[Reader-list] A conflict of visions -by Tom Sowell

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Rahul
 
Thank you for posting this very educative piece. Educative for me that is. 
 
I would have loved to read "A Conflict of Visions" but judging by the contents of the review itself, I am sure my intellectual limitations would seriously hamper my understanding of it's contents. 
 
This review is good enough for me. 
 
I tried to see where I fitted in the CV (Constrained Vision) and UV (Unconstrained Vision) categorisations. I am a misfit in both. The words thrashed me around, tossing my being between the two. 
 
I realised that perhaps it is meant only for 'visionaries' with already concretised attitudes. Only they can presume to 'know' what are the 'right' means and ends. Only they can presume to 'see' what are the 'clear paths' to walk on. 
 
So, at the end of it I was still rooted in the littleness of my nowhereness.
 
Your prefacing words "insightful crucible to analyze value positions across weather beaten political positions" might or might not have been prompted by the goings-on in this List. In my opinion, much of what is contained in the 'review' is applicable to the nature of interactions on this List and the quality of interactions on this List. 
 
This List certainly does present examples of Ideological Origins of Political Confrontations; The struggles of such confrontations; The manifestations of the Ideologies and Struggles in the (often mindless) attitudes and positions taken.
 
As much for myself, as in the hope that at least a few others too might introspect, I have extracted some portions that could be worth thinking about:
 
- In observing arguments for and against a wide variety of positions, Dr. Sowell reports that he noticed that in many cases participants seemed to be arguing not so much against each other, but past each other. In other words, each person was arguing not against the others’ position but what they perceived those positions to be, which was often far different from the actual positions held.

- Prior to paradigms, world-views, theories or any rationally articulated models there is an underlying vision, ........ what we sense or feel before we have constructed any systematic reasoning ..... much less deduced any specific consequences as hypotheses to be tested against evidence. A vision is our sense of how the world works.
 
- What is important to the problem of both academic and journalistic bias is how contrasting visions lead to unconscious assumptions about how the world works, and how that affects their interpretation of events.
 
- It (is) noteworthy how often arguments give the “real” motive of the opposing point of view – the one thing that cannot be known for certain. Motives can be strongly inferred only by a ruthlessly honest appraisal of one’s own nature – but it is seldom the case that a partisan for a particular point of view argues that “His motive is probably thus because that is what I experience in myself.”
 
- The use of ad hominem attacks (both Direct and Circumstantial) on someone’s credibility, probably coming from the unconscious assumption that since articulated reason can show the way to the social good, then conclusions about how to achieve it must be consistent among reasonable people. Disagreement about means and ends are seen as coming from ulterior motives, villainy or stupidity.
 
- an appreciation of the role of visions in shaping worldviews can help make sense of opposing views for those who disagree and shows us that opposing views are not capriciously chosen or necessarily stemming from ulterior motives, but are internally self-consistent within the framework of the underlying vision. One may even hope that this appreciation may lead at least to genuine argument of the points at issue rather than character assassination and attribution of rapaciously self-interested motive.

Thank you once again Rahul
 
Kshmendra


--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Reader-list] A conflict of visions -by Tom Sowell
To: "Sarai Reader List" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 8:03 AM

Dear All,
Here is a  review of a conceptual formulation by Tom Sowell that I came across
long time ago.I find it a very interesting and perhaps more insightful crucible
to analyze value positions across weather beaten political positions.

Thanks
Rahul
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/04/review-conflict-of-visions-by-thomas.html

Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of those authors whose laundry lists I'd read.
Reading A Conflict of Visions was one of the "Ah-ha!" moments of my
life.

Sowell is an economist, newspaper columnist and Fellow at the Hoover
Institution. He is a prolific writer on economics, public policy, history,
culture and the politics of race. His opinions are often controversial and he
has strong detractors and supporters. Agree or disagree, he is an opinion leader
of considerable influence in our society today.

In observing arguments for and against a wide variety of positions, Dr. Sowell
reports that he noticed that in many cases participants seemed to be arguing not
so much against each other, but past each other. In other words, each person was
arguing not against the others’ position but what they perceived those
positions to be, which was often far different from the actual positions held.

