Advertisement

Abstract

The aim of the present chapter is to compare Hegel’s opinion on the division of labour with the views of his Scottish predecessors. Following Hegel’s own definition,

Division of labour means that a concrete product is not to its full extent created by one individual, [but] that the individual continues to produce one and the same part of it. (VRP, Vol. I, p. 314)

‘division of labour’ is here understood as specialization within the professions; ‘social’ division of labour, implying the emergence of social classes, the differing economic functions of which have to be mediated by a market economy, has already been discussed (chapter four, section D).

Keywords

Fire Engine National Spirit Lena Manuscript Ordinary Employment Modern Political Economy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    In: DHE, pp. 48–51. There is an English translation of this essay by H.S. Harris, in: Clio, Vol. VII.3, pp. 403–407.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Über einige Vorteile, welche uns die Lektüre der alten klassischen griechischen und romischen Schriftsteller gewährt.” In: DHE, pp. 169–172.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cp. my paper “The Division of Labour and the Fate of the Poet: Ferguson, Garve, Schiller, and Hegel”, read to the German Society, University of Cambridge, February 15, 1984, and the Philosophical Society, University of Auckland, NZ, July 19, 1984, to be published.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DHE, p. 50. I have used my own translation as opposed to the one by Prof. H.S. Harris, Clio, Vol. VII.3, p. 405: “Every one learned [...] to appreciate the functions of other branches of society for himself.”Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G.E. Lessing, Nathan der Weise. Ed. by E.H. Hutton (London, 1962) Act V, Scene 6, Lines 3534–5, p. 140; English translation quoted from: Nathan the Wise. Translated by William Jacks (Glasgow, 1894) p. 227.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    That picture could of course be changed by the finding of more manuscripts. Material from the Frankfurt period should, in this context, be of special significance, as recent studies have shown that some figures of the Hegel-Hölderlin circle there did indeed discuss aesthetic questions in connection with economics; cp.: Chr. Jamme and Otto Pöggeler (Eds.), Homburg vor der Höhe in der deutschen Geistesgeschichte. Studien zum Freundeskreis um Hegel und Hölderlin (Stuttgart, 1981).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    In particular: System der Sittlichkeit; the so-called Jenenser Realphilosophien; the Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts plus the various sets of related lecture notes.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    This decision, though primarily based on grounds of presentation, would not have been taken if we were not convinced that Hegel’s various treatments of our present topic agree fundamentally. Cp.: the Göhler versus Fetscher controversy on the wider issue of continuity of Hegel’s economic thought. Iring Fetscher, “Zur Aktualität der politischen Philosophie Hegels”, R. Heede & J. Ritter, Hegel-Bilanz (Frankfurt, 1973) pp. 193–213. Gerhard Gohler, “Kommentar zu Hegels frühen politischen Systemen”,Google Scholar
  9. 8a.
    G. Gohler (Ed.), Hegels Frühe Politische Systeme (Frankfurt, 1974) pp. 481 & 545 ff.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horst, C. Recktenwald’s “Introduction” to his recent German editon of Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’: Der Wohlstand der Nationen (München, 1978) p. LII; my own translation of: “der eigentliche Motor der [wirtschaftlichen] Entwicklung.”Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.H. Campbell & A.S. Skinner, “Introduction” to SGE, Vol. II. 1, p. 43.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    For a good introduction to this topic, see: W.A. Eltis, “Adam Smith’s Theory of Economic Growth”, A.S. Skinner & T. Wilson (Eds.), Essays on Adam Smith (Oxford, 1975), pp. 426–454.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nathan Rosenberg, “Adam Smith on the Division of Labour: Two Views or One?”, Economica, New Series, Vol. XXXII (1965) pp. 127–139, here p. 127.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SGE, Vol. II.1, p. 17 (my own italics; N.W.); cp.: SGE, Vol. V, pp. 345 & 491 & 567.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    SJS, Vol. I, p. 123. In passing, he mentions the following examples: watermills and ploughs (Vol. I, p. 121), iron works and saw mills (ibid., p. 256).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A well-known example is the description of pin-making, which Smith may well have used; cp.: Denis Diderot & Jean d’Alembert (Eds.), Encyclopédie. 