Smith - The 'mechanistic materialist'

Adam Smith, to my mind, is something of an idealist, despite his empiricist views and his famously logical outlook on the world. He is the founder of modern economics, (certainly a very methodical subject), and became known also for his views on human nature. Smith was of a certain breed of writers during his time, whom often found their work ridiculed by satirists like Jonathan Swift, particularly for their pompous attitudes.

As was stated in the lecture this week, Smith's view of the world may best be compared to clockwork - everything and everyone works meticulously in tandem and the forces of nature will eventually balance out. This even goes so far as to apply to his theories on human nature; the human mind itself is a careful balance between good and evil, greed and charity. His most famous theory however, is that of the 'hidden hand'. Effectively, he states that the circulation of economy is inescapable; the forces of supply and demand will always be present and thus keep the population in a perpetual state of trading, to keep ourselves alive. For example, he disregarded any limits on foreign trade, believing that such laws would bring consequences for the entire country and only act as a temporary form of defiance, before inevitably being lifted.

This is a derivation of 'The Law of Unintended Clauses', another of Smith's theories that also worked on the basis of an holistic economy, i.e. one that is always affected by the actions of another economy.

However, these materialist beliefs I believe Smith to have justified in a rather idealistic fashion. His view that any given economy will inevitably grow, due to the 'hidden hand', and that in this way unemployment is essentially impossible, is somewhat optimistic to say the least, particularly when you look at today's Third World Countries. Similarly, his take on poverty may be seen as being slightly short-sighted, regarding it as relative only to a given era. My first impression here is that he sees the poor as simply complaining and that his reliance on his 'hidden hand' has led him into believing that one day, the economy will simply correct itself.

But although I see Smith, in this respect, as slightly naive, I think that the new theories he introduced had a radical influence on today's economy and he emphasised, for example, the inefficiency, (let alone the cruelty), of slavery and promoted division of labour. Thus, his influence in history should not be forgotten.

Freedom versus Liberty

In my last post, I explored the core themes surrounding Rousseau's ideals. The seminar this week continued in that vain, and initially, my views on him seemed to be veering in the same direction, largely unchanged. Essentially, how can mankind live by Rousseau's social contract, in a state of nature, when it is actually human nature to want a leader amongst us, to guide us in the 'right' direction?

However, the discussion, for me, took a new turn when we began to think about the difference between 'freedom' and 'liberty'. For although similar in definition, there is a subtle difference. I would define freedom as the absolute right of a person to do what they want, when they want, without consequence for themselves, (or indeed for anyone else, if I look at it in a slightly more idealistic way). The difference comes when I define a liberty as only a particular right within society.

For example, I have the liberty within our own society to go to the shop at whatever time of day I choose fit. However, I am not free to take a loaf of bread without paying for it - that is not my liberty. Therefore, freedom may be seen as a web of liberties, without boundaries.

Liberties are also dependent upon society and even generation. Currently in the UK, weblogging is perfectly legal, (and hopefully always will be), whereas Nazi Germany refrained its people from voicing public opinions. This is an extreme example, but still illustrates my point of view.

These considerations led me to wonder; was Rousseau simply a poor communicator? When he described a world of total freedom, was he merely emphasising the need for a democracy; for certain liberties? Perhaps he simply wished to see society exist more happily; to repair itself after the blood shed of the Civil War.

Perhaps. Such assertions may be a little far-fetched and the fact remains that Rousseau still wanted to 'force' others to share his view. Perhaps we'll never know what he really wanted the world to be like, but it seems that he was not willing to accept any other world.

Nevertheless, it may be something to bare in mind when discussing Rousseau's mentality...

Rousseau and Romanticism

My views on Rousseau are perhaps shared by the majority of people on the course.

One of the first words that comes to mind is 'unconventional', although in a slightly stronger context, maybe 'insane' would be more apt. Similarly to More, the basis of his ideas are perhaps understandable. Equality and freedom are two of the most important aspects in our modern society, although admittedly the former is really yet to be achieved. But in Rousseau's world, the cost of such surely far outweighs the benefits.

It is the exact world that Hobbes wished to avoid; one of chaos and non-conformity - such is what the state of nature openly brings to the table. And yet the irony in Rousseau's statement, where one, if necessary, should be 'forced to be free', seems to completely escape him. The way in which he attempts to sell his views to the general public is chillingly reminicent of Hitler's Germany. A society in which every single person is a part of a whole, working towards the same goals and ambitions, striving towards a better standard of living, while at the same time being free to do as you please, (provided it conforms to the general will - another paradox). It certainly sounds tempting, until you read the fine print. Certainly, there are shades of an Orwellian dictatorship within his version of the Social Contract; leading society to believe one thing, when you mean something entirely different - at this point, I refer to Animal Farm; 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'.

And similarly to Germany during the early twentieth century, left reeling by the impact of the First World War and vulnerable to Hitler's alienating beliefs, society at the time of Rousseau was very much anti-enlightenment, having become bored with the influences of science. Romanticism offered an ideal escape from the mundane lifestyles that people had begun to lead after the Civil War. I feel this in particular had much to do with both its and Rousseau's popularity during the latter part of the eighteenth century.

As a final thought, with regards to the state of nature, you need only study the Great Terror to understand that, although ideal in theory, it could only result in the total collapse of society.

Evolution of Reading

In my view, Joseph Addison intended his essays to be witty and humorous. His lively metaphors and analogies, (for example, Tom Puzzle and Will Dry), highlight this. However, an interesting discussion in last week's seminar arose, concerning whether or not Addison did intend to be funny.

The activity of reading is, and always has been, affected by modern views and beliefs, which shape our understanding of a text. Structuralism dictates whether we find a book funny, sad, or even offensive and this is largely down to the media. The death of Princess Diana was tragic, and although I acknowledge that it is human nature to feel such grief and sympathy at such a time, the media, to a certain extent, also enforced a sense of shock upon us, as the death was so widely reported for such a long time.

In this way, I find it interesting to wonder how Addison's essays were received by the public, when they were first published. Did people find them funny back then? Three hundred years have passed since that time, and so society's view of different issues will have changed radically.

My point being, it is possible that Addison could have been making some serious points in his essays, that were not merely to be taken as light-hearted and witty. Perhaps he was a fervent advocate of the lower classes learning to read and write, and was not just poking fun at their inability to understand what he was saying, describing them as blind 'moles'.

The media, in those days, was a new phenomenon, and so people's reading of the texts was most likely uninhibited by previously enforced ideas, (with the exception of the bible). Therefore it is possible that the essays were all received in different ways by different people. Crossing into media studies momentarily, it may be said that society took on either an alternative or oppositional reading, rather than Addison's preferred reading.

Perhaps we will never know what he truly, originally intended to say, as structuralism has reshaped our way of thinking since his day. We have become 'moles' ourselves in this sense. Nonetheless, his articles would have played an important role during the 1700s, regardless of the reading, as they introduced to society a means by which people could both receive and transmit ideas and views themselves.