My Public Policy Analysis class is interesting in the sense that it's presenting things related to economics that are worth considering.
'The Armchair Economist - Economics and Everyday Life'
Economists tend to feel that it is better for someone to reap the benefits of a resource than for no one to reap them, and therefore tend to think that the institution of property is a good thing.
When complications are stripped away, simple and important truths can be exposed. In any specific application, the Indifference Principle might require a host of qualifications - just as in specific circumstances, fast but erratic might vanquish slow but steady. Still, it provides a starting point. We begin by expecting people to be indifferent among activities. When we are right, we are able to to derive remarkable consequences, When we are wrong, we are led to ask, "In what essential way does this situation differ from life in Grimyville or Springfield?" and the search for answers is enlightening. A good fable has a good moral, and a good moral is instructive whether or not it is always true to the last detail.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Saturday, January 5, 2008
What is the importance of ‘nature’ for Smith’s arguments in “Theory of Moral Sentiments” and “Wealth of Nations”?
In both his works “The Wealth of Nations” and “Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Smith develops his theory of the economy and mankind’s self-love from human nature. Drawing on the metaphor that nature is the prevailing current of all changes in society, Smith believes that as it is natural for individuals to promote their self-interest, so, too will society naturally evolve according to these principles. Smith’s encompassing theory of the society, as a whole, is idealistic and simple, for it means that nature should be allowed to run its course. In addition, this theory implies accepting the fact that such a society produces the best possible outcome, more so than one that is consciously aimed at with a particular emphasis on morals. While nature is the founding principle of Smith’s theory about the workings of society, its importance implies that seemingly immoral problems associated with nature are also “natural”.
In the “Wealth of Nations”, Smith philosophizes on the most important aspect of the economy from the nature of individual choices. Individual choices are made on the presumption of benefiting ourselves, and so the collective result of these individual choices should lead to a natural increase in the wealth of society. According to Smith, it is natural that individuals seek the means to provide for their basic necessities, and beyond that, other forms of affluence. It is natural that their be some variation in terms of skills and dexterity among the general populace. As a result there will be exchanges, for one has something that the other does not necessarily have. This interaction between two individuals is the basis of trade and economic activity within a nation. Moreover, aside from this seemingly obvious dialogue, the individual “ will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour” , for Smith concedes that not only is this natural but also inevitable: “in a civilized society he stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes” . Therefore, we are still more motivated to socialize with others if their interests align with ours. In addition, from this exchange, these individuals reason that it is their best interest (Smith uses the term ‘disposed’) to differentiate and distinguish themselves from one another. This natural response leads to the diversification of labour, and specialization, even though one could also assume that it is natural that society is not composed of identical individuals, but rather, that individualism is a natural feature of society. Why is this so? Individualism is the origin of all social interactions. Without individualism there would be no concepts of disputes, nor cooperation.
In “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Smith uses the same principle on human nature to develop his theory that sympathy leads to one’s understanding of morals. Sympathy is the critical sentiment that allows individuals to be moved by the actions of others. When we see someone unfairly treated, we sympathize with the victim (and not the perpetrator). Along the same vein, morals cannot exist without sympathy, for otherwise we would only perceive someone else’s happiness and misfortunes with an objective and detached view. A society without morals cannot be a civilized society. Furthermore, morals exist not for the sake of the individual but for the sake of society, so as to maintain law and order. It follows that justice is necessary for society to function. Similarly, sympathy does not exist simply because it is ‘good’, but because it is the core sentiment which springs from self-interest. Self-interest, stripped of any connotations with ‘selfishness’, can be regarded as a sensible decision, since no one else will voluntarily promote your own personal interests.
Perhaps the fact that there is a place in society for all types of individuals is Smith’s largest claim that inequality is natural. This does not necessarily mean for Smith to be hypocritical, for something that occurs naturally is justified to be a natural cause itself. Inequality motivates individuals to better themselves in society. The different ranks necessitates that labour be used to determine the value of wealth, and since wealth is relative, it is further perpetuated and created based on the apparent necessity to increase wealth. It is the poor who see in the rich all those happiness, which they hope to render for themselves, because they aspire to attain a similar degree of bliss. Smith claims that this is the best and most appropriate sentiment, which, combined with other virtues, is “superior to pain, to poverty, to danger, and to death” . Sympathy transcends all other petty forms of sentiments in terms of virtues. Prudence and virtues go very well together, as it is the best combination of qualities. Smith clearly establishes the fact, “as prudence combined with other virtues, constitutes the noblest; so imprudence combined with other vices, constitutes the vilest of all characters” , that this is the path to obtain respect and admiration from our peers. Without inequality, there would be no need to stir envy and aspiration. Without sympathy one cannot establish a love of virtue, and an abhorrence of vice and justice. Nature is thus responsible for dictating good behavior: “she bestows upon every virtue, and upon every vice, that precise reward or punishment which is best fitted to encourage the one, or to restrain the other”.
Through a cross-examination of the principle of relative wealth and social esteem, Smith proposes that man’s inability to subsist entirely for himself makes him suited to society. Different ranks and education render some people better off, at the expense of others. However, it is also amongst the rich who decide how resources and wealth should be employed, and thus maintain productivity even amongst the lower class. It is the rich who inadvertently promote public interest insofar as their interests are served. The disparity between the rich and the poor also underpins a comparison of human behavior. Interestingly though, it is through selfishness (human nature) that public interest is promoted: “they are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life [without knowing it]” . The prudent man, though no more admirable than the wicked or the most virtuous, can still find a role in society, because nature has created a role for him. Smith has observed that even though he is sincere but acts cautiously, and makes friends according to their “sober esteem of modesty, discretion, and good conduct” , he provides the best example for all others whose sympathy allows them to make responsible choices and practice good conduct. Thus, not only is sympathy a way of maintaining peace amongst individuals, but also an important mechanism which allows them to admire the “steadiness of industry and frugality” of the prudent man, and thus act wisely and judiciously.
Nature is, despite all its imperfections, the critical force behind the various subtleties and discrepancies of society. For example, on a commentary on the frivolous king, whose extravagance exceeds the humble existence of the average citizen, Smith observes that these figures are necessary to some degree for the purpose of providing an impractical example of an idle yet well-fed and well-clothed person. They demonstrate how misuse of resources could easily lead to declining wealth, so one should not follow their example or aspire to become like them. Yet at the same time, nature corrects this imbalance owing to the majority of society who are prudent: “the profusion or imprudence of some, being always more than compensated by the frugality and good conduct of others.” Once again, Smith extinguishes the seemingly gaping flaws of his theory by implicitly saying that nature can also right itself. As a result of ‘the invisible hand’ responsible for appropriating wealth amongst the people, (Smith’s metaphor for the mechanism of Nature to establish a working and functioning society), it has also created a proportionately larger group of prudent men who obey the law, are wise with their money, and inadvertently keep the few extravagant characters from completely impoverishing the nation. These characters not only serve as a function of society but necessary to influence the conducts of others. In another example, Smith goes so far as to say that the soldier, who is idle in times of peace (but necessary for society and thus maintained by it), is also of some use to society, partly due to a hope to esteem himself that “he even looks forward with satisfaction to the prospect of foreign war, or civil dissension […] in which he may draw upon himself the attention and admiration of mankind” . Such individuals are also the product of nature, and it is by nature that these individuals are given the role of balancing the extreme conducts of others.
