Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society

Adam Smith, who had a thorough knowledge of the economic development of England sketched above, favored this development and maintained it would benefit all — even the poor. In principle his social philosophical views scarcely differ from those of Locke.1 Smith, too, cites the comparison between a society of “savages”, among whom “every individual enjoys the whole produce of his own industry”, and a “civilized” society, in which the “poor provide both for themselves and for the enormous luxury of their superiors”; but he points out “in the midst of so much oppressive inequality … the superior affluence and abundance commonly possessed even by this lowest and most despised member of civilized society, compared with what the most respected and active savage can attain to” (Ed, 563f.). Unlike Locke, Smith traces the wealth of civilized society back to the advanced division of labor, which also effects the “difference of genius and talents”, whereas in a society which has seen little division of labor a “perfect uniformity of character” will be found (Ed, 573).