17 vols. (Paris, 1751–1765) Vol. V (Paris, 1755) pp. 804–807.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vernard Foley, The Social Physics of Adam Smith (West Lafayette, 1976) p. 139 -Incidentally, Foley echoes a similar older claim by John Gillies.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Foley (1976) pp. 147 f.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    This contemporary “institutional relevance” has rightly been stressed by the editors (R.H. Campbell & A.S. Skinner) of SGE, Vol. II. 1, pp. 40–50.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    SGE, Vol. V, p. 342 — Adam Smith had probably the Carron Iron Works in mind. Founded in 1759, the Carron Company pioneered the Industrial Revolution in Scotland.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    SGE, Vol. II. 1, p. 20; “fire engine” is the old name for a steam engine.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Foley (1976) p. 155.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    SGE, Vol. II. 1, p. 448; cp.: ibid., Vol. II.2, p. 626: “The discovery of America, and of a passage to the East Indies... [is described as] uniting, in some measure, the most distant parts of the world” — See also Hume’s essay “Of the Populousness of Antient Nations”, in: DHW, Vol. III, pp. 381–443, here p. 410.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    SGE, Vol. II.1, pp. 469 f & SJS, Vol. I, pp. 121 ff - For our revaluation of their respective views on the issue, see above, chapter five.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    AF1, p. 217; cp.: SGE, Vol. V, p. 563: “... with regard to the produce of the labour of a great society there is never such a thing as a fair and equal division.”Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    SGE, Vol. V, p. 564; cp.: AF1, p. 186 & SGE, Vol. V, p. 540.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duncan Forbes in his introduction to AF1, p. XLI.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    SGE, Vol. V, pp. 563 f; cp.: SGE, Vol. II.1, p. 22.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    SGE, Vol. II.2, pp. 781 f & Vol. V, pp. 539 ff & AF1, pp. 182 ff & SJS, Vol. I, p. 71.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    In Prof. E.G. West’s interpretation, for example, Smith’s critical remarks about the division of labour constitute a “striking inconsistency” and are even “incompatible” with the main lines of Smith’s economic thought. On the basis of this alleged inconsistency, Smith’s comments on the drawbacks are played down as afterthoughts, perhaps a “modish piece of authorship.” Cp.: E.G. West, “Adam Smith and Alienation”, A.S. Skinner & T. Wilson (Eds.), Essays on Adam Smith (Oxford, 1975) pp. 540–552. This tendency to play down Smith’s discussion of the negative effects of the division of labour seems to result from the interest in defending the free market economy associated with Smith, an interest so strong that it sometimes prevents the acceptance of the many qualifications made by Smith. In this way, however, neither Adam Smith nor the market economy are rendered a good service. The image of Adam Smith that emerges from such interpretations is all too linear, a ghost of the real man and his theoretical depth.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Note that the word “necessarily” is used twice in the passage from the WN: SGE, Vol. II.2, pp. 781 f.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    R.H. Campbell & AS. Skinner in their introduction to SGE, Vol. II.1, p. 44.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Henry Home of Karnes, The Progress of Flax-husbandry in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1766); The Gentleman Farmer (Edinburgh, 1776).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    John Small, “Biographical Sketch of Adam Ferguson”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. 23 (1864) pp. 599–665, here p. 660.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cp. Herbert W. Schneider’s introduction to his edition of Adam Smith’s Moral and Political Philosophy (New York, 1970) p. xxiii: “It is important to keep in mind that ‘The Wealth of Nations’ was conceived not as a treatise on national welfare or the greatest happiness, but merely of ‘public opulence’ [...] for Smith’s theory of justice and benevolence we must turn elsewhere.”Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    G.E. Davie has frequently hinted at such an explanation, cp. “Anglophobe and Anglophil”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. XIV (1967) pp. 291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 36a.
