Nota bene: For my readers who are overseas, the “SAT” or “Scholastic Aptitude Test”, a rite of passage for most high school seniors in the U.S., is a high-stakes college entrance exam administered by a private company called the College Board. The SAT has two main sections: Math and Reading & Writing.

Thus far this week, we have been exploring Smith’s survey of religion in Book V, Ch. 1, Part 3, Art. 3 of The Wealth of Nations. To recap, Smith’s stance toward religion reveals a tension. On the one hand, he defends religious liberty: people should be free to choose their own religion. But at the same time, Smith also concedes that a lot people will make bad religious choices: they will join religious sects that are too strict!

Smith’s solution to this strictness problem reveals his overall commitment to freedom, for his proposed remedy is not to restrict people’s liberty or regulate their behavior. Instead, his proposed solution is to widen people’s horizons through “the study of science and philosophy” (WN, V.i.g.14) and to give people more choices in the form of “publick diversions” (WN, V.i.g.15). Let’s explore these Smithian remedies in greater detail below:

Remedy #1: Science and Philosophy.

First off, why does Smith champion “the study of science and philosophy”? Because, in the immortal words of the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, “Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition; and where all the superior ranks of people were secured from it, the inferior ranks could not be much exposed to it.” (WN, V.i.g.14; my emphasis) But how exactly would Smith promote “the study of science and philosophy”? Would he use taxpayer funds to subsidize instructors of science and philosophy? No, he would not. Instead, Smith would require aspiring professionals and future office holders to pass a sort of entrance exam before they could join a profession or hold public office:

“… the state might render [the study of science and philosophy] almost universal among all people of middling or more than middling rank and fortune; not by giving salaries to teachers in order to make them negligent and idle, but by instituting some sort of probation, even in the higher and more difficult sciences, to be undergone by every person before he was permitted to exercise any liberal profession, or before he could be received as a candidate for any honourable office of trust or profit. If the state imposed upon this order of men the necessity of learning, it would have no occasion to give itself any trouble about providing them with proper teachers. They would soon find better teachers for themselves than any whom the state could provide for them.” (WN, V.i.g.14; my emphasis)

Say what? Alas, the devil is in the details, and Smith does not provide us any additional details about this proposed universal entrance exam. What subjects or topics would this entrance exam cover? Who would administer it? (By way of comparison, the College Board, the private company that offers the SAT college entrance exam, is a de facto monopoly; see here, for example.) What would the format of this exam be — e.g. short answer, essay, multiple choice, or some combination thereof — and how high a grade or score would one need to pass? In any case, however these logistical questions are answered, notice the limited scope of Smith’s proposed entrance exam: only “people of middling or more than middling rank” would be required to take the exam.

Remedy #2: Publick Diversions.

In addition to Smith’s proposed entrance exam, Smith also proposes an even more creative, surprising, and far-reaching solution to counteract the strictness of small religious sects.

“The second of those remedies is the frequency and gaiety of public diversions. The state, by encouraging, that is by giving entire liberty to all those who for their own interest would attempt without scandal or indecency, to amuse and divert the people by painting, poetry, music, dancing; by all sorts of dramatic representations and exhibitions, would easily dissipate, in the greater part of them, that melancholy and gloomy humour which is almost always the nurse of popular superstition and enthusiasm. Public diversions have always been the objects of dread and hatred to all the fanatical promoters of those popular frenzies. The gaiety and good humour which those diversions inspire were altogether inconsistent with that temper of mind which was fittest for their purpose, or which they could best work upon. Dramatic representations, besides, frequently exposing their artifices to public ridicule, and sometimes even to public execration, were upon that account, more than all other diversions, the objects of their peculiar abhorrence.” (WN, V.i.g.15; my emphasis)

Before proceeding, I want to confess that this is one of my favorite passages in the entire Wealth of Nations. Why? Because Smith presents a cheerful and joyous picture of commercial society, one full of entertaining spectacles and “gaiety and good humour.” Notice how Smith specifically singles out “painting, poetry, music, dancing” as well as “dramatic representations and exhibitions,” and to this laundry list of public diversions, we could also include today’s movie industry (Hollywood) and other spectacles or forms of entertainment, such as professional and college sports. In a word: entertainment.

My main takeaway from this passage — and from Smith’s treatment of religion more generally — is that Smith is not only a true champion of religious liberty; he is also a champion of culture and freedom more generally. Both markets — the market for religion and the market for entertainment — should be free. But that said, as the crucial phrase “without scandal or indecency” in the passage above hints at (V.i.g.15), there is a potential blind spot in Smith’s call for “publick diversions”: who decides what is scandalous or indecent? Smith’s anti-scandal caveat would appear to necessitate some form of censorship!

On this note, I wonder what Adam Smith, were he alive today, would have to say about today’s forms of popular digital entertainment, such as single- and multi-player video games like Grand Theft Auto, Fortnite, and Roblox; or so-called “reality TV” shows like Cops, Real Housewives of Atlanta, and Love Island; or popular social media platforms like TikTok, Substack, and Instagram? Which of these forms of entertainment, if any, do more harm and good? Wouldn’t we all be better off without them? Or is a plethora of 24-hour news outlets and social media addiction the price we must pay to live in a free society? However my questions to Smith are answered, I will conclude my survey of Chapter 1 of Book V of The Wealth of Nations in my next post.