Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville on the division of labour*

Abstract

Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville dealt with the division of labour as a characteristic feature of commercial society. There are connections and similarities between the two-sided understanding they both had of the division of labour. One of these coincidences is their assessment of the effects it has, jointly with the extension of the market, that points to the vulnerability of the labouring poor. Exploring this coincidence brings light to their understanding of the social consequences of the market and the possible solutions they propose.

Keywords:

• Adam Smith
• Alexis de Tocqueville
• division of labour
• poverty
• citizenship

Acknowledgements

I thank especially Rudi Verburg and Erik Matson for their questions, comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions, which have greatly helped improve the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 The negative effects of the division of labour Smith shows have been discussed, at least, since Marx. In section 5, chapter 14, part 4 of the first volume of Capital, when explaining the Capitalistic Character of Manufacture, Marx remarks how “manufacture thoroughly revolutionises [the mode of working by the individual], and seizes labour power by its very roots” (Marx 1887, 248–249). This revolution, 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 division of labour, A. Smith recommends education of the people by the State, 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 labour. But as Hamowy (1968) advances, when analyzing the allegation of plagiarism Smith addressed to Ferguson precisely on this point, the division of labour 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 labour 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).

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 Wealth of Nations (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, 254–255) has “no resolution possible within the terms of Smith’s premises”. Rosenberg (1965) contests these views analyzing inventiveness in Smith’s thought. West (1964) also points at Smith’s dual view of the division of labour, one economic and the other sociological

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. Bowles and Gintis (1978, 359) also note, especially regarding Tocqueville as a liberal observer, that he, amongst others, “pointed to the possibility of contradictions between the capitalist growth process and the perpetuation of liberal democratic institutions”. I believe they all allow us to think about the fundamental role of fellow-feeling in building self identities and communities, and about individual responsibility as a crucial ingredient in any social, economic, and political dynamics.

4 Jean-Baptiste Say also criticized the effects of the division of labour. In chapter VIII of the first book of the Treatise on Political Economy, Say presented Smith’s account of the division of labour, 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 they must accept whatever working conditions they are offered. Say ends: “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 labour is greater. Also, might we add, following Smith.

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 labour 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 labouring poor. Hanley also draws comparisons with Tocqueville throughout 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.

6 Aspromourgos (2009, 205) draws the direct connection between division of labour and opulence, understood as high consumption. Opulence and wealth appear as the same thing, and, continues Aspromourgos (2009, 206) as division of labour is connected to the extent of the market, opulence happens where market relations are deeper and wider. I thank one of the anonymous referees for directing me to this analysis.

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

8 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], 747–748].

9 “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).

10 In the ED Smith describes this situation accounting for the seemingly strange result of commercial society producing better conditions for all.

11 I thank one of the anonymous referees for pointing this case to me, that shows how religious sects are another mechanism Smith considers effective to counteract this dehumanizing invisibility.

12 In chapter 20, part II, volume 3, Tocqueville discusses “How Aristocracy could emerge from Industry”. In this chapter, Tocqueville asserts that it has been recognized and demonstrated that production is speedier and cheaper when “a worker is occupied every day only with the same detail”, and also that, producing less expensive goods requires “large scale, with great capital and large credit” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840], 981). The first axiom of industrial science, as he calls them, “[v. ruins] and brutalizes the worker”, whereas the second “raises the master” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840], 980). He goes on to say that “as the mass of the nation turns to democracy, the particular class that is concerned with industry becomes more aristocratic. Men show themselves more and more similar in a nation and more and more different in a particular class, and inequality increases in the small society in proportion as it decreases in the large one. In this way, when you go back to the source, it seems that you see aristocracy come by a natural effort from the very heart of democracy.” (Tocqueville 2010 [1840], 983).

13 Gilbert (1997, 274) remarks that Smith is “oddly silent” on state assistance to the poor in the WN even though he elaborates on the health and moral consequences of urban industrial development for the lower classes. But this does not mean Smith is indifferent to the situation as he also presents the desire to relieve misery and misfortune as “a rather weak moral sentiment” in the TMS, and presents the structural division of the rich and the poor arising in commercial society in the LJ (Gilbert 1997, 280). According to Gilbert (1997, 279, 286) direct intervention on this matter is problematic for Smith because, on the one hand he does not oppose all dispositions of the Poor Law, and, on the other, he says that peace and order are more important than the relief of the miserable, and taking from some to give to others might threaten such peace and order necessary to guarantee a well-governed society.

14 Associations in Tocqueville might be seen to play a similar role to religion (Kahan 2015, 69), in particular, to religious sects as in Smith. Associations, for Tocqueville, and religious sects, for Smith, bring people together and make them aware of how they are perceived by others. Religious sects allow people to emerge “from this obscurity”, making them acquire “a degree of consideration” not known before because the other members of the sect are interested in observing their behaviour (WN V.i.g.12, 795–796). Associations are places where people come together to discuss and act towards a common end, which means they have to be open to others so that identification is possible. I am grateful to one of the anonymous referees who pointed out this parallel.

15 For a critical assessment of these measures see Goldberg (2001).