that see human nature as constrained or unconstrained. While admitting that no person could be said to belong 100% to only one group, without some views being overlapped, such distinction is nevertheless useful as “different ways of conceiving man and the world lead not merely to different conclusions but to sharply divergent, often diametrically opposed, conclusions on issues ranging from justice to war.”

Proponents of constrained vision see human beings as constrained by their very nature, which, with self-interest at the center, guides their actions and decisions. Advocates of the constrained vision see the decentralized social processes, arising from the interaction between the people, as the end in itself, which will be beneficial to all the participants.

Proponents of unconstrained vision see the human beings as not constrained by their nature and that their actions are, or should be, guided by intention to benefit the others. Advocates of unconstrained vision distrust decentralized social processes and see the result of the process, if beneficial to all, is the end goal.

Following is the quote from the book that, I believe, accurately summarizes the differences the two visions have on human nature and, by extension, to social institutions:
“In the unconstrained vision, there are no intractable reasons for social evils and therefore no reason why they cannot be solved, with sufficient moral commitment. But in the constrained vision, whatever artifices or strategies restrain or ameliorate inherent human evils will themselves have costs, some in the form of other social ills created by these civilizing institutions, so that all that is possible is a prudent trade-off.”