Back • Return Home
BASIC HUMAN NEEDS: A LIVING SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
Lane Tracy
Department of Management, Marketing, and Production
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
ABSTRACT
This paper critiques current concepts of human needs and develops a new need concept based on living systems theory. The new concept applies equally to individuals, groups, organizations, and societies. Implications for social policy are explored.
INTRODUCTION
Scholars in the field of human development and environmental quality have devoted considerable attention to defining basic human needs. There is world-wide concern that some of the basic needs of people are not being satisfied and that need satisfiers are unequally distributed. Many experts think that a key establishing international policy on equitable distribution of need satisfiers is to obtain consensus on which needs are basic. Thus, international conferences have been devoted to such questions as "What is a human need?" and "Which needs are basic?" These questions have been approached from many points of view, including systems theory. Unfortunately, there remains substantial disagreement about which needs are basic and how much satisfaction is necessary.
Some writers have questioned whether the concept of basic human needs has any value. Rist (1980) sees needs as being culturally determined, and doubts that it is possible to identify universal basic needs. Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) even question the premise that people have needs. They call the need concept an ambiguous construct of limited utility. Citing the Salancik and Pfeffer article, Mitchell (1979) notes the absence of recent work on need-based theories of motivation.
Need theory is not dead, however. In the same volume as Rist's paper, other writers such as Galtung, Klineberg, Lederer, and Mallmann support the concept of basic human needs and strive to develop a useful theory (Lederer 1980). According to Galtung, "...a basic need approach -- or its equivalent in other terminologies -- is an indispensable ingredient of development studies" (1980: 56). The need concept is also alive in the fields of management and organizational behavior, where textbooks devote many pages to the need hierarchy theories of Maslow (1943; 1970) and Alderfer (1972).
Although the concept of basic human needs is still viable and important, there is no doubt that current need theories leave something to be desired. The purpose of this paper is to present a definition of needs based on living systems theory which, the author hopes, will correct some of the deficiencies of current theory. The paper will begin by noting some of the criticisms that have been directed at need theory. A living systems definition of needs will then be developed and compared with existing need concepts. Implications of the definition will be explored. Finally, some conclusions will be drawn with respect to international policy on distribution of need satisfiers.
CRITIQUE OF CURRENT NEED THEORY
Any critique of need theory must grapple with the fact need is not a well-defined concept. Lederer (1970) points out two distinct schools of thought about what needs are. Writers such as Galtung (1980), Mallmann (1980), Masini (1980), and Siciński (1978) define needs as objective universal requirements for human survival and development. Other writers such as Maslow (1943), Heller (1980), Rist (1980), and Roy (1980) do not offer a precise definition of needs, but treat them as subjective, personal expressions determined by historical and cultural factors. From this subjective/historical perspective needs are identified by what people do or by what they say they want.
A third school of thought, more prevalent among psychologists than among social planners, is explified by Murray's (1938) drive theory. Murray defines a need as a force in the brain, a force that organizes thought and behavior to deal with an unsatisifying situation. For purposes of this paper it is important to note that Miller (1978) incorporates Murray's definition of need into living systems theory. This paper, however, will argue for a different living systems definition of need.
Mallmann and Marcus (1980) attempt to clear up the definitional confusion by carefully delineating between needs (defined in the objective/universal sense), desires, and need satisfiers. Desires are personal, temporal expressions which may or may not correspond to needs. According to Mallmann and Marcus, writers who take the subjective/historical approach to needs are often talking about desires. A need satisfier is a resource that is capable of fulfilling a need, although it may not be the only resource with that capability.
Lederer (1980) provides a good illustration of the difference between needs, desires, and need satisfiers. When a person says "I need a car," this is an expression of a desire. The objective need may be for mobility, status, or joy. A car might be a satisfier for any of these needs, but so might a boat or a bicycle. Thus, a car is not an objective requirement for surivival or development of the individual, although it might satisfy such a requirement.
Needs must also be distinguished from drives and from processes of fulfillment. Drive is an unobservable and untestable construct. Furthermore, drive is virtually indistinguishable from motivation. It is precisely such an untestable construct that Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) criticize as having little utility.
The need theories of Murray (1938), Maslow (1943), and Alderfer (1972) all confuse needs with processes of fulfillment. For instance, Murray lists needs for aggression, for nurturance, for dominance, and so on. Each of these needs is defined in terms of behavior. Thus Murray's definition of the need for dominance is:
"To influence or control others. To persuade, prohibit, dictate. To lead and direct. To restrain. To organize the behavior of a group" (1938: 82).
