Processes vs. Results: Decisions as an Indicator of Preference

Reading Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions has redefined the way I look at intellectual, and especially political, debates. Sowell’s basic premise is that there are two kinds of “visions” of the world, constrained and unconstrained. The unconstrained vision sees man without restraints, able to continually improve and innovate in his quest to change the world. The constrained vision, on the other hand, sees man as inherently constrained by a number of factors, making life a constant series of trade-offs in an attempt to achieve the best possible situation.

No person will fall into an entirely constrained or unconstrained vision, as Sowell constantly reminds us. Yet most people tend to lean to one side or another, and their vision will shape their views on a whole range of issues. Thus you will often find the same people arguing against each other on many different topics.

Another interesting point made by Sowell is that people with opposite visions will often have different definitions for even such “basic” words as justice, freedom, or equality. This often results in arguments where the participants simply talk past each other, unable to understand or come to any conclusion.

An example of this phenomenon is the difference between processes and results. People with the constrained vision tend to look toward processes when defining terms. A society would be considered equal, for example, if all participants were given the same chances (processes). Someone with the unconstrained vision, on the other hand, look for results. A society can only be equal if the resulting distribution of income (or whatever other factor is under discussion) is equal.

This divide became apparent in class today when we discussed the effects of globalization on language. One side of the debate maintained that globalization is worrisome because it can destroy native culture, especially language. The other side countered that though this did happen, the benefits of globalization made it acceptable.

I sided with the second group (for reasons that can be discussed another time). In addition to the benefits of trade on a macro level, I pointed out that those who chose to learn the trade language (English, French, Chinese, etc.) made a choice to do so. This choice demonstrates that they made a rational economic decision to learn another language because the benefits it brought outweighed the costs. Immediately upon making this suggestion I was told I arrived at it from a Western viewpoint.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, considering what I said about arguments earlier), class ended here. But considering the issue farther, I do not think my statement derived from a biased Western viewpoint. Instead, I think it arises out of a constrained vision of the world (at least in this area).

Because the constrained vision values processes, which entail tradeoffs between various factors, it also values the choices made during these processes. Thus, coming from a constrained viewpoint, I tended to emphasize the decisions made by individuals as indicative of preference patterns. If the individual decided the benefits of learning the new language outweighed the costs, he or she would learn it.

The unconstrained vision, however, values results. This removes some emphasis from the decision-making process. Because the desired outcome is set, decisions made by individuals are not necessarily indicative of preference. They could simply be a factor of the current political/economic/sociological structure that must be changed in order to achieve the desired results. Ideally globalization could occur and the world could maintain a diversity of languages. In lieu of that, actions should be taken to preserve as many as possible.

I think it should be clear that neither viewpoint is a result of a bias derived from a Western viewpoint, though that charge could be levied against both sides. Using such reasoning is an attempt to prove some logical fallacy in the other sides’ arguments. In reality, the problem arises from a conflict not of cultural values but of visions at the decision making level.

Thoughts?

---

One question which Sowell doesn’t address is how to bridge the gap between the visions.  Perhaps it’s indicative of a bit of unconstrained vision in me that I have to believe that the two different visions can communicate.  It seems to me that we need more than just an explanation of the problem.