Oxford Bibliographies Online

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATIONReviewer:Date: April 20, 2009Entry Title: Human NeedsArticle number: 0067Author: Michael Dover

Notes from author or OUP:

Your comments: Please provide answers to the following questions. You may write in your answers under each question or provide them in a separate document if you prefer. Also, we welcome any other specific comments or recommendations you might choose to offer.

1. In general, does entry have proper scope, reflect appropriate scholarship, and represent all essential sides of the topic being covered?

This is a comprehensive, thoughtful, and scholarly entry, reflecting considerable familiarity with and depth in the topic. It covers all the major domains that I would expect to find within this subject area, at a level that is unusually detailed and carefully crafted.

Although the comprehensiveness of the entry is a major strength, it also presents challenges to the reader, even when one has a fair degree of familiarity with this topic and related literatures. My feedback and recommendations are therefore directed not so much to content, but rather to 1) how the entry overall is framed; and 2) some of the ways in which it is organized. Specifically, given the relative density and scope of the information being presented, I suggest providing some additional guidance to the reader concerning the primary content areas, themes, areas of tension, and lines of development. This guidance should ideally begin in the introduction, and then follow through across the major content areas, so that in effect the reader is provided with a roadmap to the central issues addressed in the entry. Some more specific thoughts/suggestions follow:

- Nowhere in the entry is there any straightforward definitional work on the concept of human needs. I realize that the question of defining “need” is itself a tangle, and inherently contested, but I think readers will nonetheless benefit from a short overview of prevailing definitions – and related debates – in the introduction , which can then set the stage for a good deal of the literature that follows. Since Maslow’s hierarchy tends to be the default in thinking about needs in social work, mapping out the dimensionality of needs thinking from the outset would be very helpful in pointing readers to the range of other perspectives that the entry lays out. This might also include a sentence on needs vs. wants.

- Similarly, I think it would be helpful for the introduction to include a very brief discussion/overview of the main lines of development in thinking about needs in the US (e.g. from the Judeo-Christian thinking about the needy poor of the Progressive era, to Maslow and psychological theories, to rights/needs frameworks, and on to Sen, Nussbaum etc.)

- Likewise, it would be helpful if the introduction could summarize the major lines of tension and/or discussion that predominate in this literature (such as needs/rights, universal vs. specific, needs vs. capabilities etc.). The lead sentence in the next section notes social work’s ambivalence towards the concept of needs, but doesn’t elaborate on the nature of this ambivalence – a brief discussion of which, within and beyond social work, would I think help to bring to the surface some of the main issues in this literature as a whole.

- The introduction could also helpfully provide some brief guidance as to how the entry as a whole is constructed – its’ overall logic, in other words.

- [From OUP: in your revisions, please be mindful of the 1-paragraph space limit for the Introduction.]

2. Has the author been evenhanded, offering a balanced overview of the major literature while including representative works from all perspectives?

The entry is even-handed and balanced, presenting a range of perspectives and materials that comment on main themes from different points of view.

3. Does the table of contents seem logically organized? Are headings accurately indicative of the citations they precede? Do any sections need to be added?

Per my comments above about providing readers with better guidance through this very detailed overview, I suggest some thinking about (and possibly rethinking) the order in which materials are presented.

- The major subsection on Historical Background needs to more clearly show what falls within this area – is this the historical background to all thinking about needs, or primarily to needs thinking within social work and social welfare? The sections on early and post-war history focus primarily on social work, but the middle section addresses early psychological theories. Rather than combining apples and oranges, it may be more useful to separate the social work background (presented in two sections, Progressive Era to World War II; Post World War II) from the psychological theories. This would also pave the way for my next suggestion.

- In general, I recommend clustering like with like. For example, the foundational social work content could all be in one major sub-section, and the psychological content could be moved to the following section on theories and approaches.

- Note also that the Post-War header should specify which war (here, as in other sections that address the historical progression of ideas, I encourage more careful anchoring in historical context).

- Regarding the sections on Marxian, Neo-Marxian, Feminist, Political Economic theories, and Doyal/Gough: I found the content in these sections rather hard to follow (see also my notes below under question 5). Probably this reflects my own training, but in general I think it is better to present theoretical developments in temporal sequence, since each theorists builds on (or responds to) the work of those who gone before. The lack of a clear temporal structure, both across and within these sections of the entry, is thus confusing. Furthermore, I think it would be more coherent for readers to have all the materials on each major theorist in one section, unless the content of the item is directed not the author’s own ideas but towards the content in another topical area. I therefore recommend that the author look closely at these sections (and indeed across the entry as a whole) to see if there is content that could be clustered differently. I also suggest that within sub-sections, materials be presented in the order in which they were written, rather than alphabetically.