Not only does this definition confuse need with the behavior it elicits, but also the behavior is not an objective requirement of the individual. The actual requirement might be for security from attack or for predictability in the environment. Dominance is one means of fulfilling these requirements, but certainly not the only one.
With respect to the need hierarchies of Maslow (1943; 1970) and Alderfer (1972), Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) cite a general lack of empirical support and note that the need categories, particularly at the higher levels, are ambiguous and indefinite. Maslow (1943) lists needs in terms of both processes of fulfillment and states of fulfillment. For instance, self actualization is a process defined as the need "to become everything that one is capable of becoming" (Maslow, 1943: 46). Safety needs are described in terms of favorable states such as security, stability, dependency, structure, order, law, limits, and freedom from fear, but also in terms of the process of protection. The mixture of states and processes in Maslow's descriptions of need categories not only confuses the meaning of need, but also draws attenton away from the fact that need is a lack of fulfillment, not a fulfilled state.
Another critical shortcoming of most current need theories is that they define needs soley as a phenomenon of human individuals. Siciński (1978) recognizes needs of cells and social systems, but Galtung (1980) specifically rejects the notion that "collective needs' of groups or nations are "human" needs. Galtung asserts that "collective needs" usually express wishes and wants, the desires and demands of the ruling elites in these collectives, more or less poorly disguised" (1980: 60).
Although it is true that leaders may misrepresent the needs of collectives (Tracy, 1983), that is not sufficient reason to deny that collectives have legitimate needs. Collectives are created in response to individual needs and, as Galtung (1980) recognizes, certain conditions are necessary in order for collectives to function. We recognize that collectives have needs when we speak of the need of a business firm for more capital or the need of a nation for better transportation facilities. These are human needs because, ultimately, firms and nations serve human purposes. To deny the legitimacy of collective needs simply because they may be misrepresented is equivalent to denying that individuals have basic needs simply because people often express or act upon frivolous desires.
The question of legitimacy of collective needs impacts upon the question of whether basic needs may be learned. People learn many needs and modify some innate needs in accordance with the requirements of family, clan, nation, religion, and other groups. For instance, many people accept a need to fast or to remain celibate as a requirement of their religion. Likewise, people may feel a need to risk their lives in defense of their family or nation. If we reject the legitimacy of a nation's need for defense or a religion's need for fasting on the part of believers, how do we explain the fact that millions of people join these groups and accept these needs as their own? Are they all dupes, denying their own innate needs in favor of false needs created by collectives of ruling elites? Or is their acceptance and internalization of collective needs a rational act in exchange for satisfaction of other individual needs by the collectivities?
The tendency to reject collective needs represents a Western cultural bias. Indeed, all Western need theories are dominated by this bias. Heller (1980), Rist (1980), and Roy (1980) express doubt that it is possible to identify a list of basic or universal needs that is free of cultural bias. Their criticism is probably valid so long as we cling to a subjective/historical definition of needs. Cultural bias influences even our awareness of needs. For example, a culture that attributes disease to evil spirits leaves people unaware of any need for vaccines or personal hygiene.
This observation leads me to doubt that we can fully identify universal needs simply by being aware of our biases, as Galtung (1980) suggests. The problem lies in reliance on introspection and observation of behavior to identify needs. These approaches to need identification would miss any needs that do not lead to conscious awareness or overt behavior. Of course, it is possible to define needs as perceivable signals, as Friedman (1980) does, in which case introspection would be an appropriate means of identification. Such a definition of needs will be rejected here, however, as being much too narrow.
A better approach is the one taken by Mallmann and Marcus (1980) and by Siciński (1978). Mallmann and Marcus define a need as "an objective requirement to avoid a state of illness" (1980: 165). Illness is defined as being below the human average in psychosomatic, psychosocial, or psychoecological performance. This definition provides an objective criterion for identifying basic needs.
Mallmann and Marcus (1980) have taken a big step in the right direction but, unlike Siciński (1978), they still limit application of the need concept to individuals. The purpose of this paper is to extend and broaden the need concept by placing it in the context of living systems theory. This will permit us to consider the needs of individuals and collectivities without any preconceived notion of the primacy of one or the other. It will also permit us to examine the interaction of indivudal and collective needs.
