Modern Societies as the Product of Historical Developments - Essay Example

? Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Modern societies are believed to have been the product of historical developments. Many theorists have over time tries to explain how societies developed from the primitive stage to be the civilized societies they are today and the consequences of such developments such as the establishment of different forms of governments, growth of the judicial system or laws and other institutions of society. In the same light, these developments are also believed to have given rise to systems of inequalities and moral degradation in emerging societies. However, in this case we are going to concentrate on the social development theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and Adam Smith (1723-1790) of the Scottish enlightenment. The two are great political philosophers and sociologists whose works have influenced a lot of people. The work of Adam Smith on The Wealth of Nations has made tremendous changes in economics, governments and other fields especially his concept of the ‘invisible hand’. Rousseau’s work on social contract is also of great influence. Both believe social development took place in stages but differ on what these stages comprised of and on the role of social contract among others. For Smith the progress of society occurs when individuals are left free to conduct their affairs but for Rousseau, progress occurs when people’s interests are safeguarded by a sovereign. They both agree that division of labor is important in order to make progress but it also results in inequalities in society. Since both give an account of historical development of society, how do they differ in their explanations and which of the two theories is better in explaining this account of social change? This is a question that will be delved into in this piece of work. I shall argue that Smith’s theory is more credible than Adams in explaining social changes as it gives a step by step approach of what occurred and it relates to the political system prevalent in many nations today where the free market forces guide the market and government intervention is limited. Adam Smith was born in 1723 in Scotland to a middle class family. He was a follower of Scottish enlightenment and much influenced by the work of Hume. His work is also inclined to that of Karl Marx and the Marxians’ since it is based much on evolution of societies from feudal to capitalism though for him, he used the term commercial societies rather than capitalism. He believed that society developed in four stages: Age of hunters, age of shepherds, age of agriculture and age of commerce (Smith 1978 p. 149). However, he did not explain how these evolved or whether one came after the other but he indicated that each stage is more advanced than the other. Rousseau on the other hand, was born 1712 in Geneva and bases his work much on the ideas of early philosophers such as Plato and Socrates in Greek and Athens. In the Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men, Rousseau gave an account of how society developed from the state of nature to civilization. Savages were in state of nature but with the discovery of iron they started agriculture and as art improved, it gave rise to poets and philosophers who were more civilized. Unlike Smith, he did not specify stages but attributed civilization to development of tools, agriculture and reasoning (Rousseau, Discourse p. 181). There is a difference on the accounts of social change given by the two theorists. For Smith, the society developed out of unintended actions of individuals but for Rousseau, the society development was not an accident. Smith thus indicates that society evolved from that of hunters to that of commercialists. The hunter-gatherers were savages who depended on wild fruits and wild animals (Smith 1978 p. 149). They extracted their source of livelihood from nature without having to till the land or keep animals. In the process of hunting they realized they can keep animals as source of food hence the second stage of pasturage. These individuals domesticated the wild animals for food but were not involved in agriculture. They moved from place to place with their animals in Steppes but when they reached Greece they found good land which could be cultivated to produce more food for the pastoralists. The age of agriculture thus was born. This involved tilling the land and also keeping animals. This was necessary for the increasing population and it led to permanent settlements as opposed to nomadic pastoralism. Individuals could exchange food for cattle thus a little commerce was prevalent. However, as time went by, and population increased there was more food production and the need to exchange the surplus produce with other items that they could not produce giving rise to the commercial age. This was also enhanced by the presence of a good transport system (sea) to take produce and some coarse manufactures to other areas. The commercial stage was in two stages: ancient society and feudalism. As agricultural produce increased, so did trade giving birth to towns and cities where these goods were being manufactured and sold to the countryside. Rousseau’s account of historical social change began with the state of nature where primitive individuals or savages were in their natural state. Their main occupation was hunting and gathering. They lived naked under trees with other animal species and ate all types of food. Survival depended on strength as both animals and humans competed for food. Each individual catered for own needs without depending on others for anything guided by natural laws. These savages did not have a developed language thus any inventions went unnoticed as they could not be passed from one person to the other. The discovery of language was thus very essential for development. The discovery of iron and iron smelting led to development of tools which the savages having a more developed mind than animals, used to cultivate and produce food. This led to subdivision of land and land ownership and consequently inequalities as the well endowed