    G.E. Davie “Hume, Reid, and the Passion of Ideas”, Edinburgh in the Age of Reason (Edinburgh, 1967), pp. 23–39.Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    Cp.: TMK, p. 266 — Vol. III, p. 565.Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    TMK, § 198, p. 129 — VRP, Vol. II, p. 645. Further references are to be found in the following places: HGW: Vol. VI, p. 323 & Vol. VIII, p. 243; VRP: Vol. I, p. 314 & Vol. III, pp. 609 f & Vol. IV, p. 502.Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    TMK, § 198, p. 129 - VRP, Vol. II, p. 646. For further references to the rôle of machinery, see below, p. 216, and note 42.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Jürgen Gebhardt, “Zur Physiognomie einer Epoche”, J. Gebhardt (Ed.), Die Revolution des Geistes (München, 1968) p. 9.Google Scholar
  42. 40a.
    For more detailed information on German social history of the relevant period, compare: Helmut Böhme, Prolegomena zu einer Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt, 1968)Google Scholar
  43. 40b.
    Hans-Ulrich Wehler (Ed.), Moderne deutsche Sozialgeschichte (Konigstein/Taunus, 5th ed., 1976) — both books include references to further reading. For Hegel’s own awareness of the fact that England had the most advanced social conditions, see: TWA, Vol. IV, pp. 473 f.Google Scholar
  44. 41.
    Cp.: Rosenkranz (1844) pp. 59–60 & 85. Critical editions of most of Hegel’s excerpts from British journals are now available: Michael John Petry, “Hegel and ‘The Morning Chronicle’”, HS, Vol. XI (1976) pp. 11–80Google Scholar
  45. 41a.
    Norbert Waszek, “Hegels Exzerpte aus der ‘Edinburgh Review’ 1817–1819”, HS, Vol. XX (1985) pp. 79–112Google Scholar
  46. 41b.
    Norbert Waszek, “Hegels Exzerpte aus der ‘Quarterly Review’ 1817–1818”, HS, Vol. XXI (1986) pp. 9–25.Google Scholar
  47. 42.
    HGW, Vol. VIII, p. 225. Explicit references to wind, water, steam, fire are to be found in the following places: SdS, p. 434; VRP: Vol. I, p. 314 & Vol. IV, p. 503.Google Scholar
  48. 43.
    Charles-Louis de Secondat et de Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des Loix (Genève, 1748) Book XXIII, chapt. 15; M. Delaire, “Epingle”, Denis Diderot & Jean d’Alembert (Eds.), Encyclopédie. 17 vols. (Paris, 1751–1765) Vol. V, pp. 804–807; Plato, Statesman, 279 a–283 b.Google Scholar
  49. 44.
    SJS, Vol. I, p. 256.Google Scholar
  50. 45.
    VRP, Vol. III, p. 613; compare Hegel’s notes on the destruction of steam engines by “the English rabble”, HBS, p. 782.Google Scholar
  51. 46.
    See above, pp. 209 f.Google Scholar
  52. 47.
    VRP, Vol. II, § 246 ff, pp. 684 f — TMK, pp. 151 f; cp.: VRP, Vol. IV, p. 613.Google Scholar
  53. 48.
    VRP: Vol. III, p. 613 & Vol. IV, pp. 705 f.Google Scholar
  54. 49.
    See above, p. 209.Google Scholar
  55. 50.
    VRP, Vol. IV, p. 614.Google Scholar
  56. 52.
    Even Shlomo Avineri’s excellent book is not free from this attitude (1972, p. 93): “This analysis undoubtedly reveals Hegel as one of the earliest radical critics of the modern industrial system.”Google Scholar
  57. 53.
    See, for example, Helmut Reichelt’s position in the introduction to his recent study edition of Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (Frankfurt, 1972) p. XXXV and passim.Google Scholar
  58. 54.
    Much of the post-war Marxist discussion of Hegel has to be seen in a political context. The fierce debate of the mid-fifties, for example, between the supporters of Stalin (R.O. Gropp, J. Schleifstein, et al.) on the one hand and those trying to legitimize Hegel as a ‘precursor’ of Marx (Lukács, Bloch, et al.) was closely linked with such political events as the XX. Congress of the CPSU (1956) and the risings in Hungary (1956) and the GDR (1953). For an introduction into this topic, see: Helferich (1979) pp. 180–189.Google Scholar
  59. 56.
    HGW, Vol. VIII, p. 244; English translation quoted from Avineri (1972) p. 97, note 44 (my own italics; N.W.).Google Scholar
  60. 57.
