Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a basic building block for any elementary study of psychology. Maslow identified five stages in the psychological growth of any human being, Physiological Needs, Safety Needs, Love Needs, Esteem Needs, and Self-Actualization, which represent the full range from essentials to indulgence. Each state melds with the one above and below it so that there are variations with elements of another within each state.
Change from one state to a higher one is considered to be “success.” Change in the downward direction is bad because it requires a re-focus on survival skills rather than indulgence. So, change is good, but change is bad.
Homeostasis is the nature of ecological, biological, and social systems to oppose change with every means at their disposal. According to the Principia Cybernetica Web:
Homeostasis is one of the most remarkable and most typical properties of highly complex open systems. A homeostatic system (an industrial firm, a large organization, a cell) is an open system that maintains its structure and functions by means of a multiplicity of dynamic equilibriums rigorously controlled by interdependent regulation mechanisms. Such a system reacts to every change in the environment, or to every random disturbance, through a series of modifications of equal size and opposite direction to those that created the disturbance. The goal of these modifications is to maintain the internal balances.
So, change is not good. Change is bad.
Maslow was interested in individuals, and his concepts are meant to apply to individuals. The concept of homeostasis developed by physiologist Walter Cannon was also intended, originally, to apply to individual organisms. Both do have value in looking at group activity on both the micro (individual) and macro (group) level.
According to Maslow, the base state is the need to satisfy physiological needs:food, air, water, sleep. These are all requirements for survival of the individual, and other needs will not even be a consideration unless these are met. In the US, these needs are met for all who want them. Nobody goes unfed or unsheltered unless they so choose. Children in this country are not hungry unless their parents decide they need to be. The safety net is in place and functional.
The second level in Maslow’s structure is safety. One cannot progress without a sense of security. In day-to-day living, the vast majority of Americans give no thought to this. Some in this country cannot progress beyond this state, in spite of having achieved some elements of the higher states.
The third level is love, or bonding, or belonging. It includes personal one-on-one relationships as well as group identity. This and the next level are where the majority of Americans stay, and want to be. It is the level socialism seeks for us all.
That next level is esteem. This includes self-esteem, which is where, we are told, society wants us all to be. It is the desire for adulation at one extreme, and the sense of being respected at another.
Finally, the highest state of being in Maslow’s world is self-actualization. At this level, all your baser needs are met, and you are free to indulge yourself. You can become everything you ever wanted to be. You can do anything you ever wanted to do. It is the essence of capitalism.
In the United States, we have collectively lived in the level 3 to level 4 range (let’s call it Level 3.5) for the last forty years. Individually, we would all like to achieve self-actualization. Yet we know that stage is nearly impossible to reach as a group because there are always those content to stay at the lower levels. So we content ourselves with being at the “belonging” stage culturally. It is comfortable. It is why we have interest groups, and the hated “special-interest groups.” The only difference being that any group we belong to isn’t one of those. Every disease or human failing has a support group we can join. We certainly desire adulation, and bestow it on some in substitution for respect. We certainly want respect ourselves. Culturally, though, adulation is more important.
These statics have become dynamics since September 11, 2001. As a nation, we fell from Level 3.5 to Level 2. Homeostasis was strong, and now we are trying to regain our balance.
There is a very angry group which wants a quick return to “belonging.” Getting to “esteem” isn’t even a consideration. They want to belong to the world, belong to the UN, belong to one another. They just want to belong, and don’t really care whom they belong with. This has driven the Dean campaign.
There are those who want to again reach the esteem level. They aren’t interested in adulation, but do want respect. The rest of the world had lost its respect for the US. They are now beginning to understand that is a bad thing.
Honoring someone with respect is not the same as demeaning oneself. Equals respect one another. But if you live in the world of “belonging,” respect is higher. From your perspective, you are ceding status. Those who live in the levels below this don’t want to offer respect because they view it as adulation.
This is the crux of the far left’s hatred of George Bush. They know what our country has accomplished in the last two years. They know we have once again climbed up from the security level. They know they would be happy reaching a state of belonging. But they know he wants us to go to the level of respect–respect from the outside, and self-respect. I believe some actually respect him, but can’t express it for fear of being accused by their group of adoring him.
This election will be one of the most important in years. The choice is one of adopting the world community’s socialistic culture completely, or insisting on achiving the higher state of respect and preventing another decline into the security level.
Personally, I’m shooting for the top. And so is Ed Koch:
“I am a lifelong Democrat. I was elected to New York’s City Council, Congress and three terms as mayor of New York City on the Democratic Party line. I believe in the values of the Democratic Party as articulated by Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and by Senators Hubert Humphrey, Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Our philosophy is: ‘If you need a helping hand, we will provide it.’ The Republican Party’s philosophy, on the other hand, can be summed up as: ‘If I made it on my own, you will have to do the same.’ Nevertheless, I intend to vote in 2004 to re-elect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription-drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.”