Meeting Our Needs

In 1943 Abraham Maslow, a psychologist studying developmental psychology, first proposed in a paper “A Theory of Human Motivation” that all people had and innate curiosity and functioned based on how their physical, psychological and social needs were being met.  This has been referred to as his hierarchy of needs, and is often portrayed as a pyramid.  Similar in approach to the food pyramid.

His theory states that before all else physiological needs must be met.  These are the basic requirements for food, water, shelter.  If a human being must spend his days worrying about this, there is little room in his or her life to worry about anything else.  Also in this area was consideration of the sexual instinct for reproduction and continuation of the species.  Only once these basic needs are reasonably satisfied will humans begin to consider other things like safety.

Within the safety level are considerations like personal security, financial stability, health and concerns about safety nets to protect against loss of these areas.  Again only after the individual feels comfortable that these needs are being met will they consider the needs of the next higher level, love and belonging.

If you look at the homeless in our cities I think you find a validation of this hypothesis.  They move from shelter to food, to shelter, begging to support their basis survival needs, which may involve support of their additions or quieting of their inner demons.

Love and belonging, in Maslow’s theory speaks to the needs for friendship, intimacy and family.  Todays world of Facebook seems to reflect that need for social intercourse and would argue that the lower level needs are principally being fulfilled.  Since Facebook requires a certain degree of technology I find that a reasonable assumption.

Once the needs for love and belonging are met, the theory suggests a human need for respect both from self and from others.  The need for esteem or the lack of it is often cited as a factor in rampage or acts of violence like school shootings.

Finally man can only reach self-actualization and as the Army would say “be all you can be” if you have self esteem and accept that others have a degree of respect for you too.

In the years since Maslow first proposed his hierarchy it has fallen out of favor as a theory.  Several noted researchers have questioned where the sexual instinct falls and whether there is any hierarchical relationship at all.  They would suggest the homeless person is certainly capable of self-actualization while his basic survival needs are unfulfilled.  Another and I believe more fundamentally correct criticism is Maslow’s theory is specific to the the US society and other societies may have cultural variances that significantly alter the pyramidal structure.  For example, if there was an island with abundant food and shelter and society formed an Eden like society where guilt over multiple coupling was not present would there be sexual competition?

Educational and social researcher criticisms aside, I think the hierarchy is a good starting point to talk about what is happening in our political world and the society it is intended to govern.  What we see is as a people when the basic concerns for our ability to meet the basic conditions of financial security, or even greater needs for shelter and subsistence large groups of people give away those feel good things like social welfare and universal health care, and turn towards the path that appears to offer hope for change.  

In 2008 the Democrat’s swept into complete control of two-thirds of the federal government.  They promised change, they promised openness, they promised universal health care, and lower energy costs.  Have they delivered on any of these feel good issues?  They have not, but of course the blame lies with the minority party.  According to them what we really need is a one party system so they can legislate.  

Now, in 2010, a new party has swept into the Congress with a promise to affect change.  The question that lies before us is the same as 2008, will they learn to govern, or will they just blame the other side?

I think there has got to come a time when even the most liberal among us will lose faith in the government to meet their expectations.  When that happens there will be a significant shift in the power of the government.  No longer will bigger be better.  Unfortunately all those who’ve argued for bigger government and accepted the growth will have to figure out what they will give away to get a more manageable set of rulers.