Book I Chapter 1 of Wealth of Nations revolves around the concept of the division of labor. Smith goes to lengths to demonstrate that dividing labor into smaller, more simple tasks results in greater production, and when coupled with specialization, results in higher quality. He argues that when people are left to their own devices, they will use their specialized knowledge and skills cooperatively and everyone benefits. This reflects the more accurate view of humanity that man was created "good", and although we are fallen, we are still made in the image of God. However accurately Smith's ideas of the division of labor reflect human nature, Smith's picture of the division of labor does not completely mesh with human nature.
In his depiction of the efficiency of the division of labor, Smith mentions two phenomenon which would put a bitter taste in some one's mouth. For one, Smith refers to "making this business into some one simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employment of his life." I understand completely what Smith is referring to: taking a complex task (like making cabinets), and breaking it down into simpler operations. One person will be dedicated to running each operation, and that is all they are responsible for. But this is what that boils down to: instead of making the whole of the cabinet, one person is responsible for cutting the wood for the doors, another for assembling the doors, and another for assembling the whole thing. How can such an operation be good for the human person? Your sole means of employ is doing a single, simple task. While a worker may take pride in their work initially, how long before they begin to get bored with cutting wood, day in and day out? A dissatisfied worker is an unproductive or poor worker, so while the number of products produced increase, the quality will diminish, as the worker puts in his time and goes home.
Immediately preceding that phrase, Smith talks about a hypothetical country farmer who also weaves. He mentions that as a weaver, his farming hinders how much weaving gets done, and as a farmer, his weaving hinders his farm's functioning. Those are good points: a weaver who likes to work the ground and grow things hinders his ability to make a living from his trade. But what about the farmer who simply enjoys weaving, or the weaver who enjoys farming? Perhaps their excursions into "side activities" isn't really for economic production, but to do something they enjoy.
These two points go together. As the division of labor turns complex jobs into a series of simple tasks, there will be those laborers who maintain a "side profession" to maintain their happiness. It could be postulated that this is how craftsmen endure. There are still craftsmen who exist not for the profit, but for the pure enjoyment of the task. As an example, exploring the homes of Victorian America, one will find certain features that are all but extinct on modern houses. For example, it was customary for the porches of Victorian homes to be decorated with ginger breading, and the arches between rooms would have bent trim around them. Such practices require skill and time, to be sure, but even the domiciles of well-to-do Americans in the late 20th and 21st Centuries are lacking such examples of craftsmanship. However, there still exist craftsmen who operate solely for two motivations: their love of Victorian architecture and the their love of quality craftsmanship. Some, including a few I have talked to, are turned off by "assembly line production", and would rather put their own personal stamp on each piece they produce.
Herein lies another problem with Smith's depiction of the division of labor: Smith is focusing on the communal aspect, which is important because it is part of the human condition: humans are not simply individuals, but are part of a larger whole (or several larger wholes). However, humans are simply collective: they exist individually, and never can it be said that the whole is more important or greater than the individual. This focusing on the whole to the neglect of the individual is what brings up the problems noted above.
No comments:
Post a Comment