NEEDS OF LIVING SYSTEMS
The theory of living systems treats individual organisms, groups, organizations, and societies as equivalent systems (Miller, 1978). Each is composed largely of organic compounds and each has innate values and purposes defined by a template (e.g. genes or a charter). All levels of living systems require the same critical subsystems, especially a decider subsystem that acts as the executive for all system processes.
Curiously, Miller (1978) uses the term "need" only in reference to organisms, and he equates need with drive (Murray, 1938). But he also equates need with strain, a term describing the condition of the system when a steady state is disturbed and a variable is forced beyond its range of stability (Miller, 1978: 34). Miller's concept of strain is somewhat comparable to Mallmann's (1980) concept of illness, except that Mallmann chooses to measure illness in terms of a statistical average rather than the values of the individual.
Presumably Mallman chose to define health (i.e. the absence of illness) in terms of average human performance in order to provide an objective standard. Although that approach might be acceptable for purposes of social policy formulation, a more specific standard is required for other uses of the need concept, such as models of motivation. Fortunately, living systems theory provides a specific standard of health or need fulfillment; it is the concept of purposes. According to Miller (1978), purposes are a system's preferred steady state values for various resource variables. Around each purpose value is a range of stability. Strain occurs when the resource variable falls below or above the average range of stability. Too little of the resource constitutes a lack or need; too much is called an excess. There is no requirement that a need be perceived or expressed as a desire. A need may be identified by comparison of an existing state of the system with its purpose value.
Note that when we define need and excess in respect to purposes the concepts apply to all levels of living systems. Groups, organizations, and societies have purpose values just as individuals do. These purposes are determined by the template of the system or are learned from a suprasystem. For example, the State of Ohio and many other states have in their constitutions a provision that they must maintain a balanced budget. When expenditures exceed revenues, the state needs more revenue. The only alternative is to cut or postpone certain expenditures, which will leave other purposes unfulfilled. On the other hand the federal government of the United States mandates that the states maintain certain standards of industrial safety, education for the handicapped, air and water quality, and so forth. To ensure that the states "learn" these purposes the federal government withholds funds if the standards are not maintained. These examples of collective purposes and needs fit our definition of need and excess just as well as ny example of individual human purposes and needs would.
Living systems have requirements for matter-energy and information. In fact, Miller (1978) identifies two groups of critical subsystems, one for processing matter-energy and one for information processing. It should be noted that information is defined broadly in terms of structure and relationships. Thus, a need for symbiotic relationship with another system would be interpreted as an information need.
Although at least some system requirements must be fulfilled through inputs and outputs, some needs are met through internal processes. Such needs may not be readily observable, but can be deduced from the existence of processes to serve them. For example, a human need for maintenance of constant body temperature is evidenced by several internal and external processes directed toward that purpose. Purposes requiring inputs or outputs lead to the establishment of goals.
The only permanently-fulfilled requirement of a living system is the need for a template. All other requirements are at least potentially lacking and nmay be considered needs. Some needs are normally fulfilled automatically; otehrs may never be fulfilled. People are seldom lacking for oxygen, for instance, although when they are the need is very urgent. Some people can never fulfill their need for biological offspring.
The importance of a need varies with the degree of lack. A need for water may be quite unimportant when the lack is slight, but it becomes dominant for humans after several days of deprivation. The degree of lack may change slowly or rapidly. Some needs, such as the human needs for food (calories) and water, tend to go through fairly rapid cycles of lack and fulfillment. The cycle of need for oxygen is even shorter, but the cycle of need for iodine is very long. Variation in the length of cycles for various needs is related to the system's ability to store that particular resource. Some information needs, once fulfilled, remain so almost undefinitely because of the storage ability of human memory.
I am now prepared to offer a rigorous definition of a need, using terms previous defined by Miller (1978). A need is matter-energy or information that is useful or required but potentially lacking in some degree according to a purpose of a living system. A lack is the actual deficiency of a need.
This definition is important for what it does not say, as well as for what it says. It does not say that a need must be felt or feelable. It does not say that need is an exclusive characteristic of human individuals. It does say that a need is matter-energy or information, not a process. It does say that needs are determined by purposes, but does not say that purposes or needs are necessarily innate. In fact, living systems theory indicates that purposes are sometimes innate in the template of a system, sometimes learned from a suprasystem, and sometimes innate but modified by learning. The same three categories could be applied to needs.
