Basic Human Needs: bridging the gap between theory and practice

Abstract

The field of conflict resolution has few theoretical frameworks. Basic Human Needs (BHN) theory is one of the few that aims to explain, understand and even predict the eruptions, dynamics and resolutions of all conflicts. The theory itself has its roots in psychology, political science and sociology. Articulated mainly and originally by psychologists like Erikson, Fromm and particularly Maslow (1976) (see Salkind et al. 2006), their lists of basic physiological and psychological human needs were not widely applied to interethnic or international conflicts, until John Burton pioneered the process of attempting to conceptualize these principles and theoretical propositions into a comprehensive conflict resolution theory. The principal assumption behind all these theoretical frameworks (from psychology, political science or conflict resolution) remained the same: a deprivation of physical and psychological needs leads to unhealthy psychological behaviors and may lead to behavioral problems and instability in relationships. Thus, when psychologists needed to address these developmental dysfunctionalities, they suggested certain methods such as psychoanalysis or behavioral therapies – or medication. Scholars and practitioners of conflict resolution who used the idea of BHN followed the same principle and assumed that when societies experience conflicts, they are disrupted in their “linear developmental process” and need to be “cured” in order to remain on the correct path of human and social development. Bryant Wedge, for example, along with others who used medical metaphors speaking of social conflict, wrote of the “pathologies of conflict” (Wedge 1971). When BHNs are not fulfilled people face deprivation that may escalate into destructive dynamics of violence and war. The suppression of these needs by authorities leads to frustration, victimhood and a sense of alienation, which are the seeds for violence and the escalation of conflict and violence. Thus, the basic “cure” for this social illness or disease is the satisfaction of the basic human needs. Until these needs are satisfied, BHN theory claims that conflicts will continue and may even escalate beyond socialmeans of control to become destructive. The theory rests on several other basic assumptions (some ontological): First, all humans, regardless of their culture, religion or ethnicity have the same type, number and order of basic needs. Second, the satisfiers of these needs differ according to cultural values and norms. Third, needs are fulfilled in a linear manner and the process is generic and universal. All persons seek the fulfillment of their needs, regardless of the hierarchy and ranking of these needs. Fourth, there are inherent social, political and economic structures in a conflict context that generate tension and deprivation. Unless these structures are challenged and changed, conflicts will continue to arise and escalate. Like the psychologists who originally devised the psychotherapeutic process, Burton developed analytical problem solving as the process through which a cure might be effected. This process relies heavily on rational cost-benefit calculations. It assumes that parties involved in a conflict can be rational; they will weigh the cost of their conflict behavior and are able to modify their actions accordingly. The process is described by Burton (1987) as highly analytical, and it aims to help parties identify their universal basic human needs by formulating a conflict analysis, including a “mapping” of parties, power bases, conflict history, while separating conceptually deep-rooted BHNs from more superficial analytical concepts such as positions, interests or values. Despite several critiques that have been put forward by scholars such as Avruch et al. (1991), Mitchell (1990) or Laue (in Rubenstein, 1999), regarding the conceptual clarity of BHN theory, I maintain that there are points of strength that the theory possesses in understanding the root causes of conflicts in deeply divided societies when the conflict mainly concerns issues of acknowledgement, identity and recognition. In addition, BHN theory offers a way for practitioners, as third parties, to structure their process. While acknowledging the theory’s strengths, in this chapter I also reflect on some of its weaknesses, particularly for practice. I ask two questions. First, how can the third party in a conflict resolution process utilize or put into practice the various theoretical principles of BHN theory? Second, how can the shortcomings and limitations of the BHN theory affect its utilization in various conflict resolution processes? In attempting to answer these questions, and in that way to help bridge BHN theory and practice, I will capture some of the potential applications of BHN theory in various conflict resolution processes, particularly dialogue, problemsolving and skills-based training, and discuss the main limitations of the theory (around issues of culture, rational choice assumptions, emotions and asymmetric power relations), together with their implications for the field of practice.