Adam Smith’s Four Stages of Social Development Theory

Adam Smith distinguishes four distinct stages of social development based on the expansion of the concept of personality and the progress made in the scope of rights.

His view of history as a philosophy of history, which also consists of an understanding of “four-stage historical progress,” is of great importance not only as another expression of the Enlightenment’s or Enlightenment philosophers’ scientific view of history, but also because it argues that progress is based on economic factors rather than intellectual development and scientific knowledge accumulation. This theory of progress or social development, which we can see similarities to not only in Enlightenment philosophers but also in 19th-century philosophers such as Hegel, Marx, and Comte, is based on the assumption that there is a real progress in history in terms of rights, freedom, and personality.

In the first stage of Smith’s four-stage theory of social development, the lowest form of society is that of hunter-gatherers. Characterized by poverty and scarcity of resources, this society naturally lacks hierarchical relationships, resulting in equality. However, since this equality exists in the face of scarcity, this first stage offers virtually no physical or moral rights to sustain an individual; even if such rights existed, there would be no political order to protect them. According to Smith, population pressure prepares the ground for the second stage, making the hunting of large wild animals highly valuable. While this age of hunters or pastoralists sees significant progress in rights, particularly regarding property, the emergence of property also leads to great inequality, creating a significant relationship of subjugation and dependence. He argues that population pressure, or increasing population, once again leads to a change in the form of society, the cultivation of land; Smith calls this period the “age of agriculture or farmers.” Smith acknowledges that the transition to settled life gave rise to land ownership, and that a state of intense inequality and dependence emerged. Just as the Tatar chieftain became a leader by virtue of being the greatest herdsman, the leaders of the third stage were the great landowners. Smith argues that the main great change and real progress occurred in the fourth stage, that is, the commercial society; the commercial society, unlike previous forms of society, is, according to him, a result not only of population pressure but also of the natural inclination of human beings to exchange, barter, and trade. Unlike philosophers like Rousseau, who would see the transition to this commercial society and the progress made in this direction as the embodiment of deepening decay or corruption, Smith argues that in the age of trade, there was not only independence, but a much higher degree of independence than, say, that of hunters. As an explanation for this superiority, Smith speaks of wealth or riches. Indeed, according to him, the social conditions that make wealth possible also make possible the kind of liberty that is the most important indicator of civilization: legal liberty.

Smith argues that while new rights are gained in each of the four types of societies, the greatest gain in terms of personality occurs in commercial society. Indeed, one of the fundamental theses of *The Wealth of Nations* is that even people who work or whose existence depends on their labor in the modern world can possess personal freedom because the modern economy allows them to sell their labor without harming themselves morally, and this represents real progress. With the development and deepening of the division of labor, every job becomes, on the one hand, more abstract, and on the other hand, less dependent on personal abilities; yet in any case, it can be easily appreciated in material terms. The worker, therefore, can sell his labor power to anyone in commercial society; moreover, he can do so without being subject to traditional relations of service and dependence. But according to Smith, this freedom to sell one’s labor is only effective if it is protected as a right by the political government.

For Smith, who argued that the liberation of labor from slavery, achieved by removing productive life from the private sphere or family and subjecting it to the public market, lies at the heart of economic transformation, this transformation can only occur when greed or avarice, as the immoral manifestation of self-interest, begins to be seen as innocent, even necessary, in the eyes of society. This, in turn, can only happen when the problem of distribution begins to be solved through the market. While in pre-commercial societies the wealthy or property owners could use their goods or property by consuming them within the extended family structure, making others dependent on them, in commercial societies they can spend their wealth through the anonymous other of the market. The accumulation of wealth, therefore, not only aligns with the freedom of the poor but also makes them dependent on it. It is this invisible hand that makes the distribution among people equal and realistic.

Adam Smith argued that while people pursue their own self-interests, an invisible hand will guide them toward securing the common good, and that economic institutions will thus spontaneously arise. However, he believed this freedom came at a price, considering the danger of moral decay. The wealthy tend to undermine the very foundations of the system that provides them with wealth and prosperity by trying to escape competition. The poor, on the other hand, are subjected to the dulling and alienating effects of a mechanical process of work and labor, rendering their lives meaningless and making them useless as citizens and soldiers. Smith argued that the solution in both areas should come from the state. Accordingly, the state, which should refrain from intervening in economic matters, will take measures to prevent monopolies in order to deal with the harmful tendencies of the wealthy or property owners; and it will establish a robust system of education and freedoms to counteract the negative effects of mechanical work and labor on the poor. According to him, freedom of education and belief are the most important cornerstones enabling the establishment of a moral community that allows the worker to develop a moral character.

In addition to the economic system, a product of self-interest, and the legal system, which institutionalized the virtue of justice, Smith also dealt with political philosophy. Politics, according to him, is a system concerned with basic strategies or policies, revenues, and weapons. Accordingly, politics is primarily responsible for ensuring the protection and development of the market, facilitating trade, providing local and general services, and, incidentally, defense. He argues that, starting from state revenues, politicians or governments should develop educational and cultural policies that relate to, or at least make possible, the positive virtues of the citizen. Smith limits the duties and functions of government to these, as anything more could lead to tyranny, which involves imposing certain notions of the good life on individuals.

Ahmet Cevizci,
History of Philosophy 
, Say Publications.