Adam Smith and Modern Sociology by Albion W. Small If Only Old Values Turn Around free essay sample

Even as the modern people view global economy as a Frankenstein out there to rule humans with NASDAQ and its claws, a 100-year old book might still haunt many as a quiet premonition on the dethronement of humans from the center of economics and eventually from the drivers seat of the society. The book, Adam Smith and Modern Sociology: A Study in the Methodology of the Social Sciences, written by an American sociologist and visionary, Dr. Albion Woodbury Small, earns even more value to some because it is actually a compendium of the colossal work done by Adam Smith under the title of Wealth of Nations.The Wealth of Nations appeared in 1776 and Small wrote his book in 1907. From this angle, this book contains an invaluable reservoir of analysis and reflection of the thinkers of two centuries! The importance of both the works gains further height if one considers the historic significance of the year 1776, which earmarks the American independence and the beginning of the new era that only aligned Smiths thought – departure from Markentilism[1] and entering into the era of Classical Economics[2]. If Mr. Adam Smith (1723-1790) is considered to be one of the founding fathers of economics, then Dr. Albion Woodbury Small (1854-1926) should be considered as one of the great tributaries of ideas not only on the field of sociology but also on the field of economics.Thus one titan took his take on another in creating a milestone of the embedded journey of economics and sociology. One might opine that Small has taken too much on one plate while going for a wholesome analysis of the life and works of Adam Smith in his book – but in any case that was inevitable, if one considers the huge volume of Wealth of Nations (five books containing 32 large chapters). Alongside, Small had his own perspective to incorporate where he wanted to show that Smiths Wealth of Nations goes beyond the technicality of economics to become more humane in its suggestions, and thus making his way towards integrating economics to sociology. Points of ConfluenceSmall has made it clear right at the outset of his book that an objective science of economics without an objective sociology is as impossible as grammar without language (5) and his study of Adam Smith was purely a contribution to sociological methodology(65). Statements like these bear the testimony of his chosen perspective about The Wealth of Nations. This naturally brings forth the point that he must have found the elements in that book are fairly adaptable in sociology too and thus he concentrated more on the human faces rather than the principles of economics. In doing so, Small has covered a void in Smiths works too – he defines Smiths subject matter sociologically, which Smith himself didnt. In the process, Small goes on to unfold a statement of his own – that Smiths procedures could be expanded and exploited by the sociologists.   Thus such package of Smalls ideas foreshadowed the book all along.Smith and MarxAnother interesting facet of the book is that it counts The Wealth of Nation as a precursor of Communist Manifesto. Small has drawn a close line of similarity between the thoughts Smith and Karl Marx at many places and even commented to the extent that if one did not know the sequel, one might with good reason surmise that an earlier Karl Marx had been discovered(98).   However, he refrains from detailing Marxs work at length, though comparing some of them with Smiths concepts, especially when referring to Smiths discussion of labor – As in a civilized country there are but few commodities of which the exchangeable value arises from labor only(72) – Small touches down Communist Manifesto in drawing such parallels.To substantiate this idea Small goes on to the extent of expressing how similar one paragraph of Smiths writings were to the doctrines of Marx and spending some more pages on this topic while dealing the chapter on economics and sociology of labor. Small finds Smiths discussion of labor and capital as the creation of technological distinction, and a labor theory of value turning directly a class issue in Marxs hands (100).Although Smith and Marx came to different conclusions about capitalists, Small felt that they both had equal intention to represent things as they are(112). Before this positive statement, Small footnoted a neutral statement centering not on Smith or Marx, but the fact that their followers have reconstructed their theories fallaciously I (Small) am aware that neither Smith nor Marx is justly to be charged with deliberately promulgating the extreme errors to which their theories have lent force(112).This seems to be a conscious effort of Small to evoke the idea that Marxian socialism is actually a replenished model of the Adam Smiths incomplete or contradicting, yet potent ideas. This is corroborated by Smalls own words, when he says at one point, while closing the discussion on property there would have been no Marxism, except as a political movement, if economic theory, from Adam Smiths time had squarely faced the problem(132). However, Small issues negative statements regarding Marx too. He holds that the current job is to ascertain the elements of truth in both false universals, and combining them into a synthesis that shall more closely approach a true universal(113). Further on in the chapter, Small neutrally concludes with the help of a footnote here again Smith seems to be declaring not only what is, but what in his opinion should be; thus indicating that he was unconscious of a debatable issue at the point where Marx made his first assault (116).Smalls Third Eye AttitudeFor the uninitiated, this book provides a window about Smiths basic viewpoint, like he applied a sense of equality in the economic theories with a dream of fair distribution or he wished that individuals competed under same environment with fair help from a fair and effective administration. However, as a narrator and writer of the book, Small consciously avoids being labeled as a critic of Smith or that of Marx. However he hasnt fallen short of arguing about the deficiencies in Smiths propositions by pointing at the fact that Smiths propositions are based on the premise where society is counted as static and not dynamic. A fair chunk of Smiths writing in this book deals primarily with technology, where Smith tries to establish the fact that improvement in societal circumstance leads to the increase of both wealth and cost. In response, Small brings in Marx in the discussion before drawing the inference that both classical and liberal economics  Ã‚   enforce the notion that there were social problems, which economics failed to manage on its own.In the case of discussing about