A Critique of Smith's Understanding of our Motivations for Wealth and Power - Jemma
Smith poses an interesting theory regarding the formation of rank and ambition in society. While I think some of his framework is valid, I want to critique a few points he makes about our reasons behind the pursuit of wealth and power.
Smith argues that the accumulation of wealth, beyond a certain amount, is not for the purpose of improving our quality of life. According to Smith, “The wages of the meanest labourer can supply” the necessities of life (44). Instead, we accumulate further wealth to attract the praise and admiration of others. “It is the vanity, not the ease, or the pleasure, which interests us. But vanity is always founded upon the belief of our being the object of attention and approbation” (44). In Smith’s view, rising in class rank has nothing to do with providing for oneself additional material comforts or other necessities. This is the point I would like to push back on.
First of all, as society develops, certain “wants” effectively become needs (this was discussed in a past reading but I couldn’t find it so if anyone knows what I’m talking about please let me know). While human beings might not require certain material goods to survive, certain goods become so common or so integrated into everyday life that it poses a large inconvenience to live without them. For example, perhaps humans don’t need shoes to live, but it would pose some extreme inconveniences at the least, and health hazards at the most, not to have them (in certain areas). This idea can be expanded to apply to more affluent areas as well: things like cellphones are obviously not necessary to human survival, but I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that it is “vanity” rather than “ease” that drives us to purchase them. Phones make everyday life easier in a lot of ways, and so people are motivated to acquire enough extra income to purchase them. Phones are partially a status symbol, but that doesn’t capture all of their value.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, I think it is inaccurate of Smith to say that “the wages of the meanest labourer” can supply the necessities of every day life. In the United States, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, which translates into a salary of about $15,000 in a year. However, the average cost of living in the US tends to be much higher. For example, in Tennessee (where the federal minimum wage applies), the cost of living for a two parent, two child household is around $60-72k annually (https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/budget-map/). This disparity between minimum wage salary and cost of living is true most areas in the US. Therefore, Smith seems to underestimate the rank we need to achieve to secure a comfortable standard of living. Obviously, it is unclear what qualifies as a “necessity”; however, I think it would be hard to argue that working for any amount of money above the minimum wage is driven by “vanity” rather than necessity, or a desire for ease.
Finally, I think that the pursuit of greater wealth or power can be useful to the earner for reasons other than social recognition. Even if an individual has all of the material goods they need to live, they might require a greater amount of wealth to secure certain political or social privileges. For example, an individual might want a higher paying job so that they can donate some of their income to a political campaign, or so that they can spend more of their freedom advocating on a certain issue. These motivations for increasing one’s income are not driven by a desire for attention or glory, even though they go beyond the material needs of the individual.
I’m wondering if I interpreted Smith’s argument correctly here, or if there is a way of understanding his argument to allow for the pursuit of wealth for material or political gains as well as for glory/admiration? Perhaps Smith’s argument was more applicable in his time, when there was less contention over what was a want and what was a need? Then again, I feel like political power was even more explicitly tied to material wealth when Smith was alive (like property qualifications for voting), so maybe there’s a step in his argument that I’m missing.
Hi Jemma! Great blog post - I also had the same thoughts while reading this section of The Theory of Moral Sentiments. You highlighted my main two points of contention. First, you mention that Smith’s argument that “the wages of the meanest labourer” are enough to cover the “necessities of nature” (50) does not apply today. Many progressive economic models that aim to create social safety nets are not focused on ensuring that everybody has equal wealth, or equal access to goods beyond necessities. They want to ensure that people are able to afford items like housing, food, education, etc. While wage labor and the cost of living might have complemented each other in Smith’s time, the discrepancy in growth between the two in the modern world does not apply to this part of his argument. Moreover, Smith’s knowledge of wealthy people is only a reality of his time. You note that in the 18th century, perhaps “Political power was even more explicitly tied to material wealth.” This is supported by Smith’s constant substitute of the wealthy for monarchs. When talking about the wealthy, he only mentions “kings” (52) and specific monarchs' names, such as King Charles I and King James II (53). However, now, the wealthiest in society are not necessarily our political figures (excluding certain countries). In the United States, we even tend to detest the fact that some of our politicians are incredibly wealthy. In a democracy, we tend to rather want our politicians to be more relatable to the problems we face in life, rather than so far removed from reality due to money.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, to Smith, the desire to achieve that level of wealth is more so about the social ranking and attention one receives, or the “vanity” (50), rather than “ease, or the pleasure” (50). As you point out, however, this is not true now. Smith notes that “When we consider the condition of the great…it seems almost the abstract idea of a perfect and happy state” (51). In the present, we tend to equate wealth with stability, rather than happiness. Money does not necessarily buy happiness, but it does allow for immediate and complete access to resources. We sometimes even detest the wealthy for their abhorrent access to money rather than admire them.
I however, wouldn’t see the above critiques as Smith’s lack of understanding of our motivations for wealth and power; I would rather read it as a true historical account of ambition’s origins, which we can use to compare to how that sentiment has shifted over time. This is a fair judgment compared to the modern day, but Smith had no idea what the present looks like; his account is one of his historical time and should be taken as thus. I do want to raise two counter arguments to your points as well.
