SECT. II.—: DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENTS AMONG INDIVIDUALS, OR, THE PRINCIPLE OF CO-OPERATION.

The division and combination of employments can only be imperfectly established in rude societies and thinly-peopled countries. But in every state of society, in the rudest as well as the most improved, we may trace its operation and effects. The physical powers, the talents, and propensities with which men are endowed differ widely in different individuals, fitting some and disqualifying others for engaging in certain employments; and a regard to their own likings and conveniences naturally leads them to accommodate themselves to these differences, by establishing a system of barter and a division of employments. Every sort of capacity has then an opportunity for making the most favourable display. And it was speedily seen, that by combining their efforts, so as to bring about some desirable end, men might, with ease, accomplish tasks that could not otherwise be attempted. Even in the simplest businesses this co-operation is required; neither hunting nor fishing, any more than agriculture or manufactures, can be advantageously carried on by solitary individuals. Man is the creature of society; and is compelled, in every stage of his progress, to depend for help on his fellows. Quò alio fortes sumus, quàm quòd mutuis juvamur officiis? We can do little by ourselves, but a vast deal when united with others. Instead of trusting to our own efforts for a provision of the various articles required for our subsistence, comfort, and security, we instinctively associate with others, and find in this association the principal source of our superior power. Perceiving that they can obtain greater supplies of all that they deem useful or desirable by applying themselves to some one department of industry, individuals limit their attention to it only. As society advances, this division extends itself on all sides: one man becomes a tanner, or dresser of skins; another a shoemaker; a third a weaver; a fourth a house carpenter; a fifth a smith, Edition: current; Page: [38] and so on; one undertakes the defence of the society, and one the distribution of justice; and each endeavours to cultivate and bring to perfection whatever talent or genius he may possess for the particular calling in which he is engaged: the well-being of all classes is, in consequence, greatly augmented. In countries where the division of labour is carried to a considerable extent, agriculturists do not spend their time in clumsy attempts to manufacture their own produce; and manufacturers cease to interest themselves about the raising of corn and the fattening of cattle. The facility of exchanging is the vivifying principle of industry. Agriculturists adopt the best system of cultivation and raise the largest crops, that they may exchange such portion of the produce of their lands as exceeds their wants for other desirable commodities; and manufacturers and merchants increase the quantity and variety, and improve the quality of their goods, that they may thereby obtain greater supplies of raw produce. A spirit of industry is thus universally diffused; and the apathy and langour which characterize a rude state of society entirely disappear.

But the ability to exchange or barter one’s own surplus produce for that of others, is not the only advantage of the separation of employments. Besides permitting each individual to confine himself to those departments which suit his taste and disposition, it adds very largely to his powers, and enables him to produce a much greater quantity of useful and desirable articles than he could do did he engage indiscriminately in different businesses. Adam Smith, who has treated this subject in a masterly manner, has classed the circumstances which conspire to increase the productiveness of industry, when labour is divided, under the following heads:—First, the increased skill and dexterity of the workmen; second, the saving of time which is commonly lost in passing from one employment to another; and, third, the tendency of the division of employments to facilitate the invention of machines and processes for saving labour. A few observations on each of these heads are subjoined.

Edition: current; Page: [39]

1st.With respect to the improvement of the skill and dexterity of the labourer:—it is sufficiently plain that when a person’s whole attention is devoted to one branch of business, when all the energies of his mind and powers of his body are made to converge, as it were, to a single point, he will attain to a proficiency in that particular branch to which those who engage in a variety of occupations cannot be expected to reach. A peculiar play of the muscles or sleight of hand, which can only be acquired by constant practice, is necessary to perform the simplest operation in the best and most expeditious manner. Smith has given a striking example, in the case of the nail manufacturer, of the great difference between training a workman to the precise occupation in which he is to be employed, and training him to a similar and closely allied occupation. “A common smith,” says he, “who though accustomed to handle the hammer, has never been used to make nails, if, upon some particular occasion, he is obliged to attempt it, will scarce, I am assured, be able to make above two or three hundred nails in a day, and those, too, very bad ones. A smith who has been accustomed to make nails, but whose sole or principal business has not been that of a nailer, can seldom, with his utmost diligence, make more than eight hundred or a thousand nails in a day. But I have seen several boys under twenty years of age who had never exercised any other trade but that of making nails, and who, when they exerted themselves, could make, each of them, upwards of two thousand three hundred nails in a day,”1 or nearly three times the number of the smith who had been accustomed to make them, but who was not entirely devoted to that particular business.

