sign in sign up
<<
Home , Adam Smith

Adam Smith and on the Division of Labor VERY PRELIMINARY VERSION FOR DISCUSSION May 2018

Jimena Hurtado [email protected] Department Universidad de los Andes

Introduction Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville are associated with the defense of and its association with commercial , for Smith, and , for Tocqueville. Even though Smith does not seem to explicitly connect commercial society with democracy, and Tocqueville has been portrayed as a social conservative at times nostalgic of the Ancien Régime, their assessment of the extension of the and commerce share interesting features. In particular, they do not appear as dogmatic of its advantages, and call attention upon the negative effects associated with the market1.

Following Hanley (2009: 24), I would like to present Smith as a true friend of commercial society, and extend this view to Tocqueville (Hurtado 2011, 2017; Aguilar 2008): “Smith’s exposition of [commercial society’s] deficiencies is [...] perhaps better understood as an attempt to fulfill the obligations of its true friend: namely to describe, as fully as possible, the nature of these deficiencies in order to stimulate the development of a solution”. Commercial society and democratic times have brought about an increasing productive capacity and more

1 The negative effects of the division of labor Smith shows have been discussed, at least, since Marx. In section 5, chapter 14, part 4 of the first volume of , when explaining the Capitalistic Character of Manufacture, Marx remarks how “manufacture thoroughly revolutionizes [the mode of working by the individual], and seizes by its very roots” (Marx 1887, 248-9). This , according to Marx, “converts the labourer into a crippled monstrosity, by forcing his detail dexterity at the expense of a world of productive capabilities and instincts” (Marx 1887, 249). By making the manufacturing workman “a mere appendage of the capitalist’s workshop [...] [i]ntelligence in production expands in one direction, because it vanishes in many others” (Marx 1887: 249). Marx quotes Smith to prove his point and concludes: “For preventing the complete deterioration of the great mass of the people by , A. Smith recommends education of the people by the , but prudently and in homeopathic doses” (Marx 1887: 250). Marx presents Smith as a pupil of A. Ferguson who had also presented the negative consequences of the division of labor. But as Hamowy (1968) advances, when analyzing the allegation of plagiarism Smith addressed to Ferguson precisely on this point, the division of labor is a common idea at the time and can be found in several authors Smith knew. This point is important because it shows division of labor was a major topic of discussion during Smith’s times. For an analysis of the similarities and differences between Ferguson and Smith, and their possible influence on Marx, see Hill (2007).

1 access to and means of material well-being for all. But we should be aware of the risks this entails. An improvement in living conditions for all goes hand in hand with greater desires for and with specialization. This means segmentation and envy. At the same time, democratic times opens the door to more equality but also to increasing intolerance with inequality and to the possible voluntary renunciation of to increase material well-being. Smith warns us about the first risk2, Tocqueville ads the second. Both, still following and extending Hanley (2009: 25) point to “the fact that the activities of commercial society threaten not merely our civic capacities, but the very health of the soul of the human being”3.

They both recognize commercial society and the extension of the market depend upon industrialization, and this phenomenon, in its turn, depends on specialization or an increasing division of labor. Moreover, the transformation of society is possible with the appearance of waged labor, and with the possibility of having an increasing number of people who are free to employ themselves for a salary, and become specialized workers in industry. The extension of the market, the division of labor and industrialization promote wealth and prosperity for all.

2 Classical analysis of this aspect of Smith’s work have presented it as a proof of a contradiction between his views as expressed in Book I and in Book V of the WN. West (1964, 26) advances “Thus, while the argument in Book I is that workers become ‘slothful and lazy’ without the division of labour, Book V maintains that workers become ‘stupid and ignorant’ with it”. Heilbroner (1973) speaks about the “darker side” of the WN showing how “Smith’s normative sequence of historical evolution leads, paradoxically, to both moral and material decline” (Heilbroner 1973: 248), a paradox that, according to Heilbroner (1973: 254-5) “no resolution possible within the terms of Smith’s premises”. Rosenberg (1965) contests these views analyzing inventiveness in Smith’s thought. 3 Hanley (2009: 26) advances there is “a tradition that transcends familiar divisions of pro liberal and antiliberal” where Smith, Tocqueville, and other thinkers such as Rousseau, Ferguson, Mill and Nietzsche would belong. Those in this tradition appreciate, to a greater or lesser degree, the benefits of commercial society and democracy, and none of them is blind to the possible down sides of this social organization. I believe they all allow us to think about the fundamental role of the fellow in building self identities and communities, and about individual responsibility as a crucial ingredient in any social, economic, and political dynamics.

2 However, the downside of this wealth and prosperity is that those who produce it do not necessarily benefit from it or can suffer negative consequences from their participation4.