One other set of categories is worth defining with respect to needs. Purposes of living systems fall into broad categories. Some purposes promote survival and maintenance of the system, some promote growth and development, and others promote reproduction and dissemination of parts of the system. Each of these categories of purposes has an internal and external component. The external component leads to the establishment of goals such as membership in a group (for security), status within the group (for development), and group acceptance of own ideas (for dissemination). With some rearrangement these categories correspond fairly well to categories of needs proposed by Mallmann (1980): Existence, Coexistence, Growth, and Perfection. Mallmann also divides his categories into personal and extra-personal.
INTERACTION BETWEEN NEEDS OF DIFFERENT SYSTEMS
The key advantage of a living systems approach to needs is that it permits us to examine interactions between needs of different systems without any preconception that the needs of one level are more important than the needs of another. Living systems theory assumes that formation of groups, organizations, and societies is a normal outgrowth of the nature of life. From the point of view of the genes, as Dawkins (1976) would put it, the individual is not inherently more or less important than the group. Both are part of the "gene survival machine." In some cases survival of offspring or of the state may be more important than survival of the individual.
Most relationships between individuals are mutually fulfilling. Each member of a dyadic relationship produces outputs that can go toward fulfilling some of the needs of the other member. A married couple, for instance, may supply love, security, reassurance, physiological needs, and reproductive needs to each other. Indeed, the stability of the dyad is likely to depend on the extent, mutuality, and exclusivity of this exchange.
What we must not overlook, however, is that the dyad itself may be a living system. To the degree that a married couple develop a joint set of purposes and joint decider subsystem, they become a family group. This group and its purposes may impose new needs on the individual memebers. If one member is the primary breadwinner, for instance, that person may have to set new goals with respect to employment. Each member may learn that fulfillment of certain personal needs must be neglected or postponed in deference to fulfillment of needs of the other member(s), such as educational needs of offspring.
Similar dyadic need-fulfillment relationships exist between an individual and an employer, an individual and the state, an individual and a religious group, two business firms, or a firm and the state. The living systems concept of needs and need fulfillment can be used to analyze these dyadic relationships. Perhaps more interesting than the simple exchange of need satisfiers, however, is the influence of one system on the needs of a dyadic partner.
As living systems theory points out, many of the values, purposes, and therefore needs of a system are learned from other systems, particularly suprasystems. For example, children are taught many values and purposes by their parents, peers, and teachers. Children are born with a need for safety in their environment, but they have to learn a need for the information provided by traffic signals.
A society needs the knowledge and talents of its members; thus, it has a vested interest in acting to protect those members, educate them, and develop their talents. Nevertheless, a society may also have to ask for sacrifices of time, resources, or personal safety from its members. Such sacrifices may be obtained through force, but it is much more efficient if members accept the needs of the society as their own. Thus, an individual may be taught and may accept a personal need for a relationship of good citizenship which includes obeying the law, paying taxes, and serving in time of war. From a living systems perspective, such a need may be a basic human need.
HIERARCHIES OF NEEDS
The notion of a hierarchy of needs is a popular one. For purposes of social policy a need hierarchy could help to determine which need satisfiers are most important. A good hierarchy could help managers to choose rewards that will be more effective in motivating employees. Unfortunately, the living systems concept of needs does not support any notion of a strong hierarchy of needs. Furthermore, it casts doubt upon the hierarchies proposed by Maslow (1943) and Alderfer (1972).
Experts on human development and environmental quality are interested in a hierarchy of importance of needs. The hierarchies proposed by Maslow and Alderfer are hierarchies of primacy, not importance. Maslow, for instance, only claims that people tend to try to fulfill physiological needs before they act upon other levels, not that physiological needs are more basic or important than other needs. Indeed, Maslow seems to consider the "higher-order" needs for esteem and self actualization to be more important from a human perspective.
The need hierarchies of Maslow (1943) and Alderfer (1972) seem to be based partly on developmental maturity and partly on the ability to defer fulfillment of a given need. Maturity is a determinant when Maslow argues that love leads to the development of self esteem and that people are not ready for self actualization until they are fully mature. On the other hand, certain physiological needs are the first to become dominant because they cannot be deferred for long.
Needs such as oxygen, water, and carbohydrates have short cycles of lack and fulfillment. The human body has not developed much storage capacity for these needs, probably because of the relative abundance and availability of satisfiers. But there are many other physiological needs, such as certain vitamins and minerals, that can be deferred for relatively long periods. Do these deferrable physiological needs take primacy over safety or belongingness?