Over time he refined his observations into the theory expressed in, A Conflict
of Visions – Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (Basic Books, 2002). I
believe this book has critical insights important for understanding the major
ideological conflicts within Western civilization and has specific application
to understanding the controversies concerning academic and journalistic bias.

His thesis is that prior to paradigms, world-views, theories or any rationally
articulated models there is an underlying vision, defined (quoting Joseph
Schumpeter) as a “pre-analytic cognitive act”. Sowell further defines a
vision, “It is what we sense or feel before we have constructed any systematic
reasoning that could be called a theory, much less deduced any specific
consequences as hypotheses to be tested against evidence. A vision is our sense
of how the world works.”

Visions are a sense of the possibilities of human reason and power to act
purposefully to achieve desired ends and are broadly defined as Constrained and
Unconstrained. An unconstrained vision sees articulated reason as powerful and
potent to shape human society, a constrained vision sees human beings as more
limited by human nature and natural law.

Dr. Sowell concedes that visions are rarely pure but range from strongly to
weakly constrained or unconstrained. People may hold one sort of vision in a
certain sphere of opinion and another in a different sphere, there are hybrid
visions (Marx and John Stuart Mill are given examples) and people sometimes
change predominant visions over their lifetimes.

It is important to note that he does not equate constrained and unconstrained
visions with the Left/ Right model of the political spectrum, nor do they
strongly reflect the Libertarian/ Authoritarian dichotomy. An unconstrained
vision characterizes the Utopian Socialists of the early nineteenth century
(such as Fourier) but is also strongly expressed by William Godwin, considered
by many to be the founder of modern Anarchism, in his Enquiry Concerning
Political Justice.

The unconstrained vision is more often characteristic of those who would use
the coercive power of the state to affect great changes in the structure of
society and human nature, but it cannot be assumed that a constrained vision
leads to a blind defense of the status quo. He gives the example of Adam Smith,
an exemplar of a strongly constrained vision, was an advocate of sweeping social
changes such as the abolition of slavery and an end to mercantilist policies.

Once grasped, Dr. Sowell’s theory makes sense of some seeming inconsistencies
and contradictions in both Left and Right positions.

For example, though there is a tendency for the constrained vision to
predominate among the politically Conservative and free market advocates, it is
not absolute or consistent. A Conservative may argue for the superior efficacy
of market processes to serve the social good (as opposed to purposeful direction
of the economy) but fail to see the market for illegal drugs as subject to the
same laws of supply and demand as other commodities or consider the argument
that the process costs of drug prohibition may be higher than the social costs
of drug addiction. In fact, the phrase “consider the argument” is
misleading. It is possible that the argument simply does not exist in his
perceptual universe and is interpreted as advocacy for drug use.

On the other end of the political spectrum, a thinker such as Paul Ehrlich (in
The Population Bomb) may argue from the highly constrained view of Thomas
Malthus on population and food resources, combined with an unconstrained view of
the ability of the state to effectively control population and allocation of
resources for the general good of mankind.

And we see on both the Left and Right, visionaries holding strong beliefs about
the ability of humans to deliberately shape culture to reflect whichever set of
values held by their respective advocates. Though much experience in the
twentieth century has shown how limited the ability of men is to design culture
as if it were an engineering project, and how disastrous the attempts often are,
men and women of unconstrained vision persist in their advocacy of policies
intended to rid society of gender defined roles on the one hand or of behavior
considered “vice” on the other.

So the question arises, if the concept of the contrasting visions is hedged
about with so many qualifications, is it at all useful in categorizing belief
systems or explaining behavior?

I believe it is highly useful. In Western civilization there exists no serious
argument about the desirability of that condition expressed by the words
“freedom” and “equality”. Yet in the West we find that whenever
advocates of various causes argue for their sides, their definitions do not
coincide, i.e. they argue past each other.

Advocates of redistributionist policies, affirmative action to achieve more
socioeconomic equality and a high degree of taxation and market regulation are
seen as tending towards totalitarianism by advocates of a less intrusive
government.

Contrariwise, advocates of leaving the pursuit of the social good to voluntary
and market processes are seen by political opponents as apologists for powerful
and rapacious economic elites in their drive to impose a quasi-royal authority
on society via economic coercion.