- A topic ordering reflecting both key theoretical domains and their temporal sequencing could perhaps be developed, for example:

o Early Psychological Theories: Maslow & Murrayo Marxian , Neo-Marxian, and Feministo Political Economic Theory [though I struggle with this header]o Doyal & Gough’s Theory of Human Needo Recent Psychological Theories [name theory and key authors here, to parallel prior section?]o Philosophical Discussions (though note my concerns below about this section)o Capability Theories (Kumar/Nussbaum/Sen etc.) – see my notes below on possibly adding this sectiono Nursing Theorieso Religion, Spirituality and Human Needs

- Philosophical Discussions: -- it’s not entirely clear to me where this section should be positioned, since it seems to be offering content on larger philosophical issues than the more specific theoretical discussions that have preceded it. It also incorporates content – e.g. Doyal – that should probably be in the relevant topical sections. Perhaps either move the section up (to the general overviews, even?) or clarify what it does. And ensure that the citations it includes are appropriately positioned.

- As I note below, references that seem pertinent to the areas above are scattered throughout the sections on research. - The last 4 section of the entry (Human Rights and Human Needs , Social Justice and Human Needs, Culture and

Human Needs and Oppression, Dehumanization, and Exploitation, and Human Needs) seem logically as though they should be positioned earlier in the entry, as framing content, rather than following the sections on application and research. Since they mix social work frameworks and those from other disciplines, it’s not quite clear where they would actually fit (perhaps before the historical background?), but I encourage the author to nonetheless think through where and how they relate to the overall content of the entry. And at the very least to make clear from the outset that the issues addressed in these sections lie at the heart of some of the debates and ambivalences around identifying and responding to human needs.

- [From OUP: As the TOC progresses, topics should become most specific, less broad.]

4. Does the general introduction accurately define and introduce the entry topic? If not, do you have any suggested edits?

As noted above, I recommend attention to overall framing and some additional content on definitions, major debates/tensions, and primary lines of theoretical development.

5. Do the commentary texts provide direct guidance through citations? Will they help users to determine which resources they will need for specific research? Are interconnections between key texts made clear?

Many of the commentary texts are very well done, particularly those in the later sections (e.g. the sections on nursing and religion are particularly well crafted). Some of the earlier ones are less clear. Specifically:

- In the discussion of early psychological theories, it would be helpful to note Murray’s focus. Also, the relationship of field theory to needs, including the presentation of Lewin’s ideas, isn’t clear. In general this material seems less than central for this entry (Lewin’s focus on person/environment interactions and situational meaning seems more pertinent to the person-environment and ecological framework entries). Presenting GST as an alternative to needs thinking also seems like a misreading – and as content that is perhaps better left for other entries unless it really is central here.

- Historical background section. Why was a focus on needs “inescapable”? And what was the historical context for this? Note also that in Social Diagnosis Mary Richmond wrote of “social needs” – not surprisingly, given the Progressive era preoccupations. In general, the introduction to this section should be more firmly anchored in terms of time-frame, historical context, and key people – at present it is overly general.

- Post-War – here also more careful anchoring in historical context would be helpful (the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights and ensuing developments, for example).

- Marxian/neo-Marxian/Feminist approaches: The lead sentence re social work is confusing –when and in what ways was social work influenced by these ideas? This sentence is also poorly integrated with the points that follow re philosophy. In general, this introductory paragraph illustrates my larger concern about helping readers to keep track of main points, as the points it is making are not easily followed (and certainly not by a novice reader in this literature). In a larger sense, what issues being grappled with by these readings? And what does each contribute to discussions/debates over needs? I encourage the author to step back and think about what the reader most needs to know in order to be able to approach these readings as a set as well as separately.

- Political-economic theory – what is the distinction between this and Marxian theory? (which I think of as being inherently a political-economic framework, given its central focus on a critical analysis of capitalism). In general, what is the basis on which authors are included here rather than elsewhere? (why are Nussbaum and Sen here, for example, rather than in a separate section on capabilities theorists?). Here also, I suggest temporal ordering of works cited.

- Doyal and Gough: it would be helpful if the commentary could show how this theory relates to those that preceded it (e.g. Maslow’s work). Is it an extension – or a new theoretical direction? I also wonder if it would serve readers better to have all materials on this theory presented within this section – for example, the Gough 2000 cite in the social policy section may be better placed here.

- Empirical research – as I also note below, I wonder whether it might be useful to link relevant research exemplars to their underlying theoretical domains. For example, empirical research based on Maslow’s framework (which has generated a great deal of work) could be presented following the section on his theoretical work. Organizing content in this way would add to the coherence and navigability of the entry.

6. Are all essential primary works, secondary works, journals, and online resources included? If not, what should be added?

- Although the resources listed are very comprehensive, I think it would be helpful to have a section dedicated to capability theories (e.g. Nussbaum and Sen) given their increasing salience, particularly in relation to international development. Currently much of this content is buried in the section on cross-national research, giving it less centrality than I think it deserves. More content on Sen would also be valuable – relatively less of his work is included in the entry.