Adam Smith, when discussing public , and, in particular, education, calls attention upon the effects of the division of labor on the cognitive skills of workers (WN V.i.f.50). Most members of commercial society live from their and are “confined to a few very simple operations,” which determine their development. Highly specialized industry workers have “no occasion to exert [their] understanding […]. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become” (WN V.i.f.50).

Tocqueville would agree with this description, when he writes that the specialized industrial worker "becomes more skillful and less industrious, and you can say that in him the man becomes degraded as the worker improves" (Tocqueville 2009 [1840]: 982; 1029). And he also shows the other aspect touching the laboring poor: their immobility "[a]mid the universal movement" (Tocqueville 2009 [1840]: 982) social mobility is not open for industrial workers. And "[a]s the principle of the division of labor is more completely applied, the worker becomes weaker, more limited, and more dependent" (Tocqueville 2009 [1840]: 982).

In this paper I would like to explore the coincidences in Smith’s and Tocqueville’s assessment of the effects of the division of labor and the extension of the market that point at the vulnerability of the laboring poor5.

4 Jean-Baptiste Say also criticized the effects of the division of labor. In chapter VIII of the first book of the on Political , Say presented Smith’s account of the division of labor, showing its advantages and limits. He also shows its disadvantages: it produces a degeneration in an individual who only knows how to perform one task even regarding her moral capacities; it disadvantages workers who have “moins de facilité pour réclamer une part équitable dans la valeur totale du produit” (Say 2011 [1803]: 62) because they become mere appendages, and cannot work independently from others, so that they must accept whatever working conditions they are offered. Say ends writing: “En résultat, on peut dire que la séparation des travaux est un habile emploi des forces de l’homme ; qu’elle accroît en conséquence les produits de la société, c’est à dire, sa puissance et ses jouissances; mais qu’elle ôte quelque chose à la capacité de chaque homme pris individuellement” (Say 2011 [1803]: 63). However, Say believes these individual inconveniences can be overcome through education, and the possibility of constant contact with all the knowledge produced in the more civilized countries where the division of labor is greater. The reference to Say is relevant as we know Tocqueville and Beaumont read Say when traveling to America, and Say presented himself as Smith’s close follower. 5 Hanley (2009: 15-52) presents a compelling argument to show that this downside of market society associated with the division of labor in Smith is not limited to the effects on a specific class. Here, in order to extend this analysis to Tocqueville’s views, I concentrate on the consequences on the laboring poor. Hanley also draws comparisons with Tocqueville through out his book, so I would like to contribute to our understanding of this tradition he is presenting that goes beyond liberal or anti-liberal views.

3 Division of labor and Industrialization Adam Smith begins the first book of An Investigation into the Nature and Causes of (hereafter WN) explaining the division of labor as the main cause for the increase in , and thus, of the quantity and quality of . Wealth, that is the stock of productive labor, increases accordingly. The division of labor enhances and depends upon the extent of the market, and as the market grows the division of labor leads to more specialized labor, allowing every member of the commercial society to live from this common stock of talents, where the differences between them, also consequence of the division of labor, allows them to acquire what they need but do not produce for their subsistence.

The division of labor, “not originally the effect of any human wisdom [...] is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature [...] the propensity to truck, , and exchange one thing for another” (WN I.ii.1: 25). This propensity appears as an expression of a form of communication human beings develop because of their desire to persuade their fellow beings. Communication appears at the heart of Smith’s account of the production of wealth, and the functioning of the market. It is also central to the very constitution of social human beings.

The market then is a network of exchanges where people communicate their needs and desires addressing themselves, as Smith clearly states, not to their benevolence but to their self- (WN I.ii.2-3: 26-7). Communication is not always successful, as opportunities of exchange might be foregone or people do not get to buy and sell all they would like to, and it is not immediate as the difficulties of barter show.

Contrary to the affective communication present in the construction of our identities and of moral communities, described in the Theory of Moral Sentiments (hereafter TMS), which is immediate and only needs for an individual to see, or even imagine, another in a certain situation to trigger the sympathetic process, the communication of the market seems to need a more articulate language. Bargaining, addressing the counterpart’s self-interest in a transaction or even imply being able to make incommensurable objects commensurable. To speak of is not the same thing as forming a moral judgement. Whereas sympathy requires visibility and openness, the market works with anonymity; whereas in the sympathetic process we are forming ourselves with others, in the market we are satisfying our needs and desires using others’ talents; in the sympathetic process engage in an affective communication, transporting themselves to the other’s situation and imagining what they would feel if they were that person, whereas in the market they communicate with others’ self- interest, trying to advance their own. Smith states clearly in the opening lines of the TMS there are principles in human nature “which interest [each individual] in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it” (TMS I.i.1.1: 9). Individuals engage in market transactions because they do not produce everything they need, making them dependent upon each other for their subsistence, but not necessarily willing to offer mutual help for free. Individuals are interested in market

4 transactions, they are interested in convincing their counterparts that a particular transaction make her better off, and this is why they exchange; not because this makes the individual happy, and her counterpart derives pleasure from observing her happiness, but because they both gain from advancing each one’s self- interest.

