How markets shape talents and preferences, and what that means for the Puritan work ethic ideology - Jemma
While reading Satz’s The Moral Limits of Markets, I started thinking about some potential new criticisms to the Puritan work ethic ideology. Additionally, I started thinking about how Satz’ assessment of how the market shape us might apply to how we view present day divisions of labor.
In Chapter 2, Satz draws heavily on Smith to explain how markets function in shaping our preferences and talents. Satz refers to Smith’s pin-factory example, in which workers lose their power for intellectual exertion and philosophical engagement, to illustrate the ways in which participation in the market can shape our capabilities. According to Smith, through this lack of mental exercise, individuals “lose their power of independent thinking and become ill equipped to judge or deliberate about the policies of their country” (45). Therefore, the division of labor can not only render workers talentless, but can also make them incapable in meaningfully engaging in political or social life. Satz also highlights Smith’s view that the division of labor shapes our differing preferences: “The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom and education” (46). Therefore, According to Satz and Smith, what we are capable of doing and what we want is determined largely by markets and the role we take on within them.
This view of markets poses an interesting contrast to the Puritan work ethic ideology, which supposes that we all have a natural calling which we are morally obligated to pursue for the good of society. The Puritan work ethic theory purports that all jobs are equally important in the eyes of God, and that all working individuals should be given the same respect for their efforts toward the collective good. Even if, in practice, all positions in society were given an equal level of respect (which obviously they aren’t right now), the theory seems especially questionable in claiming that we all have a predetermined talent we are meant to pursue. As Smith and Satz write, the division of labor and our participation in markets shape our talents and preferences; thus, the Puritan work ethic theory seems to be completely dismantled by the idea that we have no “original calling” to begin with.
If we take the idea that all people are roughly the same in talent and preference before they are socialized/involved in the markets, we might be more inclined to view the division of labor through a Marxist lens. Critics of Marx often argue that abolishing the division of labor harms efficiency because it doesn’t allow for specialization, and prevents people from engaging in the work that they are good at or that they enjoy. However, if what we are good at or what we enjoy is determined by our engagement in markets, then perhaps these differences between people would dissipate if the division of labor did not exist. In other words, maybe most people are similarly good at most things, and desire similar things out of life, if they experience society in the same way. Of course, this requires more psychological/anthropological examination than I can provide; however, I think it seems likely, following Satz and Smiths assessments, that we are less different in original talents and preferences than we tend to think.
Critics of Marx might still argue that even if we don’t have original talents that differ, people can still be trained to specialize in different areas in order to increase efficiency overall. I think this is true, but recognizing that talents are generally trained into us, rather than completely innate, might inspire us to more equitably distribute wealth, esteem, and power in society between different spheres of labor. Furthermore, it might encourage us to rethink how much we prioritize differences in preferences. In previous classes, we’ve discussed how some people might want to work to acquire more wealth and luxuries beyond their basic needs, while others might be content with living more simply. However, I wonder if such preferences for extreme wealth would exist, at least to the extent they do now, if markets operated differently. If we felt less defined by our sphere of labor, would we then be as inclined to accumulate commodities that illustrated the fruits of our labor to others?
Jemma,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very insightful blog post. The idea of markets and the division of labor molding our preferences and capabilities was one of the most interesting takeaways from this reading. This idea also made me think about the division of labor and how Marx made similar observations about the division of labor shaping individuals. I do not view the elimination of the division of labor as a viable or realistic option. So, instead, this encourages me to think about how the current structure could change to make sure that people are not turned into "mere tools" as a result of the labor market.
As Satz explains, education is absolutely vital for setting limits to the operation of markets. She argues that governments should fund education for very important reasons. For one, democracy can only work if the people can participate successfully in public discussions. Furthermore, education is essential for creating human capabilities and sensibilities, as put very nicely in a James Baldwin quote on page 48. To me, the greatest, and the ultimate way, to minimize the extreme gaps in capabilities between "a philosopher and a common street porter" is through extensive education. Of course, in a society that divides labor, there will inevitably be philosophers and porters and there will be disparities in various capabilities in these individuals. However, I think we should want two things to be sure about the differences between these two individuals. One, is that the street porter does not "lose their power of independent thinking" in the process of working. Second, that as much as possible, the street porter had a legitimate opportunity to be something other than a street porter. It is inevitable that in a fair society, some do not use the resources available to them or prefer to work in manual labor. However, it is essential that each person actually has some capability to choose what they want to be.
Once, I read something that considered the rapid advancement of technology as something that was actually very positive for low-skilled or unskilled workers. This perspective held that advances in technology have typically taken over jobs that were traditionally very undesirable for humans. Further advances, that often cause people to worry that millions will be without jobs due to robots, will actually free people up from these menial occupations and create more room for creative and enriching jobs. While this is very optimistic, it also makes me wonder about how the future of technology will effect this phenomenon that Satz describes where workers' preferences and capabilities are shaped by one's occupation. It is interesting to think about automation and whether this will accelerate or reshape the way the division of labor changes our capabilities.