2024年5月23日发(作者：公叔高澹)

Is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory applicable in today’s social work?

And why?

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a motivational theory in psychology that

argues that while people aim to meet basic needs, they seek to meet successively

higher needs in the form of a hierarchy. It is often portrayed in the shape of a

pyramid. The lowest levels of the pyramid are made up of the most basic needs,

while the more complex needs are located at the top of the pyramid. Maslow's

theory suggests that the need for self-actualization, that is, the need that human

beings have to realize their full potential, can only be fulfilled once other needs

have been met. Self-actualization describes an inborn tendency for human beings

to grow and to maximize innate talents and potentialities.

According to Maslow, the first level includes basic physiological needs for

food, shelter, clothing, and so on. Once these needs have been met, the

actualization process creates a momentum for the next level of needs to be

realized, namely, for security and safety and to feel free from danger. Again, once

these have been met, there is an innate motivation to move on to the next stage,

and so forth.

Although Maslow’s concept is meaningful to our social work, there are still

some criticisms. Some have noted vagueness in what is a “deficiency”; what is a

deficiency for one is not necessarily a deficiency for another. Secondly, there seem

to be various exceptions that frequently occur. For example, some people often

risk their own safety to rescue others from danger. In their extensive review of

research based on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Brudwell found little evidence for

the ranking of needs Maslow described or even for the existence of a definite

hierarchy at all. Chilean economist and philosopher Manfred Max-Neef has also

argued fundamental human needs are non-hierarchical and invariant in

nature—part of the condition of being human; poverty, he argues, may result from

any one of these needs being frustrated, denied or unfulfilled

The order in which the hierarchy is arranged has been criticized as being

ethnocentric by Geert Hofstede. Hofstede's criticism of Maslow's pyramid as

ethnocentric may stem from the fact that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs neglects

to illustrate and expand upon the difference between the social and intellectual

needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised in collectivist

societies. Maslow created his hierarchy of needs from an individualistic perspective,

being that he was from the United States, a highly individualistic nation. The needs

and drives of those in individualistic societies tend to be more self-centered than

those in collectivist societies, focusing on improvement of the self, with self

actualization being the apex of self improvement. Since the hierarchy was written

from the perspective of an individualist, the order of needs in the hierarchy with

self actualization at the top is not representative of the needs of those in

collectivist cultures. In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and

community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality.

Maslow’s hierarchy has also been criticized as being individualistic because

of the position and value of sex on the pyramid. Maslow’s pyramid puts sex on

the bottom rung of physiological needs, along with breathing and food. It views

sex from an individualistic and not collectivist perspective. This view of sex

neglects the emotional, familial and evolutionary implications of sex within the

community.

As Hayes said, Maslow’s model may provide a rough working generalization

about most people in most situations, but it is not really adequate as an

explanation of human motivation.

It seems that a lot of social work principles are based on this pyramid; I would

argue that most of the other helping professions only work at the top three rungs

of the pyramid. Social workers often find themselves starting at the bottom two.

While Maslow’s theory is useful, it is of course an oversimplification of real

life, especially when you consider that a lot of human beings would rearrange this

pyramid in one way or another. For example, a lot of people may feel that this

pyramid should be arranged with self-esteem as the bottom rung. They may feel

that once a person has achieved a modicum of self esteem, that everything else

will fall into place, including the ability to take care of basic needs. I agree with that

in principle.

But a large percentage of social work stops at the bottom two rungs, with the

remainder being taken care of by a referral to a professional who handles those

parts of the pyramid.

The question is what we can do as social workers to encourage a client to

move up the pyramid. For example, a lot of people at the shelter do indeed stop at

the first two rungs; they get stuck in a cycle in which they do leave the shelter

either by being kicked out or getting assisted with housing, but somehow end up

back at the bottom of the pyramid again. For whatever reason, is it trauma, poor

life skills in general, or a bad example while growing up, they never can seem to

get out of this cycle. And ethically, we can’t force them to.

Is it a dependency issue, that is, do they prefer to be in this cycle? Or are their

mental health issues so severe that they just can’t get out of the cycle? If so, why

are there not better resources for handling these issues? It seems to not make any

sense to provide for just the basic needs and stop there. The goal should be to

allow clients to move farther up the pyramid, and to have the resources to do that.

If not, our society is just perpetuating the problem by creating dependency when

it comes to a person’s basic needs.

So in social work we often encounter situations where if appears very difficult

for some individuals to move their lives forward beyond the first two levels. The

energy spent on trying to survive in the face of adversity necessarily means that

emotional resources or energy are not free to be used on other courses of action,

such as finding a job, sorting out school problems or meeting other needs. This

has important implications for our work because it could mean that providing the

right kind of practical or material assistance, or emotional support for service users,

could release the momentum and motivation towards self-sufficiency and

independence. Without this understanding, we run the risk of providing resources

and services into a bottomless pit, where fundamental change does not happen.

To conclude, although this theory has serious limitations, there is no doubt

that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory is still applicable in today’s social work.

I think what our social worker should do is to understanding this theory well and

try our best to adapt it into our daily work. There must be a wide gap between

theory and practical operation, which need us to consummate and find the

balance through our experience.