    VRP, Vol. III, pp. 695 f; cp.: the addition to § 236, TMK, p. 276.Google Scholar
  61. 58.
    VRP, Vol. IV, p. 614; cp. the addition to § 248, TMK, p. 278.Google Scholar
  62. 59.
    VRP, Vol. II, § 248, p. 685 - TMK, pp. 151 f: “the means of colonization which [...] supplies to a part of its population a return to life on the family basis in a new land and so also supplies itself with a new demand and field for its industry.”Google Scholar
  63. 60.
    Cp.: SGE, Vol. II. 1+2, pp. 452–472, 499, 505, 647, 723–758.Google Scholar
  64. 61.
    See above, p. 210.Google Scholar
  65. 62.
    G. Lukács, (21973); B. Cullen (1979).Google Scholar
  66. 63.
    SdS, p. 492 — SoEL, p. 171: “The government has to work as hard as possible against this inequality and the destruction of private and public life wrought by it. It can do this directly in an external way by making high gain more difficult...”Google Scholar
  67. 64.
    The wider implications of the Corporation — “The second ethical root of the state” (TMK, § 255, p. 154) — cannot be discussed in the present context, but that it relieves poverty cannot be doubted: “Within the Corporation the help which poverty receives loses its accidental character and the humiliation wrongfully associated with it.” (TMK, § 253, p. 154).Google Scholar
  68. 65.
    A systematic exposition of Hegel’s views on poverty is an important gap in recent Hegel-scholarship. In this context, I have recently tried to clarify Hegel’s allusion to Scottish beggars (TMK, § 245, p. 150): “Hegels Schottische Bettler”, HS, Vol. 19 (1984) pp. 311–316.Google Scholar
  69. 66.
    As his discussion of poor taxes makes sufficiently clear, compare, for example: VRP, Vol. IV, pp. 611 f.Google Scholar
  70. 67.
    SoEL, p. 170 — SdS, p. 491; cp.: VRP, Vol. I, p. 315.Google Scholar
  71. 68.
    VRP, Vol. IV, p. 609; cp.: VRP, Vol. III, p. 703 and the addition to § 244, TMK, p. 277.Google Scholar
  72. 69.
    HGW, Vol. VI, p. 321 — English translation quoted from Avineri (1972) pp. 93 f (my own italics, N.W.); cp.: HGW, Vol. VIII, p. 243.Google Scholar
  73. 70.
    ‘abstumpfen’ means (fig.) to deaden; ‘abgestumpft’ means deadened or dull(ed).Google Scholar
  74. 71.
    HGW, Vol. VI, pp. 323 f — English translation quoted from Avineri (1972) p. 93 (my own italics; N.W.).Google Scholar
  75. 72.
    TMK, § 198, p. 129 — VRP, Vol. II, pp. 645 f. This notion re-occurs frequently in Hegel’s writings, both earlier and later: SdS, p. 434; HGW, Vol. VIII, p. 225; VRP: Vol. I, pp. 189 & 314; Vol. III, p. 612; Vol. IV, p. 503.Google Scholar
  76. 73.
    Although Dugald Stewart, the eclectic second generation representative of the Scottish Enlightenment, developed a similar notion independently, which shows that Hegel’s conclusion was in the air at the time; cp.: DSt, Vol. VIII, pp. 330 f.Google Scholar
  77. 74.
    For a proper reply to some of these charges, see: Walter Kaufmann, “The Hegel Myth and its Method”, in: Walter Kaufmann (Ed.), Hegel’s Political Philosophy (New York, 1970) pp. 137–171, here pp. 165 ff; cp. my article “Fox und Pitt.”Google Scholar
  78. 74a.
    Spannungsfeld britischer Politik im Spiegel des “Hegeischen Denkens”, Hans-Christian Lucas und Otto Pöggeler (Eds.), Hegels Rechtsphilosophie im Zusammenhang der europäischen Verfassungsgeschichte (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1986) pp. 111–128.Google Scholar
  79. 75.
    Duncan Forbes’s Introduction to AF1, p. XVIII.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Waszek
    • 1
  1. 1.Hegel-Archiv der Ruhr UniversitätBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations