Interesting topic. I think specialization is a necessary component of mass production. Though it led to an increase in the standard of living for the average person in the 20th century in what we like to call "the Western World", it doesn't by itself accomplish a broad based improvement. While specialization may improve efficiency, it decreases adaptability in the organization. I'm probably biased because I'm a generalist.

Agreed. Certainly the 'bubble of knowledge' has expanded substantially since the time of Newton or Jefferson. To make meaningful and substantial contributions to the advancement of knowledge in disparate areas seems, at first reflection, to be made more difficult as the bubble grows. Another analogy that seems to describe the situation is that of a geographical map. The first explorers and cartographers have the benefit of filling in the outlines of large regions - look at early maps of the world. Later additions tend to focus on refinements in specific locales.

Regarding the Roman aristocrats and Greeks and the division of labor in early times. One key difference between their time and ours is this: in their time it was common for the majority of the labor within the household to be devoted to producing goods and services consumed by the family, with some small excess component traded in the marketplace. The Roman aristocrat with large land holdings and numerous slaves was surrounded by, and probably personally involved in the direction of, laborers that performed most of the basic services he needed - cooking, weaving, animal husbandry, agriculture, etc.

In a modern economy this is flipped around - the vast majority of our labor is sold into the marketplace. Few of us have much involvement with the trades that we rely on. Certainly this contributes to a narrowing in our outlook.

First off, I’d like to thank you for taking the meager scribbling I wrote somewhere beyond the scope of what I was trying to cover. I usually try to ask the questions which interest me, and the idea of generalism is one (lately). Your insight into the notion that much of this may relate to the fact that we live in a market economy, where a division of labor now presumes that specialization could preclude the growth of the idea of generalism.
In some ways you are entirely correct, although the Greeks and Romans had a rather severe division of labor which allowed for a great deal of free time for the aristocracy. As a matter of fact much of this might not necessarily relate explicitly to modern economics and how we divide up out time (it is a part of how I see it!).
Another perspective may be better seen in science and technology. A great polymath, Isaac Newton was capable of covering so much profound work, mostly because so few others were working on these ideas. Another perspective may relate to the finite volume of human knowledge (I’m talking facts and data here). The growth of modern technology and the sciences have increased the total volume of this ‘bubble’ to the degree that it is likely to be impossible for any single human to encompass the ‘surface’ of this volume. The amount of work it takes to get to the edge of this ‘surface’ in any significant way entails so much work as to preclude the influence of any individual polymath (i.e. a Great Generalist) to influence things in the manner of a Jefferson, Franklin, Da Vinci, et.al.
For me there are some fascinating further questions about this idea of a ‘bubble of knowledge’ which could be seen as the real product of modern culture. Similarly, there are other aspects of the idea of being a generalist which are only outmoded by a generation (or two). It used to be quite common to see that most of the ‘fathers’ in one’s neighborhood fixing their own cars, doing some basic carpentry on their homes, working on almost anything. No doubt there are plenty of people who have exactly the same capabilities nowadays, but the opportunities to exhibit this sort of technical autonomy have diminished to the vanishing point these days…
So, once again, as with all of your comments, thanks!

Specialization is a consequence of the division of labor. There is a strong relationship between the increases in productivity and greater specialization, and this drives society to greater specialization. In advanced economies like ours it is accepted as commonplace by that the labor of our friends and neighbors may be in fields we know next to nothing about, and with ultimate economic ends that neither we nor they have much knowledge of. One of the benefits of capitalist economies lies in their ability to enable cooperation between vast groups of individuals. One downside is that the significance of our work lives becomes increasingly abstract, and we are likely to feel less connection with our neighbors.

As we become more specialized in our work lives we must obtain general knowledge through our avocational activities. With the higher standard of living that comes from our vocational specialization this would (you would think) enable us greater resources and time to pursue these "generalist" goals. In my experience most individuals use their free time for other purposes, and those that do choose to broaden their knowledge into new areas tend to specialize there too. The same style of cooperation and competition found in the workplace seem to show up in these other realms too. Capitalism has been criticized over the centuries for the way in which it's values - calculation, delayed gratification, etc. change the individuals within it.

It's worth noting that the great generalists you mention all lived in pre-capitalist or relatively primitive market based societies.