Mapping Modern State Forms: The Two-Axis Theory
Mapping Modern State Forms: The Two-Axis Theory
05/26/2025 by K_Holmes
Theory of Two-Axis about a Nation
Figure 1. Two-Axis Framework with Correct Quadrants and Axes.
X: Degree of Political Freedom (Left: Low / Right: High)
Y: Strength of Normative Ideals (Bottom: Low / Top: High)
Section 1: Why We Need the Two-Axis Theory
Where did we come from, and where are we heading? Such foundational questions cannot be sufficiently addressed by conventional economic theories or mainstream political analyses. The reason lies in our neglect of a deeper layer: the structural foundations that underpin every society—rarely verbalized and often taken for granted. This essay seeks to uncover that hidden structure through what I call the “Two-Axis Theory”. It frames societies along two key dimensions:
The strength of normative ideals; how deeply shared and rigidly enforced a society’s values and legitimizing beliefs are; and
The degree of political freedom; how much space individuals and groups have to speak, act, and dissent freely.
Unlike simplistic moral binaries such as “good” and “bad,” the Two-Axis Theory offers a spatial model for understanding societies. It maps them according to their ideological rigidity (vertical axis) and freedom of expression (horizontal axis). This mapping enables us to interpret not just a society’s current posture, but also its historical trajectory, internal coherence, and even its propensity toward conflict or division.
In developing this framework, I have drawn inspiration from Emmanuel Todd’s theory of family types, which illuminates the enduring and evolving cultural substrata of societies, and from Branko Milanović’s distinction between two forms of capitalism and their differing degrees of ideological exportability (*Todd, 2010*). However, I treat these as auxiliary lines on the coordinate map—helpful in interpreting positions, but not part of the model’s core structure (*Todd, 2010*). The Two-Axis Theory itself is the central framework (*Todd, 2010*). It functions as a coordinate plane for understanding a society’s stance and direction (*Todd, 2010*). Moreover, it offers a structural lens not only for asking “Where are we now?” (*Todd, 2010*) but also for considering “Where should we be heading?” (*Todd, 2010*).
In future developments, this framework may expand to incorporate auxiliary variables such as:
The inclusion scalar; a measure of how broadly a society incorporates different populations as legitimate members; and
The National Internalized Norms Position; a conceptual indicator of how deeply certain value systems are internalized within a nation.
For now, however, I will focus on articulating the basic Two-Axis structure itself.
Section 2: The Two Axes — Normative Ideals and Political Freedom
The Two-Axis Theory uses two coordinates to analyze the structure of any society or state: (1) the strength of normative ideals, and (2) the degree of political freedom. Before exploring how societies are mapped along these axes, we must define each axis and explain how they can be measured.
(1) Strength of Normative Ideals (Y-Axis)
The vertical axis represents the binding force of a society’s foundational beliefs, those ideals that justify its existence and define what is considered legitimate or desirable. These may include religious doctrines, moral systems, national myths, revolutionary ideologies, or appeals to historical legitimacy. More than abstract principles, these ideals shape how individuals behave, judge others, and accept their place in the social order.
When normative ideals are strong, they are deeply embedded across the population and function as dominant legitimizing frameworks that leave little room for dissent or deviation. Conversely, when these ideals are weak, society tends to relativize its own foundations, and the sources of legitimacy become plural and fluid.
To quantify this axis, we can imagine a scalar range from +100 to -100:
+100: Religious, totalitarian, or revolutionary states with tightly enforced doctrines
+50: Modern states grounded in moral or historical legitimacy
0: States where ideals have been relativized and legitimacy is grounded in procedural or structural rationality
-50: Societies that retain ideals formally but have largely abandoned them in practice
-100: Societies that embrace complete relativism, where ideals are hollowed out or openly disregarded
Importantly, this scale is not normative. A strong ideal does not imply a good society, nor does a weak ideal imply a democratic one. Instead, this axis reflects the source and intensity of legitimacy: Who decides what is right, and how rigidly that vision is enforced?
(2) Degree of Political Freedom (X-Axis)
The horizontal axis measures how freely individuals and groups can speak, assemble, protest, and engage in political or civic life. It includes freedoms of speech, press, association, electoral integrity, the rule of law, and protection of personal autonomy.