In “The Wealth of Nations” and “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” Smith highlights an important relationship between frugality and prudence. Those who are frugal and prudent, according to Smith, are of great importance to society as they maintain order and avoid corruption. While their characteristics constitute no more than the timid and wise man who shies away from risks and acts within the bounds of law, they are necessary to sustain the society and to instill some recognition of merit in the justice system. The prudent man acts accordingly: “he is always sincere, and feels horror at the very thought of exposing himself to the disgrace which attends upon the detection of falsehood” . On the other hand, frugality is admired because it acts for the good of the whole more successively than other ways of spending: “public frugality is more favourable than private frugality as it maintains productive hands, and conduces more than the other to the growth of public opulence” . Among ordinary citizens, the frugal man helps the nation avoid becoming impoverished. Among statesman prudence is required because “it is the best head joined to the best heart”.
While self-interest from the individual’s point of view rarely includes being concerned for the welfare of others (unless it affects their own), one can extrapolate on this claim through a thought process concerning the evolution of society. Smith does not question in both his works the rhetoric that nature is good. However, his remarkable extrapolation highlights that the motives and deliberations of individuals are far better than that of the statesman who tries to include everyone’s self-interest and does a poor job trying to make the best decision. Rational human beings, left to their own device, will make sound judgments. Self-love leads to the economy and sympathy leads to an understanding of morals. It is natural and pertinent that there be inequality in society, for this is the sole cause of the aspirations and motivations of each individual to improve their economic and social standing. The importance of nature in Smith’s work highlights his main perception and scientific methodology of understanding society. While Smith does not question whether nature is moral, he indirectly and positively shows that nature is fair yet imperfect.
In both his works “The Wealth of Nations” and “Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Smith develops his theory of the economy and mankind’s self-love from human nature. Drawing on the metaphor that nature is the prevailing current of all changes in society, Smith believes that as it is natural for individuals to promote their self-interest, so, too will society naturally evolve according to these principles. Smith’s encompassing theory of the society, as a whole, is idealistic and simple, for it means that nature should be allowed to run its course. In addition, this theory implies accepting the fact that such a society produces the best possible outcome, more so than one that is consciously aimed at with a particular emphasis on morals. While nature is the founding principle of Smith’s theory about the workings of society, its importance implies that seemingly immoral problems associated with nature are also “natural”.
In the “Wealth of Nations”, Smith philosophizes on the most important aspect of the economy from the nature of individual choices. Individual choices are made on the presumption of benefiting ourselves, and so the collective result of these individual choices should lead to a natural increase in the wealth of society. According to Smith, it is natural that individuals seek the means to provide for their basic necessities, and beyond that, other forms of affluence. It is natural that their be some variation in terms of skills and dexterity among the general populace. As a result there will be exchanges, for one has something that the other does not necessarily have. This interaction between two individuals is the basis of trade and economic activity within a nation. Moreover, aside from this seemingly obvious dialogue, the individual “ will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour” , for Smith concedes that not only is this natural but also inevitable: “in a civilized society he stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes” . Therefore, we are still more motivated to socialize with others if their interests align with ours. In addition, from this exchange, these individuals reason that it is their best interest (Smith uses the term ‘disposed’) to differentiate and distinguish themselves from one another. This natural response leads to the diversification of labour, and specialization, even though one could also assume that it is natural that society is not composed of identical individuals, but rather, that individualism is a natural feature of society. Why is this so? Individualism is the origin of all social interactions. Without individualism there would be no concepts of disputes, nor cooperation.
In “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Smith uses the same principle on human nature to develop his theory that sympathy leads to one’s understanding of morals. Sympathy is the critical sentiment that allows individuals to be moved by the actions of others. When we see someone unfairly treated, we sympathize with the victim (and not the perpetrator). Along the same vein, morals cannot exist without sympathy, for otherwise we would only perceive someone else’s happiness and misfortunes with an objective and detached view. A society without morals cannot be a civilized society. Furthermore, morals exist not for the sake of the individual but for the sake of society, so as to maintain law and order. It follows that justice is necessary for society to function. Similarly, sympathy does not exist simply because it is ‘good’, but because it is the core sentiment which springs from self-interest. Self-interest, stripped of any connotations with ‘selfishness’, can be regarded as a sensible decision, since no one else will voluntarily promote your own personal interests.
Perhaps the fact that there is a place in society for all types of individuals is Smith’s largest claim that inequality is natural. This does not necessarily mean for Smith to be hypocritical, for something that occurs naturally is justified to be a natural cause itself. Inequality motivates individuals to better themselves in society. The different ranks necessitates that labour be used to determine the value of wealth, and since wealth is relative, it is further perpetuated and created based on the apparent necessity to increase wealth. It is the poor who see in the rich all those happiness, which they hope to render for themselves, because they aspire to attain a similar degree of bliss. Smith claims that this is the best and most appropriate sentiment, which, combined with other virtues, is “superior to pain, to poverty, to danger, and to death” . Sympathy transcends all other petty forms of sentiments in terms of virtues. Prudence and virtues go very well together, as it is the best combination of qualities. Smith clearly establishes the fact, “as prudence combined with other virtues, constitutes the noblest; so imprudence combined with other vices, constitutes the vilest of all characters” , that this is the path to obtain respect and admiration from our peers. Without inequality, there would be no need to stir envy and aspiration. Without sympathy one cannot establish a love of virtue, and an abhorrence of vice and justice. Nature is thus responsible for dictating good behavior: “she bestows upon every virtue, and upon every vice, that precise reward or punishment which is best fitted to encourage the one, or to restrain the other”.
