Thomas Sowell’s “The Fallacy of Social Justice.” This book fundamentally reshaped many of my previous views on social issues, offering rich and fresh insights in every chapter. I’ve endeavored to fully grasp what the author intends to convey, and these are my reading notes—this is Part One.
Thomas Sowell needs no introduction for many avid readers. An economist and social philosopher, he is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. His works like “Intellectuals and Society,” “Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy,” and “Ethnic America: A History” are widely acclaimed in China.
Sowell was born in 1930 and is now 93 years old. However, when I read his new book, it feels unfair to describe it as “ageless” — “abundant martial virtue” should be used instead. Almost every paragraph in the book can provide you with fresh information. Every sentence is supported by robust research results, and a large number of the references used in the bibliography are based on the latest materials. I am well aware of how physically demanding this type of writing is; it’s an astonishing maximal oxygen consumption.
What’s even more remarkable is the content of the book. Sowell dismisses clichés, addressing the most cutting-edge and relevant ideas in contemporary America – the incessant debates around “social justice.”
This isn’t the musings of a retiree seeking harmony; it’s the latest contribution from a frontline scholar.
Social justice, especially concerning racial issues, is an extremely sensitive topic today. Sowell’s unique advantage in writing this book lies in his identity as a Black man. While others risk being accused of condoning discrimination, Sowell’s perspective carries weight, especially in an era where the underdog’s voice holds significant sway.
American social issues might seem distant, but the value of this book lies not in its stances or conclusions, but in its modes of thought and argumentation. Let me illustrate. Disparities in college admission rates across different regions in China, such as the difficulty for a child in Henan to enter a top-tier university compared to one in Beijing, raise questions about fairness. What should be done about it?
If you think you have a straightforward answer, you underestimate the complexity of the issue. Sowell’s book elevates your cognitive thinking to new heights.
Taking sides is easy; getting entangled in a particular ideology is perilous. A decade ago, Michael Sandel’s “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” was popular, discussed social justice issues. However, Sandel, in his later work “The Tyranny of Merit,” criticized meritocratic policies and advocated for a lottery-based admission system above certain minimum standards.
These discussions make Harvard professors go insane. Social justice is a topic prone to extremes and deviations, making Sowell’s use of the term “fallacies” in the book title particularly apt – it’s a lucid guide for clear-headed thinking.
However, Sowell doesn’t even mention Sandel; Sowell, whose martial arts has reached the realm of transformation, first pointed his sword at a legendary figure right away: Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
✵
I wonder if you have read Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s book “Discourse on the Origin and foundations on Inequality among mankind” published in 1755? It’s a timeless work from the Enlightenment, inspiring countless revolutionaries and thinkers.
Rousseau categorizes human inequality into two types: one stemming from innate, natural differences such as age, health, and physical strength, and the other arising from morally/politically constructed inequalities. Men generally have greater physical strength than women, so it’s natural for men to be primarily engaged in physical labor, which poses no significant issue. However, within the realm of humanity, aristocratic children can receive excellent education and grow up to hold official positions, while common people might not even have the opportunity to attend school, representing a man-made inequality.
Rousseau argued that natural inequalities are minor, while human-made inequalities are the most severe.
These ideas were revolutionary 270 years ago, awakening ordinary people! It aligns with our intuition – nature tends toward equality, and it’s human societies that manufacture inequality. So, do we revolt? Do we rebel?
Rousseau wrote this in his early forties, lacking the scientific, social, and historical knowledge we possess today. Nearly 270 years later, the world has changed. Modern societies generally embrace equality – a lot of credit goes to Rousseau’s book. We tend to favor correcting deficiencies rather than causing harm.
Sowell, while not as explicit, seems to flip Rousseau’s arguments entirely.
In reality, natural inequalities are much larger than we imagine.
✵
Let’s consider a phenomenon. After many years of the equality movement, the percentage of African American students attending college in the United States is now comparable to other ethnic groups. However, the proportion of African American students attending prestigious universities remains relatively low. For example, as indicated in this statistics , the percentage of African American students attending the top 10% of elite universities is significantly lower than that of other ethnic groups, while the percentage attending universities in the bottom 50% of rankings is noticeably higher than other ethnic groups.
Is this fair to African Americans?
You might argue that university admissions are merit-based, so everyone has an equal chance, making it fair. However, Sandel would disagree. He’d tell you that the lower academic performance of African American students stems from challenging family conditions and inadequate learning environments – competing on the same standards is inherently unfair.
Should universities provide special “subsidies” for African American students, such as lowering admission requirements? Or should universities implement quotas based on the demographic proportions of each group?
This issue epitomizes the most representative aspect of today’s American discourse on “social justice.” Formerly, equality mainly meant “equal opportunity,” but now, upon deeper reflection, starting points differ, rendering “equal opportunity” inherently unequal. Hence, contemporary activists lean towards demanding “equal outcomes.”