This axis can also be represented on a scale from +100 to -100:
+100: Societies with high structural guarantees of freedom and robust pluralism
+50: Societies with established freedoms but persistent inequality or systemic exclusions
0: Societies where formal freedoms are present but counterbalanced by restrictions
-50: Societies where freedom is significantly curtailed and dissent is difficult
-100: Regimes where fear, coercion, and surveillance dominate all aspects of life
Again, this scale is analytical, not moral. A high degree of freedom does not automatically result in cohesion or prosperity. Societies with excessive freedom but no unifying ideals may suffer from fragmentation or ideological drift. What matters most is the balance between freedom and normative cohesion.
By positioning societies along these two axes, we gain a framework that enables comparative structural analysis beyond cultural, historical, or geographic specificities. In the next section, I will examine how these axes form four quadrants that help classify distinct political and social configurations.
Section 3: The Four Quadrants Defined by the Two Axes
When we apply the Two-Axis Theory to real-world societies, the intersection of the ideological (Y-axis) and political freedom (X-axis) dimensions produces four distinct quadrants. Each quadrant corresponds to a characteristic configuration of societal structure and behavior. This typology allows us to analyze political tendencies, cultural orientations, potential risks, and paths of transformation.
Quadrant I: Strong Norms, High Freedom (+Y, +X)
This quadrant represents a rare and delicate balance: a society with both strong, shared ideals and a high degree of political freedom. Citizens take pride in their national or cultural values while also enjoying open discourse, institutional transparency, and pluralism. However, this equilibrium can be fragile. If normative ideals become overly dominant, dissent may be stifled, nudging the society toward Quadrant IV. Conversely, if ideals lose their coherence, the society may drift into Quadrant II.
Quadrant II: Weak Norms, High Freedom (−Y, +X)
In this quadrant, individual liberties are broadly protected, but there is no strong shared narrative or unifying set of ideals. Liberal values—such as freedom of speech, markets, and personal choice—thrive. Yet the absence of a cohesive moral or cultural foundation can lead to identity fragmentation, social atomization, or the rise of reactive ideologies like nationalism.
Quadrant III: Weak Norms, Low Freedom (−Y, −X)
Societies in this quadrant suffer from both ideological disintegration and political repression. Lacking shared values and stifling freedom, such states often emerge after war, regime collapse, or severe economic crisis. Governance may persist formally, but citizen agency and national cohesion are often at historic lows. Nonetheless, recovery is possible. These societies may rebuild shared ideals or reclaim freedoms, moving toward Quadrants I or II.
Quadrant IV: Strong Norms, Low Freedom (+Y, −X)
Here, a society enforces a rigid ideological framework while tightly controlling dissent and limiting political freedoms. Religious states, authoritarian regimes, and certain revolutionary governments often fall into this category. Such states may appear stable if their values are deeply internalized, but they are vulnerable to both internal unrest and external confrontation.
Movement and Dynamism Across Quadrants
The quadrant classification is not static. Societies often migrate across these quadrants over time, driven by ideological shifts or changes in political freedom. For instance:
Postwar Japan and Germany moved from Quadrant IV to II as they relinquished rigid ideologies and embraced democratic freedoms.
Contemporary China may be interpreted as moving from Quadrant III to IV through economic development, ideological reconstruction, and suppression of political dissent.
Some liberal democracies face pressures to restrict freedoms in response to terrorism or instability, risking a slide from Quadrant I to IV.
Thus, the Two-Axis Theory not only maps where societies are but also helps anticipate where they might be heading, and why (*Todd, 2010*). In the next section, we will examine how this quadrant model interacts with key sociological and economic theories—notably those of Todd and Milanović—to enhance our ability to interpret real-world political structures (*Todd, 2010*).
Section 4: Todd and Milanović as Auxiliary Frameworks
To enrich the interpretive power of the Two-Axis Theory, we can borrow analytical support from two complementary perspectives: Emmanuel Todd’s family typology and Branko Milanović’s classification of capitalist systems (*Todd, 2010*). These frameworks serve as auxiliary lines—guiding tools to help locate societies more precisely within the Two-Axis coordinate plane (*Todd, 2010*).