- I also wonder if there might be a bit more attention to work on ethics of care, since this too is becoming more centrally of interest across a range of disciplines.

- In the section on general overviews, I suggest including IFSW as well as NASW, since there are some differences in framing and this adds an important international dimension.

7. Are all citations relevant to the topic and useful to the user? Are annotations accurate, specific, and substantive?

Most of the citations are both relevant and appropriately annotated. There are however a lot of cites – and this is a long entry in general – so I suggest that the author cross-checks listed cites, particularly in longer sections, for both relevance and centrality. Some can perhaps be deleted. For example:

- See my note above re the content on Lewin and field theory. - At time there is redundancy (e.g. the two citations for the Life Model in the section on social work practice – for this, the

most recent edition of the textbook (2008) would suffice). In this same section I also wondered if some of the earlier citations (e.g. Bertha Reynolds) would be more usefully incorporated in the historical background materials on social work, since presumably (given those earlier sections) these later sections are intended to focus more on contemporary frameworks and applications. Something to also think through in terms of the logical structure of the entry as a whole.

- Likewise, many of the citations in the research section are on studies informed by or testing specific theories delineated earlier. As noted above, the author might consider incorporating at least some of these citations in the sections on the theories, to enhance coherence and also to add depth in these sections.

- As noted above, within all sections I suggest presenting cited works in date order rather than alphabetically.

8. Is there a sufficient amount of non-English works cited (this includes works in their original language and in translation)? Are enough journal articles represented? Are online resources represented?

The balance of books, chapters, and journal articles seems appropriate – it is largely US-centric but does include non-US materials where possible and appropriate. The one section where this could be extended is if a section on capability theory is added, since much of the work in this area is internationally focused (and can potentially also include websites, for example the Human Development and Capability Association -- http://www.capabilityapproach.com/).

Reviewer's Evaluation: (please check one)

[ ] The manuscript is approved for publication as is OR with[ ] Light copyediting (edit for grammar, spelling, and punctuation)[ ] Medium copyediting (edit for style; some line editing)[ ] Heavy copyediting (restructure; reorganize; line editing)

[ X ] The manuscript is provisionally approved for publication subject to revisions to be made by the author.[ ] The manuscript is unsatisfactory for publication and rejection is suggested.

Please include any additional comments you’d to offer here or in a separate document if you prefer:

To reiterate – I see this as a very scholarly and careful piece of work. My main interest is making its overall structure and key conceptual elements more readily apparent to the user. This topical area opens up a complex set of questions, which have been (and continue to be) the subject of considerable debate. Making sure that users have guidance regarding how best to access not only key disciplinary domains and theorists but also the central definitional and philosophical dimensions of the issue is thus very important.

Return your evaluation to: Alixandra Gould, alixandra.gould@oup.com

9780195389678 0067Citation style: Scientific

Oxford Bibliography Online: Social Work

Michael A. Dover, Ph.D.Visiting Assistant ProfessorSchool of Social WorkCleveland State University

Human Needs

IntroductionGeneral OverviewsHistorical Background

Early HistoryEarly Psychological TheoriesPostwar Discussion

Theory and ApproachesMarxian, Neo-Marxian and Feminist ApproachesPolitical Economic TheoryDoyal and Gough's Theory of Human NeedRecent Psychological TheoriesPhilosophical DiscussionsNursing TheoriesReligion, Spirituality and Human Needs

Social Work PracticeSocial PolicyResearch

Direct Practice Research Gerontological Research Cross-National Comparative Research Needs Assessment Research

Human Rights and Human NeedsSocial Justice and Human Needs Cultural Diversity and Human NeedsOppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation and Human Needs

INTRODUCTION

As a profession, social work has long been concerned with understanding and meeting human needs. The Preamble of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers states: “The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty.” Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of literature coming from within the profession of social work that addresses human needs explicitly. However, a growing body of human needs-related literature from other disciplines contributes to the liberal arts foundation of social work. In addition, other professions such as nursing have drawn extensively on human needs theory. Accordingly, this bibliography will explore the history and evolution of the body of human needs theory and research on which social work has drawn historically. It will also provide an overview of the recent literature which can enrich social work’s attention to the concept of human needs and its relationship to such other key social work concepts such as human rights, social justice, diversity and oppression.

GENERAL OVERVIEWS

Social work has long had an ambivalent outlook about the place of human needs concepts within our profession’s knowledge, values and skills. For instance, the Encyclopedia of Social Work didn’t contain an entry on human needs until the 20th edition (Dover and Joseph, 2008). Also, not until the current version did the Code of Ethics utilize the concept of human needs (National Association of Social Workers, 1999). The inclusion of ethics content on human needs was proposed by a committee chaired by Frederic Reamer, who contended elsewhere that human needs concepts reinforced social work’s longstanding practice commitment to meeting basic needs (Reamer, 1998). One reason for this ambivalence has been the lack of consensus about the nature of human needs within social work. For some, human needs have been viewed as normative and subjective, rather than being universal and objective (Ife, 2002), with human rights-based discourse often counterpoised to a needs-based approach (Ife, 2001). For others, human needs are universal, and universal human rights and human needs concepts are compatible (Gil, 1992). Gil has pointed out that the essence of social justice is the existence of natural and social-cultural environments that enable people to meet their intrinsic needs. This requires a clarification of the nature of human needs (Gil, 2004).

