Rachel A.
Anyone with an interest in human behaviour, motivation, or driving performance, has likely come across the concept of ‘human needs’. Yet, they have also likely been led to believe it was psychologists in the late 19th and early 20th century who made this discovery. Rewind time about 2,500 years, and you would find Buddha advocating that we are all driven by a set of internal and external influencing elements. Moreover, that everybody has an enduring aspiration for happiness which is built on foundational needs of subsistence, protection, love and social interaction; followed by education, esteem, spirituality, and leisure. Whilst intrinsic, or internal, needs for contribution and self-actualisation (finding one’s ‘flow’, reaching full potential, or feeling a sense of mastery) are considered far more beneficial in Buddhism than any extrinsic or tangible reward; food and shelter were recognised as necessary for survival.
Forty years later, and Aristotle was making similar statements: that humans have needs that cannot be erased as they are vital for our existence. Aristotle believed the needs were ascending, leading to the peak goal of ‘eudaimonia’, which we can translate as somewhere between ‘happiness’ and ‘flourishing’. Interestingly, Aristotle believed that our needs included war, politics, and religion. However, Aristotle himself never adhered to any religion, thinking Greek mythology absurd. He did value the morals contained within their stories though, and it is possible that Aristotle was alluding more to our needing virtues that guide our behaviour and having a connection to something greater than ourselves (as opposed to religion as we understand it today).
Could war really be a need? Aristotle possibly saw war as an inherent need as it was constant during his lifetime. He inherited, and taught, a long Greek history that included the 27-year Spartan War and the decade long Trojan War. Whilst experience shows us that children fight over toys, people argue, and modern-day militaries exist due to the fact that humans cannot get along; I argue war is a by-product of humans trying to achieve other needs, not a need within itself.
Later needs theories focused far more on external elements, as opposed to internal drivers. The Industrial Revolution led to many theories being focused on the realm of employment, productivity, and how to motivate others. It was considered that the human impetus to act was driven by tangible need fulfilment, and that failure to use incentives would cause inertia. Essentially, if you didn’t use the threat of punishment or enticement of materialistic rewards, people in theory would be about as productive as a potato. [This, of course, is not true and actually leads to lack of production in the majority of cases].
Perhaps the most widely known needs-based theory is American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Quite similar to Buddha’s original assertation, Maslow articulated that we all have a set of fundamental needs that ascend in nature. If you imagine a pyramid, at the very base is our lower order needs, those being physiological such as food, water and air; the need for safety; and the need for belonging, which, once satisfied, enable us to focus on higher order needs of esteem, self-actualisation and, ultimately, self-transcendence (looking beyond yourself and serving others and the greater good). Maslow believed that a lack of any need would act as a primary motivator, and that the individual could not strive towards higher order, growth needs, until lower order survival and social needs were met. For instance, if you did not have a safe place to stay, finding one would be your focus before focusing on self-esteem. Initially, this makes sense. Without food, water, and shelter, we would quickly cease to exist, so technically, meeting those needs should come first. However, human history shows that people pining for their lost lover often have no interest in food; and in many Eastern cultures, self-transcendence (putting the needs of the group before the individual) is prioritised over individual success and esteem. With us humans being a tribal species, realistically belonging should take first precedence, as we learn from others were to find food, where the safe drinking holes are, and where the dangers lie etc. Whilst Maslow’s theory identifies very real needs, we don’t achieve them in a step-by-step process. We can simultaneously pursue multiple needs, and we can achieve higher-order needs whilst forgoing lower order needs.
Beyond Maslow, there have been a plethora of needs theories. Ryan and Deci’s Self-Determination Theory postulates we all have a deep-seated need to act in accordance with our own volition. They cite autonomy, relatedness and competence as the epitome of human psychological flourishing. Dr. David Rock, an Australian born neuroscientist, developed the ‘SCARF Model’. SCARF being an acronym for five key needs that Rock advocates drives behaviour in social situations: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. In 2013, Barrick, Mount and Li encapsulated many of these multiple motivation and needs theories, identifying four, higher order goals: Communion, Status, Autonomy, and Achievement.
Regardless of which needs theory most resonates with you, it is safe to say: we are a needy species.
Here’s a key point The Guild wants you to take away: quite often what we translate as ‘bad behaviour’ is actually an attempt to meet a need of some sort. The colleague who takes credit for your work is trying to meet a need for status or esteem. The child constantly arguing with a parent is trying to meet their need for independence and autonomy. The friend copying all the latest fashion trends is trying to belong to the tribe. Meeting our needs is such a strong driver that it can interfere with the values we hold dear. That idea stealing colleague probably values ‘honesty’ and ‘trust’. Most of us do. But the need for esteem was so strong that it trumped those values. Needs trump values.
The Warrior-Womxn's Guild 