(1) Todd’s Theory: Cultural Foundations and Ideological Strength
Todd’s theory of family types may initially seem antiquated, but its deeper contribution lies in exposing the cultural substrata that shape a society’s normative ideals (*Todd, 2010*). His classification—patriarchal versus egalitarian families—correlates over time with key institutional features such as attitudes toward hierarchy, tradition, and religious authority (*Todd, 2010*). For instance, in societies where primogeniture prevails, ideals tend to be rigid, and authority structures are deeply entrenched—resulting in high values on the Y-axis (*Todd, 2010*). In contrast, egalitarian family models often foster early internalization of relativistic values, correlating with weaker ideological constraints (*Todd, 2010*). Todd’s framework thus functions as a lens for interpreting how deeply a society’s ideals are rooted in long-standing cultural patterns, helping us to situate it on the Y-axis (*Todd, 2010*).
(2) Milanović’s Theory: Institutional Exportability and Systemic Freedom
Milanović offers a typology of two modern capitalisms: liberal capitalism (characterized by democracy and global institutional expansion) and political capitalism (marked by authoritarian governance paired with economic growth) (*Milanović, 2019*). This typology helps us interpret both axes (*Milanović, 2019*). Liberal capitalism tends to rate high on the X-axis due to its emphasis on freedom and openness, while also projecting its institutions outward as universal values (*Milanović, 2019*). Political capitalism, by contrast, may maintain internal coherence and growth without extending its model abroad—often accompanied by constraints on political freedom and ideological rigidity (*Milanović, 2019*). Milanović’s insight into the exportability of institutions thus adds nuance to our analysis, especially when examining tensions between internal legitimacy and external adaptability (*Milanović, 2019*).
Together, Todd’s cultural mapping and Milanović’s systemic typology do not replace the Two-Axis Theory—they enrich it (*Todd, 2010*). They serve as contextual aids for decoding a society’s placement on the ideological and political spectrum (*Todd, 2010*). In the following section, we will explore how this theoretical groundwork can be applied dynamically to assess societal shifts, quadrant transitions, and trajectories of political change (*Todd, 2010*).
Section 5: Expandability and Future Prospects
The Two-Axis Theory is not merely a tool for classification; it is a structural map that situates societies within a framework defined by two coordinates—the strength of normative ideals and the degree of political freedom. It illuminates why societies evolve, how they shift, and where they might be heading. In this sense, it serves not only as a typology but also as a coordinate system for structured thought. Its core value lies in enabling deeper insights into societal configurations—not only for evaluating existing institutions and policies, but for discerning the normative energies and institutional vectors that drive transformation. Complex issues such as economic policy, national security, and environmental strategy can be recontextualized within this coordinate space, offering new layers of structural explanation.
Supplementary Axis: The Inclusion Scalar
As the model evolves, it may benefit from incorporating auxiliary dimensions. One such dimension is the Inclusion Scalar—a potential third axis designed to capture the degree to which a society includes or excludes various groups within its legitimized framework of membership. While ideological strength and political freedom describe overarching conditions, they do not always account for the boundaries of social inclusion. Even societies with high political freedoms may marginalize immigrants, refugees, or minorities in ways that escape detection under the existing two axes. The Inclusion Scalar seeks to address this by evaluating the openness of a society’s institutions and the tolerance embedded in its ideological core. For example, two societies might score similarly on political freedom, but diverge significantly in how they treat minority populations. This difference, made visible through the Inclusion Scalar, adds an essential third dimension to our understanding. By developing a three-dimensional coordinate system, we move closer to a truly spatialized sociology—capable of capturing not only governance and belief, but also the boundaries of belonging.
Auxiliary Concept: National Internalized Norms Position
Another candidate for theoretical expansion is the concept of National Internalized Norms Position—a term proposed to describe the degree to which societies have internalized their own normative attitudes. This is less about formal laws or explicit ideologies, and more about the deep-seated cultural and psychological orientations that shape a society’s default response to ideals and freedoms. These internalized norms reflect a kind of national ethos: how citizens relate emotionally to authority, how they interpret freedom, and whether ideals are viewed as aspirational, obligatory, or even threatening. Though difficult to measure, these attitudes exert significant influence on a society’s stability, flexibility, and developmental trajectory. In time, systematizing this conceptual variable may offer new insights into the invisible forces behind movement across the Two-Axis space.
Conclusion: The Value of Structural Vision
This paper does not claim to offer deterministic laws or policy prescriptions. Rather, it proposes a framework for structural observation—a means of discerning the ideological forces and freedom constraints that shape societies beneath the surface of daily events. To see structure is not to negate contingency or deny agency. On the contrary, it is to clarify the space within which human choices are made—bounded by constraint, yet open to transformation. If the Two-Axis Theory offers readers a more navigable map of today’s world, then it will have served its purpose well.