Smith identifies two fundamental communication processes that take place in society. The first one leading to the formation of self-identities and the second to the recognition to similar value. The affective communication involved in the sympathetic process requires a fellow- being, someone whom the individual recognizes as another allowing for the imaginary transport to his/her situation to experience what she would feel in his/her situation, and allowing her to become an impartial spectator, first external then internal, allowing her to arrive to moral judgements and the formation of her own character. This affective communication requires visibility that depends on physical and psychological distance. When individuals grow further apart, they also drop out of sight. There are less fellows and more strangers.

The second communication process does not require any imaginary transport; it is not feelings or affects that come into play. As commercial society develops, market transactions become the most usual social interaction. As the progress of the market goes hand in hand with the division of labor, and specialization, the development of commercial society necessarily means each member is more and more specialized and engaged in market transactions. Smith asserts this leads to better living conditions for all, as the “accommodation of the most common artificer or day labourer in a civilized and thriving country” (WN I.i.11: 22) shows, so that “if we examine, I say, all these things, and consider what a variety of labour is employed about each of them, we shall be sensible that without the assistance and cooperation of many thousands, the very meanest person in a civilized country could not be provided, even according to, what we very falsely imagine, the easy and simple manner in which he is commonly accommodated” (WN I.i.11: 23). Even the meanest worker, advances Smith, commands the labor of others, of many others, having access to a variety of goods that would not be possible without the market. It is clear then that for Smith, the increasing division of labor and the extension of the market reduces absolute , making the worse off better off than in any other economic organization: “It is the great multiplication of the production of different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of people” (WN I.i.10: 22).

It might even reduce relative poverty, as shows in the following, well-known, lines: “Compared, indeed, with the more extravagant luxury of the great, his accommodation must no doubt appear extremely simple and easy; and yet it may be true, perhaps, that the accommodation of an European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and frugal peasant, as the accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an African king, the absolute master of the lives and of ten thousand naked savages” (WN I.i.11: 23-4). However, Smith is less convinced about this benefit of commercial society. He does not affirm that the distance between the rich and the poor is less but that, maybe, it might be. And not even the distance between the rich and the poor, but the difference between a European prince and an

5 “industrious and frugal” peasant who might not be the poorest member of society. Whereas Smith is certain that the market makes it possible for the lowest ranks to participate in social wealth, he is less confident about the reduction in the distance between ranks.

Moreover, that the market indeed brings prosperity to all, including the poorest, depends upon economic and political conditions. In the quotes above Smith refers to the accommodation of the worker in a “thriving country”, and to the extension of universal opulence in a “well- governed society”. The growth of the market and the deepening of the division of labor are not enough on their own, and good are also needed. They are needed especially because there are other forces at play that must be considered, understood and dealt with.

Cognitive effects of the division of labor The division of labor brings wealth, allows people to participate in its production, and also, to a greater or lesser extent, in its . These positive aspects should not be considered on their own. There is also a downside to this success story. The paragraphs in WN quoted in the introduction show Smith considers the division of labor harms the cognitive capacities, especially, of workers. His students’ notes also show this concern: “There are some inconveniencies, however, arising from commercial spirit. The first we shall mention is that it confines the views of men. Where the division of labor is brought to perfection, every man has only a simple operation to perform. To this his whole attention is confined, and few ideas pass in his mind but what have an immediate connection with it.” (LJB 329). This situation is exacerbated for those who have the most specialized jobs, for example, the worker who produces one part of a pin. Such a worker is especially reduced to what seem like trivial and small tasks that reduces her spirit and hinders her from seeing much beyond her work. The division of labor and each individuals part in it needs no communication, just direction and mechanical coordination6

Moreover, depending on the part of the chain each individual occupies her views are more or less contracted, leaving some of them almost completely disconnected from their fellows or capable of any larger views. “It is remarkable that in every commercial nation the low people are exceedingly stupid” (LJB 329). Hanley (2009: 35) shows the different instances were Smith makes this same point concluding that “The cumulative effect of such repeated variations on this theme is to impress on auditors and readers the fact that commerce affects the person as a whole, inhibiting [...], ‘social’ and ‘intellectual’ virtues as well (WN V.i.f.50)7”.