In the modern day, a lot of things we see as “needs” aren’t necessarily needs. Target advertisement and outside influences in a capitalist society can give us a false sense of what we “need,” blurring the line between what we deem as necessities and wants. People can turn to retail therapy as a “need” to relieve stress, when we could have been conditioned to purchase goods that we want under the guise that we need them to feel better. People also disagree with what constitutes a need versus want in society; not everybody agrees with a universal basic income - some people because of logistical problems, and others who do not see it as a necessity for society.
In addition, your examples of wealth being used for objectives other than social recognition might not entirely be true. While some people do want to use their wealth to contribute to society in a beneficial way, because of news and access to social media, some may do it for social recognition under the pretense of selfless motivations. Society pressure for the extremely wealthy to donate money or contribute to causes might influence those people to do so only to stay in good social standing. It is sometimes hard to separate people’s true intentions behind benevolence from what they outwardly project.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHey Aara and Jemma,
ReplyDeleteGreat blog posts! I wanted to hop on this thread and bring in another perspective. After reading Smith's take on the correlation between poverty the richness, it adds this element of "ease or pleasure" rather than "vanity." I think about the modern day, where many students from low-income backgrounds enter the world of corporate finance and economics in general to obtain a more "secured" life for themselves and their families. After the students obtain a level of wealth, they encounter a state of living that was not a reality to them growing up, which encourages them to accumulate more "wealth."
However, I can see a correlation to Smith's idea of "vanity" when going for more richness from this scenario. One emotion/feeling I connect with vanity is self-accomplishment and humble pride, which I wonder if Smith would see as the "positive" side of the vanity state of mind. When low-income folks, which tend to have intersectional marginalized identities go up their social ladder, in their mind, they are carrying their communities with them. For example, I think about marginalized students' goals for their future careers, and for many, it is to have (or be) the needed representation to show that "it is possible." I wonder if this is a manifestation when Smith stated, "Their joy literally becomes our joy; we are, for the moment, as happy as they are" (47). Through the example, seeing more people who look like you, "who made it," gives you a sense of joy, which can lead to encouragement.
To summarize my perspective, I take Smith's point of vanity through the lens of low-income marginalized folks and their desires to enter well-paying careers. I feel that the process starts with the "want" to have a life of ease and pleasure because many grew up in financial instability. However, I see how obtaining wealth (a secure life) could lead to a level of vanity, but I argue it's one of gratitude and positivity. I came to this conclusion by searching the definition of vanity, which Google defines as "excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements." I took a positive (and often realistic) look at "excessive pride of one's achievement" by stating the impact one feels when obtaining a role in a society where their identity continues to be disregarded and ignored consideration. I may be over-interpreting my example with Smith's critique of the accumulation of wealth, so I am open to feedback.
Hi Jemma (and Luis and Aara)! Great blog post.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Jemma, you could be thinking of Marx, who, in German Ideology, talks about the premises of human existence (like the creation of new needs and new modes of production to fulfill those needs).
Regarding your discussion of vanity, I think that this section of Smith’s work on wealth could be helped by refocusing on the concept of envy he introduced in Part II, Chapter V. Smith outlines the selfish passions after social and unsocial ones. These passions include “Grief and joy, when conceived upon account of our own private good and bad fortune” (Smith 40). Later in the chapter, Smith considers jealousy and envy alongside sympathy and recognizes jealousy as a sentiment that “Commonly prevents us from heartily sympathizing with his [a friend] joy” (Smith 41). To translate the analogy Smith presents into more modern terms: If my roommate wins the lottery and is lifted to a higher “condition of life” because of her fortune, my congratulations to her may not be wholly sincere because the envy I feel blocks me from sympathizing with my roommate. So, Smith thinks my roommate should try her best to hide her joy and “elevation of the mind” which her new fortune brings, she should be modest (though I am not totally sure how her mind will be elevated with the new condition). Smith’s solution to this problem of envy is gradual steps of greatness that people can adjust to, which Smith thinks prevents “either any jealousy in those he overtakes, or any envy in those he leaves behind” (Smith 41). Smith brings up envy again, concerning joy, writing, “Joy is a pleasant emotion, and we gladly abandon ourselves to it upon the slightest occasion. We readily, therefore, sympathize with it in others, whenever we are not prejudiced by envy” (Smith 42). Important in Smith's discussion of jealousy is his underlying belief that people can be influenced by their envy.
When we consider Smith’s ideas of jealousy, it is easier to argue that societal wants (or needs) are based on vanity rather than ease. I will consider the example of phones which you consider. Phones are indeed inventions that make our lives easier, and that can seem like a motivation to purchase them. But, while I agree that analyzing phones in general as a status symbol does not recognize its other value and utility, I still think that vanity is a leading cause of our drive to purchase a specific phone. The ease which phones provide is fairly simple: they offer fast and streamlined communication. So, why do people purchase iPhones rather than flip phones, which can text and take a photo (for only 4 dollars per month)? I think we do it out of jealousy and a need to fit in with our peers – which derives, I think, from vanity. When we are jealous, we compare ourselves to another and lament the disparities in our situations, an insult to our vanity. We do not want to sympathize with whoever bought the newest iPhone because, as Smith holds, we are too “prejudiced by envy” to sympathize with the new phone holder’s joy (Smith 42). So, while vanity may not explain the purchase of phones in general, out envy-based tendency to need more money to buy more luxurious versions of a (now) basic good like a cell phone to fit in and avoid feelings of envy seems based in vanity.