Maslow's hierarchy of needs

[willowtooth]

What do you think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and its relationship to communism? is it too eurocentric?

http://convene.com/wp-content/uploads/MaslowsHiearchyofNeeds.png

[tuwix]

I don't really know what could be eurocentric in it. I think that relation of needs is pretty valid an could be used in communism as actual hierarchy of needs to fulfill.

[cyu]

If I had to simplify it, I'd probably just leave at 2 categories: (1) Biological survival (2) Culturally induced motivations

[Zoop]

Well, it clearly doesn't apply to everyone. It's okay for a general view of human beings though.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't know why everything has to be proclaimed "Eurocentric" these days. It's the less funny version of MTWist stories about United $nakkke$ labor ari$tokkkracy.

The problem with Maslow's hierarchy (oh the puns one could make in a Slavic language) is that it doesn't even describe Europeans. It was arrived at using the rigorous process of Maslow sitting down, writing the hierarchy down and then trying to find cases that support it, dismissing everyone that didn't fit the scheme as pathological (meaning his sample was completely and openly biased and unrepresentative).

I also don't see the applicability to communism. More than half of the needs enumerated are things the socialist society can't provide in the same sense in which it can provide the material necessities of life - you can't plan for the production of self-esteem for example. Obviously the socialist society would provide a positive atmosphere that would enable most people to reach some form of self-esteem, but if something happens to lower your self-esteem (being responsible for an industrial accident for example), then society can't send you a replacement sense of self-esteem in ten days.

Some of the needs in question - namely companionship and sex - could be provided in the sense that everyone is secure that they will have companionship and sex only by enslaving most of the population. I don't think I really need to spell out why this is problematic (and I wouldn't even mention it if, I think a few months ago, some users weren't talking about enforced monogamy and practically treating women as resources to be distributed in order to ensure "fair" access to sex).

Some of them are simply inapplicable to the socialist society. Security of property? Security of family? No thanks. Socialism abolishes both. Security of employment? Obviously socialism also abolishes wage labour, and on a more fundamental level, the Marxist ideal is not for one man, let's call him Geoff, being a welder, for example, his entire life, but being a welder one day and a scientist the next, doing nothing the day after that and dividing the next day between smelting germanium and bottling whiskey ("[I]n communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.")

Security of morality? What's that? The security that you aren't surrounded by sodomites?

At best, the "hierarchy" dissolves into the banal observation that, if people are dead they can't have creativity and spontaneity.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think you're taking it too literally. Obviously informed by this stage of human development, but it's not difficult to see how it can be modified to apply to other social systems. Security of property would be something like control over personal material environment or something; security of family would be something about fraternity; security of employment would be security in acquiring means of life.

As for not being able to plan for self-esteem and whatnot, even if we could it would be useless to have this pyramid. Too many goods and too much variety to be placed in these categories. It can't help direct planning so it's useless in that sense. But also, if this pyramid is accurate why would you need it? Conscious social planning would automatically follow its logic then. Production under conscious social control would necessarily and logically first take care of more essential needs. You will not find, in the case of a natural disaster, people accidentally planning to produce more luxury items foregoing on essential, needed items to survive the disaster.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm taking it literally as Maslow wanted it to be taken. Obviously you can reinterpret certain terms, but what would be the point?

As for the pyramid, well, obviously not everyone follows it. In fact I would guess that most people don't. Hence the large number of people with "cripple psychologies" that Maslow discarded.

But yes, in the end I agree that it's not of any use to a communist society. I think people are just attached to the pyramid because it's widely taught in schools.

[ckaihatsu]

I've actually tended to use / incorporate MHON in a few of the sociological-political-type diagrams that I've constructed -- I tend to think of its developmental steps as applying to *early in life*, as in childhood development, with the finer points ('self-actualization') as being more relevant to a self-directed social, worldly kind of context, as one puts oneself into as a result of self-maturity.

The steps are fairly *generic* and they don't address matters of *quality* at all -- I'd think that an across-the-board improvement in everyone's standard of living, as from communism, would leave MHON intact, but all of its developmental steps would be more streamlined and personally meaningful for the average individual (less-chaotic 'growing-up' and far less time spent being 'knocked-down' to have to deal with lower-level steps all over again).


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

http://s6.postimg.org/5blfrdn1t/2006400620046342459_Kej_CCu_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/vjwkgr759/full/)


[12] G.U.T.S.U.C.

http://s6.postimg.org/3tefgv2lt/12_G_U_T_S_U_C.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/l6opvpxwt/full/)

[Working Class Hero]

The Hierarchy has informed a lot of my political views. It's pretty intuitive; if you don't have food or water, social or political fulfillment aren't that important in the short run. That's why a lot of workers don't get politically active: they're too afraid of that axe over their heads.

[cyu]

More than half of the needs enumerated are things the socialist society can't provide in the same sense in which it can provide the material necessities of life - you can't plan for the production of self-esteem for example. Obviously the socialist society would provide a positive atmosphere that would enable most people to reach some form of self-esteem, but if something happens to lower your self-esteem (being responsible for an industrial accident for example), then society can't send you a replacement sense of self-esteem in ten days.

Good post. Not really on-topic, but this has got me thinking - if anyone enjoys one of my posts, is it because I provided them valuable information, an interesting alternative perspective, or is it because the post made them feel superior in some way? If someone isn't careful, they may mistake one for the other, especially in a society starving for positive reinforcement.

Why do people even need positive reinforcement or have a desire to feel superior? I suggest that this is result of classical conditioning. Everyone is raised by their parents to be happy when they win, unhappy when they lose. The first time a child wins or loses a game, they don't care - all it is to them is just an event that happened. However, parents force the child to associate happiness with winning or losing - this eventually becomes a conditioned and reflexive response to winning or losing.

Eventually the child grows up and enters a society that pre-defines winning or losing in very specific ways. If this environment provides very little positive reinforcement, the person is then regularly conditioned to feel bad. As a result, they become more susceptible to statements that make them feel superior, regardless of the factual contents of the statement.

[Luís Henrique]

What do you think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and its relationship to communism? is it too eurocentric?

It seems to be overall transhistoric - and then to mistake some historically determined issues as transhistoric.

Luís Henrique