Working my way through A Conflict of Visions

I read to to try to understand the world around me, to find out the why of things. With all the conflicts and schisms taking place both in our country and abroad, a colleague of mine recently handed me a book by Thomas Sowell, “A Conflict of Visions” that discusses the ideological reasons of political struggles. “You should read this,” he said. “Things will start making a bit more sense, from a 30,000 foot view.” So I am doing as he suggested.

Now, I’m still in the early stages of this admittedly weighty book, but it increasing has my attention and is fast becoming a favourite. In the book, the author discusses how political controversies arise from many sources, but the long-term, generational conflicts seem to adhere to remarkably consistent patterns regarding the nature of reason, justice, equality and power. Sowell distinguishes between the idea of a “constrained” vision, where human nature is seen as “enduring and self-centred” and the “unconstrained” vision, in which human nature is “malleable and perfectible.” 

Visions are necessarily abstract and simplistic, he writes, and form the foundations upon which theories are built, a “pre-analytic cognitive act”, something we sense or feel before developing a theory concerning it. Sowell writes that the ancient Greeks ascribed volcanic eruptions, storms or other natural phenomena to spirits or gods, and as our understanding evolved, our vision of the world changed. Issac Newton had a different vision of the world, Darwin another – and so it goes. 

The author uses the Story Spine structure effectively, using a beginning, middle, and an ending to guide the reader through his argument. In the beginning he outlines the roles of visions, with a particular focus on the many social visions that relate to our political and civic lives, and how these affect governance models. Then in the middle, he discusses the ongoing conflict of visions taking place in our society (think Culture Wars) and around the world, by grouping them into constrained and unconstrained visions, with each vision coming to “conclusions that are the logical consequences of its assumptions” leading to repeated conflicts. Sowell ends with a wide-ranging discussion on the actors involved with promoting either vision, their biases and ideologies and social/emotional attachments to their points of view. 

The author also uses the Persuasive Story Pattern throughout the beginning, middle, and the end sections, first laying out the current state (what is) and then outlining what could be, and provides plenty of facts and examples from the social/political sciences and social philosophy to back his claims. The language used, while academic, is fairly straightforward in presenting complex ideas in a relatable, easy-to-understand fashion, which I appreciate.

Thus far, I am finding this book to be quite illuminating; however, I do have a mild criticism. I feel the author would have likely create a more persuasive series of arguments if he had used identifiable characters, settings, and better utilization of the classic narrative arc to establish his arguments – to give them more emotional weight in order to drive his point home

I am looking forward to finishing this book to get a more nuanced insight into the current events taking place around us, and to avoid getting drawn into “taking sides” or polemical thinking that seems to be all the rage these days.