“Proportional thinking” is a common demand for equal outcomes. For instance, in Silicon Valley’s high-tech industry, most highly-paid engineers are male. Is this fair to women? There’s no scientific evidence suggesting women can’t excel in high-tech roles. Is there discrimination against women? Should high-tech companies be required to hire more female employees?
How should we approach such questions? This is where Sowell steps in.
✵
Sowell’s key insight is that the observed disproportions among various ethnic groups are entirely natural.
In the North American professional ice hockey league, U.S. teams outnumber Canadian teams, despite the U.S. population being eight times larger than Canada’s. Why do Canadian players outnumber American players in the league? Few would call this unfair, as we understand sports prioritize talent. Certain ethnic groups excel in specific sports due to geographical or traditional factors. Canada, being colder, naturally fosters more ice hockey players.
Why are Scottish whiskies renowned, but wines must come from France? It’s because Scotland’s climate isn’t conducive to grape cultivation. Why are most great beers German, even including China’s Tsingtao Beer created by Germans? This might not relate to geography, but Germans have had a tradition of brewing beer since the Roman Empire.
Is it unfair to white players that the NBA has a high percentage of Black players? Perhaps Black people have a cultural tradition in basketball and music.
So why insist that Black people should be equally proficient in mathematics as Asians?
Throughout history, certain “good professions” in a country were often dominated by a particular race, and it wasn’t due to discrimination against other races.
For example, in 1912, among 40 private bankers and 34 stockbrokers in Istanbul, not a single one was Turkish. Was this discrimination against Turks? No, it was the Ottoman Empire, the country of the Turks.
In the 1960s, among engineering degrees awarded by Malaysian universities, Chinese students received 408, while Malay students only received 4. Malays, the majority in Malaysia, ran these universities, and you can’t claim discrimination against Malays.
Not all inequalities result from discrimination. Sowell illustrates examples clearly not rooted in discrimination to emphasize the point, just as he himself wouldn’t discriminate against Black people.
The essence is that different ethnic groups have different strengths and weaknesses – natural environments are not equal environments.
✵
Sowell points out that even if we assume that the intelligence and potential of all individuals or ethnic groups are entirely identical at birth, the world would still be unequal.
Geographical disparities and physiological differences contribute to inequality. For instance, coastal regions tend to be wealthier and more culturally open due to lower ancient transportation costs for maritime trade. This advantage disappears in landlocked regions without canals. Why is Europe’s maritime trade more developed than Africa’s? Europe’s coastline has many intricate harbors, facilitating ship docking, unlike Africa’s straight coastline. Resources like minerals, domesticable animals and plants, and climate also play a role, as discussed in Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel.”
Some inequalities are physiological. Pregnancy and childbirth are exclusive to females, and women naturally prioritize family life more, explaining many gender inequalities. A study in the 1970s found that single women who graduated from college and continuously worked earned slightly more than their male counterparts in similar situations. If there are inherently fewer women interested in computer technology, can you argue that Silicon Valley discriminates against women?
Some inequalities are determined at birth. Research indicates that, within a family with multiple children, the firstborn tends to achieve more. This might be due to receiving more attention from parents.
Conversely, growing up in a single-parent household is a significant disadvantage, leading to lower incomes and higher crime rates. This is unrelated to Black or white people. In the UK, lower-class single-parent households are mostly white – their situation isn’t better than that of African Americans in the U.S.
Some inequalities are the result of historical accidents. Why did Western Europe progress more than Eastern Europe despite being European? It might be because Western European languages formed written forms centuries earlier. Writing establishes an educational tradition, and with an educational tradition comes advanced civilization.
The distance from London to Paris is shorter than from San Francisco to Los Angeles, yet why does French cuisine surpass British cuisine? This could be a consequence of historical path dependence.
✵
Sowell reminds us that these inequalities aren’t permanent or comprehensive.
Geographical advantages or physiological differences that are advantageous in one scenario can become disadvantages in another. It’s not predetermined that people from a certain region are destined to be an underprivileged group. If AI takes over engineering jobs in the future, will women’s communication skills give them an advantage in Silicon Valley?
More importantly, if you broaden your perspective, you’ll find that every ethnic group has its strengths and weaknesses. African Americans may not excel in mathematics, but they demonstrate teamwork, dedication, and loyalty – qualities essential for leadership. While Asians make excellent engineers, are they there when the community needs them? Leadership might not be their strong suit.
With this understanding, it seems we should focus on dynamic, comprehensive equality rather than demanding absolute equality in every small domain.
In the next section, let’s discuss “racial fallacies” together.
​
PS: Apologies if this is not the right forum, not sure where else to post this.
​
by baggio521