2d. The influence of the division of labour in preventing that waste of time in moving from one employment to another, which always takes place when workmen engage in different occupations, is even more obvious than its influence in improving Edition: current; Page: [40] their skill and dexterity. When the same person carries on different employments, in different and perhaps distant places, and with different sets of tools, he must plainly lose a considerable portion of time in passing between them. If the employments in which he has successively to engage be carried on in the same workshop, the loss of time will be less, but even in that case it will be considerable. “A man,” as Smith has justly observed, “commonly saunters a little in turning his hand from one sort of employment to another. When he first begins the new work, he is seldom very keen and hearty; his mind, as they say, does not go along with it, and for some time he rather trifles than applies to good purpose. The habit of sauntering and of indolent careless application, which is naturally, or rather necessarily acquired by every workman who is obliged to change his work and his tools every half hour, and to apply his hand in twenty different ways almost every day of his life, renders him almost always slothful and lazy, and incapable of any vigorous application, even on the most pressing occasions. Independent, therefore, of his deficiency in point of dexterity, this cause alone must always reduce considerably the quantity of work which he is capable of performing.”1

It may, perhaps, be worth while to remark in passing, that something similar to this effect in mechanical operations takes place with respect to the intellectual powers: when we pass abruptly from one speculation or study to another, some time always elapses before the attention is re-engaged, and the new train of ideas and facts brought fully under our view. Most persons must have experienced this; and it appears to form an insuperable objection to a practice which has been sometimes recommended, of distributing the day into different portions, appropriated to the study of different branches of literature and science. Where mere accomplishment, or the attaining to a superficial acquaintance with a variety of subjects, Edition: current; Page: [41] is the object, this plan is, perhaps, the best of any. But those who read or study in the view of making themselves masters of any art or science, will, if we may so speak, get through more intellectual work, and to much better purpose, in a given time, by preserving the train of thought unbroken, so as to bring one speculation or investigation to a close before commencing another.

3d. With regard to the tendency of the division of employments to facilitate the invention of machines and processes for saving labour, it may be assumed that those engaged in any branch of industry will be more likely to discover easier and readier methods of carrying it on, when their whole attention is devoted exclusively to it, than when it is diffused over a variety of objects. But it is a mistake to suppose, as has been sometimes done, that the genius of workmen and artificers is especially whetted and improved by the division of labour. As society advances, the study of particular branches of science and philosophy becomes the principal or sole occupation of the most ingenious men. Chemistry is disjoined from natural philosophy; the physical astronomer separates himself from the astronomical observer; the political economist from the politician; and each, meditating exclusively or principally on his peculiar department of science, attains to a degree of proficiency and expertness in it which the general scholar seldom or never reaches.

It would be invidious to refer to living, or even very recent instances, in proof of the error of those who endeavour to distinguish themselves by their attainments, not in one or two only, but in many departments of human knowledge. The reputation of such individuals is almost always ephemeral; for though they may be superficially acquainted with more things than most men, they seldom or never acquire that deep and thorough comprehension of any one art or science that is acquired by those who make it the principal or the exclusive object of their study. Great as is the fame of Leibnitz, perhaps the most universally informed and versatile genius of Edition: current; Page: [42] modern times, there is reason to think that it would have been greater and more durable had his energies been more concentrated. “But,” to borrow the language of Gibbon, “even his powers were dissipated by the multiplicity of his pursuits. He attempted more than he could finish; he designed more than he could execute; his imagination was too easily satisfied with a bold and rapid glance on the subject which he was impatient to leave; and Leibnitz may be compared to those heroes whose empire has been lost in the ambition of universal conquest.”1

But, if these remarks may be justly applied even to Leibnitz, what can ordinary men expect who engage indiscriminately in every line of study? They may have a smattering of many things, but they can have little solid knowledge. If we would attain to eminence, we must husband our resources, and apply them so as to perfect ourselves as much as possible in some one pursuit, or a few only.

And hence, in labouring to promote our own ends by applying ourselves to the study or the practice of some particular art or science, we necessarily follow that course which is most advantageous for all. Like the different parts of a well-constructed engine, the inhabitants of a civilized country are all mutually dependent on, and connected with each other. Without any previous concert, and obeying only the powerful and steady impulse of self-interest, they univerally conspire to the same great end; and contribute, each in his respective sphere, to furnish the greatest supply of necessaries, conveniences, and enjoyments.