Through a cross-examination of the principle of relative wealth and social esteem, Smith proposes that man’s inability to subsist entirely for himself makes him suited to society. Different ranks and education render some people better off, at the expense of others. However, it is also amongst the rich who decide how resources and wealth should be employed, and thus maintain productivity even amongst the lower class. It is the rich who inadvertently promote public interest insofar as their interests are served. The disparity between the rich and the poor also underpins a comparison of human behavior. Interestingly though, it is through selfishness (human nature) that public interest is promoted: “they are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life [without knowing it]” . The prudent man, though no more admirable than the wicked or the most virtuous, can still find a role in society, because nature has created a role for him. Smith has observed that even though he is sincere but acts cautiously, and makes friends according to their “sober esteem of modesty, discretion, and good conduct” , he provides the best example for all others whose sympathy allows them to make responsible choices and practice good conduct. Thus, not only is sympathy a way of maintaining peace amongst individuals, but also an important mechanism which allows them to admire the “steadiness of industry and frugality” of the prudent man, and thus act wisely and judiciously.
Nature is, despite all its imperfections, the critical force behind the various subtleties and discrepancies of society. For example, on a commentary on the frivolous king, whose extravagance exceeds the humble existence of the average citizen, Smith observes that these figures are necessary to some degree for the purpose of providing an impractical example of an idle yet well-fed and well-clothed person. They demonstrate how misuse of resources could easily lead to declining wealth, so one should not follow their example or aspire to become like them. Yet at the same time, nature corrects this imbalance owing to the majority of society who are prudent: “the profusion or imprudence of some, being always more than compensated by the frugality and good conduct of others.” Once again, Smith extinguishes the seemingly gaping flaws of his theory by implicitly saying that nature can also right itself. As a result of ‘the invisible hand’ responsible for appropriating wealth amongst the people, (Smith’s metaphor for the mechanism of Nature to establish a working and functioning society), it has also created a proportionately larger group of prudent men who obey the law, are wise with their money, and inadvertently keep the few extravagant characters from completely impoverishing the nation. These characters not only serve as a function of society but necessary to influence the conducts of others. In another example, Smith goes so far as to say that the soldier, who is idle in times of peace (but necessary for society and thus maintained by it), is also of some use to society, partly due to a hope to esteem himself that “he even looks forward with satisfaction to the prospect of foreign war, or civil dissension […] in which he may draw upon himself the attention and admiration of mankind” . Such individuals are also the product of nature, and it is by nature that these individuals are given the role of balancing the extreme conducts of others.
In “The Wealth of Nations” and “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” Smith highlights an important relationship between frugality and prudence. Those who are frugal and prudent, according to Smith, are of great importance to society as they maintain order and avoid corruption. While their characteristics constitute no more than the timid and wise man who shies away from risks and acts within the bounds of law, they are necessary to sustain the society and to instill some recognition of merit in the justice system. The prudent man acts accordingly: “he is always sincere, and feels horror at the very thought of exposing himself to the disgrace which attends upon the detection of falsehood” . On the other hand, frugality is admired because it acts for the good of the whole more successively than other ways of spending: “public frugality is more favourable than private frugality as it maintains productive hands, and conduces more than the other to the growth of public opulence” . Among ordinary citizens, the frugal man helps the nation avoid becoming impoverished. Among statesman prudence is required because “it is the best head joined to the best heart”.
While self-interest from the individual’s point of view rarely includes being concerned for the welfare of others (unless it affects their own), one can extrapolate on this claim through a thought process concerning the evolution of society. Smith does not question in both his works the rhetoric that nature is good. However, his remarkable extrapolation highlights that the motives and deliberations of individuals are far better than that of the statesman who tries to include everyone’s self-interest and does a poor job trying to make the best decision. Rational human beings, left to their own device, will make sound judgments. Self-love leads to the economy and sympathy leads to an understanding of morals. It is natural and pertinent that there be inequality in society, for this is the sole cause of the aspirations and motivations of each individual to improve their economic and social standing. The importance of nature in Smith’s work highlights his main perception and scientific methodology of understanding society. While Smith does not question whether nature is moral, he indirectly and positively shows that nature is fair yet imperfect.
Friday, January 4, 2008
“We have proceeded from the premises of political economy. We have accepted its language and its laws…On the basis of political economy itself, in its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of commodities.” (Marx-Engels Reader, p. 70) How does Marx’s criticism of capitalism develop out of capitalism itself?
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” Marx observes in the beginning of his Manifesto of the Communist Party. In using the chronicles of class struggles throughout history, Marx establishes that the development of society has been shaped not just by the ideas of the ruling class, but also by the economic conditions that favour the ideologies of the ruling class. He also makes a critical statement in that the new social order will not arrive swiftly and rapidly unless it is coerced, for this is the only way that the appropriate economic conditions for Communism are provided. It is instigated by a forced act dependent on the unity of the workers. Furthermore, Marx strengthens his claim implicitly by underpinning the fact that the present class struggle will be resolved distinctively. He establishes that in this particular class struggle between the working class and the capitalists, the revolution is the anti-thesis and resolution of past historical and periodical conflicts or struggles. Communism is heralded by a radically different class-struggle revolution compared to pre-existing ones. The evidences are shown through an examination of the internal flaws of the present capitalist society.
Before defining broadly the implications of brewing class antagonisms, Marx examines the relationship between the ruling class and the oppressed class through social relations. In the capitalist society, the social relation between the capitalists and the workers is wage-labour. In defining the function of wage-labour, Marx is able to examine how this social relation is the cause of class antagonism, until it is torn asunder upon the arrival of a revolution. Through the wage-labour relation, the worker is enslaved for the sake of production, and alienates himself from his labour. This estrangement of labour (as an expression of the division of labour) is “labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification” . As an immediate consequence, labour becomes a means of subsistence. Political economy, on the other hand, “conceals the estrangement by not considering the direct relationship between the worker and production” . Thus, without a complete understanding of the manifestation of the wage-labour, it is difficult to grasp the process of alienation from labour as a means of subjugation of one class to another. By examining this relation through a dialectic argument, Marx further reiterates that it is the worker who affirms his inferior position to the capitalist (the bourgeoisie) since he is working for an external person. By surrendering his humanistic identity, he now owes his existence to production.
So long as the worker assumes this role in the capitalist society, the relationship between the workers and the bourgeoisies is maintained. Yet this social relation is lacking in acknowledgement of one class, and to reciprocate the fruits of capitalism to the wider public. Regarding this outcome, Marx imbues with it his moral critique of capitalism’s hierarchal structure, in its condition to estrange man from man. In his metaphorical analysis of the vulgarity of this relationship, embellished by bourgeois ideas of intellectual capital, Marx observes that labour, therefore, is “the real soul of production; yet to labour it [the political economy] gives nothing, and to private property everything” . This contradiction only serves to highlight the perversion of the relationship between the labourer and the capitalist. Moreover, it is contingent on the fact that the labourer “sinks to the level of a commodity” , thereby negating his existence as a human being. His labour as activity becomes his sole means of life, as well as the sole means of his subsistence.