It could be argued that needs associated with purposes of survival are more basic than other needs, but this argument does not hold up for long. In the first place, needs for growth, development, and reproduction are built into our genetic template just as needs for survival are. Could a child survive on a diet that makes no allowance for the nutritional requirements of normal growth? There is no way a child can shut off growth and just stay three feet tall. Second, people sometimes risk their personal survival for the sake of survival of a family member, a friend, a religious belief, or a nation. Whose survival is more important? Who is qualified to make that judgment?
It could be argued that survival is more basic than reproduction because you can't reproduce if you don't survive. But the family and the society cannot survive if members don't reproduce. Statistics on rate of childbirth support the argument that reproduction becomes more important when individual survival is threatened.
It could be argued that innate needs are more basic than learned needs. That might be true if each individual lived in isolation. Given our elaborate societies and the social nature of people, however, most humans would not survive for long if they ignored learned needs and tried to fulfill their innate needs in a primitive manner. Many learned needs and modifications of innate needs are geared to personal survival and development in a complex society.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL POLICY
There are two important implications for social policy to be drawn from a living systems view of basic human needs. The first point is that social policy should consider the legitimate needs of collectivities as well as the needs of individuals. Collectivities serve human purposes and have requirements for survival and growth just as individuals do. Collective needs are manifested not only directly but also through learned needs of individuals. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to separate the innate needs of an individual from needs that are learned or modified in accordance with collective needs.
The existence of social and cultural influence on individual needs causes some experts, such as Rist (1980) and Roy (1980), to reject the concept of need as a basis for social policy. From a living systems point of view, however, a need is not necessarily less basic because it is influenced by culture. A need for knowledge of the language of the people among whom you live, for instance, is culturally influenced but also quite basic. It is a need shared by both the individual and the society. Social policy surely would not ignore the importance of education in a person's native language simply because the need is culturally influenced. There is an underlying universal need for communications to and from other individuals, but it is difficult to fulfill that need without taking culture into account.
The second implication is that there is no clear hierarchy of needs. We cannot say that the needs of individuals are necessarily more important than collective needs, nor can we claim the opposite. Innate needs are not necessarily more important or more immediate than learned needs. Needs generated by purposes of survival do not necessarily dominate those generated by purposes of growth, development, reproduction, or dissemination. A dying person's final, most urgent goal may be to disseminate a piece of hard earned wisdom.
A final point: Living systems theory makes it clear that needs are not simply material. Some of our most basic needs are for information. Information is a broad category that includes specific relationships with one's environment. The information that many people most urgently need is -- Peace.
REFERENCES
Alderfer C.P.
1972 Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. New fork: Free Press.
Dawkins, R.
1976 The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, Y.
1980 "About Implicit Limitations on Satisfiers." Pp. 151-162 in K. Lederer (ed.), Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Gaitung, J.
1980 "The Basic Needs Approach." Pp. 55-125 in K. Lederer (ed.), Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Heller, A.
1980 "Can 'True' and 'False' Needs be Posited?" Pp. 213-226 in K. Lederer (ed.), Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Lederer, K.
1980 Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Mallman, C.A.
1980 "Society, Needs, and Rights: A Systematic Approach." Pp. 37-54 in K. Lederer (ed.), Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Mallmana, C.A, and Marcus, S.
1980 "Logical Clarifications in the Study of Needs." Pp. 160-185 in K. Lederer (ed.), Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Masini, E.
1980 "Needs and Dynamics." Pp. 227232 in K. Lederer (ed-), Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Maslow, A.H.
1943 "A Theory of Human Motivation." Psychological Review, 50:379-396.
1970 Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.
Miller, J.G.
1978 Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mitchell, T.R.
1979 "Organizational Behavior." Annual Review of Psychology, 30:243-281.
Murray, H.A.
1938 Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford.
Rist, G.
1980 "Basic Questions About Basic Human Needs." Pp. 223-253 in K. Lederer (ed.), Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Roy, R.
1980 "Human Needs and Freedom: Liberal, Marxist, and Gandhian Perspectives." Pp. 191-212 in K. Lederer (ed.), Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J.
1977 "An Examination of Need Satisfaction Models of Job Attitudes." Administrative Science Quarterly, 22:427-456.
Siciński, A.
1978 "The Concepts of 'need' and 'value' in the Light of the Systems Approach." Social Science Information, 17:71-91.
Tracy, L.
1983 "Lack of Leadership: A Living Systems Perspective." Paper presented at the 27th annual meeting of the Society for General Systems Research.