Changing Needs Fulfilment of Human Needs

There are fundamentally two theories when one talks about Human Needs Theories and are (1) Conservation Personalist Theories and (2) Liberal Situationist (of type Situation-al) Theories.

Conservation Personalist Theories depict human beings as Creation Beings engaged in violent conflicts.

Liberal Situationist Theories provide conflicts due to human behaviour that normally gets resolved with ground for optimism.

Basic Human Needs

John Burton was the author of Deviance, Terrorism and War and according to him people resolve destructive conflicts according to an expression given out by him.

Another theorist, Paul Sites in whose control Basis of Social Order, called in for 8 essential needs whose satisfaction was required for Non Deviant Non Violent individual behaviour.

According to him, this included, Primary Needs for Response, Stimulation, Security and Recognition under Expression: RSSR and, Derivative Needs for Justice meaning Rationality and Control under Expression: J.

The importance of Maslow’s Conception-al Human Development as Sequential Satisfaction of Basic Needs, grouped under Physiological, Safety, Love, Esteem and Self Actualization cannot be forgotten.

For Burton, human needs offered a possible method of grounding fields of Conflict Analysis and Resolution resulted in a defensible theory of person.

Together with writers, Galthung, Coate and Rosati, Burton provided new field of post-war social sciences which is Mechanistic, Utilitarianism, Behaviourism, Cultural relativism and Hobbesian Realism.

In Burton’s view, need for understanding destructive social conflicts are identity, recognition, security and personal development.?

Since State systems did not recognise identity, it gave way to modern ethno-nationalistic struggles as in the case of Palestinian-Israel Conflicts.

Human Needs Theory according to Burton’s view has a relative object bias and gets across local, political and cultural differences for understanding the source of conflict and ends up in designing conflict resolution process and founding conflict analysis and resolution as an autonomous discipline.

Conflict Theorists recognize this, no matter whether they agree with Burton or not.

Need for Human Needs Theories

Even after 1970s, there was persistence of irrational social struggles with its missing opportunities for their resolution.

However this was explained based on theories Conservative Personal-ism and Liberal Situation-al-ism.

Conservative Personal-ism only aggravated situations that prompted human beings as creative beings driven to engage in violent conflicts.

In this context sin, aggression and domination cannot be ruled out where non-violent, self-enforcing conflict resolution was considered a Utopian fantasy.

Liberal Situation-al-ism Theory provided Conflict Resolution providing ground for optimism.

This was by considering Environment and making adjustments to Environment surrounding the Black Box, which is considered as Metaphoric.

By this theory, given a certain environment or situation people behave in a certain way around the Black Box in the given environment.

Here the following theories were studied based on a Black Box Premises.

Frustration typified Aggression by Pollard showed aggressive instincts wherever there was a goal oriented activity.?

Social Learning Theory considered humans as cognitive creatures whose ideas were shaped by social conditioning.

Post Freudian Psycho-Analytic Theory moved analogously away from primacy of families or cultural situations.

In all these Black Box Interactions, Burton saw an underlying similarity where Burton founds out that, Personalist (Social Learning) opened the door to limited social engineering by suggesting aggressive behaviours that can be environmentally controlled (as controls wielded on the Black Box). Situation-al-ism Practitioners (Psycho Analytic Theory) found themselves unable or unwilling to reconstruct social environments, that is, moving away from families or cultural situations to the extend eliminating anti-social behaviours.

However, all the three theories when faced with a case of destructible violence, both the schools of thought (Personal-ism and Situational-ism) tended to respond as if objectionable behaviours could be modified by the right combination of Threats and Rewards.

Conservative Personalist when took the side of Deterrence, Liberal Situation-a-list went along with Positive Reinforcement or Pleasure.

That is curves of Pain and Pleasure will produce Consensual Behaviour.

Force need only be used according to both the theorists as a last resort.

It was also seen that both the theorists joined hands on a Political Realism or Realm and hence are Realists.

Realism

In Foreign Affairs, Realists emphasized relentless pursuit of power and power based negotiations as the only alternative to inter group violence (Morgen than 1985).