6 Here I will not go into the difference between the social and the technical division of labor that Marx remarks as a missing point in Smith. The important aspect here is that the division of labor confines individuals and their imagination to their work, burying them, so to speak, in an ever growing chain of production. 7 This is the same quote found in the introduction of this paper.

6 What Smith seems to point at is that even if the material conditions of the laboring poor have improved with increasing productivity, as the result of the division of labor and the extension of the market, their cognitive skills, and therefore their development as human beings and citizens is hindered. This closely resembles Tocqueville’s views, beginning with the division of labor and leading to this increasing distance and cognitive impairment.

Tocqueville describes Europe as a “society skillfully organized to satisfy” “all the needs and all the desires to which an advanced civilization gives rise” (Tocqueville 2009 [1835]: 642), thanks to the division of labor and the specialization of individuals in specific and tasks. In America, on the contrary, someone might have to perform different tasks to provide for her own needs and desires, which “harms the perfection of industry, but serves powerfully to develop the intelligence of the worker. There is nothing that tends more to materialize man and remove from his work even the trace of soul that the great division of labor” (Tocqueville 2010 [1835]: 642).

Tocqueville continues along these lines: “With the division of labor you do better and more economically what you already did, but you do not innovate. The division of labor is an element of wealth more than progress. The art of dividing labor is the art of confiscating the intelligence of the greatest number for the profit of the few” (Tocqueville 2010 [1835]: 642, my emphasis). It would seem Tocqueville does not have a favorable view of the division of labor. It diminishes the human features of the workers, and makes them part of this productive chain of great industry, which, as we shall see further on, benefits the masters but not really the workers; those who Tocqueville call the industrial class. This new class is another of the consequences of the democratic revolution Tocqueville analyzes in his work. The Age of Equality, marked by the passion for equality, resulting from the democratic revolution means more wealth and opportunities but not necessarily the same benefits for all.

Industrialization and the degradation of the industrial class Tocqueville closely relates the flourishing of commercial society and of democracy, they could be said to be the economic and political dimensions of the Age of Equality8. As the quotation above shows, the economic dimension can have negative effects, as can the political one too because the “real advantage of democracy is not, as some have said, to favor the prosperity of all, but only to serve the well-being of the greatest number” (Tocqueville 2010 [1835]: 380). In particular, what happens to workers is far from being beneficial as they form a new “impoverished and debased working class” (Goldberg 2001: 299), the industrial class.

8 ”I showed how democracy favored the development of industry and immeasurably multiplied the number of industrialists” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 981).

7 Industrialization combines two tendencies that should not be taken lightly: specialization that increases labor productivity and of scale, Tocqueville even calls them the “two new axioms of industrial ” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 982). These axioms lead to a more dependent worker, who cannot direct her work becoming “more skillful and less industrious, and you can say that in him the man becomes degraded as the worker improves” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 982); simultaneously “very rich and very enlightened men arise to exploit industries” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 982). “Thus, at the same time that industrial science constantly lowers the class of workers, it raises the class of masters” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 982). This difference between them makes “[t]he one more and more resemble[...] the administrator of a vast empire, and the other a brute” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 983). They become “the two end links of a long chain” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 983). Tocqueville ends his description with a question: “What is this, if not aristocracy?” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 983).

This contrasts with the ambitions and aspirations individuals develop in times of equality. Now individuals perceive they all have the same opportunities and abilities; social mobility is a real possibility and the closeness of ranks allows for a permanent contact that promotes imitation and emulation. Democratic individuals develop an almost insatiable taste for material well- being and for bettering their condition, which leads them “naturally toward commerce and industry” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 972). But in industry not only does increasing specialization affect workers, making them less capable of thinking beyond their task, it also introduces dependence and inequality. When a growing number of people are employed in industry (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 973-7), it is possible that these effects extend and threaten democracy itself.

A similar warning concerning the situation of the laboring poor can be found in Smith: “[...] we find that in the commercial parts of England, the tradesmen are for the most part in this despicable condition: their work thro’ half the week is sufficient to maintain them, and thro’ want of education they have no amusement for other but riot and debauchery. So it may very justly be said that the people who cloath the whole world are in rags themselves” (LJB 330). Even if, as shown above, most members of commercial society enjoy better material conditions, waged laborers in industry might not benefit equally in the advantages this society brings about: “those who labour most get least” (ED 5).

This deserves special consideration according to both Smith and Tocqueville. Even if general living conditions improve, it is less clear that commercial society and democracy offer the possibilities for all its members to follow their desire to better their situation. The cognitive effects of the division of labor and the difficult situation of the industrial class, makes it members less capable of enjoying the benefits of generalized prosperity and of new citizenship.