Dover, Michael A., & Joseph, Barbara Hunter Randall (2008). Human Needs: Overview. In Terry Mizrahi & Larry Davis (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Social Work (20th ed., pp. 398-406). New York: Oxford University Press and National Association of Social Workers.The authors provide an overview of needs concepts in social work. They cover theories of human need which have been used in social work education, practice, and research, and in social welfare policy. They discuss the relevance of human needs for social work values and ethics and for social and political action.

Gil, David (1992). Foreword. In Joseph Wronka (Ed.), Human Rights and Social Policy in the 21st Century. NY: University Press of America.Explains that universal human needs are products of biology, but also affect and are affected by cultural and social evolution, ensuring change over time in their nature. Human rights have evolved in response to needs. Human rights are socially constructed and vary among human groups.

Gil, David G. (2004). Perspectives on Social Justice. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 10(Fall), 32-39.Presents a summary of his views on human needs theory, and argues that conceptions of social justice must contain a theorization of human need.

Ife, Jim (2001). Human Rights and Human Needs. In Jim Ife (Ed.), Human Rights and Social Work : Towards Rights-Based Practice (pp. 76-88). New York: Cambridge University Press.Argues that that social work needs to progress beyond needs-based approaches and instead adopt rights-based outlooks, although the author sees value in a discourse on the relationship of needs to rights.

Ife, Jim (2002). Community Development: Community-Based Alternatives in an Age of Globalisation (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.Needs are not objective and universal, but rather a product of normative and technical needs statements, such as population-defined needs, consumer-defined needs, caretaker-defined needs and inferred-needs (needs as deduced by researchers or other observers).

National Association of Social Workers (1999). Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.The primary mission of social work as a profession is to "enhance human well-being" and also to "help meet the basic human needs of all people."

Reamer, Frederic G. (1998). The Evolution of Social Work Ethics. Social Work, 43(6), 488.Identifies common human needs as a well-established concept which reinforces social work's historic commitments to meeting basic needs and enhancing well-being.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Early on in the evolution of social work as a profession, the use of needs concepts was inescapable, given the centrality of meeting human needs to social work practice. However, debates about human needs were not explicitly theorized, other than as part of larger debates about the relative importance to be placed upon meeting material needs and psychological needs. Then, as now, there was confusion between service needs (what services do we offer that people need) and human needs (what needs do people and communities have for which services and benefits and other forms of social intervention should be developed). Midway through the century, early psychological theories of human need evolved. As a result, explicit concepts of human needs were at first taken for granted as central for modern social work practice and education. However, by the late 1950s, early psychological theories were seen as not sufficiently developed in order to serve as the basis for modern social work, which turned instead to ecological systems theory.

Early History

As Bremner 1956 pointed out, the concept of human need tends to be periodically re-discovered, as the ambivalent history of social work’s usage suggests. The early history of the use of the concept of human need in social work was traced by the dissertation of Barbara Hunter Randall Joseph (1986). Needs concepts were explicit in the work of early British social welfare figures such as Booth (1902). In the United States, Devine focused mainly on service needs, but also introduced what has been a longstanding debate about the extent to which needs can be met within the present socioeconomic system (Devine, 1909). Richmond’s approach to casework clearly distinguished between economic needs and expressed needs of clients (Richmond, 1922). Reynolds 1935 supported the growing focus on client self-determination, but worried that it could result in social work or societal neglect of basic human needs. The first human behavior in the social environment textbook was appropriately titled Common Human Needs (Towle, 1965[1945]). Today’s literature on human needs continues to reflect these early distinctions between service needs and human needs and between objective and subjective need, as well as this early concern that empowerment strategies not be accompanied by lack of societal resources for basic need satisfaction.

Booth, Charles (1902). Life and Labour of the People in London. London: Macmillan.This work of early British social work strongly influenced needs concepts, especially the basic requirements for human nutrition.

Bremner, Robert Hamlett (1956). From the Depths: The Discovery of Poverty in the United States. New York: New York University Press.Points out that human need as a concept was pioneered by social work, but that each age discovers or thinks it has discovered need anew.

Devine, Edward Thomas (1909). Misery and Its Causes. New York, NY: The Macmillan company.Stresses the concept of service needs not human needs, but also stressed that some needs could be met within the present economic system, without revolutionary changes.

