The Political Mind
The science and psychology of politics
Navigation
  • About
  • Mind&Politics
  • G Scott Blakley
  • I. A. Grea
You are here: Home › Commentary › Democracy and Capitalism in Adam Smith’s Mutual Sympathy and Sociability
← Education: Training, or Cultivating?
Does the Modern State Require Strong Government? →

Democracy and Capitalism in Adam Smith’s Mutual Sympathy and Sociability

August 15, 2012 | Filed under: Commentary and tagged with: Adam Smith, democracy as marketplace, impartial spectator, James Otteson, mutual sympathy, Ryan Patrick Hanley, Theory of Moral Sentiments, Wealth of Nations

I continue to slowly wend my way through Adam Smith, both The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, with the help of James R. Otteson (Adam Smith’s Marketplace of Life) and Ryan Patrick Hanley (Adam Smith and the Character of Virtue). I’m finding it fascinating that Adam Smith’s views on human psychology, as it impacts morality, seem so modern. About a quarter of the way through his book, Otteson summarizes Smith’s psychology of morality. There are two features which describe Smith’s views, the notion of mutual sympathy; and sociability, the idea that humans are made to live in society.

We desire mutual sympathy, as Smith puts in the TMS (13); “nothing pleases us more than to observe in other men a fellow-feeling with all the emotions of our own breast; nor are we ever so much shocked as by the appearance of the contrary.” Through this mutual sympathy, we attempt to win praise and avoid blame; but more importantly, Smith believes, we seek to be praiseworthy and blameless. “Nature, accordingly, has endowed him, not only with a desire of being approved of, but with a desire of being what ought to be approved of; or of being what he himself approves of in other men.” (TMS, 117) If we want to be what we approve of in other men, it is not that other men can appear praiseworthy even when they are not; it is that we want to be praiseworthy like them.

Smith also thinks that the characteristic of sociability is innate in human nature. We are born dependent on others to survive, but more importantly, we have a psychological need to be a part of community. It is in society that we are able to exercise our sense of mutual sympathy; we need to be seen by others as praiseworthy and blameless to be psychologically whole. Both the need for mutual sympathy, and the innate characteristic of sociability, lead to the notion of the impartial spectator, where we are able to judge ourselves by recognizing how others judge us, just as we see them doing with us.

Otteson makes one other point about Smith’s views in this summary. He notes that Smith believes that in spite of mutual sympathy and sociability, we care more for ourselves than for others, and more for those closest to us than for those most remote. Man is driven by self-interest, as well as by sociability. Recognizing that others also are driven by self-interest leads to the impartial spectator procedure, since we realize we need to temper our own sentiments so that they are seen as praiseworthy to others, and to give us the grounds to better understand our fellows.

I also continue to listen to the lectures on Political and Economic Thought by Professor Charles Anderson. He describes Rousseau’s “general will” (la volonté générale) as being the means by which individuals can give up some measure of autonomy by joining with a group on a particular issue while still retaining their freedom of thought and action by adopting the group’s opinion and feeling it as their own.

Otteson, noted above, titles his book as the marketplace of life, and uses this idea of humans interacting in the marketplace to describe both the development of our morals and sensibilities as well as our economic life. Prof. Anderson’s describes Smith’s views of individuals creating contracts with each other, but maintaining individual freedom because the contracts are freely chosen. It strikes me as being very close to Rousseau’s general will, individuals giving over some measure of freedom by binding themselves to a contract, but maintaining freedom because they freely choose to do so.

According to Prof. Anderson, the theory of capitalism begins with Adam Smith, specifically with the Wealth of Nations. The year was 1776. We often conflate democracy with capitalism, and our modern political discourse often assumes that the role of the state is to further capitalistic freedom. But the theory of capitalism and Thomas Jefferson’s penning of the Declaration of Independence occurred in the same year; Jefferson could not have been thinking capitalism when describing government and the rights of individuals. Nor can one expect the Constitution to be grounded on a theory of capitalism, so soon after The Wealth of Nations.

Still, democracy feels like the marketplace; individuals come together, interact, form unions, and create government. Prof Anderson notes that individuals coming together in the marketplace gives form to community, society, and government without having to predefine it. Similarly, democracy does not guarantee that we will do the right thing, or the best thing. It is, in a sense, neutral; democracy does not tell us what we ought to do, but rather merely provides the marketplace out of which our politics grows.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Did you like this article? Share it with your friends!

Tweet

Written by Jacob Jefferson Jakes

← Education: Training, or Cultivating?
Does the Modern State Require Strong Government? →

RSS Jonathan Haidt

  • Why The Righteous Mind may be the best common reading for incoming college students February 19, 2017 Jonathan Haidt

RSS George Lakoff

RSS Corey Robin

Jacob Jefferson Jakes

The Political Mind

  • View Jacob-Jefferson-Jakes-127488407357719’s profile on Facebook
  • View JacobJJakes’s profile on Twitter
  • View 118350928673473455810’s profile on Google+

Mind&Politics

  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Facebook
  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Twitter
  • View 107647165319384338834’s profile on Google+

Recent Posts

  • The Truth Behind the Curtain: Ken Ham, Antonin Scalia, and Milton Friedman find it February 20, 2017
  • “I Support Trump” July 31, 2016
  • GOP Media Warfare, Hierarchy, and Agriculture November 28, 2015
  • To the Heart of an Idea, Conservative and Liberal October 25, 2015
  • State Sovereignty and Constitutionally-limited Government September 7, 2015
  • “…of the United States…”: Creating a Nation July 27, 2014
  • I Would Not Throw the Fat Man Off the Bridge and onto the Trolley Tracks July 13, 2014
  • Shit Happens and Big Data July 12, 2014
  • Wittgenstein, Identity-Protection Cognition, and Understanding Rather than Persuading June 1, 2014
  • What if Piketty is Right? April 27, 2014

Recent Comments

    Archives

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org

    Categories

    Tags

    1% abortion Adam Smith anti-federalist Articles of Confederation climate change conservatism conservative conservative boredom conservative enthusiasm constitution Daniel Kahneman David Brooks democracy Edmund Burke Elvin Lim federalist federal taxes gay rights George Lakoff hobby lobby income inequality Jonathan Haidt karma liberal libertarians Mitt Romney moral politics natural law neoconservatives Newt GIngrich nurturant parent Occupy Wall Street Patrick Allitt pro-life racism robert reich strict father strict father model tax policy tax quintiles Tea Party The Lovers Quarrel Thomas Pangle virtue of muddling through

    © 2025 The Political Mind

    Powered by Esplanade Theme by One Designs and WordPress