This is something Tocqueville explores more in detail when dealing with pauperism, also a new phenomenon associated with commercial society and industrialization. Tocqueville’s (2007) description of the situation of the laboring poor echoes Smith’s views on the laboring poor: “In

8 the great fabric of human , I consider the industrial class as having received from God the special and dangerous mission of providing at their own risk and peril for the material well being of all others” (Tocqueville (2007 [1835]: 21, my translation). In his two memoirs on the subject Tocqueville addresses this paradoxical phenomenon of a greater number of poor in opulent countries than in less industrialized ones, contrary to the general perception of prosperity and well-being associated with increasing productive capacity.

The fate of the laboring poor is a major concern for Tocqueville (cf. Hurtado 2017, 2010, Swedberg 2009, Ferraton 2004, Goldberg 2001, Keslassy 2000, 2001) because inequality and aristocracy are direct threats to democracy (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 985). Tocqueville expresses concerns about what could be considered relative poverty because the laboring poor do not have the necessary resources to have a dignified life (Tocqueville 2007 [1835]: 23-4), and face the risk of being excluded from social life.

As for Smith the living conditions of the laboring poor, of the members of the industrial class, might be better in commercial society as compared to any other social organization. But this does not mean that they participate fully or equally of its benefits. Therefore, relative poverty, in material and spiritual terms, might arise and become a major concern in a society where material interdependence increases and dehumanization is possible through the invisibilization or exclusion of some of its members.

In democratic times people are dependent and weak Just as Adam Smith had stated preceding his famous quote about the butcher and the brewer, “In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes [...] man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only” (WN I.ii.2, p.26), Tocqueville also depicts a dependent and weak human being, specifically, in times of equality: “in centuries of equality, no one is obliged to lend his strength to his fellow, and no one has the right to expect great support from his fellow, each man is independent and weak at the very same time” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 1202).

This is something Tocqueville repeats throughout Democracy in America, clearly stating that “In centuries of equality, all men are independent of each other, isolated and weak” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 733). This independence and isolation leads every individual to seek explanations for what is happening in the world by themselves (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 733); there are no permanent opinion leaders, and general ideas become common, searching for explanations in “the very nature of man” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 734). However, this is not an easy topic. The

9 impairment of cognitive skills due to the division of labor, makes these general ideas difficult to form, understand and follow for common people9.

The isolation also has to do with the individualism10 Tocqueville denounces throughout his work: “It must be recognized that equality, which introduces great advantages into the world, nevertheless suggests, [...], very dangerous instincts to men; it tends to isolate them from one another and to lead each one of them to be interested only in himself alone” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 745). would count as one of these dangerous instincts, “it proceeds from an erroneous judgement rather than from a depraved sentiment. It has its source in failings of the mind as much as in vices of the heart. [...] at first [it] dries up only the source of public virtues, but, in the long run, it attacks and destroys all others” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 882).

Therefore even if individuals conceive better of each other through the general ideas they tend to form and favor due to their lack of time and multiple occupations, the closeness this brings happens in a society of strangers. Strangers who have a general idea of others but can expect little from each one of them. There is a paradox in democratic times: “Since each class is coming closer to the others and is mingling with them, its members become indifferent and like strangers to each other. [...] Thus, not only does democracy make each man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants from him and separates him from his contemporaries; it constantly leads him back toward himself alone and threatens finally to enclose him entirely within the solitude of his own heart.” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 884).

The condition of the industrial class or the laboring poor increases this possibility. The division of labor hinders their capacity to conceive of a fellow-being beyond themselves or their immediate relatives and acquaintances. Their static condition when everybody else is aiming at social mobility may also render them invisible. “The poor man, [...], is ashamed of his poverty”, it “places him out of the sight of mankind” or affords him “scarce any fellow-feeling” asserts Smith (TMS I.iii.2.1), they are excluded from the sympathetic process. Referring to the poor laborer in the Early Draft, Smith describes his situation as bearing “upon his shoulders the whole fabric of human society” making him appear as “pressed down below ground by the weight, and to be buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building” (ED 5)11.

9 Tocqueville associates this taste for general ideas with the specific type of monotheistic and private religions that become popular in democratic times. Christianity, in particular, adapted and found fertile grounds (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 747-8].

10 ”Individualism is a recent expression given birth by a new idea.” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 881). “Individualism is a considered and peaceful sentiment that disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and to withdraw to the side with his family and his friends; so that, after thus creating a small society for his own use, he willingly abandons the large society itself” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 882). 11 In the ED Smith describes this situation accounting for the seemingly strange result of commercial society producing better conditions for all.

