A Conflict of Visions

I read a lot of books each year, but most of them are just 'popcorn'.  Light, crunchy snacks for my brain that are more relaxing to consume than educational.  The ones that are really awesome are the more difficult tomes.  Let me tell you about one of the most fantastic books I read last year: "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles", by Thomas Sowell.

I was first of all pleasantly surprised that the book, although about politics, did not favor one ideology over another.  If you have read political books, then you know that this is as rare as a flying dump truck!  My next surprise was in the depth and ease with with the author reduces hundreds of years of political conflict into such a simple framework.  It helped me to understand those with opposing viewpoints in ways I never thought I would.  With understanding came a softer approach on my part towards people I normally wanted to either A) punch in the face or B) simply ignore.

While professing not to be constructing a rigid dichotomy, Sowell lays out a way of distinguishing people's political perspective in a manner that holds together very well under most conditions.  He describes two visions of human nature which lead to political conflict, arguing that it is the vision of what mankind is and what he can become that drives our choices.

The two visions are the "constrained vision", in which human nature is enduring and self-centered, and the "unconstrained vision", in which human nature is malleable and perfectible.  Interestingly enough, in my own further analysis and study I have found that once someone in my acquaintance is identified by me as seeing humanity by one of these visions, that almost all of the other aspects pointed out by Sowell actually do follow in their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.


The book goes into great detail as to how someone with each visions perceives the world.  Knowledge, reason, social processes, equality, power, and justice are all key to our ability to discuss government and law in general - but those with different visions of mankind have differing definitions and different level of regard for these concepts.  This is why political opponents can say the same thing, but each mean something totally different from the other.

Here's some juicy quotes to whet your appetite!  On the differences between visions:

The great evils of the world - war, poverty, and crime, for example - are seen in completely different terms by those with the constrained and unconstrained visions.  If human options are not inherently constrained, then the presence of such repugnant and disastrous phenomena virtually cries out for explanation - and for solutions.  But if the limitations and passions of man himself are at the heart of these painful phenomena, then what requires explanation are the ways in which they have been avoided or minimized...

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 visions, 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.

On perceptions and reality:

The crucial difference between the constrained and 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.

On how those with conflicting visions view one another:

Each must regard the other as mistaken, but the reasons for the 'mistake' are different.  In the unconstrained vision, in which man can master social complexities sufficiently to apply directly the logic and morality of the common good, the presence of highly educated and intelligent people diametrically opposed to policies aimed at that common good is either an intellectual puzzle or a moral outrage, or both.  Implications of bad faith, venality, or other moral or intellectual deficiencies have been much more common in the unconstrained vision's criticisms of the constrained vision than vice versa.

In the constrained vision, where the individual's capacity for direct social decision-making is quite limited, it is far less surprising that those who attempt it should fail - and therefore far less necessary to regard the 'mistaken' adversary as having less morality or intelligence than others.  Those with the constrained vision tend to refer to their adversaries as well-meaning, but mistaken, or unrealistic in their assumptions, with seldom a suggestion that they are deliberately opposing the common good or are too stupid to recognize it.

Reading this book gave me an entirely new way of seeing politics - especially my ideological opponents.  It allows me to recast my arguments in a way that actually makes sense to them and thus allows us both to communicate and not just contend with each other.  By being able to quickly identify what motivates someone, I can better understand and address their concerns.  Nor have I found that this new level of communication is limited to political discussions - I have applied these tactics to business meetings with equal success.

I recommend this book in the strongest terms possible!