Joseph, Barbara Hunter Randall (1986). The Discovery of Need, 1880-1914: A Case Study of the Development of an Idea in Social Welfare Thought. New York: Columbia University School of Social Work.Concludes that no unified concept of need was defined in early social work. References to need ranged from needy, to neediness, to needful, to in need.

Reynolds, Bertha Capen (1934). Between Client and Community: A Study of Responsibility in Social Case Work. New York: Oriole.Reynolds was concerned that relationship-centered approaches centered on client wants rather than needs raised the possibility of a loss of focus on responsibility for the outcome of work with clients.

Richmond, Mary Ellen (1922). What Is Social Case Work? An Introductory Description. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Richmond saw people as interdependent rather than dependent beings. She placed greater emphasis on growth in personality than was the case with her earlier emphasis on the details of social diagnosis in relation to economic need.

Towle, Charlotte (1965[1945]). Common Human Needs (Rev. ed.). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.

Identifies human needs such as an impulse to survive and a need to feel secure. She went on to detail the nature of human needs in relationship to various developmental stages.

Early Psychological Theories

By the mid-1940’s, the field of psychology had produced two conceptualizations of human motivations and needs (Murray, 1938; Maslow, 1943). Maslow’s theory was based upon a hierarchy of need and was influenced by the earlier work of Murray. Maslow’s later added self-transcendence to his hierarchy of needs (Koltko-Rivera, 2006; Maslow, 1971). Simultaneously, Lewin’s field theory was being developed (Lewin, 1947a, 1947b). Its theoretical framework was consistent with social work’s historical emphasis on the relationship of the individual and the social environment. However, Maslow warned at the time that field theory was no replacement for needs theory (Maslow, 1943). Hearn 1958 used field theory to develop general systems theory, later the foundation of the ecosystems perspective. During this era, Fromm’s Sane Society provided an additional and influential outlook on human needs (Fromm, 1955).

Fromm, Erich (1955). The Sane Society. New York: Rinehart.Argues that human needs involve an idealistic striving for needs which transcends physiological needs, including relatedness, transcendence, rootedness, identity, and a frame of orientation and devotion.

Hearn, Gordon (1958). Theory Building in Social Work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Hearn's theory building expertise was used during the late 1950's to provide an alternative to human needs theory as the conceptual foundation for modern social work. Hearn relied on Lewin’s field theory (Lewin, 1947a, 1947b) to develop general systems theory, one theoretical foundation for social work's ecosystems perspective.

Koltko-Rivera, Mark E. (2006). Rediscovering the Later Version of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: Self-Transcendence and Opportunities for Theory, Research, and Unification. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302-317.Discusses the widely ignored identification by Maslow of self-transcendence as a step above self-actualization in his hierarchy of need (Maslow, 1971).

Lewin, Kurt (1947a). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science: Social Equilibria and Social Change. Human Relations, 1(1), 13-31.Lewin recognizes the dynamic relationship of individuals to their social environment. He stresses the structural properties of the parts of a dynamic social field, rather than the structural properties of the individuals who are subparts of the field. He deemphasizes sociological theories of social structure and psychological theories of human need.

Lewin, Kurt (1947b). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143-153. Lewin theorizes that resources flow to social fields through channels which have gates and gatekeepers. Both objective and subjective processes impact on social problems, but Lewin stresses the relationship between scientific and moral aspects of social problems and stresses the role of power.

Maslow, Abraham H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Review, 50(4), 370-396.Maslow presents his hierarchical theory of human need (including physiological needs, safety needs, belonging/love, and self-actualization). Maslow recognizes that while human needs are universal, there are culturally different preferences. He warns that field theory should not be a substitute for needs theory.

Maslow, Abraham H. (1971). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Viking Press.According to Koltko-Rivera (2006), Maslow here amended his hierarchy of needs to include self-transcendence.

Murray, Henry Alexander (1938). Explorations in Personality: A Clinical and Experimental Study of Fifty Men of College Age. New York: Oxford university press.Distinguishes latent and manifest needs and conceptualizes several needs, including achievement, affiliation, and power. Murray’s needs-press model and other work influenced Maslow.

Postwar Discussion

In postwar Britain, human needs concepts remained an important foundation for both social work and social welfare (Graham, 1951). In the U.S., as of the early 1950s, human need content was seen as essential for social work education (Boehm, 1956, 1958; Stroup, 1953). Bisno recognized early on what has been a persistent human needs theory dilemma, namely how much stress to place on common human needs and human similarities rather than on human individual and cultural differences (Bisno, 1952). Functionalist theories of social welfare envisioned a social welfare system based upon an integrative view of human needs (Wilensky and Lebeaux, 1958). However, by the late 1950s, although he recognized that an integrative view of needs was important for social work, Kahn concluded that given the relatively undeveloped state of human needs theory, there was little choice but to define human needs within specific societal contexts (Kahn, 1957). However, he admitted that there was still potential for later human needs theory development relevant to social work (Kahn, 1959).