In domestic affairs, they emphasized normative consensus and violent suppression of crimes (Cosier/Wilson – 1964/68).

However Burton notices that none of these methods used by Realists did subscribe Transnational and Domestic Social Conflicts.

Realism hence was not Realistic.

It could not stop Ethno Nationalistic wars, civil wars, violent struggles; manipulative coercion in a way making coercion was the prime focus in all their actions.

Burton then was of the opinion that Basic Human Needs Theory is the call of the hour that would challenge both Branches of Realism and would resolve the conflict by adopting the method of Optimistic Personal-ism in place of Conservative Personal-ism.

Basic Human Needs Theory

From these perspectives, three virtues of this theory seem notable.

The first one deals with Conflict resolvers and is asked to make a distinction of the numerous struggles that dealt with the Trinity of Force, Law and Power based Negotiations.

The Second one is Equipped with Needs based Map of the field; Conflict Resolvers and Analyst understand the contradictions in Negotiations and Dispute Resolutions.

It was also encouraged to design the Resolution Process in such a way that it is around the Conflict’s underlying Generic Issues.

In the third one, it was to be understood that Needs Based Approach and Destructive Social Conflicts were caused by a few manipulative leaders or is caused by the existence of Cultural or ideological differences.

Moreover the Theory linked Conflict Analysis and Conflict Resolution as in the case of Huntington’s Clash of Civilization Theory.

Limitations of Needs Theory

Objective bias for Socially and Politically salient needs in Human biology or nature is Essentialist, de-contextualized and Historical.

John Burton’s Counter (Arguments)

Transcending differences in class and gender are culturally driven.

Separation between Needs and Satisfiers, in terms of concepts like Identity and Security does not independently exist but exists out of Satisfiers.

If satisfiers are culturally bound, so are needs.

Major Role in Needs Fulfilment

Here it is known and bring it to notice a lack of theories of satisfiers when in equivalence theories of basic human needs (Mitchell).

That means one does not have as many theories of satisfiers as there are theories of basic human needs (Courtesy: Burton).

In the case while exploring an identity based conflict, the need for identity is everywhere where-as what will satisfy the identity (Satisfiers) depends upon local history and changing circumstances.

Having known this, the needs management is required to take decisions as to how these needs can be fulfilled, no matter where there exist more satisfying needs or where there exists satisfiers.

It is also imperative to take a firsthand look at the reasons or causes for a lack of theory of satisfiers and is hereby determined as follows.

Lack of Satisfiers or Theory of Satisfiers exists because of existence of a Solution providing basic human needs and relativizing or marginalizing satisfiers.

It also exists because in Identity Based Conflicts, need for identity is everywhere but what satisfies it is present only if there is some local history behind it or there are changing circumstances that support it.

It is also well known that it is practically impossible to predict terminators of Identity based conflicts.

The occasion may also be used to introspect with some clear objectives on Identity based Conflicts as in the case of Middle East Conflicts.

Identity based Conflict or the Middle East Conflicts were based on Natural identities in question that were conceived in Religions and in Secular terms, Middle East Conflicts also exemplifies fact that in disregarding Burton’s advocacy of conflict prevention, Needs Theory is generally applied after violent social conflicts erupted or happened and as a matter of fact it becomes difficult for making analysis of needs and satisfiers.

Needs Theory Development

The development of Needs Theory span across Predictive Study of Minorities, distinctions drawn between Individual and Group Needs as well as the significance of its Psychological Origins.

Ted R Gurr’s predictive study of Minorities, in the case of minorities in the Middle East Conflict shows that the minorities are at risk and shows Needs Theorists a possible way to enhance the usefulness of the Theory.

A Regional or Global survey on how security and identity needs are conceived is an absolute must which will increase the level of satisfiers and satisfaction.

Development of Needs and Satisfiers applicable to conflicts are not primarily Ethno-Nationalist in nature, but may form other means of Group Definitions.

That is to say, The Group definitions need not be Ethno-Nationalist but groups in that place may be defined.

In order to know more about roles of basic needs in conflict, a better understanding of its psychological origins and processes are required through which one can learn that Needs become conscious motivators of Collective Action.