While wage-labour defined the class relation between the ruling and the oppressed class, class antagonism is aggravated through the perpetuation of the ruling ideas. Drawing back to his reference to history as more than a development of class antagonisms, which “assumed different forms at different epochs” , Marx further notes that within the old society, new elements have been formed, and which cannot be accommodated except through “dissolution of the old conditions of existence” . The bourgeoisies necessarily established free competition, the economic conditions which favoured their supremacy. Bourgeoisie ideals dominated the society as long as they were the ruling class of that epoch, and that the bourgeoisie mode of production is maintained. Ironically though, Marx also observed that through its exploitation of the free market, as well as the pursuit of the accumulation of capital, the bourgeoisies have produced their own “grave diggers” . As the worker becomes poorer the more he produces, he is forced to receive the full burden of this relentless accumulation of capital, exemplified through the metaphor, “the forest of uplifted arms demanding work becomes ever thicker, while the arms themselves become ever thinner” . As the process continually escalates, the worker’s condition worsens, which is eventually compounded by the introduction of machineries. The development of productivity in the capitalist society has other implications: “as labour becomes more unsatisfying, more repulsive, competition increases and wages decrease. In the last resort he [the worker] competes with himself, with himself as a member of the working class” .
Thus, the bourgeoisie created the growing class of proletariats who would at the appropriate time, and upon a collective consciousness of themselves as a class themselves be in a position of power to withdraw the labour that the bourgeoisie depends so much on. The internal flaws of capitalism necessitate self-destruction, as it has led to a social relation, which even under the best conditions can never be reconciled with the worker’s interest, but only aggravated. In doing so, the bourgeoisies also created an alienated force that do not share the same concept of private property, as well as the principles of private, capital gain on which their class is founded. Marx identified that the bourgeoisie class will vanish as soon as their complement (the proletariats) vanish. Ironically, once the process of the accumulation of capital becomes self-perpetuated by both workers and capitalists, the bourgeoisies are no longer capable of being in power: “competition seeks to rob capital of the golden fruits of this power” . The bourgeoisies become incompetent with regards to maintaining their wealth (accumulated labour). At this advanced stage of the growing anti-sentiments towards the capitalists, wage labour assumes an independent form, which “rests exclusively on competition between labourers” . Hence, the bourgeoisies have also transferred wage labour as their leverage onto their imminent opponents.
This class antagonism is resolved when it is possible to overthrow pre-existing economic conditions. It is this essential detail that Marx vigilantly addresses in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. To the proletariats, he highlights the necessary action required to bring them to the position of the ruling class: to “remain within the bounds of existing society, but cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie” . Marx believed this was possible because of his insightful observation: "the bourgeoisies have simplified the class antagonisms” by creating a class that exhibits almost the exact opposite of what they (as the ruling class) themselves stood for. It was a matter of time before the proletariats, strengthened by a growing common interest, would seize the opportunity. Identifying the opportunity is critical, for Marx has also shown that in the past, attempts to revolt failed on two conditions: either because communal interest did not align with general interest, or because the economic conditions have not been produced. In its infancy stage, the oppressed class has yet to form “any historical initiative or independent political movement” . The primary reason is that class antagonism develops with the pace of the development of the industry.
Marx hints that the rise of the proletariats is inherently different than all previous historical successful revolutions because the oppressed proletariats must grasp the circumstances of society (and opportunity) through consciousness. It is by the conscious acknowledgement of themselves as the majority that they will seize the moment to stage a revolution. He further elaborates that consciousness comes to the contradiction that ‘division of labour’ implies that there is a division of material and mental labour, and that for the oppressed class to be ostracised from the latter is to deny them the position “to emancipate itself from the world and to proceed to the formation of “pure” theory” . The oppressed class have no means of overthrowing the ruling class except by abandoning the notion of private property. Thus, the proletariats are necessarily revolting in a new way, through breaking the bond (instilled by an alienation of labour) that is created from a ‘manipulated’ or restricted consciousness. This is because the capitalist has induced the worker to surrender his humanist identity, so that he has no relation to himself or to his labour product– he is manipulated to believe that he owes his existence to labour activity.
The proletariats will, unlike the bourgeoisies establish the supremacy of power through the abolishment of existing economic conditions (the critical condition is abolishing the bourgeois mode of production). They are for the interest of the immense public, of which they themselves are a part. The proletariat class was the product of the bourgeoisies; their ideas were the offspring of bourgeois concepts of production. Just as Marx noted, “in bourgeois society, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past” , the proletariat’s revolution consist of disinheriting private property and disinheriting notions of “public prostitution” from the existing society. This necessarily follows since if they were to follow historical examples of uprising classes, the labourers could never emerge as the ruling class: “the modern labourer, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class” . Unlike previous historical movements, Communism is a call for political reform for the interest of the immense majority.
The rise of communism for Marx is significant because not only does it abandon the notion of private property (which has undergone class transformation from one class to another until the present capitalist society) but is also a total abolition of class distinction. Vulgar communism is the brute act of imposing the ideals, thereby removing any last vestiges of the bourgeois conception of class, profession, and private property. The disappearance of class culture is synonymous with the disappearance of all culture related to the bourgeoisies. Furthermore, this entails eliminating the means of production and exchange that the bourgeoisies have built up and inherited from feudal society. As such, Communism represents a fundamental annihilation of vestiges of the past; where the bourgeoisies have put “an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations” of the feudal society, Communism has banished all existing class relations completely. However, he does not question whether Communism will necessarily provide fodder for the next brewing class antagonism, since Communism ideology is not only based on restoring consciousness, “the complete return of man to himself as a social being” but also founded on the absence of class distinction.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” Marx observes in the beginning of his Manifesto of the Communist Party. In using the chronicles of class struggles throughout history, Marx establishes that the development of society has been shaped not just by the ideas of the ruling class, but also by the economic conditions that favour the ideologies of the ruling class. He also makes a critical statement in that the new social order will not arrive swiftly and rapidly unless it is coerced, for this is the only way that the appropriate economic conditions for Communism are provided. It is instigated by a forced act dependent on the unity of the workers. Furthermore, Marx strengthens his claim implicitly by underpinning the fact that the present class struggle will be resolved distinctively. He establishes that in this particular class struggle between the working class and the capitalists, the revolution is the anti-thesis and resolution of past historical and periodical conflicts or struggles. Communism is heralded by a radically different class-struggle revolution compared to pre-existing ones. The evidences are shown through an examination of the internal flaws of the present capitalist society.