Bisno, Herbert (1952). The Philosophy of Social Work. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.Social science has alternatively stressed either human similarities or human differences. Social work should recognize both shared common needs and unique individual needs and desires.

Boehm, Werner (1956). The Plan for the Social Work Curriculum Study. New York: Council on Social Work Education.Argues that human needs content should be an important aspect of social work education.

Boehm, Werner (1958). The Nature of Social Work. Social Work, 3(2), 10-18.Points out that social work was recognized as a profession because it both meets human needs and also carries out a social control function.

Graham, Michael (1951). Human Needs. London: Cresset Press.Proposes that levels of human need satisfaction, if adequately theorized, could provide an alternative to the means test for judging the utility of social policies and social services.

Kahn, Alfred J. (1957). Sociology and Social Work: Challenge and Invitation. Social problems, 4(2), 220-228.Says that social work research on human needs was basic to social policy. But Kahn felt that conceptual problems with the concept of need remained. He saw human needs as defined and satisfied within specific social-economic-political-cultural situations.

Kahn, Alfred J. (1959). The Function of Social Work in the Modern World. In Alfred J. Kahn (Ed.), Issues in American Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press.Argues that an integrative view of needs should be applied to social work (Wilensky and Lebeaux, 1958), although he saw needs theory per se as too undeveloped. Social work might later consider how universal biological drives are converted into motives and eventually into needs.

Stroup, Herbert (1953). The Field of Social Work. Sociology and Social Research, 37(6), 395-398.Of seven basic areas for introductory courses in social work, one should be the nature of human needs.

Wilensky, Harold L., & Lebeaux, Charles Nathan (1958). Industrial Society and Social Welfare; the Impact of Industrialization on the Supply and Organization of Social Welfare Services in the United States. New York,: Russell Sage Foundation.Argues that functional generalization tied to an integrative view of human needs is required for an advanced system of social welfare, although it isn't a necessary condition for defining the boundaries of the existing social welfare system.

THEORY AND APPROACHES

Although the nature of human need has been a subject of philosophical, theological and scientific speculation since at least the early Greeks, in recent decades debates have arisen in a number of arenas about the utility of needs concepts. These have included a number of important debates arising from Marxian, neo-Marxian and feminist approaches specifically and political economic theory generally. Most recently, two formal theories of human need and psychological need have been promulgated, respectively, the Doyal/Gough theory of human need (Doyal and Gough, 1991) and self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000). These and other theories

of human need have been widely used in other helping professions, including most notably nursing. Recent advances in human need theory, however, have arisen primarily due to advances within the field of philosophy, in which there is growing acceptance of the centrality of universal need concepts for moral and political philosophy.

Doyal, Len, & Gough, Ian (1991). A Theory of Human Needs. New York: Guilford.Theorizes two primary basic needs (health and autonomy) which must be met to avoid serious harm and engage in social participation. Civil, political, and women’s rights are prerequisites for culturally specific ways of satisfying intermediate needs, including food, water, housing, a nonhazardous environment, health, childhood security, significant primary relationships, economic security, and basic education.

Deci, Edward L., & Ryan, Richard M. (2000). The "What" And "Why" Of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.Explains self-determination theory and its contention that there are universal psychological needs, including competence, autonomy and relatedness.

Marxian, Neo-Marxian and Feminist Approaches

Social work theory and practice evolved during an era of intense ideological and intellectual debates about the degree to which human needs were universal or relative, were consistent with Marxism or likely to reinforce social oppression, or were philosophically rigorous or value laden. One socialist feminist work prioritized the discursive nature of need identification (Fraser, 1989). Although Fromm 1966 had earlier introduced a Marxist humanist approach to human needs, Heller 1976 contended that Marx viewed needs as relative to the relations of production and that under capitalism needs were transformed into wants. However, others contended that Marx made a clear distinction between wants and needs (Springborg, 1981). Recent work has reinterpreted Marx’s theory of need (Hughes, 2000) and has concluded that Marx identified the primacy of needs (Lebowitz, 2004). Noonan 2004 criticized rights-based theories of liberal democracy for giving primacy to property rights over demands for human need satisfaction. Fraser, Nancy (1989). Struggle over Needs: Outline of a Socialist-Feminist Critical Theory of Late Capitalist

Political Culture. In Nancy Fraser (Ed.), Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis.Uses a socialist-feminist analysis to identify unequal discursive power among groups engaged in struggles over needs. Distinguishes between thin (basic) needs and thick needs, which are service or policy needs often debated in relation to thin needs. She proposes stressing need identification rather than need satisfaction.

Fromm, Erich, & Marx, Karl (1966). Marx's Concept of Man. New York: F. Ungar.Stresses awareness of true human need, as opposed to viewing need as merely that which must be satisfied in order to survive and produce under conditions of alienation.