with strength could cultivate huge tracts of land and get more harvest. The iron smelters exchanged their tools with agricultural produce as they could not get involved in both activities and thus excelled in their work. Land ownership brought about slavery as the weak did work for the strong. The discovery of gold and silver on the other hand, gave rise to poets while iron and grain gave rise to philosophers. This was the beginning of civilization and the downfall of men (Rousseau, Discourse, pp. 178-181). These are two accounts given by Smith and Rousseau about how society developed. From the two accounts, it is clear that both emphasized on the importance of development of tools to increase agricultural produce which was in turn used for exchange. For Smith, tools enabled increase in productivity and thus commerce. However, it is the manufactures in towns that gave rise to division of labor not machines as each person specialized in a peculiar trade. He gave an example of pin-making which was divided into eighteen unique tasks (Smith, 1993 1.1.3). These pin-makers did not require machines to do these tasks but work productivity was improved all the same. Smith argued that it was the laborers doing their peculiar trades, and in need of perfecting their art who invented new machines just like the boy who discovered a string could be used on a valve. It was also a product of freedom whereby some traders began a peculiar trade of speculating thus developing new machines to improve work. In this case, each was pursuing self-interest. The countryside people produced food and exchanged with town manufactures out of their own interests and not for common good. In the process, the commercialists distributed the goods to whole population including the poor out of own passions not out of benevolence. It was the work of the ‘invisible hand’ that made them to produce unintended consequences. As Smith put it, “it is not the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (1993 1.2.2; 2002 IV.1.10). For Rousseau, division of labor arose due to the various inventions such as iron. Those involved in iron smelting could not engage in agriculture and as such, each person had a duty to perform. There were artisans, agriculturalists, poets, and philosophers each perfecting his or her art (Rousseau 1975, p. 210). According to Rousseau the perfection of sciences and arts gave rise to physicists, geometers, chemists, astronomers, poets and painters but the society no longer had citizens (p. 223). Civil society began with owning land. Both thus talk of perfections but for Smith it was purely self interest and for Rousseau the progress of mind was proportionate to the needs of nature imposed by circumstances and passions (Rousseau, discourse p. 154). Division of labor in society according to Smith and Rousseau gave rise to inequalities and the need for political and judicial systems in the developing societies. However, both differ on the need for a government. For Smith people have natural rights of life, liberty and property hence should exercise these freedoms by pursuing own interests. The traders and buyers of goods and labor exchange their products willingly in the market. Division of labor leads to dexterity saves time and invention of machines. In the theory of moral sentiments, Smith argues that there are natural principles that govern morality of individuals hence enabling them to pursue their interests in harmony. People have sympathy for fellow-humans thus derive pleasure from seeing the happiness of others (Smith, 2002). However, he also argues that it is those who have the wealth that are viewed with sympathy as opposed to the poor. Wealth in this case is the product of labor. The individuals thus accumulate a lot of wealth to become rich and avoid poverty. They have conveniences of life yet are not content until they become praiseworthy (Smith, 2002 1.III.16). It is the wealthy by virtue of their riches that become kings and sometimes result to autocracy. Even though they do wrong, the citizens cannot stand the mortification of a monarch as they view him as superior. Hard work which was virtue in earlier societies is forgotten and the society results to crime, violence, murder and oppression of the poor leading to the need for justice system and laws to govern behavior. However, this industriousness also leads to progress of society as individuals “cultivate land, build houses, found cities and improved science and arts” (2002 IV.1.10). These individuals also had a love for the system thus the improvement of institutions that promoted social welfare such as the police, and civil government. The role of government was to guard citizens against mischief by wicked men and not to protect property rights; protect society from outside invasion through citizen militias or standing armies and to provide public goods. A well-governed society was thus supposed to lead to universal opulence to even the lowest ranks in society (Smith 1993 1.1. 10). For Rousseau, division of labor leads to interdependence and this is the beginning of inequalities. He believes individuals should be self-sufficient for community to thrive. Interdependence gives rise to property ownership, makes work necessary leading to slavery and servitude as well as destruction of nature (Rousseau, Discourse, p. 178). The division of land led to formulation of the first rules of justice to govern ownership. These individuals then were forced to give up their rights and form a social contract to enable the human race to remove itself from the state of nature and not for protection of property. Everyone is below this law including the rulers through a representative form of government. If government does not perform, the society can remove it from power just like the French monarch was overthrown. Rousseau unlike Smith does not believe in voluntary contracts where people engage freely in exchange of products and labor. Instead, the social contract should force people to be free so that they can realize the general will of society and act according to it (Rousseau, 2008 p. 24).This is because “men were born free but civilization enchains them