Before defining broadly the implications of brewing class antagonisms, Marx examines the relationship between the ruling class and the oppressed class through social relations. In the capitalist society, the social relation between the capitalists and the workers is wage-labour. In defining the function of wage-labour, Marx is able to examine how this social relation is the cause of class antagonism, until it is torn asunder upon the arrival of a revolution. Through the wage-labour relation, the worker is enslaved for the sake of production, and alienates himself from his labour. This estrangement of labour (as an expression of the division of labour) is “labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification” . As an immediate consequence, labour becomes a means of subsistence. Political economy, on the other hand, “conceals the estrangement by not considering the direct relationship between the worker and production” . Thus, without a complete understanding of the manifestation of the wage-labour, it is difficult to grasp the process of alienation from labour as a means of subjugation of one class to another. By examining this relation through a dialectic argument, Marx further reiterates that it is the worker who affirms his inferior position to the capitalist (the bourgeoisie) since he is working for an external person. By surrendering his humanistic identity, he now owes his existence to production.
So long as the worker assumes this role in the capitalist society, the relationship between the workers and the bourgeoisies is maintained. Yet this social relation is lacking in acknowledgement of one class, and to reciprocate the fruits of capitalism to the wider public. Regarding this outcome, Marx imbues with it his moral critique of capitalism’s hierarchal structure, in its condition to estrange man from man. In his metaphorical analysis of the vulgarity of this relationship, embellished by bourgeois ideas of intellectual capital, Marx observes that labour, therefore, is “the real soul of production; yet to labour it [the political economy] gives nothing, and to private property everything” . This contradiction only serves to highlight the perversion of the relationship between the labourer and the capitalist. Moreover, it is contingent on the fact that the labourer “sinks to the level of a commodity” , thereby negating his existence as a human being. His labour as activity becomes his sole means of life, as well as the sole means of his subsistence.
While wage-labour defined the class relation between the ruling and the oppressed class, class antagonism is aggravated through the perpetuation of the ruling ideas. Drawing back to his reference to history as more than a development of class antagonisms, which “assumed different forms at different epochs” , Marx further notes that within the old society, new elements have been formed, and which cannot be accommodated except through “dissolution of the old conditions of existence” . The bourgeoisies necessarily established free competition, the economic conditions which favoured their supremacy. Bourgeoisie ideals dominated the society as long as they were the ruling class of that epoch, and that the bourgeoisie mode of production is maintained. Ironically though, Marx also observed that through its exploitation of the free market, as well as the pursuit of the accumulation of capital, the bourgeoisies have produced their own “grave diggers” . As the worker becomes poorer the more he produces, he is forced to receive the full burden of this relentless accumulation of capital, exemplified through the metaphor, “the forest of uplifted arms demanding work becomes ever thicker, while the arms themselves become ever thinner” . As the process continually escalates, the worker’s condition worsens, which is eventually compounded by the introduction of machineries. The development of productivity in the capitalist society has other implications: “as labour becomes more unsatisfying, more repulsive, competition increases and wages decrease. In the last resort he [the worker] competes with himself, with himself as a member of the working class” .
Thus, the bourgeoisie created the growing class of proletariats who would at the appropriate time, and upon a collective consciousness of themselves as a class themselves be in a position of power to withdraw the labour that the bourgeoisie depends so much on. The internal flaws of capitalism necessitate self-destruction, as it has led to a social relation, which even under the best conditions can never be reconciled with the worker’s interest, but only aggravated. In doing so, the bourgeoisies also created an alienated force that do not share the same concept of private property, as well as the principles of private, capital gain on which their class is founded. Marx identified that the bourgeoisie class will vanish as soon as their complement (the proletariats) vanish. Ironically, once the process of the accumulation of capital becomes self-perpetuated by both workers and capitalists, the bourgeoisies are no longer capable of being in power: “competition seeks to rob capital of the golden fruits of this power” . The bourgeoisies become incompetent with regards to maintaining their wealth (accumulated labour). At this advanced stage of the growing anti-sentiments towards the capitalists, wage labour assumes an independent form, which “rests exclusively on competition between labourers” . Hence, the bourgeoisies have also transferred wage labour as their leverage onto their imminent opponents.
This class antagonism is resolved when it is possible to overthrow pre-existing economic conditions. It is this essential detail that Marx vigilantly addresses in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. To the proletariats, he highlights the necessary action required to bring them to the position of the ruling class: to “remain within the bounds of existing society, but cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie” . Marx believed this was possible because of his insightful observation: "the bourgeoisies have simplified the class antagonisms” by creating a class that exhibits almost the exact opposite of what they (as the ruling class) themselves stood for. It was a matter of time before the proletariats, strengthened by a growing common interest, would seize the opportunity. Identifying the opportunity is critical, for Marx has also shown that in the past, attempts to revolt failed on two conditions: either because communal interest did not align with general interest, or because the economic conditions have not been produced. In its infancy stage, the oppressed class has yet to form “any historical initiative or independent political movement” . The primary reason is that class antagonism develops with the pace of the development of the industry.
Marx hints that the rise of the proletariats is inherently different than all previous historical successful revolutions because the oppressed proletariats must grasp the circumstances of society (and opportunity) through consciousness. It is by the conscious acknowledgement of themselves as the majority that they will seize the moment to stage a revolution. He further elaborates that consciousness comes to the contradiction that ‘division of labour’ implies that there is a division of material and mental labour, and that for the oppressed class to be ostracised from the latter is to deny them the position “to emancipate itself from the world and to proceed to the formation of “pure” theory” . The oppressed class have no means of overthrowing the ruling class except by abandoning the notion of private property. Thus, the proletariats are necessarily revolting in a new way, through breaking the bond (instilled by an alienation of labour) that is created from a ‘manipulated’ or restricted consciousness. This is because the capitalist has induced the worker to surrender his humanist identity, so that he has no relation to himself or to his labour product– he is manipulated to believe that he owes his existence to labour activity.
The proletariats will, unlike the bourgeoisies establish the supremacy of power through the abolishment of existing economic conditions (the critical condition is abolishing the bourgeois mode of production). They are for the interest of the immense public, of which they themselves are a part. The proletariat class was the product of the bourgeoisies; their ideas were the offspring of bourgeois concepts of production. Just as Marx noted, “in bourgeois society, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past” , the proletariat’s revolution consist of disinheriting private property and disinheriting notions of “public prostitution” from the existing society. This necessarily follows since if they were to follow historical examples of uprising classes, the labourers could never emerge as the ruling class: “the modern labourer, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class” . Unlike previous historical movements, Communism is a call for political reform for the interest of the immense majority.
