ENGL 200 D: Reading Literature: Literature in the Marketplace

The Downside of Division

The division of labor is a corner stone of the economic society in which we live. In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith talks at great length about how dividing labor greatly increases production and profits, saying that ”the division of labour, however, so far as it can be introduced, occasions, in every art, a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labour.” (Ch. 1) He uses as an example a group of people making pins. Each person is specialized in one part of the production process, ultimately allowing them as a group to produce a much greater amount of the final product than they could ever achieve working alone.

While it is extremely prevalent, Smith identifies that this division of labor is not our natural instinct. Instead, we naturally want to trade goods with other individuals in order to obtain what we want. If I make pins alone, then there is theoretically no limit to who I am capable of trading with. However, if I am only a part of the pin making process, the only person with whom I can trade is whoever is next on the production line. Because that good is so specialized, the audience for it is just as narrow.

For this reason, Karl Marx views the division of labor as a form of slavery to the individual. “For as soon as the distribution of labor comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape (Pg. 160).” Once an individual has become specialized in one trade, they are essentially stuck in that economic role for good.

These two writers are forcing their readers to look at an everyday part of the economy with a different perspective. Despite being written almost 200 years ago, this new perspective is still essential today. Yes, specializing in one trade can often lead to financial success, but is it what we are naturally inclined to do? Is it even what is best for us? Clearly, these two would say that it is not.

John Locke and Stephen Duck both write on the topic of labor and how much entitlement a laborer has based on his work.  In Locke’s opinion whoever works the land is entitled to whatever it produces because of that labor, any man can work as much land as he wants as long as no space or produce is wasted. If a man takes more than he can handle and some goes to waste it is considered depriving someone else the chance of successfully working the land and it can be taken away. The world Duck lives in not only disagrees with but is completely backwards from Locke’s theories. He works the master’s land and if he were to take any of the produce that he worked for without permission it would be considered stealing. His labor produces the value, but none of it belongs to him, while the landowner doesn’t work for it at all and gets all of the profit before dealing out wages.

If the philosopher and the poet were to have a conversation I think that Locke would try to inform Duck of his rights as a hard working man. That he should be working his own land, that all he has to do is move further out to where there is wild land, ripe for the working for any free man. Duck would probably think this sounds nice but understands that he needs other people to make a living, he needs the other people to work the land with him and despite that his family has most likely worked on this spot for generations. Even though he doesn’t own this land, he might feel a connection to it. To which Locke would say something along the lines of “Nonsense!” there is a whole world out there ready to be tilled and planted. Why not try America? They have endless amounts of workable land out there!

In the end, Locke and Duck never would agree on what a laboer is entitled to. Because though Locke’s philosophies sound nice and utopic, Duck works in the real world, or at least what he thinks his reality has to be. His labor does not entitle him to the fruits of the fields he works, and this is the cycle in which he will live his life.

Stephen Duck, the 18th century day laborer and poet gave people outside the laboring class an insider’s look into the world of agricultural workers in his time. His poem “The Thresher’s Labor” primarily focuses on the constant, backbreaking, and repetitive work that is necessary to grow food. Modern employees or “associates” as many corporations choose to call their underlings could learn a few things from Duck. He tells the story of a lowly day laborer, a story that many employees would find eerily and perhaps uncomfortably familiar. Duck’s story mirrors that of many modern day workers that feel trapped in the cycle of their work 5 days a week 9am-5pm. Same thing day in and day out, he sums up this feeling at the end of his poem lines 280-283 “Now growing Labours still succeed the past, and growing always new, must always last”.