For those who see government as a powerful engine for social engineering, it is
desired results that matter. If it is possible for the state to eliminate
poverty and insure socio-economic success for historically disadvantaged groups
then it follows that it is immoral not to do so. Arguments that the goals lie
outside the state’s competence or that process costs are too high or that the
attempt itself is counterproductive will simply not register and almost
inevitably must be interpreted in terms of ulterior motive.

Thus a TV journalist can make a parenthetical remark on a broadcast about how
African-Americans are still not as “free” as Whites in the US. One who
considers freedom to be the absence of legal coercion might ask how are they not
free today when all forms of legal discrimination have been abolished by Supreme
Court decisions and federal law? The answer would reflect the definition of
“freedom” as opportunity, a definition that will conflate “poor and
disadvantaged” with “unfree”.

The definition that limits freedom to a relationship of men in society where
physical force or fraud in human relationships is made illegal with no further
attempt to redress inequalities of wealth, education, opportunity etc, is
sometimes derided as “freedom to starve”.

Likewise the condition called “equality” is seen by those with opposing
visions as either a process or a result, leading them to almost diametrically
opposite interpretations of the term. To someone of unconstrained vision who
views equality as a result, the socioeconomic lagging of certain groups behind
others is prima facie evidence of externally imposed inequality (such as
persistent discrimination) in society. To someone who views equality as the
absence of legally imposed barriers to opportunity, the outcome is the result of
values and choices and irrelevant to questions of justice as seen by people of
unconstrained vision.

Those with a constrained vision tend to regard socioeconomic inequalities
between individuals and groups as the inevitable result of inborn human
variations in ability, different cultural indoctrination in values that promote
or retard economic success and individual choices. Those of unconstrained vision
tend to regard them as the result of artificially imposed constraints and when
inequalities persist beyond the removal of obvious constraints will keep looking
for them rather than change their model of causation.

Dr. Sowell has elaborated this theory far more than can be covered in a short
review. He examines in detail visions of justice, power and equality and the
difference between visions and paradigms, values and theories.

What is important to the problem of both academic and journalistic bias is how
contrasting visions lead to unconscious assumptions about how the world works,
and how that affects their interpretation of events. For those of unconstrained
vision, though socioeconomic equality may be a strongly held value, they are
nonetheless going to tend strongly towards intellectual elitism. If articulated
reason is held to be the most powerful force for the social good then it must
follow that society should be lead by the most advanced and progressive
thinkers. Those who view the collective wisdom of individuals operating within
their own spheres of experience to be superior to the ability of others to
direct their destinies will be seen as self-interested, reactionary and
apologists for injustice.

Those who see themselves as being in the intellectual vanguard of progress will
tend to be strongly attracted to the fields of teaching, liberal arts,
humanities, and journalism, and moreover, will tend to regard journalism as an
extension of the teaching profession.

Unconstrained visions flourish in the absence of deep experience. In business,
the natural sciences and engineering, theories about the way things ought to
work (within their sphere of activity) are constantly tested against the way
they do in fact work: profitability, repeatable experiments and bridges that
don’t fall down all serve as reality checks against extending theory further
than is warranted by the facts.

An academic environment tends to insulate against experience and journalism, by
the nature of the news cycle, tends to expose practitioners to a superficial
kind of experience, most especially among the newsreader “talking heads” who
are basically presenters rather than researchers.

The consequences of the predominance of this vision among many academics and
journalists are subtle and powerful and may include:

*Dismissal of other points of view as unworthy of reporting rather than
attempting to refute them, not from motives of conscious fraud but simply from
failure to take them seriously, often because of…

*Attribution of motive. It noteworthy how often arguments give the “real”
motive of the opposing point of view – the one thing that cannot be known for
certain. Motives can be strongly inferred only by a ruthlessly honest appraisal
of one’s own nature – but it is seldom the case that a partisan for a
particular point of view argues that “His motive is probably thus because that
is what I experience in myself.”

*Unsupported parenthetical remarks among university lecturers and
telejournalists. A broadcast from location often cannot be edited due to time
constraints. It is interesting to note how often among the narrative of events a
sentence that is unsupported comment can be slipped in.

