In 1943, the American psychologist Abraham Maslow introduced a theory that became an important tool in sociology, management training, and psychology. I learned about it in a college business management class, and it made a big impact on me. In his paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" in Psychological Review, Maslow described a hierarchy of needs, in the form of a triangle with five levels. The bottom level or base of the triangle represented the most critical need, and the four above could not be addressed properly until the one(s) below were met.
The base of the hierarchy of needs triangle he called physiological. “Undoubtedly these physiological needs are the most pre-potent of all needs. … A person who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would most probably hunger for food more strongly than for anything else”.
In his theory, the next most important need was safety. “If the physiological needs are relatively well gratified, there then emerges a new set of needs, which we may categorize roughly as the safety needs.
“The healthy, normal, fortunate adult in our culture is largely satisfied in his safety needs. The peaceful, smoothly running, 'good' society ordinarily makes its members feel safe enough from wild animals, extremes of temperature, criminals, assault and murder, tyranny, etc. Therefore, in a very real sense, he no longer has any safety needs as active motivators. Just as a sated man no longer feels hungry, a safe man no longer feels endangered. If we wish to see these needs directly and clearly, we must turn to neurotic or near-neurotic individuals, and to the economic and social underdogs. In between these extremes, we can perceive the expressions of safety needs only in such phenomena as, for instance, the common preference for a job with tenure and protection, the desire for a savings account, and for insurance of various kinds (medical, dental, unemployment, disability, old age)”.
The final three levels above safety are “Love/Belonging, Esteem, and Self-actualization. The first basic needs of food, shelter, and safety have to be met first before the last three can be pursued and achieved.
I have often thought of happiness as a state of being that closely correlates with the satisfaction of needs. As Maslow theorized, a hungry person is not a happy person, to the point of not being as immediately concerned with safety, having friends or self-esteem, or reaching full potential.
What follows is my humble opinion on the state of our current situation, and I readily stipulate that it could be considered oversimplified.
As we have progressed into the 21st century, the challenges to happiness have clearly increased. There exists a divide, both in physiological and safety concerns. Income inequality has led to people finding themselves in varying stages of food and shelter insecurity. It follows that their health is also endangered. For those that are secure enough regarding food and shelter, there are varying degrees of access to good, affordable education.
Access to excellent health care is a clear determinant of happiness, and is unevenly available depending on economic and employment status. Being gainfully and satisfactorily employed is another recognized source of happiness. (Note that Maslow includes in the safety need: “the common preference for a job with tenure and protection, the desire for a savings account, and for insurance of various kinds (medical, dental, unemployment, disability, old age”).
Regardless of economic status, another threat to happiness is the availability of clean air and water. These environmental conditions also impact health.
Historically in this country, institutional efforts to promote and ensure happiness and well-being usually fell into two political camps (parties). One camp recognized the need for health and retirement security, and enacted Social Security and Medicare. They also more recently acted to ensure that health insurance would be available to the millions that previously did not have it.
One camp attempted to direct more resources to education, and stressed the importance of affordable and debt-free higher education. They also recognized the threat to mankind and the planet from carbon-based fuels, and pursued a green-energy policy. Interestingly, they were not the ones that enacted the GI Bill, or formed the Environmental Protection Agency, which shows that there have always been well-intentioned people in both camps.
One camp recognized that there is a widening income gap, and that low-income workers were falling further behind. Raising the minimum wage became one solution they pursued.
One camp became alarmed at the widespread proliferation of guns. The threat to public safety became obvious, and so they attempted to enact common-sense measures to ensure that they did not fall into the wrong hands.
These and other efforts by one camp to advance the pursuit of happiness would seem to be sensible. The other camp appears to believe otherwise. And the overriding factor distinguishing the two camps? The role of government (high taxes). Medicare and Social Security equate to big government. Regulations on emissions from power plants and cars and public education? Big government.
What if the camp that so strenuously fights the concept of big government had managed to become the only party in power since WWII? No Social Security or Medicare. No Education Department. No Affordable Care Act. These programs have provided security for millions, and are not only highly popular but essential to happiness.
Countries are ranked in order of happiness, based on a wide range of factors. The Scandinavian countries always rank at or near the top, while recent surveys place the U.S. at 13th. Danish happiness expert Meik Wiking outlines some reasons for why his country is #1.
The main reason: “…the welfare model is what fundamentally underpins the nation's well-being — they have high taxes but receive social security, universal healthcare, and a universal pension in return.
“…there is "wide support for the welfare state. The support stems from an awareness of the fact that the welfare model turns our collective wealth into well-being…”
The fundamental underpinnings of our country are free enterprise and capitalism, so I am convinced that Socialism or setting up a welfare state would never happen. But the happiest people live in countries where their governments have taken steps to make it more achievable. So what is the answer for us? Are we to stand by and allow social programs to be cancelled or privatized? After all, one of the rights specified in the U.S. Declaration of Independence is the pursuit of happiness, along with life and liberty. It is appropriate for citizens to expect that their country would promote and advance their happiness.
Our democracy depends on having two camps, providing the necessary balance between conservative and liberal ideologies. There was a time when the two camps worked together and found common ground on issues relating to the general welfare and happiness of the American people. Rancorous partisanship has now become the operating principle, and we remain divided into two bitterly opposed camps.
We all seek happiness in our own way, and it is an expressed goal for most. What we are willing to accept is the question. Is it acceptable to have one camp attempting to undertake steps to promote happiness, while the other works to frustrate those steps?
D. Norman
No comments:
Post a Comment