This dependence and combination is not found only or principally in the mechanical employments: it extends to the labours of the head as well as to those of the hands; and pervades and binds together all classes and degrees of society. “The great author of order hath so distributed the ranks and offices of men, in order to mutual benefit and comfort, that Edition: current; Page: [43] one man should plough, another thrash, another grind, another labour at the forge, another knit or weave, another sail, another trade, another supervise all these, labouring to keep them all in order and peace; that one should work with his hands and feet, another with his head and tongue; all conspiring to one common end, the welfare of the whole, and the supply of what is useful to each particular member; every man so reciprocally obliging and being obliged, the prince being obliged to the husbandman for his bread, to the weaver for his clothes, to the mason for his palace, to the smith for his sword; those being all obliged to him for his vigilant care in protecting them, for their security in pursuing the work, and enjoying the fruit of their industry.”1

The circumstance of its enabling manufacturers or others engaged in any complicated business, or department of industry, to employ work-people of very various degrees of skill and force, is one of the most advantageous results of the division of labour. In the cotton manufacture, for example, some processes that are indispensable may be quite as well performed by children and women as by the most expert and powerful workmen. It is clear, however, that but for the distribution of the labour required to bring about results among different sets of individuals possessing the degrees of skill and strength necessary in each particular part of the manufacture, none could be employed but those who possessed the skill and strength required in the most difficult and laborious processes; and consequently workmen at 40s. or 50s. a-week would have to engage in tasks that might be as well or better performed by girls at 5s. or 7s. a-week. Hence, in all great industrial departments, the more able, dexterous, and skilful labourers are employed only in the functions which require peculiar strength, dexterity, and skill; those which require these qualities in a less degree being carried on by inferior and cheaper labourers. The success of most industrial undertakings depends, indeed, in Edition: current; Page: [44] great measure, on the sagacity with which this distribution of employments is made, or with which the skill and power of the work-people are proportioned to the results to be produced.1

It is necessary to bear in mind, that the advantages derived from the division of labour, though they are enjoyed in some degree in every country and state of society, can only be realized in their full extent where there is a great power of exchanging, or an extensive market. There are many employments which cannot be separately carried on without the precincts of a large city; and, in all cases, the division becomes more perfect, according as the demand for the produce is extended. Smith states, that ten labourers, employed in different departments in a pin manufactory, produced 48,000 pins a-day, and since his time the number has been more than doubled; but it is evident, that if the demand were not sufficient to take off this number, ten men could not be constantly employed in the business; and the division of labour in it could not, of course, be carried so far. The same principle holds universally. A cotton mill could not be constructed in a small country having no intercourse with its neighbours. The demand and competition of Europe and America have been necessary to carry the manufactures of Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham, to their present state of improvement.

The various provisions made by society for its protection, and for securing the safety and rights of individuals, owe their origin to this principle. “Government itself is wholly founded on a sense of the advantages resulting from the division of employments. In the rudest state of society each man relies principally on himself for the protection both of his person and his property. For these purposes he must be always armed, and always watchful; what little property he has Edition: current; Page: [45] must be movable, so as never to be far distant from its owner. Defence or escape occupy almost all his thoughts, and almost all his time; and after all these sacrifices, they are very imperfectly effected. ‘If ever you see an old man here,’ said an inhabitant of the confines of Abyssinia to Bruce, ‘he is a stranger, the natives all die young by the lance.’

“But the labour which every individual, who relies on himself for protection, must himself undergo, is more than sufficient to enable a few individuals to protect themselves, and also the whole of a numerous community. To this may be traced the origin of governments. The nucleus of every government must have been some person who offered protection in exchange for submission. On the governor, and those with whom he is associated, or whom he appoints, is devolved the care of defending the community from violence and fraud; and so far as internal violence is concerned, and that is the evil most dreaded in civilized society, it is wonderful how small a number of persons can provide for the security of multitudes. About 15,000 soldiers, and not 15,000 policemen, watchmen, and officers of justice, protect the persons and property of the eighteen millions of inhabitants of Great Britain. There is scarcely a trade that does not engross the labour of a greater number of persons than are employed to perform this the most important of all services.”1

The influence of the division of labour in augmenting and perfecting the products of industry, was distinctly pointed out in antiquity;2 and by Harris, Turgot, and other Edition: current; Page: [46] modern writers who preceded Adam Smith; but none of them did what he has done. None of them fully traced its operation, or showed that the power of engaging in different employments depends on the power of exchanging; and that, consequently, the advantages derived from the division of labour are dependent upon, and regulated by, the extent of the market. By establishing this principle Smith shed a new light on the science, and laid the foundation of many important practical conclusions. “Présentée de cette manière,” says M. Storch, “l’idée de la division du travail étoit absolument neuve; et l’effet qu’elle a fait sur les contemporains de Smith, prouve bien qu’elle l’était réellement pour eux. Telle qu’elle se trouve indiquée dans les passages que je viens de citer, elle n’a fait aucune impression. Développée par Smith, cette idée a d’abord’saisi tous ses lecteurs; tous en ont senti la vérité et l’importance; et cela suffit pour lui en assurer l’honneur, lors même que son génie eut été guidé par les indications de ses devanciers.”1

Edition: current; Page: [47]