Adam Smith on Education, Inequality, and Class Division in Commercial Society

• In Event: Education, Commerce, and Democracy

Abstract

Contrary to his popular image as a champion of laissez-faire economics and government non-intervention, Adam Smith was conscious of the flaws inherent to commercial society and the need for government intervention to address negative externalities and market failures. In the past half-century, an explosion of revisionist scholarship has transformed this once controversial claim into somewhat of a truism. Nevertheless, there is still significant disagreement on the character and depth of Smith’s criticisms of commercial society and his prescriptions for addressing its limitations. Several interpreters, for example, cite Smith’s endorsement of state-funded parish schools as evidence of his concern for issues of socioeconomic equality and distributive justice. According to this view, Smith intends not only to rectify the cognitive effects of the division of labor but also to bridge class divides by promoting more egalitarian outcomes in intellectual and moral development. As I will argue, these interpretations exaggerate the “egalitarian” aims of Smith’s educational proposal. On the whole, existing discussions of Smith’s educational thought have paid insufficient attention to the deep class divisions in his educational prescriptions. By accepting these divisions, Smith’s proposal fails to bridge the sympathetic gap between classes that he identifies as a source of “corruption” in commercial society. As I will demonstrate, two features of his proposal bear this out: his acceptance of significant inequalities in educational outcomes between classes and his failure to explain how (if at all) the rich and powerful might overcome their lack of sympathy for the poor through moral or political education. My goal in this paper is to temper egalitarian readings of Smith’s educational thought, while simultaneously affirming the progressive character of his proposal in its historical context. While most eighteenth-century social and political theorists endorsed the “utility of poverty” doctrine, Smith promotes an education for the least well-off that prioritizes self-government and political judgment.

Author

• Timothy Tyler Tennyson, University of Wisconsin-Madison