The rise of communism for Marx is significant because not only does it abandon the notion of private property (which has undergone class transformation from one class to another until the present capitalist society) but is also a total abolition of class distinction. Vulgar communism is the brute act of imposing the ideals, thereby removing any last vestiges of the bourgeois conception of class, profession, and private property. The disappearance of class culture is synonymous with the disappearance of all culture related to the bourgeoisies. Furthermore, this entails eliminating the means of production and exchange that the bourgeoisies have built up and inherited from feudal society. As such, Communism represents a fundamental annihilation of vestiges of the past; where the bourgeoisies have put “an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations” of the feudal society, Communism has banished all existing class relations completely. However, he does not question whether Communism will necessarily provide fodder for the next brewing class antagonism, since Communism ideology is not only based on restoring consciousness, “the complete return of man to himself as a social being” but also founded on the absence of class distinction.
Critically compare Durkheim’s methodological holism and Smith’s methodological individualism
Durkheim and Smith both develop their own thesis on the relationship between the society and the individual by examining the role each plays. Smith uses individualism to reason that individual choices and actions lead to an aggregate outcome, whereas Durkheim claims that we can only correctly examine the relationship between the individual and society from a holistic approach, by considering how the collective leads to individualism. While Durkheim and Smith both show that social interactions between individuals play a pivotal role in the development of society, Smith’s way of examining the individual in isolation from society gives an incomplete account of the relationship between the two. It is limited because it focuses on economic self-interest as a factor in how individuals relate to one another. Durkheim believes that the individual cannot exist without society, and shows how the society endows the individual with notions of morals, mutual liking, and mutual dependence, underlining that the individual should be studied within a social context. Durkheim’s methodological holism allows him to understand the function of society in relation to the individual. It establishes the context from which Smith’s premise originates from: individualism from society, and henceforth, establishes how individualism supports and sustains society.
Both Durkheim and Smith consider the role of the division of labour as an example of how their methodology provides a framework to examine the individual and the society. A critical point of deviation between Smith and Durkheim, other than their different premises (starting from the individual or from society), is their investigation of the role of the division of labour. Durkheim criticizes Smith for limiting the role of the division of labour to an economic interpretation. For Smith, the reason why one should specialize, other than inherent differences, (innate abilities and disposition towards certain skills), is to benefit from the economic efficiencies of others, as well as promoting one’s own economic advantages: our actions are motivated primarily on personal and economic gains. Durkheim, on the other hand, extrapolates on this idea by considering the social division of labour. Durkheim claims that it does not simply make individuals agents of exchange, but, “whole system of rights and duties joining them in a lasting way to one another” .
Durkheim and Smith also differ in the origin of the division of labour. Smith believes that it arises out of “a propensity in human nature to exchange” . From Smith’s economic viewpoint, greater productivity brings greater prosperity to society. Durkheim states that this productivity is merely a side phenomenon, a consequence of the division of labour. He believes instead that the division of labour is an evolutionary driving process in the development of society and individualization: “the division of labour is one result of the struggle for existence: but it is a gentle denouement” . It is preceded by society, (clearly demonstrating the social context of the division of labour), but plays a social role that allow us to adapt and live in the new conditions that society has created. Competition in society becomes progressively more intense with individualization. At the same time, the degree of interdependence between these individuals increases. The social role of the division of labour is to create a more complex and diverse society, replacing society’s former homogenous conditions where mechanical solidarity played a greater role suited for like-minded individuals to a more heterogeneous society composed of dissimilar individuals. Durkheim notes as the individual becomes more specialized, the more his sense and intellect is developed, because it is exercised frequently and in an acute fashion. Thus, as he exemplifies in this statement: “without having willed it, humanity finds itself prepared to accept a more intense and varied culture” . The structure of society becomes more and more intricate because the number of links between individuals grows. At the same time, social solidarity is enhanced. Once social solidarity has been enforced and strengthened, the individual cannot live without society. If social solidarity dissolves, the individual perishes. In the absence of any social context, the individual has no reason to differentiate and specialize.
Durkheim not only shows how the division of labour shapes society but also how it shapes the individual. Rather than separating and alienating individuals from one another, it draws them closer together because of increased mutual dependence. As the social climate changes, individuals become ever increasingly distinguished from one another. At the concluding end of the division of labour is the realization that the individual will emerge from society. He also observes how over many generations, society transitions from one dominated by ‘mechanical solidarity’ to one by ‘organic solidarity’, whereby differentiated individuals relate to one another as “social functions” . Durkheim draws on an anthropological evidence of why individualism could not have been present in primitive societies: “If individualism was to such an extent congenital in humanity one cannot see how primitive tribes were able so easily to subject themselves to the despotic authority of a chief” . As Smith can only pay attention to the individual’s motives one at a time, his methodology does not encompass other factors involved in decision making, such as the recognition to live harmoniously. Smith misses this critical point: “Individuals, instead of subordinating themselves to one group, subordinate themselves to the one who represented it” .
The difference between Durkheim and Smith’s methodology serves to highlight the emphasis one places on individualism or society. Durkheim’s assumptions are sociological; all human beings are political animals, so the need to live in a society is natural. Even though Smith’s premise does include the fact that human nature is political, it places a greater emphasis on personal gain as the sole objective of all social interactions. Where Smith fails to explain how a potential conflict, where the individual’s self-interest does not correspond to the interest of the great majority is resolved, Durkheim shows that instead of competing with one another, “they co-ordinate their activities. But in every case new specialties appear” . He highlights this flaw of individualism by critically pointing out that “any personality, however powerful it might be, could do nothing alone against a whole society” . Moreover, the society takes priority over the individual, since the individual’s existence depends on whether the society is in a healthy state. The individual draws its strength from society; society is strengthened by their social interdependence. Durkheim concludes at the end of The Division of Labour in Society with this observation:
“The human consciousness that we must realize within ourselves in its entirety is nothing other than the collective consciousness of the group of which we form part”
For Durkheim, the individual not only depends on society but also cannot escape from it: “the duties of the individual to himself are duties to society” .
Durkheim further elaborates and extends his thesis to other spheres of life that arises out of society and realized by the individuals. Smith’s methodology implies that some notion of the state exists based on some vague conceptualizing of some higher authority. In reality, however, it only appears to come from some higher principle, because the task of society is to maintain social cohesion, and to “endow their blessings” on the individual. Regarding this phenomenon, Durkheim observed that the only force that is superior to the individual and the sole entity that possess such a quality is that of the group. Moreover, in realizing that the society is literally and metaphorically an ‘organism’, Durkheim’s insightful perspective shows how the society also takes an independent existence of its own: “the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own” . It can be termed the collective or common consciousness Out of this arises altruism. It is interesting to note this because Durkheim sees altruism as “scarcely more than a private virtue, which is laudable for the individual to pursue” yet it prevails in society and is needed to ensure solidarity. Altruism is virtuous because it neutralizes and softens the brutal effects of the struggle for existence aggravated by the ongoing process of the division of labour.
