Study Questions
When Smith writes that the productive powers of labor owe their greatest "improvement" (176) to the division of labor, what does he mean by "improvement," and what sort of division of labor does Smith have in mind? Is he thinking of dividing labor among, say, farmers, physicians, blacksmiths, bakers, etc.?
Smith claims that the "great increase in the quantity of work" (179) (recall Hume's talk of a "stock or storehouse of labor") is due to three circumstances. What are they? Does the third circumstance suggest another important explanation for increased productivity? Supposing that Smith is right about the massive increase in the productivity of labor due to the division of labor, what does that mean for Locke's theory of labor, value, and property? That is, which individual should get the credit for this increased productivity?
When labor and the division of labor are perceived as the main sources of value and of increases in productivity, in what position are laborers left given the existence of machinery capable of performing the work of hundreds or thousands of human beings? What is the effect of such a situation on employment and wages? Would the situation be different if the sources of value and production increases were otherwise identified? Who should be rewarded for the productive accomplishments of technology? According to Smith, who is responsible in the first place for the development of technology? What role do laborers themselves play in the development of technology? What role do "philosophers or men of speculation" (180) play in that process? Is the contribution of such "philosophers" to technology an argument against Smith's emphasis on the division of labor? What role do capitalists play, in Smith's argument, in the creation of technological innovations? Given such origins, should technology be a proper object of capitalist appropriation (like Locke's "waste" land)?
What must Smith be thinking of when he corrects himself to say that every workman: "is enabled to exchange a great quantity of his own goods for a great quantity, or what comes to the same thing, for the price of a great quantity of theirs" (181). Do workers exchange their own goods?
Smith envisions as the result of the division of labor that "a general plenty diffuses itself through all the different ranks of the society" (181). On what assumptions might that be true? Do the workers of Coketown live better than "an African king, the absolute master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages" (182)?
Is there any images or language in the text of Adam Smith which Dickens's might be parodying in Hard Times? What are the implications of Smith, in his description of the pin factory, describing the production process as "one man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it ..." (177)? How does this relate to Dickens's use of similar images (in relation to spinning)?
How does Smith look at the personalities and capabilities of children (from birth to age six or eight) (184)? What does this suggest regarding his ability to make distinctions? Are people to him individuals? What marks individuality for Smith? Ultimately, what are people to Smith? (compare to the modern concept of "human resources").
Smith argues that the division of labor is an unforeseen consequence of "the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another" (182)? Is this true? Are such traits what primarily distinguishes us from animals (185)? What happened to the ancient idea that it is reason that distinguishes people from brutes? Is reason then merely an accounting and exchange faculty? Are we all driven by such mercantile passions? Is there really such a thing as an instinct to exchange? From what standpoint might Smith be making such generalizations about human nature? Is it valid to impose the peculiar views and passions of an eighteenth-century English shopkeeper as paradigms of human nature? How does this square with Smith's own awareness that "the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments" (197)? What previous examples have we seen in our reading of such attempts to generalize narrow views?
One of the more vivid passages in the Wealth of Nations is this: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." Smith's point is that the detailed division of labor means that everyone is dependent upon strangers, and that the only reliable way to get what you want from strangers is to appeal to their own interest. Is he right about all that? What would Dickens say in this respect? Are there ways to obtain the "good offices" (184) of others that do not involve appeals to self-interest, treaty, barter, or purchase? Are there societies in which those other ways predominate?
To what does Smith attribute the considerable social and educational inequalities found in "civilized" societies? How does the idea of the "common stock" figure into Smith's account of how radically humans differ from other animals?
What is the significance and implications of Smith's use of animal imagery, especially dogs (greyhounds, etc.) in his arguments? How does Smith compare/contrast humans and animals? What are the points of contact and of difference? What may such images suggest about Smith's mentality and values? What is the significance of Smith's appeal to nature (human and animal)? If Smith's comparisons are correct, are people essentially much like dogs except they also have an instinct for property and exchange? Are Smith's notions of nature accurate? How about animal territoriality and symbiotic exchanges? How does this compare/contrast with Dickens's understanding of human nature and his use of dogs in Hard Times?
Smith writes: "the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments" (197). According to Smith himself, what are the consequences of this for most people working under the detailed division of labor? Does our present society manifest any evidence of the "drowsy stupidity" of which Smith speaks? How might Smith's observation be applied to some of the key characters in Hard Times?
Compare what Smith has to say on p. 198 regarding the different mentalities of those living in simpler ("ruder") societies vs. those living in complex ("refined") societies with what Schiller had to say by way of contrasting the Greeks with modern Europeans.
Why is Smith worried about the spiritual and intellectual mutilation /degradation of human beings by their participation in industrial/commercial production? Is it the people's condition or suffering itself that troubles him or rather other consequences for a society whose members are thus flawed?
What is the effect of "the progress of improvement" on the "martial spirit," according to Smith? How does this compare with Hume's understanding of the effects of commercial life on a country's readiness for war? Who is correct then? What does the common preoccupation of these thinkers with war and martial readiness suggest? Is commercial life in some sense deeply involved with the necessity of armed conflict? Why? What do the great wars of the twentieth century suggest in this respect? Can capitalism lead to conditions of economic stability and lasting peace? Why or why not?
What educational proposals does Smith put forward, and what motivates his proposals? What sorts of subjects and skills does he consider important and worth teaching? In Smith's view, what are the characteristics of an educated person (202)? In thinking about the latter you might call to mind the characters of Gradgrind, M'Choakumchild, and Slackbridge from Hard Times.
What amount of resources is Smith willing to invest in the education of the common people? What is Smith's opinion of providing stable pay and a good living for teachers (199)?