2024年5月23日发(作者：公叔高澹)

Is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory applicable in today’s social work?

And why?

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a motivational theory in psychology that

argues that while people aim to meet basic needs, they seek to meet successively

higher needs in the form of a hierarchy. It is often portrayed in the shape of a

pyramid. The lowest levels of the pyramid are made up of the most basic needs,

while the more complex needs are located at the top of the pyramid. Maslow's

theory suggests that the need for self-actualization, that is, the need that human

beings have to realize their full potential, can only be fulfilled once other needs

have been met. Self-actualization describes an inborn tendency for human beings

to grow and to maximize innate talents and potentialities.

According to Maslow, the first level includes basic physiological needs for

food, shelter, clothing, and so on. Once these needs have been met, the

actualization process creates a momentum for the next level of needs to be

realized, namely, for security and safety and to feel free from danger. Again, once

these have been met, there is an innate motivation to move on to the next stage,

and so forth.

Although Maslow’s concept is meaningful to our social work, there are still

some criticisms. Some have noted vagueness in what is a “deficiency”; what is a

deficiency for one is not necessarily a deficiency for another. Secondly, there seem

to be various exceptions that frequently occur. For example, some people often

risk their own safety to rescue others from danger. In their extensive review of

research based on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Brudwell found little evidence for

the ranking of needs Maslow described or even for the existence of a definite

hierarchy at all. Chilean economist and philosopher Manfred Max-Neef has also

argued fundamental human needs are non-hierarchical and invariant in

nature—part of the condition of being human; poverty, he argues, may result from

any one of these needs being frustrated, denied or unfulfilled

The order in which the hierarchy is arranged has been criticized as being

ethnocentric by Geert Hofstede. Hofstede's criticism of Maslow's pyramid as

ethnocentric may stem from the fact that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs neglects

to illustrate and expand upon the difference between the social and intellectual

needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised in collectivist

societies. Maslow created his hierarchy of needs from an individualistic perspective,

being that he was from the United States, a highly individualistic nation. The needs

and drives of those in individualistic societies tend to be more self-centered than

those in collectivist societies, focusing on improvement of the self, with self

actualization being the apex of self improvement. Since the hierarchy was written

from the perspective of an individualist, the order of needs in the hierarchy with

self actualization at the top is not representative of the needs of those in

collectivist cultures. In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and

community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality.

Maslow’s hierarchy has also been criticized as being individualistic because

of the position and value of sex on the pyramid. Maslow’s pyramid puts sex on

the bottom rung of physiological needs, along with breathing and food. It views

sex from an individualistic and not collectivist perspective. This view of sex

neglects the emotional, familial and evolutionary implications of sex within the

community.

As Hayes said, Maslow’s model may provide a rough working generalization

about most people in most situations, but it is not really adequate as an

explanation of human motivation.

It seems that a lot of social work principles are based on this pyramid; I would

argue that most of the other helping professions only work at the top three rungs

of the pyramid. Social workers often find themselves starting at the bottom two.

While Maslow’s theory is useful, it is of course an oversimplification of real

life, especially when you consider that a lot of human beings would rearrange this

pyramid in one way or another. For example, a lot of people may feel that this

pyramid should be arranged with self-esteem as the bottom rung. They may feel

that once a person has achieved a modicum of self esteem, that everything else

will fall into place, including the ability to take care of basic needs. I agree with that

in principle.

But a large percentage of social work stops at the bottom two rungs, with the

remainder being taken care of by a referral to a professional who handles those

parts of the pyramid.

The question is what we can do as social workers to encourage a client to

move up the pyramid. For example, a lot of people at the shelter do indeed stop at

the first two rungs; they get stuck in a cycle in which they do leave the shelter

either by being kicked out or getting assisted with housing, but somehow end up

back at the bottom of the pyramid again. For whatever reason, is it trauma, poor

life skills in general, or a bad example while growing up, they never can seem to

get out of this cycle. And ethically, we can’t force them to.

Is it a dependency issue, that is, do they prefer to be in this cycle? Or are their

mental health issues so severe that they just can’t get out of the cycle? If so, why

are there not better resources for handling these issues? It seems to not make any

sense to provide for just the basic needs and stop there. The goal should be to

allow clients to move farther up the pyramid, and to have the resources to do that.

If not, our society is just perpetuating the problem by creating dependency when

it comes to a person’s basic needs.

So in social work we often encounter situations where if appears very difficult

for some individuals to move their lives forward beyond the first two levels. The

energy spent on trying to survive in the face of adversity necessarily means that

emotional resources or energy are not free to be used on other courses of action,

such as finding a job, sorting out school problems or meeting other needs. This

has important implications for our work because it could mean that providing the

right kind of practical or material assistance, or emotional support for service users,

could release the momentum and motivation towards self-sufficiency and

independence. Without this understanding, we run the risk of providing resources

and services into a bottomless pit, where fundamental change does not happen.

To conclude, although this theory has serious limitations, there is no doubt

that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory is still applicable in today’s social work.

I think what our social worker should do is to understanding this theory well and

try our best to adapt it into our daily work. There must be a wide gap between

theory and practical operation, which need us to consummate and find the

balance through our experience.