the position of other classical and liberal economists too, he prefers to remain a neutral narrator who instead of taking a side, remarks that both the classical and liberal economy have strong bearing over the social situations – like, rent, which easily crosses the tenet of economics to pose as a sociological problem, which is indicated even in Smiths own words I shall conclude this very long chapter with observing that every improvement in the circumstances of the society tends either directly or indirectly to raise the real rent of land, to increase the real wealth of the landlord, his power of purchasing the labour, or the produce of the labour of the people (91).Such a stance of Small like diffusing the possibility of hot debate and infusing the momentum in the train of thought which he took charge to drive home to its readers, is evident in many places. This surely speaks of his restraint and focus on the task at hand. It perhaps also indicates that he might have wanted to devote his attention more on economics instead of sociology. However, his neutrality didnt deter him to come out with arguments like irrespective of the governmental power, certain laws and properties should exist. Lacing with SociologyIt becomes apparent that all throughout his arguments and other expressions, Small wanted to filer the portions which have bearings on sociology and observed how far Adam Smith associated his economic propositions with them and how far he succeeded to resolve them. This is corroborated by the fact when other economists interpreted The Wealth of Nations purely from the economic point of view, Small came out with tough comments on whoever wanted to isolate economic activity as a special category. He argued that the absence of deliberative logic in Smiths work deprived it to create an immediate impact on sociology.Smith and SmallSmith surmised that capitalist class too serve an important function for the society like other classes and accordingly he stressed more to find and analyze the governing factors behind that class for the sake of overall improvement. Small, on the other hand, seems to be content in the cause-and-effect attributes of economics over sociology or vice-versa. Smith exploited both deductive and historical or inductive methods in his writings to put up the impression that economic processes are only a part of the moral processes, while Small counted induction as the single way to study human conduct. Though Smith at times attempted to discuss the sociological necessity in the context of war and armies, he was only succeeded to defend the military budgets. Overall, Smith never appears as someone very interested to embed economics with sociology like Small appears to be.ApplicabilityNo matter how much Small dreamt about a unique fusion of economic technology and objective sociology that would usher a fresh journey of civilization within the horizon of a valid moral philosophy (238), the reality took a sharp bend towards wholesome capitalism with time – because Adam Smiths propositions so far seems to have only augmented the ongoing interest in the technique of the production of wealth (238).In the process, the magnitudes of both modern economics and sociology have outgrown Adam Smiths realm to some extent, which ask for newer analysis and treatment. This is only but natural, because, none would have expected Adam Smith to foresee this rapid development of science and technology making way for a global village.However, one question stems out of the situation: is the moral part of Smiths propositions lack the desired intensity to attract and mould the mass-conduct the way Smith envisioned?Had Dr. Small been alive today, he would surely have gone after its answer, as he too viewed Smiths Theory of Moral Sentiments as a peculiar doctrine and referred to as something that Smith claims to have been the first to give any precise or distinct measure by which the fitness or propriety of affection can be ascertained and judged. Nearly in the same vein Small referred to Smiths Ethics as something that was not intended to be what we now perceive by the term. Overall Small too doesnt seem to be optimistic about the efficacy of the moral part of Smiths work, and clearly states that the present argument is in no way concerned with supporting its (Moral Philosophy) specific contents. In detail it strikes the modern mind as naà ¯ve in many ways.While the fast paced global capitalism has nearly reached an automated state where humans are fast loosing its grip over its movements, this book at best can appeal to some serious modern thinkers about remodeling the present situation to a newer one – where humans will be again be able to maintain the neutrality of the axis of global capitalism without loosing the momentum of globalization. From this point of view, this book is still capable of invoking a desire in the thinkers to work out a viable socioeconomic which would narrow down the gaps between have-s and have-nots over the globe, besides thwarting the selfish designs of the newfound empires in the modern times. However, it is hard to determine the timing of such emphasis shift – it doesnt happen on an opportune moment as it happened at the time when The Wealth of Nations appeared in public in 1776.Yes, the beauty of Smalls book lies in the fact that it covers such a work that coincided with the advent of a new era in socioeconomic state of the globe, besides being a claimant of the credit of lending its light to the new time. Apart from that, Smalls book is convincing to the point where it tries to be a sociological mirror of The Wealth of Nations than being a critique of its economic principles. In the process, it goes on to create a kaleidoscope of various situations and their interpretations in the context of sociology, interspersed with the reflections of other thinkers of the period. This facet of the book would definitely keep its topicality alive and referential for the years to come. It contains an immense archival value too – where both an economist and a sociologist could view, assess and analyze the nuances of socioeconomic journey of the civilization.However, the most time-winning idea according to this reviewer lies in one of the quotes of Adam Smith in Smalls book- human conduct is a plexus of moral relations(231). The vast punch in this statement would perhaps keep the thinkers of all ages actively seeking its explanation and eventually evaluating their respective societies under its guiding light. This indeed is a great lesson to learn that if one can find out the mass motive behind the mass-conduct, then it becomes easy to decide on whether such motiv es need any treatment for the sake of developing the social process, before determining the necessary steps to achieve the desired goal.