Duck’s account of labor differs from most modern positions that there is no hope for promotion or pay raise for him, he works for a wage and that is pretty much all he will ever earn. Thankfully here in the 21st century most jobs have an opportunity to move up or gain more, but when looking at the similarities between working then and working now, is looking forward to raises and promotions employees really just trying to make themselves feel better about their jobs? Even Duck did this by comparing himself to a wide variety of heroic and godly characters from Greek and Roman mythology. Lines 40-41 “Down one, one up, so well they keep the Time, TheCyclops Hammers could not truer chime;”

It would be unfair to say that worker’s conditions haven’t improved in three hundred years, they most definitely have at least in most first world countries. But I think that the mindset is still very similar; many modern day workers feel trapped in their roles in society. Only now instead of working under a hot sun it’s under the buzzing pulse of phosphorescent lights and computer screens. Bodies now ache with carpel tunnel, back and eye strain instead of pulled muscles and sunburn.

If Duck were working for himself instead of an insulting landowner I think his poem would have been very different. Going into business for oneself requires a vision, planning and motivation that is scarcely seen by his laboring class. They work because they have to to survive. The same is true today, one of the best things someone can say about themselves is “I own my own business.”  with the addition “and it’s doing well” is even more valuable. Even though it is essentially the same work, and even more of it being responsible for one’s own livelihood there is a sense of independence and pride that goes along with it.  On his own farm or land Duck would have been doing the same work but he would have been the one assigning value to his own work, which I think would have made him happier.

Duck was born into his working class situation and though modern day Americans are generally encouraged to work hard, get good jobs and move up, many people don’t move anywhere and feel trapped. I think that “The Thresher’s Labor” would be good reading for a lot of employees to get them thinking about what they are spending their lives, time, energy and effort on. Whether it is worth it and how valuable they think their time is.

From Jonathan Swift’s “The Lady’s Dressing Room”

Women & Men

This poem was written from a man’s perspective, through Strephon. This man saw Celia, his significant other or a prostitute, as this otherworldly beauty. He saw women, in general, as beautiful goddesses.He entered her room without her knowing and was immediately disgusted and disturbed by what he saw.He sees dirty combs, a spittoon, and a chamber pot.

Swift uses Men and Strephon interchangeably, but by using a name, Strephon, Swift made it more personal than “This man…”  Swift seems like sexist to his own sex. In a way, he’s claiming that men are so engrossed in appearance that they forget that women are men but with different anatomies. So men should open their eyes to this realization. I believe that is what Swift concludes about men.

Women were portrayed as goddesses who are perfect and clean. It is flattering that men saw women as goddesses but that is only because women put time into making themselves look presentable. It is like celebrities getting their hair and makeup done for some fancy award show. The non-famous folk idolizes them because they are glamorous. Once the award show is over, the “war paint” comes off. The regular people then actually see what they truly look like and like Strephon, they don’t like what they see.

I think that Swift wanted to point out that women are human beings. With their faults and disgusting habits, they are here to stay. And men, like Strephon, should suck it up and realize that as long as he is living and is attracted to women, he better start getting used to it.

“History is nothing but the succession of the separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handcd down to it by all preceding generations, and thus, on the one hand, continues the traditional activity in completely changed circumstances and, on the other, modifies the old circumstances with a completely changed activity.”

Karl Marx is stating that history is an important tool for human beings to use for their own advantage.  Also, because mistakes can and will always happen, humans can learn from past mistakes in order to prevent those mistakes from happening again such as war, famine, and the like. However, there are a few situations where events are inevitable. One situation would be the current situation of the economy. Our economy, as we all know, is struggling in an economic depression but this has already occurred in the 1930’s-the Great Depression. Perhaps, when the economy has stabilized, our future successors will prevent another economic downfall. Thus, we learn from our past from ancestors, past successors, etc, we can better ourselves economically.

History helps us define ourselves and have a better understanding of what we are. It gives us a sense of identity because every human has his/her own history to claim. We create our own history (past, present, future) which can cause problems such as our current economy. Yet, we can also produce optimistic events, for example, having an African American president. The citizens of America created history when we elected Democratic candidate  Barack Obama as president because we tore down the racial barriers that prevented non-Caucasian candidates to be presidents.

The past gives us an guidance on how to govern ourselves and to help us economically. And the future gives us, perhaps, an optimistic view for the unknown. In some way, it gives us a sliver of hope that things will get better because it has already happened in the past. We are a part of history whether we play a large or small role.