10 In Smith’s terms then, even if market communication is working and individuals address each other’s self-interest to ensure the satisfaction of their respective needs and desires, affective communication might be at risk or, at least, find greater difficulties. Putting herself in another’s situation requires, as has been widely discussed in the literature, identifying the other as a fellow capable of feeling as the spectator does; in this sense, it starts with sympathy as a natural and instantaneous tendency that needs the other to be seen, and the spectator to be able to see her fellow. Those who are isolated or buried by the weight of the whole society on their shoulders might not be able to see or be seen. If they do not participate in the education of their moral sentiments, if they are unable to see their own character reflected in the mirror that society presents to them, they will not be able to form their identities, to be part of society and to develop their humanity. They will indeed be degraded to the level of the brute.

Democratic times and distance between people When discussing the taste for general ideas Tocqueville associates with democratic times, he asserts “When conditions are very unequal, and inequalities are permanent, individuals become little by little so dissimilar that you would say that there are many distinct humanities as there are classes; you see only one of them at a time, and, losing sight of the general bond that gathers all within the vast bosom of the human species, you envisage only certain men and not man” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 731). As in Smith, distance (physical and psychological) appears as a major element in the identification process of members of a community.

Following Tocqueville, identification would be easier in democratic times when individuals are closer: “The man who inhabits democratic countries, [...], sees near him only more or less similar beings; so he cannot consider whatever part of the human species, without having his thought widen and expand to embrace the whole.” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 731-2) so for this individual it is possible to conceive and get used to general ideas regarding herself, others and their relationships. It is as if the circles of sympathy expanded because individuals perceive others as similar to themselves, making the identification process simpler in that it requires less effort, and they have more information about the agent they are observing. It is not those whose trade is precisely to think in and about general ideas, such as philosophers, who will be able to develop true sympathy for distant people (TMS III.3.4, p.136) because the process of identification needs closeness and visibility.

However, in democratic times, the distance between people might be reduced but their possibility to identify and recognize themselves may diminish. Markets make people interdependent and democracy brings about a sense of equality between them. Nevertheless, psychological distance might increase due to the already mentioned.

Institutions, education and association These risks associated with greater prosperity and equality in commercial society and democratic times do not mean, neither for Smith or Tocqueville, that this social project should be abandoned. Remedies must be sought after so that all the positive consequences can be

11 enhanced. In particular, institutions are needed to guarantee the conditions to do this. The WN presents the system of natural liberty as the economic, social and political organization capable of providing such conditions. It is the alternative to the policies the commercial system implemented in Europe, those which Smith considered responsible for the difficult economic and political situation in his times. Government intervention in the market, and a government the merchants had captured, could not provide the necessary conditions for the growth of opulence. Prosperity for all implied a , with some government regulations on, for example, the interest rates or the labor market, with a government that could represent the interest of all.

Good institutions, starting with a good government, are needed not only to provide the necessary conditions for the market to benefit all, but also to palliate the possible negative effects associated with its expansion. The one we have been exploring in this paper has to do with the simultaneous increase in specialization and psychological distance between individuals. In a summary of these negative effects and the need to do something about them, Smith asserts: “These are the disadvantages of the commercial spirit. The minds of men are contracted and rendered incapable of elevation, education is despised or at least neglected, and heroic spirit is almost utterly extinguished. To remedy these defects would be an object worthy of serious attention” (LJB 333). This point had already been made in the lecture: “Another inconvenience attending commerce is that education is greatly neglected. In rich and commercial nations, the division of labour, having reduced all trades to very simple operations, affords an opportunity of employing children very young” (LJB 329), which implies a high for education. The wealth and prosperity associated with increasing productivity and the division of labor gives occasion to an increased labor demand that includes even children. There is an immediate profit for the child’s family to put her to work instead of sending her to school (WN V.i.f.53). Therefore, the negative effects of the division of labor start working earlier and the industrial class counts uneducated children among its numbers.

The paragraphs where Smith presents the negative effects of the division of labor on the cognitive skills of workers in the WN are part of his discussion about the expenses of the Sovereign, specifically the expenses associated with “the Institutions for the Education of the Youth”. After discussing the state of education in his times as a result of a generalization of bad practices and corruption of universities and subjects taught, which leads him to advance that “The endowments of schools and colleges have, in this manner, not only corrupted the diligence of publick teachers, but have rendered it almost impossible to have any good private ones” (WN V.i.f.45), Smith asks whether there should be any public attention to the education of people (WN V.i.f.48). His answer is that this depends on whether “the state of the society” “places the greater part of individuals in such situations as naturally form in them, without any attention of the government, all the abilities and virtues which the state requires, or perhaps can admit of” (WN V.i.f.49) or not. When this is not the case “some attention of government is necessary in order to prevent the almost entire corruption and degeneracy of the great body of the people.” (WN V.i.f.49).