Durkheim further shows how social solidarity is reinforced by the individuals. “The very pronounced sentiment that each one of us today possesses of our own individuality has caused them to believe that personal rights could not be restricted to such a degree save by an organization that exercised coercion.” . It is clear that in the domain of the civil society, Smith’s account fails to demonstrate how social cohesion is maintained. Without any recognition of the power of the collective – indeed Smith’s account does not include the concept of ‘collective consciousness,’ – methodological individualism fails to explain the establishment of institutions in society that could not have originated from the individual. Smith’s individualism believes that the rational individuals would not possess any personal interest or motivation to form a governing body, or a law of courts. These institutions, whose function is to maintain social cohesion, are formed when groups of individuals come together. Moreover, Durkheim shows how even if one were to base their premise on individualism, it would have to demand “a strange conclusion that social evolution has attempted, from the very outset, to produce the most perfect types [of individuals], since “no governmental force exists at first save that of the common will expressed by the assembled horde” . Thus, where Smith fails to consider the social influence of the collective, Durkheim shows how it engenders upon the individual some notion of unity and of the necessity of cooperation.
Perhaps the most powerful conclusion of Durkheim’s holistic view of society is that there are many examples of cooperation and understanding of universal rights in society that cannot be explained through the pursuit of self-interest. Morals, for example, only exist in a society, and not as an independent entity. The concept of morality cannot be reached by deduction starting from the individual. Every society is a moral society, because this involves at the most of fundamental basis learning to live together, to agree with one another, and which Durkheim observed, “cannot be achieved without making mutual sacrifices” . Smith’s methodological individualism fails to come to such a conclusion as it is grounded in a rather pessimistic and fundamentally selfish view of how individuals behave. If Smith’s point of view were absolutely correct, one would never need to interact socially beyond satisfying personal gains. Durkheim shows that this was not true, citing this example:
“For man to acknowledge that others have rights, not only as a matter of logic, but as one of daily living, he must have agreed to limit his own. Consequently this mutual limitation was only realizable in a spirit of understanding and harmony” (p. 76)
Even though Smith and Durkheim both agree on the importance of the division of labour as a self-perpetuating process that accompanies the development of society, where Smith fails to explain how different interests can still guarantee a functioning society and cohesion among individuals, Durkheim’s methodological holism provides a sound explanation by tying the role of the division of labour with social interdependence. In Smith’s account of society, the concept of morals spring from sympathy, but self-interest is a dominant ‘strategy’ in social interactions. Durkheim believed that only by examining the society as a whole do we understand the need for morals and how it arises from society:
“What is moral is a source of solidarity, everything that forces man to take account of other people, to regulate his actions by something other than the promptings of his own egoism” (p. 331)
We see how Durkheim differs from Smith’s view that morality originates from private sentiments. Durkheim believes that society endows the individual with notions of morals that could not have originated from the individual: how to best protect the collective from harm, through written laws, which are verbal representations of morals used enforce social solidarity. Morality must therefore originate from what Durkheim identifies as “social consciousness” and which can be interpreted as the ‘thought’ of society when we consider society as an ‘organism’. To elaborate, “social consciousness” shows how his methodology encompasses some aspects of Smith’s account, as the term implies how some elements of individualism, such as self-interest, influence the way that society enforces cooperation and maintains social solidarity. Smith’s methodological individualism is useful when studying the individual in more developed societies, but only focuses on one individual at a time and therefore fails to consider the greater role played by society in moderating and regulating private actions. While Durkheim and Smith’s methodologies are hermeneutic, Durkheim’s methodological holism demonstrates a paradigm shift from Smith’s methodological individualism, presenting a more encompassing perspective on the role of the individual in society.
Durkheim and Smith both develop their own thesis on the relationship between the society and the individual by examining the role each plays. Smith uses individualism to reason that individual choices and actions lead to an aggregate outcome, whereas Durkheim claims that we can only correctly examine the relationship between the individual and society from a holistic approach, by considering how the collective leads to individualism. While Durkheim and Smith both show that social interactions between individuals play a pivotal role in the development of society, Smith’s way of examining the individual in isolation from society gives an incomplete account of the relationship between the two. It is limited because it focuses on economic self-interest as a factor in how individuals relate to one another. Durkheim believes that the individual cannot exist without society, and shows how the society endows the individual with notions of morals, mutual liking, and mutual dependence, underlining that the individual should be studied within a social context. Durkheim’s methodological holism allows him to understand the function of society in relation to the individual. It establishes the context from which Smith’s premise originates from: individualism from society, and henceforth, establishes how individualism supports and sustains society.
Both Durkheim and Smith consider the role of the division of labour as an example of how their methodology provides a framework to examine the individual and the society. A critical point of deviation between Smith and Durkheim, other than their different premises (starting from the individual or from society), is their investigation of the role of the division of labour. Durkheim criticizes Smith for limiting the role of the division of labour to an economic interpretation. For Smith, the reason why one should specialize, other than inherent differences, (innate abilities and disposition towards certain skills), is to benefit from the economic efficiencies of others, as well as promoting one’s own economic advantages: our actions are motivated primarily on personal and economic gains. Durkheim, on the other hand, extrapolates on this idea by considering the social division of labour. Durkheim claims that it does not simply make individuals agents of exchange, but, “whole system of rights and duties joining them in a lasting way to one another” .
Durkheim and Smith also differ in the origin of the division of labour. Smith believes that it arises out of “a propensity in human nature to exchange” . From Smith’s economic viewpoint, greater productivity brings greater prosperity to society. Durkheim states that this productivity is merely a side phenomenon, a consequence of the division of labour. He believes instead that the division of labour is an evolutionary driving process in the development of society and individualization: “the division of labour is one result of the struggle for existence: but it is a gentle denouement” . It is preceded by society, (clearly demonstrating the social context of the division of labour), but plays a social role that allow us to adapt and live in the new conditions that society has created. Competition in society becomes progressively more intense with individualization. At the same time, the degree of interdependence between these individuals increases. The social role of the division of labour is to create a more complex and diverse society, replacing society’s former homogenous conditions where mechanical solidarity played a greater role suited for like-minded individuals to a more heterogeneous society composed of dissimilar individuals. Durkheim notes as the individual becomes more specialized, the more his sense and intellect is developed, because it is exercised frequently and in an acute fashion. Thus, as he exemplifies in this statement: “without having willed it, humanity finds itself prepared to accept a more intense and varied culture” . The structure of society becomes more and more intricate because the number of links between individuals grows. At the same time, social solidarity is enhanced. Once social solidarity has been enforced and strengthened, the individual cannot live without society. If social solidarity dissolves, the individual perishes. In the absence of any social context, the individual has no reason to differentiate and specialize.