“The production of life, both of one’s own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship.” (157)

As civilization progresses from small family groups spread out in the wilderness to large and tightly packed cities, the more one needs to be mindful of those around.  While living isolated from the rest of society, natural needs for food and shelter are shared by all individuals in the community, but as more people are added to the society, more social relationships need to be established as labor is divided further.

Marx observes that society requires significant cooperation in order to continue functioning, but greed is not only present, it seems to thrive even at the cost of others.  The system seems to be corrupt and biased in favor of the rich, but like the lines from Mandeville’s The Grumbling Hive, “Thus every Part was full of Vice, Yet the whole Mass a Paradise” (155-6).  In theory a world where everyone collaborated for the good of the whole would be ideal, but without the desire to one-up your peers or neighbors, the economy and production stagnates.

In the modern world, as the population continues to grow and lifespans continue to be extended, people have become more and more dependent on each other to ensure their own welfare.  Greed is still the driving force behind the world’s economy, and in recent years we have seen the fallout of excessive speculation, ranging from the dot com bubble in the late 1990’s to the lending industry’s recent crash.  Greed can be good for prodding a stagnant economy back into life, but when it exceeds reason, the results can be devastating in today’s tightly connected society.

Defoe’s allegory of credit in his work “On Credit” addresses the idea of merit in relation to credit, where those who have the least need for credit tend to be deemed the most deserving while the needy are looked over as undeserving.  Credit constantly chases money, and as the borrowers become attached to her services, they risk losing and not being able to reclaim everything they enjoyed while in her company.

Even though the poor would need credit and money more than the rich, the rich tend to spend more which makes them a more favorable “client” of credit.  While the rich didn’t need credit for the essentials like the peasants, they instead invest and spend on unnecessary luxury items, both the 18th century as well as the modern era.  As a result the spenders were beginning to be viewed as the most valuable contributors to society since their spending produced sent ripples through the economy, extending the effect of the credit far beyond the initial loan.

Defoe’s personification of credit as an attention-seeking whore reflects the fickle nature of loans and credit, since those who have built up a history with Credit receiving preferential treatment.  At the start Credit just patiently waits, offering her “services” to all, especially those who look like they can pay well, and as long as the payments keep coming Credit sticks around.  However as soon as a payment is late, Credit’s trust in her customer fades, their worth evaporating in her flighty eyes.  A rich man who wrongs Credit must start with the common poor folk and work diligently to earn his lady’s favor again, though it takes years of perfect behavior before she will forgive his missteps.

An economic identity is the characteristic of an individual within the context of society. By living a purely inward lifestyle, all labor is for self-support, and on the flip side, a purely outward lifestyle consciously supports growth of the community. On this topic, I can imagine a conversation between John Locke and Bernard Mandeville. They would probably agree that a slight inward sense of identity with personal incentive is necessary to fuel the system overall.

Examining the inward identity, it is necessary that individuals have personal goals in order to survive. Locke, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, states that if man did not work the land to make it private and thus remove it from the commons, then “if such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him”. Private labors make survival possible and make use of that which was once worthless. Likewise Mandeville, in his The Grumbling Hive, introduces the reader to a thriving society in a beehive but at the cost of “Millions endeavouring to supply; Each other’s Lust and Vanity”. By each working for their own gain, the bees create a complete economy as they “Convert to their own Use the Labour; Of their good-natur’d heedless Neighbour”.

However, too much inward identity causes a corrupt and unhealthy economy. This begins with a “desire of having more than man needed” and thus “alter[s] the intrinsic value of things” (Locke). When people try to hoard and reallocate goods at an inflated cost, they throw the system off balance, away from the natural state God had put it in to provide equal opportunity for all. It is when the system becomes this way that the lower class is taken advantage of, “urg’d by meer Necessity; [They] Were ty’d up to the wretched Tree; For Crimes, which not deserv’d thar Fate; But to secure the Rich and Great” (Mandeville). By preserving the equality of all, Locke and Mandeville envision an orderly society formed by naturally organized cooperation.