12 In commercial society “all the nobler parts of the human character may be, in a great measure, obliterated and extinguished in the great body of the people” (WN V.i.f.51), and this is why “[t]he education of the common people requires perhaps, [...], the attention of the publick” (WN V.i.f.52). There is no need for public attention for the education of “people of some rank and fortune” because they do not need to spend their childhood working (WN V.i.f.52). Smith proceeds to show that “[f]or a small expence the publick can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education.” (WN V.i.f.54).

Smith is talking about formal education, reading, writing and accounting, but this education is needed for and complimentary to the development of the cognitive skills that allow the natural tendency to sympathize to lead to the formation of moral judgements. Even if the majority of individuals fail to develop that most exquisite sensibility needed to attain virtue, those made of coarse clay can still enter and understand the sense of duty needed to participate fully in social life, with all its pleasures and obligations (TMS III).

Tocqueville also addresses the issue of education: “It is clear that in democratic societies the interest of individuals, as well as the security of the State, requires that the education of the greatest number be scientific, commercial, and industrial rather than literary” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 817). However, Tocqueville calls for more direct action. In his discourses before the Assembly in 1848 Tocqueville addresses the issue of the relief of the poor (Hurtado 2017). Tocqueville ends his first discourse, delivered in February just before the revolution, saying “I believe right now we are falling asleep on a volcano” (Tocqueville 1848: 526, my translation) because the government has done nothing to address the social passions that the perceived increasing injustice in the distribution of wealth and have nourished (Tocqueville 1848: 526).

In September, Tocqueville sees clearly the possibility of loosing the liberal French Revolution to because democracy and socialism are incompatible: “democracy and socialism coincide in one word, equality, but notice the difference: democracy wants equality in freedom, and socialism wants equality in discomfort and servitude” (Tocqueville 1866: 381, my translation). But the State has to be up to the task in order to preserve democracy because the Revolution “has conceived State duties toward the poor, toward the citizens that suffer” so that it the State must effectively come to the rescue “of all those who suffer, who after having exhausted all their resources, would be reduced to misery if the State did not lend them a hand” (Tocqueville 1866: 384, my translation).

Before members of the industrial class find themselves in such situation Tocqueville proposes public policies that will make this direct aid a very last resort. One of them is associations (Ferraton 2004) following the example found in America. People search those who resemble their own ideas or sentiments and associate (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 901). Associations have several positive effects. They take the laboring poor out of their daily, repetitive, tasks, giving

13 them the needed space to develop their social skills by making them visible to others and bringing fellows to their sight, so they promote moral ties (Ferraton 2004). They might help promoting associations that could help workers participate in the of industry (Tocqueville 2007: 65-7), or funds so that they could capitalize and make their productive (Tocqueville 2007: 68).

Education and associations appear for Smith and Tocqueville as possible solutions to the negative effects of the division of labor. Both measures tend to expand the individual’s mind, to bring her back into society and to counteract on relative poverty that opens the door to destructive inequality.

Concluding remarks Commercial society and democracy makes us all better off. The increase in the productive power of labor, growing opportunities to participate in social wealth and in social decisions, give citizens the possibility of bettering their condition and influencing the direction and content of a shared social project. Freedom and equality, even with their possible contradictions, appear as the guiding social values of commercial society and democratic times. This combination opens possibilities of material well-being for all, improves everyone’s living conditions, and reduces absolute poverty. But this is not the whole story Smith and Tocqueville are telling us. They warn us about our responsibility in dealing with possible negative effects associated with growing prosperity and political openness.

Smith and Tocqueville share their concern for the negative effects of the division of labor on the social ties between individuals in commercial society. Social mobility, open opportunities to participate in social wealth through the market, increasing material well-being, and more horizontal relationships are some of the advantages of commercial society. These advantages are enhanced with the generalization of democracy. Material and political equality seem at hand, and hold the promise of prosperity for all. However, as both authors show, these are not only blessings.

In particular, the laboring poor face challenges that affect all but especially them. The impairing of their cognitive skills makes it difficult to participate in the social life of the community, in the social construction of their identities and of shared values. The democratic revolution, made in the name of individual freedom, searching for a free citizenship, leads individuals to develop an ever growing passion for equality. Equality may trump liberty in citizens’ priorities, and they also develop an intolerance for inequality. Democracy seems unable to deliver all its promises (Hurtado 2017), especially for those who Tocqueville identifies as the industrial class.

