Change Over Time
Human history reflects a long arc of societal transformation. Societies once mired in authoritarianism—marked by command, control, and hierarchy—have, in some instances, undergone radical transitions toward cooperative, liberal forms of governance. This change is not universal nor inevitable. Many societies still remain trapped in primitive, repressive systems where authority stifles creativity and human flourishing.
What explains the sudden transformation of some societies into engines of human betterment? The rise of Liberalism, defined not by partisan politics but by cooperative social relationships, mutual respect, and institutions that protect free activity, seems closely correlated with economic and cultural advancement. But correlation is not causation. Liberalism may itself be a product of a deeper process of societal adaptation.
The Great Enrichment
Between the 17th and 19th centuries, select Western societies experienced an unprecedented increase in material well-being, productivity, innovation, and personal freedom. This 'Great Enrichment' began in places like Amsterdam and later spread to Britain, the U.S., and much of Europe. This transformation was not the result of natural resources or capital alone—factors long present throughout history—but of a new organizational form: a liberalized society.
As Deirdre McCloskey and other economic historians point out, traditional explanations—capital accumulation, trade, geography—fail to fully account for this explosive growth. Instead, it appears that a shift in values, rhetoric, and institutions toward liberal cooperation lies at the heart of the transformation. The emergence of liberal systems allowed individuals and groups to interact freely, generating innovation and development previously unseen.
Liberalism as a System of Cooperation
Liberalism, in this sense, is not merely a political label but a societal structure grounded in mutual respect, equality before the law, and the protection of individual rights. It fosters a decentralized order in which science, commerce, and civil society can flourish. By contrast, authoritarian systems limit participation, suppress dissent, and concentrate power—conditions that inhibit development.
But we must be careful: liberalism is not the “cause” of societal development but rather its “product.” The deeper cause lies in the mechanisms by which human societies re-organize their relationships—moving from dominance and subordination to reciprocity and cooperation. As Piaget might suggest, societies ‘see with' certain cognitive structures, and the development of more advanced forms of social organization may reflect deeper changes in collective cognition.
The Need for Explanation
To truly understand societal development, we must do more than describe the stages of change—we must explain them. How do societies move from primitive to advanced forms? What mechanisms cause the shift from hierarchical to cooperative structures? To explore these questions, we must study not only history and economics, but psychology and epistemology. The same developmental logic that applies to children learning conservation of quantity or place value may also apply to societies learning how to govern themselves.
Ultimately, the challenge is to construct a general framework that can account for the evolution of social systems over time. This framework must identify the structural features of cooperation, track the transitions between societal forms, and uncover the causal mechanisms—cognitive, cultural, institutional—that drive development. Such research tackles the deeper question: how do societies grow up?
