A Conflict of Visions

In my line of work, I attend (often, forced to) a lot of panel discussions, workshops and conferences. Most of these have a set pattern. It’s usually around a global issue or something that affects at least a few hundred million people; and the respondents in 3 minutes pontificate on how the problem needs to be solved and what needs to be done. The usual solutions are around banning something, regulating something, implementing an act, commissioning a study, training a few persons etc. While I understand the role of these events and the ideas shared, in the larger scheme of things, what disappoints me is the absolute disregard to the present-day realities, the role of institutions, the structure of our societies, the political economy in which we operate or the hidden logic of markets. In other words, there is no appreciation of Trade-Offs.

Thomas Sowell – the Black Conservative commentator of America – in his ‘Conflict of Visions’, gives a partial explanation for this dilemma of mine. For Sowell, contemporary intellectuals view the ills of society as ‘problems’ to be ‘solved’. He categorizes this class as the Anointed Elites. For Sowell, Rousseau’s declaration that man was born free but chained everywhere is the perfect summary of this vision. For them, morality is central; humans are capable of much more and nothing less than the achievement of utopia can be settled for. Theirs is an Unconstrained Vision.

On the other hand was the class of thinkers who believe that human life is tough. We have managed to come out of barbarism by ‘preserving with difficulty a thin layer of civilization’ based on ‘moderation and prudence’. Hobbes’ idea that the state of nature was ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’ is their mantra. Hence, maintaining the structures of society that have ‘worked’ is of paramount importance. Sowell calls this the Tragic Vision of the human condition or the Constrained Vision. Their belief in the complexity of society and institutions is the hallmark of the Constrained vision according to Sowell. Instead of looking at individual intentions, the Constrained look at the wisdom of systemic processes.

These two visions – one of the anointed elites (unconstrained vision) who see themselves as the torchbearers who can ‘solve’ all the ills of our society vs the tragic vision (constrained vision) that believes civilization itself requires great efforts to be preserved using existing institutions and not on ‘exciting’ new theories. For the former, far more knowledge and intelligence are available to some people and the difference between them, and the masses, is much more than in the tragic vision. To those with the vision of the anointed, it is such evils as poverty, crime, war, and injustice which require explanation. To those with the tragic vision, it is prosperity, law, peace, and such justice as we have achieved, which require not only explanation but constant efforts, trade-offs, and sacrifices, just to maintain them at their existing levels.

For Sowell, the anointed elites have a halo:

The two visions differ fundamentally, not only in how they see the world but also in how those who believe in these visions see themselves. If you happen to believe in free markets, judicial restraint, traditional values and other features of the tragic vision, then are you are just someone who believes in free markets, judicial restraint, traditional values. There is no personal exaltation resulting from those beliefs. But to be for ‘social justice’ and ‘saving the environment’, or to be ‘anti-war’ is more than just a set of beliefs about empirical facts. This vision puts you on a higher moral plane as someone concerned and compassionate, someone who is for peace in the world, a defender of the downtrodden, and someone who wants to preserve the beauty of nature and save the planet from being polluted by others less caring. In short, one vision makes you somebody special and the other vision does not.

Sowell also points out that some of the most famous conservatives were against the status quo. Burke prosecuted Warren Hastings for his corruption, Adam Smith was pro US-independence etc. So being one with a constrained vision does not necessarily make you a fence-sitter or immoral. One can be anti-caste, anti-slavery, anti-discrimination without bearing the mantle as a ‘responsibility’ or being labelled as a ‘crusader’.

So if you’re asked for solutions to solve the world’s problems, it’s ok if you say pass. Your inability to articulate solutions will probably be less harmful. The anointed elites have it covered.

(There’s a popular joke, often wrongly attributed to George Bernard Shaw, which goes like: ‘If you’re not a communist at the age of 20, you haven’t got a heart. If you’re still a communist at the age of 30, you haven’t got a brain.’ I’m hitting 40 soon and I’ve of late begun to wonder if I’m becoming a conservative. A lot of my recent disillusionment with the left has stemmed from the ongoing culture wars over gender, pronouns, Big Government, a closer reading of the history of the USSR, a better appreciation of the role of trade and markets etc.)  

Postscript: The abolition of Sati, the anti-war protests during the Vietnam War, the exposure of the US Military-Industrial Complex, the production of generic drugs and other mass-impact initiatives would never have happened without the radical left/elites. So I’m not fully convinced that Sowell’s dissing of the elites is foolproof. But it’s an idea worth grappling with and reading more about.