Tentative Answer: Division of Labor

2. Plato and Aristotle also thought of something like the ‘division of labor’ as a central way of describing society. How does Smith’s version of it compare?

For Plato and Aristotle, the division of society into specific labor classes was a result of the inherent differences between people. Plato justifies the stratification of society into the guardian, auxiliary, and producer classes, and the general lack of movement between them, by the innate differences in the nature, i.e. deliberative capacities, of people. Similarly, Aristotle uses the supposed existence of natural slaves and masters to justify the practice of slavery. Since an individual’s role in society is determined by such inherent qualities, and since serving one’s role well is virtuous, respect for the division of labor based on innate differences is itself virtuous. For Smith, however, the inborn disparities in the nature of people of which Plato and Aristotle write do not exist to a significant enough degree to serve as the basis for the division of labor in society. Smith argues that the primary differentiator between people when it comes to their laboring abilities is their education. In his illustration of the pin factory, each member of the assembly line is good at their specific role because of the training they have received. Smith’s division of labor, with its basis on one’s education over any substantial intrinsic differences, serves to facilitate productivity, since each individual is performing the tasks to which they are most suited by their ability.