everywhere” (Rousseau, Social contract p. 49). It is only force that can oblige people to obey and to be free hence enslavement cannot be justified. No man has natural authority over his fellows unlike in Smiths republic where kings wielded power by virtue of wealth. For Rousseau people should be content in their natural state thus acquire happiness. Civilized people according to him can never be happy as they are never contented. In the letter of Usbek to Iben at Smyrna, Persian women are portrayed as pure and happy as opposed to the French since they are uncivilized and contented (De Secondat & Montesquieu, 1721, letter XXX1V). Adam Smith agrees with Rousseau that men in their nature “have necessary and conveniences of life which they wanted as all have same duties, same work and no difference in employment” (Smith 1993 1.2.4). In other words, they are contented. However, due to a certain propensity in human nature to truck, barter and exchange men engage in different ventures giving rise to division of labor. As such, unlike Rousseau talent does not emanate from human wisdom. Instead, it is a result of education, habits and customs. When one joins employment, he or she engages in one trade as a result of division of labor thus get used to it and perfects it after education has done a role of imparting some skills in the person. This is why the government in a commercial society is important; to provide public goods like education. However, for Rousseau individuals are talented in different skills education just serves to destroy society by weakening people; civilized people have neither courage nor military virtues. For example the early Persians did not have to trouble themselves by searching for knowledge, they were only taught virtue and they were very happy (Rousseau, 1975 p. 211). Advancement of science and arts just corrupts our morals making civilized societies unhappy and to degenerate. The Athens engaged in science and arts so much that they neglected agriculture which is the base of the economy. Leaders hid behind veils of politeness to be acceptable by population but inside, they were full of resentment, fear and corrupted souls. For example, Constantinople was full of betrayals, assassinations and other atrocious crimes due to a degraded society which had no morals and virtues. Both accounts of social change are essential in explaining how society changed but I would subscribe to the theory of Adam Smith. He explains clearly how commerce resulted into growth of towns and cities and the various institutions that exist in society. More so, it clearly explains the importance of division of labor in society and the inequalities associated with it. Town people who carry out manufacturing get their raw materials from the countryside thus contributing to the growth of such areas. They manufacture goods and sell them to the countryside thus providing them with what they cannot produce themselves. Furthermore, the merchants go back to the countryside to buy land, settle there and improve it thus improving production for rude societies. On the other hand, countryside people go to towns to get employed thus earns more income to buy conveniences of life for their families. According to Smith, it is the ‘invisible hand’ that drives commerce and as such, the income from wages, rent and profit should be equal to the annual produce of land and labor (Smith 1993 1.11.261). However, this does not occur in reality due to wickedness of men who just want to amass riches and gain respect and reputation and other beauties that accompany it. Division of labor is very crucial in increasing productivity but results in many trades and different wages leading to inequalities. This theory explains very well what actually happens although it does not give account of how one society or stage evolves into another. Conclusion Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are two great sociologists whose works help to explain historical social changes as well as growth of political and judicial institutions. Smith’s theory is based on free trade concept or what he calls the ‘invisible hand’. As society changes, so do forms of governments change but he advocates limited governments to allow commerce and industry to thrive. Society evolved from the hunter-gatherers to shepherds, agriculturalists and finally commercialists and each stage was more developed then the other. Commerce gave rise to division of labor, growth of towns and cities, establishment of judicial systems and political institutions. Wealth for Adams comprises of labor not the stock of produce accumulated. For Rousseau, society grew from the state of nature to civilization through improvement of tools and reasoning. This gave rise to agriculture, division of land and land ownership, establishment of rules of justice and formation of a social contract where sovereign are the people. He argues that civilized societies are not happy since they are not contented like the savages thus the social contract helps to bring people out of state of nature and to realize good will of society. If he was to be asked, civilization would not have taken place as it leads to degradation and extinction of human race. It was thus not advisable for Europeans to try to revive Greek arts and science. References Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, Complete Works, vol. 3 LETTER XXXIV.: Usbek to Ibben, at Smyrna. (Grandeur and Declension of the Roman Empire; A Dialogue between Sylla and Eucrates; Persian Letters) [1721] Rousseau-Jean- Jacques (1975). The Essential Rousseau: Discourse on the Arts and Sciences. Trans. Lowell Bair. New York: Penguin Books. Rousseau-Jean-Jacques (2008). The Social Contract. New York: Cosimo Rousseau-Jean-Jacques . The Social Contract. Pp 49-59. Rousseau-Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men. Smith, A. (1978) Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. R. Meek, D. Raphael, and P. Stein. Oxford: Clarendon Press Smith, Adam (1993 ed.) An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 11-25; 124-30; 155-157; 246-273. Smith, Adam (2002 ed). Theory of Moral Sentiments. pp. 60-77; 209-219. Read More