*The use of ad hominem attacks (both Direct and Circumstantial) on someone’s
credibility, probably coming from the unconscious assumption that since
articulated reason can show the way to the social good, then conclusions about
how to achieve it must be consistent among reasonable people. Disagreement about
means and ends are seen as coming from ulterior motives, villainy or stupidity.

Dr. Sowell sees the theory as explaining a lot about the ideological struggles
of the past two centuries – and sees no end in sight for the conflict of
visions. However an appreciation of the role of visions in shaping worldviews
can help make sense of opposing views for those who disagree and shows us that
opposing views are not capriciously chosen or necessarily stemming from ulterior
motives, but are internally self-consistent within the framework of the
underlying vision. One may even hope that this appreciation may lead at least to
genuine argument of the points at issue rather than character assassination and
attribution of rapaciously self-interested motive.

It is fairly obvious that the constrained vision is behind much economic
thinking. Economics is after all fundamentally about the way that human beings
allocate finite resources. It is not clear that Dr. Sowell is making a blanket
condemnation of the unconstrained vision though. He has noted that in the years
since he first published, Malthus (on the constrained side) has been proven
consistently wrong and he has credited both William Godwin and Ayn Rand (both
exponents of the doctrine of the godlike power of human reason) as contributing
to the evolution of modern libertarian thought. Possibly a certain element of
the unconstrained vision serves to fire the imagination and may be necessary for
motivating the spirit of social reform. Only when carried to extremes does it
become a demand that society be everywhere remade to conform to a vision of
perfection.

It also seems evident that though America was founded by men of largely
constrained vision, there have been elements of both visions in our national
culture from the beginning. The Founding Fathers did in fact design our federal
institutions and were quite aware that they were creating a new social order by
an act of will. However, they did so with a realistic appraisal of human nature,
careful research of historical confederations and built upon local institutions
that had been in operation for nearly two centuries. Since our beginnings
American culture has reflected both utopian and pragmatic visions, a pattern
that shapes our political discourse to this day.

************************************************************************************

The following chart is drawn from some of the major points of Dr. Sowell’s
theory of visions. Since it is a collection of very short abstractions,
responsibility for how well it represents the author’s thought rests with me.

Constrained Vision:
Sees human nature as fixed, unchanging, selfish and ambitious, which must be
subordinated to society to some extent.

Unconstrained Vision:
Sees human nature as malleable, perfectible whose uncorrupted form will be
expressed in the good society.
-----
CV: Freedom is defined as the absence of coercion by other human beings.

UV: Unfreedom seen as the absence of opportunity.
-----
CV: Emphasis on process costs. Seeks optimum trade-offs.

UV: Emphasis on motives and the desired results. Seeks solutions.
-----
CV: Sees tradition as expressing the accumulated experience of the culture.

UV: Sees tradition largely as outmoded superstition.
----
CV: Sees articulated reason as less important than “distributed knowledge”
expressed in market processes. Emphasis on experience.

UV: Sees articulated reason as powerful and effective. Emphasis on logic.
-----
CV: Seeks the social good in making allowances for human nature, such as checks
and balances in government, using mutual jealousy as a counterbalance against
ambition and greed on the part of the powerful.

UV: Seeks the social good in the elevation of an enlightened and progressive
leadership.
-----
CV: Preference for evolved systems.

UV: Preference for designed systems.
-----
CV: Characterized by the belief that the evils of the world can be explained by
inherent characteristics of human nature. War and crime may be rational, if
immoral, choices.

UV: Characterized by the conviction that foolish or immoral choices explain the
evils of the world. War and crime seen as aberrations.
-----
CV: Tends to compare the status quo with worse alternatives.

UV: Tends to compare the status quo with hypothetical perfection.
-----
CV: Exemplary thinkers: Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, The
Federalist, Thomas Malthus, de Tocqueville, Oliver Wendell Holmes, F.A. Hayek,
Milton Friedman…

UV: Exemplary thinkers: William Godwin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine,
Condorcet, Fourier, Harold Laski, Thorstein Veblen, John Kenneth Galbraith,
Ronald Dworkin




_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>