“When a worker has in this way consumed a considerable portion of his existence, his thought has stopped forever near the daily object of his labor; his body has contracted certain fixed habits that he is no longer allowed to give up. In a word, he no longer belongs to himself, to the profession that he chose. and mores have in vain taken care to brake down all the barriers around this man and to open for him in all directions a thousand different roads toward

14 fortune; an industrial theory more powerful than mores and laws has bound him to an occupation and often to a place in society that he cannot leave. Amid the universal movement, it has made him immobile” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840]: 982).

Members of the industrial class cannot benefit from the new opportunities and possibilities because the effects their work and position have on their identities, their aspirations and their skills distances them from the rest, puts them in obscurity, and hinders their capabilities of being and developing their fellow-feeling. Their situation might be even worse if we consider that the division of labor also affects the other members of commercial society. The asymmetry of sympathy (Álvarez & Hurtado 2015) makes them almost invisible, excluding them from fundamental social processes that lead to the construction of the self and the community. This means their possibility of exercising their political and civil might also be impaired. The risk of having second rate citizens looms heavy over the promises of democracy and commercial society, and deliberate public action should be taken to face it.

References

Álvarez, Andrés & Hurtado, Jimena (2015), “‘Out of sight, out of mind’: Social interactions and Smith’s asymmetrical sympathy”, Iberian Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2:1, pp. 1-20. Aguilar, Enrique (2008), Alexis de Tocqueville. Una lectura introductoria. Buenos Aires: Editorial Suramericana. Ferraton, Cyrille (2004), “L’idée d’association chez Alexis de Tocqueville” Cahiers d’économie politique / Papers in , 46, pp.45-65. Goldberg, Chad Alan (2001), “Social Citizenship and a Reconstructed Tocqueville”, American Sociological Review, 66:2, pp.289-315. Hamowy, Ronald (1968), “Adam Smith, , and the Division of Labour”, Economica, 35: 139, pp.249-259. Hanley, Ryan Patrick (2009), Adam Smith and the Character of Virtue, New York: Cambridge University Press. Heilbroner, Robert L. (1973), “The Paradox of Progress: Decline and Decay in The Wealth of Nations”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 34: 2, pp. 243-262. Hill, Lisa (2007), “Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and on the Division of Labour”, Journal of Classical Sociology, 7:3, pp. 339-366. Hurtado, Jimena (2010), “L’inégalité aux temps de l’égalité: démocratie; industrialisation et paupérisme chez Alexis de Tocqueville” Cahiers d’économie politique / Papers in Political Economy, 59, pp.89-117. Hurtado, Jimena (2011), Tocqueville on Poverty in Industrial . Documento CEDE 3, Bogotá, D.C.: Universidad de los Andes - Facultad de Economia, CEDE. Available at www.economia.uniandes.edu.co/components/com_booklibrary/ebooks/dcede2011-03.pdf

15 Hurtado, Jimena (2017), Alexis de Tocqueville on Pauperism or the Unfulfilled Promises of the Democratic Revolution, Documento CEDE 40, Bogotá, D.C.: Universidad de los Andes - Facultad de Economia, CEDE. Available at www.economia.uniandes.edu.co/components/ com_booklibrary/ebooks/dcede2017-40.pdf Keslassy, Eric (2000), Le libéralisme de Tocqueville à l’épreuve du paupérisme, Paris: L’Harmattan. Keslassy, Eric (2001), “Tocqueville, ou la proposition d’un nouvel État”, Alternatives Économiques, L’économie politique, 11, pp.99-106. Marx, Karl (1887). Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Transcribed 1995-1996, last proofed 2015. Available at: www.marxists.org/archive/Marx/works/ download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf Rosenberg, Nathan (1965), “Adam Smith on the Division of Labour: Two Views or One?”, Economica, 32: 126, pp. 474-480. Say, Jean-Baptiste, (2011) [1803], Traité d’Economie Politique ou Simple Exposition de la maníère dont se forment, se distribuent et se consomment les richesses. Paris: Institut Coppet. Available at https://www.institutcoppet.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Traite-deconomie- politique-Jean-Baptiste-Say.pdf#page57 Swedberg, Richard (2009), Tocqueville’s Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press. de Tocqueville, Alexis (2010) [1835] [1840], Democracy in America. De la Démocratie en Amérique Bilingual Edition; edited by Eduardo Nolla; translated by James T. Schleifer, Indianapolis: . de Tocqueville, Alexis (2007), Sur le paupérisme, Paris: Editions Alia. Smith, Adam (1982) [1759], The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Smith, Adam (1981) [1776], An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 2 vols., Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Smith, Adam (1982), Lectures on , Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. West, Edwin G. (1964), “Adam Smith’s Two Views on the Division of Labour”, Economica, 31: 121, pp. 23-32.

16