Agriculture, from its nature, is the art in which the division of labor has made least progress.Were it possible to conceive that, by the operation of any circumstance, it could there be carried to its full extent, whether would its benefits be felt in the increased dexterity of the workman, or in the increased efficiency of the instruments employed? At present a man employed in such work, generally, ploughs, harrows, reaps, mows, threshes, and drives as well at twenty-five, as at thirty-five, or forty-five.It seems not very probable, therefore, that, were be to confine himself altogether to one of these occupations, he would perform it better than he now does.
On the other hand, it seems very likely, that, did the dependence of the several agricultural operations on the seasons permit the separation of occupations in this art, the implements employed in it would soon become much more efficient.We see, in fact, that it is the impossibility of this separation taking place, that does here retard or prevent improvement.
Threshing-mills, for example, would be universally adopted, were it not that, being nearly idle great part of the time, the cost of construction is too great for the return.The machine is probably unemployed for nineteen days out of twenty, so that could this division take place in twenty adjoining farms, each of which has now its own threshing-mill, nineteen of those at present necessary might be dispensed with.The same thing may, I believe, be said concerning drilling-machines; it is their cost and the long time they lie idle, that prevents their general adoption.Similar causes altogether prevent the introduction of many other ingenious machines and implements.
As much ingenuity, indeed, has been displayed in contrivances for the purposes of this art, as for any other, but the instruments produced, though they would have been very effective aids in particular operations, have never come into use, because, unless for a few days every year, they would have lain idle on the hands of their owners.Were it possible for farmers to divide their employment, and, each taking to a particular department, were the distinct occupations of ploughers, reapers, harrowers, etc., to arise, none of the instruments employed lying idle, they would yield much more speedy returns; their construction, in all probability, would greatly improve, and the whole capital of the country would soon be very much increased.
It is worth while observing, too, that in this sort of labor, the improved construction of instruments seems to lessen the quantum of manual dexterity necessary.The manual dexterity necessary for managing a threshing or a drilling-machine is very trifling.
It is chiefly in some very delicate arts, such as that of watchmaking, or in some in which, from their nature, the use of tools cannot be extensively introduced, as in printing, that the effi6iency derived from long practice is very great, and where, consequently, the division of labor would seem in this way a direct improvement.These, however make but a small part of the arts of any community.
2.Among the direct advantages derived from the division of labor, Adam Smith reckons the invention of many machines facilitating and abridging labor.It seems to me, that the facts are, on the whole, opposed to this idea.Whatever confines a man's faculties to one monotonous occupation, must rather dull and cramp, than quicken and expand them."The understandings of the greater part of men, are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments.
The man, whose whole life is spent in performing a few operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur.
He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging;and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war.The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard, with abhorrence, the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier.It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigor and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred.His dexterity in his particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues." (154)These being the direct effects on the intellectual and moral powers of the division of labor, it can scarcely be said to be the direct cause of invention in the artisan.The extended division of labor implies the existence of many arts, and of much intelligence.Where it exists, therefore, the inventive faculties will be generally active.But this activity, though a concomitant of the division of labor, is to be held as an effect, not of that division, but other causes themselves producing the division of labor.It will appear, in short, to be, like most popular principles, a result, not a cause; and ranks properly, not as a prime mover in the course of human affairs, but as a consequence of the actions of the prime movers.
