ADAM SMITH AND JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU.
Adam Smith(1723-1790) and Jean Jacques Rousseau(1712-1770) each provide their
own distinctive social thought. Smith, political economist and moral
philosopher, is regarded as the father of modern economics. Rousseau, a
Franco-Swiss social and political philosopher, combines enlightenment and
semi-romantic themes in his work. Thus Smith’s work places emphasis on the
relationship between economics and society, whereas, Rousseau focuses his
attention on the social inequalities within society. Therefore, Smith and
Rousseau, of the Scottish and Continental Enlightenment respectively, provide
unique insights on their existing society.
Adam Smith is one of the main
figures in the Scottish Enlightenment. Smith’s main concern was the
establishment of the free market, as laid out in his work “The Wealth of
Nations”(1776). In the “Wealth of Nations”, Smith is very critical of the
division of labour. The emphasis falls equally on the economic and social
consequences of the division of labour(Smith, 1998:26). Moreover, “What is
significant about the contribution of the Scottish Enlightenment to Sociology is
the clear awareness that society constituted a process, the product of specific
economic, social, and historical forces that could be identified and analyzed
through methods of empirical science. Society was a category of historical
investigation, the result of objective, material causes”(Smith, 1998:26). Smith
believed that society would benefit from individuals who were self-interested in
their own personal economic gains. Furthermore, Smith believed that the division
of labour had a negative impact on society. He thus was very critical of the
divison of labour. For Smith, “the man whose life is spent in performing a few
simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, has
no occasion to exert his understanding…He naturally loses, therefore, the habit
of such exertion and becomes as stupid as it is possible for a human creature to
become”(Lecture Notes, 2001:5). Smith clearly argues that the division of labour
halted the growth and development of the people. If the people are unable to
progress, Smith believes that society suffers as well. In essence, for the
society to progress and development, the people must do so first. Therefore, the
division of labour, in Smith’s perspective, conflicts with the ideals of the
Scottish Enlightenment thinking of individual progress and development.
“For
Adam Smith, the development of a commercial society produced a social structure
divided into three classes, landowners, capitalists, and labourers, ‘the three
great constituent orders of every civilized society’”(Smith, 1998:27). Thus,
Smith’s ideal society would be of people would work for themselves. He was a
strong advocate for free market and posed strong opposition to the feudal
system. He, along with other Enilghtenment thinkers, believed that the State had
no legitmate role in the free market. Smith’s defence of the free market was
tied to the belief that state interference with the market benefits the rich and
hurts the poor(Lecture Notes, 2001:5). Therefore, Adam Smith’s vision of an
ideal society was one in which most people are involved in independent commodity
production(Lecture Notes, 2001:5). Thus for society to develop and prosper as a
whole, its individual members must serve their self-interests.
Jean
Jacques Rousseau’s work, in contrast to Smith’s, gives attention to the social
inequalities within society created by social development. Rousseau believes the
social development that the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers advocate, actually
create a web of problems that previously did not exist. More specifically, his
work concentrates on the articificial social inequalities. “The artifical refers
to the specifically socially or conventional aspects of reality – the conditions
of human life that are contrived or invented by human beings themselves”(Smith,
1998:10). This means that people themselves are responsible for creating the
social inequalities that exist within society. “Rousseau’s contrast of the
‘noble savage’ with ‘civilized man’ illustrates this conception; the former
exists in a state of nature that provides everything necessary to a free and
happy existence, while the latter is enslaved by all sorts of artificial wants
and desires”(Smith, 1998:10). Thus, this comparison that Rousseau uses
illustrates clearly that social inequalities is a result of social development.
The ‘noble savage’ as Rousseau refers to, is not bounded by the artificial
social inequalities that contrain the ‘civilized man’.
Rousseau’s
critical view of society is based upon his theory that the social inequalities
existing in society conflict with the laws of nature. “Rousseau declared that it
is plainly contrary to the law of nature…that the priviledged few should gorge
themselves with superfluities, while the starving multitude are in want of the
bare necessities of life”(Smith, 1998:10). These problems did not exist for the
‘noble savage’, however, the ‘civilized man’ lives in a society that creates and
perpetuates social inequalities amongst its members. Rousseau states that,
“society creates more compex needs and therefore a more complex humanity than
that found in the state of nature”(Smith, 1998:16). Thus people are responsible
for creating artificial differences among themselves.
Adam Smith and Jean
Jacques Rousseau view society from different perspectives. Smith concentrates
his attention on economics and individual development, whereas, Rousseau
discusses the consequences of social inequalities that have arisen from social
development. Smith advocates self-interest as a means for the society to develop
and prosper, and in contrast, Rousseau sees this self-interest and development
as the cause for social inequalities. Inequalities, that Rousseau believes,
naturally do not exist.