The writings of John Locke and Adam Smith explore beliefs about human nature. Greed is a common part of human instinct. Both men intend to justify this less than noble trait, while investigating the question, does money solve the problem of greed? Ultimately, it is beneficial that money does not solve the problem of greed nor initiate greed. Money as gold or wealth acts as an aid to get what you want.

Locke describes greed as the “desire of having more than man needed” (Locke). Locke comes to the understanding that the world is not ideal. However, there is still a need to support one’s self and family, which aids in the initiation of greed. To justify the means of taking more than one’s share of the land, there is an introduction of money. Perishable items could be traded away for money, therefore preventing the sin of food or other necessities spoiling. “Men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found out a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of” (Locke). Locke rationalizes that everyone tacitly agrees on money’s value, so all labor that a man decides to place effort in can be traded for over plus gold or silver. Gold and silver are not life-sustaining substances thus greed is important in the movement of the economy, to satisfy our needs for items that support life.

On the other hand, Smith describes the greed for wealth and the steps needed to strive towards this status. “If ever he hopes to distinguish himself, it must be by more important virtues” such as a family and funds from the “labour of his body, and the activity of his mind” (Smith). However, this greed originates from the desire for greatness through “ambition,” which supports the progression of the society. Smith bases this greed through the natural desire for value and the associated happiness due to the disposition to identify with the rich instead of broadcasting the sorrows associated with the poor. Money becomes an aid to achieve status and, in the end, happiness. A world without greed has the potential to slow the development of the society.

The Encarta Dictionary defines greed as “an overwhelming desire to have more of something, such as money, than is actually needed.” Locke justifies this definition by putting in hard work and supporting one’s family. Over time, Smith suggests that greed has become synonymous with wealth and human nature. The trading of both necessities and desires are aided by the creation of money. The economy needs greed as a driving factor, but still focuses on the trade of products rather than money.

Joseph Addison, in “A Vision of Public Credit”, uses the “virgin” as the main character and “dance” to show conflict and resolution. This account represents the strengths and weaknesses of public credits in accordance with stressors and caretakers. Addison makes sure to carefully depict the virgin’s health and her surroundings as time passes, for she is the symbol of public credit. Virgin is usually defined as somebody who has never had sexual intercourse; however the connotations and stereotypes that have collected over the years are important to recognize in order to truly understand the conflict and resolution.

Purity and delicacy are the classically used terms to depict virgins. The qualities of delicacy and timidity lead to being easily influenced by her surroundings. In addition, purity is linked with the term and the idea of value. Purity greatly increases the value of our most cherished items such as gold and diamonds, and gives her the right to sit on the throne because she is uncorrupted by others.

In Addison’s time, virgins were under the control of their fathers. In this case, her father would be the government, trying to protect and find the best suitor for her. This behooves the father to find the best suitor so families can combine and become stronger, but the men are only interested in a pure virgin. Therefore she is only good before she is used. It is in the best interest of the nation not to use her in a tainted way or she could fall into the hands of an immoral idea.

The virgin observes the “dances” of a variety of phantoms. Addison uses “dance” to describe how the incoming spectres and apparitions attempt to court the virgin. The intentions were to show the interaction between the phantoms or different beliefs that could hurt or help the health of public credit; increasing the complexity of the conflict. It is beneficial to the audience to see the direct change in her health as each phantom passes. Dance becomes a term to replace the flow of the economy.

“Virgin” and “dance” refer to the main idea and conflict, which helps the reader understand the action. In this particular text, the action is directly related to the variance of value through the resolution of the virgin’s health. Credit, money, labor and more are all correlated through the rises and falls, or dance, of the economy. Addison utilizes different parts of the community, as an underlying theme, to show the proper use of credit. Understanding these terms helps readers see large effectors on the economy that they come into contact with daily.