Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to exam the question of ‘the individual’ versus the ‘collective’ through the works of John Locke, Adam Smith and Raymond Williams and to determine the key distinctions they express. The first three sections of this paper will discuss Locke, Smith and Williams individually, focussing mainly on their ideas regarding the individual and the collective. Following the review of Locke, Smith, and Williams, I will continue with brief critique followed by some final thoughts.
There are several things to keep in mind in order to understand the positions Locke, Smith and Williams take on their works. First, It would be appropriate to gather the context to which the three articles are being applied. Aspects of society concerning the rights of the individual versus the rights of the collective were viewed much differently during Locke and Smith’s respected periods, as our ideas and notions have been built upon theirs and many other contributors of social thought. Care must be taken to examine the mindset of the times otherwise a conflict of thought processes can and will cloud the original ideas attested by Locke and Smith. An example of this adaptation of thought through later social ideals will be considered during a discussion of Raymond Williams work on the “Individual”, “society” and “class”.
John Locke - Locke on Property
Locke’s reasoning of individual property rights consider the notion that earth was given to Adam and Noah by God and therefore to man in his entirety. It is when the idea of personal property is questioned, that Locke examines the moment to which property becomes personal rather than those of the collective as a whole. The relationship to property is formed when an individuals labor is applied to the means of acquiring said property, thus according to Locke it is the right of man to lay claim to property if his labor has been applied towards its ownership. Locke’s rational considers the basic idea of subsistence as quoted,
“He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could.”
The example of subsistence is chosen to illustrate private property as all people can relate to the need of subsistence to survive. It is the labor used to gather subsistence which Locke determines is the means to separate the property of an individual from that of the commons. Locke also implies that there are limits to private property. Property should not go to waste or spoilage as God’s intention was not to waste his creation, but rather to enjoy it. Waste is in essence almost worse than the lack of labor in the first place, for it is labor which has been cast away.
Locke also suggests that labor increases the value that of which is given to us by God. Private property is the individuals means to value of labor. A right to private property allows the individual to give himself the opportunity to achieve a level of satisfaction separate from the rest of the populace, while at the same time providing a check upon the amount of property a man could indulge without it going to waste. A conclusion to Locke’s argument as he states, “what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed”.
Adam Smith - The Division of Labour
Adam Smith and his amalgamation of mercantile prospects and the improvement of labor and society,as to coincide with the separation of governmental control from those of the economy, make up the basis for the division of labor. Smith understands the the processes of labor as an accumulation of smaller tasks performed by specialized workers, even simple items such as a shirt or a pin go through numerous phases of production, passing through many hands. Individuals through the specialization of labour and the ability to trade that labour (earnings or products), provide themselves with the capacity to improve their place in society. The division of labour provides a relative level of opportunity to exceed a standard of living previously unattainable by the common peasant, as seen by Smith, “the accommodation of a European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and frugal peasant as the accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an African king, the absolute master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages.”
The individual is guided by his own self-interests where labour is certainly provided but to meet the benefits of his own ends. It seems as if the self-interest of improving ones position of wealth can only be obtained through the capacity of the collective to strive for the same goal. Smith describes the benefits of the individual-societal relationship,
“Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society.... “.
Smith describes the state as having useless and harmful laws regarding the import or foreign products rather than producing such products within the state. The idea of creating a product at a higher cost than which can be purchased elsewhere does only harm to the wealth of a nation. This leads Smith to “laisser faire” economics, where the individuals idea of value will decide the market prices rather than rules imposed by the state. The purpose of the state is to provide three things according to Smith: 1. protection from violence and other states, 2. the protection of all individuals from injustice through the institute of law, 3. establishing public works funded by the whole of society rather than few individuals who may not benefit as such. The three points which are laid out by Smith provide the government with a purpose while allowing the economic system to govern itself through the self-interest of the individual.
Raymond Williams - The “Individual”, “Society” and “Class”
Williams discusses the how the individual has related to society throughout history as seen by other philosophers. Though Williams comments on many philosophers, it is his marxist perspective which will be examined in regards to the individual, society and class. Williams argues that within modern industrialized society there is a distinction between the individual and the society which can be felt. There is no doubt that our individual goals and perceptions of the world are much different than those of the society as a whole. Williams describes society as cold, harsh and meaningless compared to the warmth of our individual homes and families, exemplifying a marxist perspective of the divide between community and the alienation of society towards the individual.
“Class” is described by Williams as a middle term used to define the area between the individual and the society. A ‘class’ is a separate social entity than that of the community and is not an association through social bonds but rather, is an abstract distinction within society as Williams describes in the following,
“Marx argued that by their common membership of a particular class, men will think and act in certain common ways even though they do not belong to the same actual communities, and that the processes of 'society' are in fact best understood in terms of the interaction of these classes.”
‘The individual’ and ‘society’ are now abutted by ‘class’ as a means of society to organize individuals into separate organizations without the need for physical relationships with one-another. Williams holds the nineteenth century introduction of ‘class ‘ as a distinguishing factor between previous thought and organization of ‘the individual’ and ‘society’, and the thoughts of those to whom persist.
Comparison of Locke, Smith and Williams: Perception of the ‘Individual’ and ‘collective’
The relationship between ‘the individual’ and ‘collective’ has changed over time through the thoughts and ideas of social philosophers and reflect the social and economic circumstances of the time to which they were conceived. Each of Locke, Smith and Williams comments seem to build upon each other, expanding but also contributing their own relationships as they see the individuals purpose in the society.
Locke places the relationship of the individual on private property as a means to labour. This relationship or private property and labour allow the individual to distinguish his fruits of labour from that of the collective, separate from those of the commons. The individual is gaining his individuality from the rest of the collective through private property.
Smith continues on the idea of individuality as a means to benefit the whole of the collective. Through the division of labour, Smith provides an economic environment free of governmental control to which the individual is free to increase his wealth and position in society. As the individual is given the ability to determine what market prices are fair, the market is naturally augmented to suit the maximum profit as this is what the individual strives for in order to benefit his position. The function of the market is based on the transactions of the individual while free from governmental control, in turn the freedom of the individual to choose what is best for himself within the market benefits the collective as a whole.
Williams expresses a marxist perspective which differs in terms of ‘the individual’ and ‘the collective’’ from those of Locke and Smith. Williams discusses the increased separation of the individual from the collective in an industrialized society. The transformation from individuality to the generic faceless concept of the ‘class’ within a collective has separated the individual and collective thought into two separate perspectives which exist at the same time.
The individual has gone from insignificant to a master of his own fate within the collective through Locke and Smith and back into the realm of insignificance in the lime light of a marxist perspective. Though Locke, Smith and Williams have based their view of the individuals relationship differently to each other, they are all based on the economic status of the individual and the common need to collectively work towards bettering our individual existence.
Conclusion
John Locke, Adam Smith and Raymond Williams have produced three instances of the individual and his relationship to the collective through the social philosophies produced during their experiences of their life times. Each instance reflects an economic construct to which they have based their ideas. Though the collective guides the lives of the individual, it is the labour of the individual which benefits the collective.
Add/View Comments (0)