Heller, Agnes (1976). The Theory of Need in Marx. New York: St. Martin's Press.Saw in Marx a qualitative and relativist distinction between the essentially manufactured needs for commodities under capitalism and the system of radical needs which would emerge among cooperating individuals under communism.

Hughes, Jonathan (2000). Capitalism, Socialism and the Satisfaction of Needs Ecology and Historical Materialism (pp. x, 219 p. ;). Cambridge: New York: Cambridge University Press.This historical materialist approach to social ecology criticizes Heller 1976 and re-interprets Marx's view of human need as being consistent with the philosophical priority given to avoidance of serious harm.

Lebowitz, Michael A. (2004). The Primacy of Needs. In Michael A. Lebowitz (Ed.), Beyond Capital: Marx's Political Economy of the Working Class (2nd ed., pp. 161-167). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Re-interprets Marx's theory of history to identify the primacy of needs, with social change taking place when people recognize that the existing social structure no longer permits the satisfaction of the very needs generated at that point in history.

Noonan, Jeff (2004). Rights, Needs, and the Moral Grounds of Democratic Society. Rethinking Marxism, 16(3), 311-325.Argues that classical and contemporary liberal democratic theories assume that human rights and property rights are the foundation of political democracy. However, property rights may conflict with the abilities of social struggles to ensure that basic human needs are met. This requires a more advanced conceptualization of social democracy.

Springborg, Patricia (1981). Appendix: "Needs" As a Concept. In Patricia Springborg (Ed.), The Problem of Human Needs and the Critique of Civilisation (pp. 252-275). Boston Allen & Unwin.Critical of Maslow, Springborg stresses the distinction between wants and needs. She points out that Marx's dissertation cited Cicero's typology of desires, including those which are natural and necessary, those which are natural but not necessary, and those which are neither.

Political Economic Theory

Political economic theory has been strongly influenced by conceptions related to human need. The institutional economics of Karl Polanyi and K. William Kapp provided an intellectual alternative to the assumptions of classical liberalism (Berger, 2008a, 2008b). McMurty’s 1998 1998 brief treatment of need influenced Noonan’s 2006 book Democratic Society and Human Needs. Simultaneously, major figures in philosophy (Nussbaum, 2000) and economics (Sen, 1985) integrated the concept of human capabilities into their work on international social development. Nevertheless, some continued to argue that needs were ultimately socially constructed (Hamilton, 2003).

Berger, Sebastian (2008a). K. William Kapp's Theory of Social Costs and Environmental Policy: Towards Political Ecological Economics. Ecological Economics, 67(2), 244-252.Analyzes Kapp's humanistic economics and its view that universal human needs are the normative basis for a substantive rationality.

Berger, Sebastian (2008b). Karl Polanyi's and Karl William Kapp's Substantive Economics: Important Insights from the Kapp-Polanyi Correspondence. Review of Social Economy, 66(3), 381-396.Uses unpublished correspondence between Kapp and Polanyi to explore the relationship between substantive economics and Kapp's prioritization of human needs.

Hamilton, Lawrence (2003). The Political Philosophy of Needs. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.This political scientist argues that needs are historical, instrumental, normative, and ultimately political in nature.

McMurtry, John (1998). The Question of Need. In John McMurtry, Unequal Freedoms: The Global Market as an Ethical System (pp. 162-166). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.This criticism of the absence of needs concepts in classical and contemporary economics proposes a concept of need associated with the deprivation of conditions that reduce human organic capability. His work was influential for Noonan 2006.

Noonan, Jeff (2006). Democratic Society and Human Needs. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University.Contends that needs-based concepts are central to moral philosophy and ethics. Proposes a reconceptualization of democracy which is needs-based rather than rights-based. Points out that certain property rights might need to be subordinated to the requirements of human need satisfaction in order to achieve a fully democratic society.

Nussbaum, Martha Craven (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Drawing upon Sen (1985), further develops a list of universal human capabilities, the threshold level of which can be the basis for constitutional provisions.

Sen, Amartya Kumar (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. New York: Elsevier.

Argues that social and political participation are correlated with basic political and liberal rights and the exercise of the claim that economic needs be respected.

Doyal and Gough's Theory of Human Need

Drawing upon the philosophical expertise of one author (Len Doyal) and the economic training of the other (Ian Gough), a fully-construed theory of universal human need was constructed that was designed to permit empirical testing of its constructs (Doyal and Gough, 1984, 1991). This led to efforts to compare Maslow’s theory (1943) to the Doyal/Gough theory (Thomson, 1987), an effort to clarify the distinction between human needs and human capabilities (Gough, 2003), and an articulation of the place of needs concepts in rights discourse (Dean, 2008).

Dean, Hartley (2008). Social Policy and Human Rights: Re-Thinking the Engagement. Social Policy and Society, 7(1), 1-12.Draws upon Doyal and Gough (1991) and upon feminist approaches to needs theory in order to argue that human needs can be translated into claims and asserted as rights.