Durkheim not only shows how the division of labour shapes society but also how it shapes the individual. Rather than separating and alienating individuals from one another, it draws them closer together because of increased mutual dependence. As the social climate changes, individuals become ever increasingly distinguished from one another. At the concluding end of the division of labour is the realization that the individual will emerge from society. He also observes how over many generations, society transitions from one dominated by ‘mechanical solidarity’ to one by ‘organic solidarity’, whereby differentiated individuals relate to one another as “social functions” . Durkheim draws on an anthropological evidence of why individualism could not have been present in primitive societies: “If individualism was to such an extent congenital in humanity one cannot see how primitive tribes were able so easily to subject themselves to the despotic authority of a chief” . As Smith can only pay attention to the individual’s motives one at a time, his methodology does not encompass other factors involved in decision making, such as the recognition to live harmoniously. Smith misses this critical point: “Individuals, instead of subordinating themselves to one group, subordinate themselves to the one who represented it” .
The difference between Durkheim and Smith’s methodology serves to highlight the emphasis one places on individualism or society. Durkheim’s assumptions are sociological; all human beings are political animals, so the need to live in a society is natural. Even though Smith’s premise does include the fact that human nature is political, it places a greater emphasis on personal gain as the sole objective of all social interactions. Where Smith fails to explain how a potential conflict, where the individual’s self-interest does not correspond to the interest of the great majority is resolved, Durkheim shows that instead of competing with one another, “they co-ordinate their activities. But in every case new specialties appear” . He highlights this flaw of individualism by critically pointing out that “any personality, however powerful it might be, could do nothing alone against a whole society” . Moreover, the society takes priority over the individual, since the individual’s existence depends on whether the society is in a healthy state. The individual draws its strength from society; society is strengthened by their social interdependence. Durkheim concludes at the end of The Division of Labour in Society with this observation:
“The human consciousness that we must realize within ourselves in its entirety is nothing other than the collective consciousness of the group of which we form part”
For Durkheim, the individual not only depends on society but also cannot escape from it: “the duties of the individual to himself are duties to society” .
Durkheim further elaborates and extends his thesis to other spheres of life that arises out of society and realized by the individuals. Smith’s methodology implies that some notion of the state exists based on some vague conceptualizing of some higher authority. In reality, however, it only appears to come from some higher principle, because the task of society is to maintain social cohesion, and to “endow their blessings” on the individual. Regarding this phenomenon, Durkheim observed that the only force that is superior to the individual and the sole entity that possess such a quality is that of the group. Moreover, in realizing that the society is literally and metaphorically an ‘organism’, Durkheim’s insightful perspective shows how the society also takes an independent existence of its own: “the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own” . It can be termed the collective or common consciousness Out of this arises altruism. It is interesting to note this because Durkheim sees altruism as “scarcely more than a private virtue, which is laudable for the individual to pursue” yet it prevails in society and is needed to ensure solidarity. Altruism is virtuous because it neutralizes and softens the brutal effects of the struggle for existence aggravated by the ongoing process of the division of labour.
Durkheim further shows how social solidarity is reinforced by the individuals. “The very pronounced sentiment that each one of us today possesses of our own individuality has caused them to believe that personal rights could not be restricted to such a degree save by an organization that exercised coercion.” . It is clear that in the domain of the civil society, Smith’s account fails to demonstrate how social cohesion is maintained. Without any recognition of the power of the collective – indeed Smith’s account does not include the concept of ‘collective consciousness,’ – methodological individualism fails to explain the establishment of institutions in society that could not have originated from the individual. Smith’s individualism believes that the rational individuals would not possess any personal interest or motivation to form a governing body, or a law of courts. These institutions, whose function is to maintain social cohesion, are formed when groups of individuals come together. Moreover, Durkheim shows how even if one were to base their premise on individualism, it would have to demand “a strange conclusion that social evolution has attempted, from the very outset, to produce the most perfect types [of individuals], since “no governmental force exists at first save that of the common will expressed by the assembled horde” . Thus, where Smith fails to consider the social influence of the collective, Durkheim shows how it engenders upon the individual some notion of unity and of the necessity of cooperation.
Perhaps the most powerful conclusion of Durkheim’s holistic view of society is that there are many examples of cooperation and understanding of universal rights in society that cannot be explained through the pursuit of self-interest. Morals, for example, only exist in a society, and not as an independent entity. The concept of morality cannot be reached by deduction starting from the individual. Every society is a moral society, because this involves at the most of fundamental basis learning to live together, to agree with one another, and which Durkheim observed, “cannot be achieved without making mutual sacrifices” . Smith’s methodological individualism fails to come to such a conclusion as it is grounded in a rather pessimistic and fundamentally selfish view of how individuals behave. If Smith’s point of view were absolutely correct, one would never need to interact socially beyond satisfying personal gains. Durkheim shows that this was not true, citing this example:
“For man to acknowledge that others have rights, not only as a matter of logic, but as one of daily living, he must have agreed to limit his own. Consequently this mutual limitation was only realizable in a spirit of understanding and harmony” (p. 76)
Even though Smith and Durkheim both agree on the importance of the division of labour as a self-perpetuating process that accompanies the development of society, where Smith fails to explain how different interests can still guarantee a functioning society and cohesion among individuals, Durkheim’s methodological holism provides a sound explanation by tying the role of the division of labour with social interdependence. In Smith’s account of society, the concept of morals spring from sympathy, but self-interest is a dominant ‘strategy’ in social interactions. Durkheim believed that only by examining the society as a whole do we understand the need for morals and how it arises from society:
“What is moral is a source of solidarity, everything that forces man to take account of other people, to regulate his actions by something other than the promptings of his own egoism” (p. 331)
We see how Durkheim differs from Smith’s view that morality originates from private sentiments. Durkheim believes that society endows the individual with notions of morals that could not have originated from the individual: how to best protect the collective from harm, through written laws, which are verbal representations of morals used enforce social solidarity. Morality must therefore originate from what Durkheim identifies as “social consciousness” and which can be interpreted as the ‘thought’ of society when we consider society as an ‘organism’. To elaborate, “social consciousness” shows how his methodology encompasses some aspects of Smith’s account, as the term implies how some elements of individualism, such as self-interest, influence the way that society enforces cooperation and maintains social solidarity. Smith’s methodological individualism is useful when studying the individual in more developed societies, but only focuses on one individual at a time and therefore fails to consider the greater role played by society in moderating and regulating private actions. While Durkheim and Smith’s methodologies are hermeneutic, Durkheim’s methodological holism demonstrates a paradigm shift from Smith’s methodological individualism, presenting a more encompassing perspective on the role of the individual in society.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)