Select Page

Recently, in my English class, our teacher introduced us to Thomas Sowell’s Constrained and Unconstrained theory on the vision of human nature. In essence, if you are of the constrained viewpoint, you believe human nature is inherently flawed which prevents society from being perfect. If you take an unconstrained viewpoint, you believe that humans are inherently good and any flawed behaviors can only be attributed to societal conditioning. Under the unconstrained viewpoint, society has the potential to become perfect through constant restructuring. Under the constrained viewpoint, compromises in society must be made to account for flawed human nature.

Based on how constrained or unconstrained our personal viewpoints are, it is possible to predict the positions we will take on public issues. Conversely, it is possible to understand other’s reasoning if we can discern their views on human nature.  For example, in our past week’s meeting the question was posed whether it is an individual’s responsibility to act if the people around them are using racist language. To some, if I could simplify their perspective, trying to change these people would be a lost cause. Others asserted that such a flawed norm needed to be fought. One group favored compromise, the other, reconditioning. One group presented a constrained vision of human nature, assuming fixed flaws. The other took an unconstrained approach where reconditioning could destroy poor societal traits. There are several other ideologies that branch from the unconstrained/ constrained vision, including how we perceive fairness and freedom. Because the unconstrained viewpoint denies human flaw, it says any inability to participate or achieve can only be a result of societal factors. Because the constrained viewpoint assumes unequal individual endowment, which allows it to believe some unequal participation or achievement can occur in a fair or free society.

The idea that something so simple could dictate so much of our action came as quite a surprise to me, but the parallels present a striking argument that it does. Even from my limited experience with this theory I have seen conservative ideals to be generally mirrored by the constrained vision, and liberal ideals being parallel with the unconstrained vision. On affirmative action, it can be said that the liberal viewpoint assumes that the inequity of minority groups is due to societal constraints that must be overcome through faciliatory measures. Those with the conservative viewpoint find affirmative action unfair because they assume, in the form of the constrained vision, that unequal achievement can be attributed to innate individual differences. It’s really quite fascinating, but practical as well. Often times seeing the logic behind other’s mode of thought is very difficult. Perhaps by delving into our peer’s ideas of human nature can give us a starting point to see that they have arrived at their conclusion logically. Without arriving at this point, it may be difficult to have meaningful conversation because we will always see our opposition as irrational. Looking at the motives and ideologies from this philosophical perspective will be something I will be attempting to do in our classes to come. Hopefully it will help me more fully understand my classmate’s reasoning on issues that I haven’t understood in the past, and increase the depth and productivity of our conversations.