Doyal, Len, & Gough, Ian (1984). A Theory of Human Needs. Critical Social Policy, 4(10), 6.This was the first presentation of the author’s theory of human need, later presented at book length (Doyal and Gough, 1991).

Doyal, Len, & Gough, Ian (1991). A Theory of Human Needs. New York: Guilford.The authors theorize two primary basic needs (health and autonomy) which must be met to avoid serious harm and engage in social participation. Civil, political, and women’s rights are prerequisites for culturally specific ways of satisfying intermediate needs, including food, water, housing, a nonhazardous environment, health, childhood security, significant primary relationships, economic security, and basic education.

Gough, Ian (2003). Lists and Thresholds: Comparing the Doyal-Gough Theory of Human Need with Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach. Bath, England: Well-Being in Developing Countries ESRC Research Group, University of Bath.Comparing Doyal and Gough 1991 to Nussbaum 2000, explains that both support universalism of needs or capabilities; both mount a critique of the limits of cultural relativism, and both needs and capabilities invoke strong moral claims on societal obligations. A chart is presented contrasting the two theories.

Maslow, Abraham H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Review, 50(4), 370-396.Maslow presents his hierarchical theory of human need (including physiological needs, safety needs, belonging/love, and self-actualization).

Nussbaum, Martha Craven (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Drawing upon Sen (1985), further develops lists of universal human capabilities, the threshold level of which can be the basis for constitutional provisions.

Thomson, Garrett (1987). Needs. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Critiques Maslow's theory as an open-ended typology of motivational forces responding to various lacks. Thomson cites Doyal and Gough (1984) in the process of establishing the role of human needs in avoiding objectively serious harm.

Recent Psychological Theories

Baumeister and Leary 1995 examined empirical evidence for the importance of interaction and caring, which were seen as fulfilling a psychological need to belong. Later, self-determination theory identified autonomy, competence and relatedness as universal psychological needs (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2001). This micro-level approach to human needs was seen as compatible with the overarching Doyal/Gough theory (Gough, 2004; Camfield and Skevington, 2008). Pugno 2008 drew upon self-determination theory in order to better explain economic behavior.

Baumeister, Roy F., & Leary, Mark R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.Identifies the need to belong—specifically the need for significant interpersonal interaction that is frequent, lasting and characterized by persistent caring—as fundamental for basic psychological needs satisfaction.

Camfield, Laura, & Skevington, Suzanne M. (2008). On Subjective Well-Being and Quality of Life. Journal Of Health Psychology, 13(6), 764-775.Uses the concepts of autonomy and of eudaimonism (integration of and realization of actualized potential) as a conceptual bridge between Ryan and Deci (2000) and Doyal and Gough (1991).

Deci, Edward L., & Ryan, Richard M. (2000). The "What" And "Why" Of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.Explains self-determination theory and its contention that there are universal psychological needs, including competence, autonomy and relatedness.

Gough, Ian (2004). Human Well-Being and Social Structures: Relating the Universal and the Local. Global Social Policy, 4(3), 289-311.Discusses the parallels between Ryan and Deci 2001 and the Doyal/Gough theory of human need, in particular the mutual stress on autonomy.

Pugno, Maurizio (2008). Economics and the Self: A Formalisation of Self-Determination Theory. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(4), 1328-1346.Formalizes self-determination theory (Desi and Ryan, 2000) in economic terms, in order to explain self-destructive behavior and economic behavior including job satisfaction, and the happiness paradox.

Ryan, Richard M., & Deci, Edward L. (2000). The Darker and Brighter Sides of Human Existence: Basic Psychological Needs as a Unifying Concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319-338.The authors present their self-determination theory (SDT), in which autonomy, competence and relatedness are essential to psychological growth and needs fulfillment.

Ryan, Richard M., & Deci, Edward L. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166.Distinguishes between hedonic conceptions linking well being and happiness to pleasure and eudaimonic conceptions correlating well-being with the actualization of human potential. Both conceptions were seen as useful in a multidimensional understanding of well-being.

Philosophical Discussions

Recent developments in human needs theory in political economy and psychology have been stimulated by growing mainstream philosophical consensus that the concept of need is essential to moral and political philosophy. Braybrooke (1987) demonstrated that lists of needs were philosophically groundless and that theoretical progress required the application of solid philosophical methods to longstanding questions of moral philosophy concerning social policy. Building on Braybrooke, Brock and contributors to her edited collection utilized philosophical methods to debate developments in human needs theory (Brock, 1994; Doyal, 1998). Thomson 2005 identified fundamental need satisfaction as a necessary conditions for the avoidance of serious harm. Strongly criticizing Rawls’s theory of social justice for not having incorporated the notion of vital need (Rawls, 1977), Wiggins came down squarely on the side of the centrality of universal rather than relativist conceptions of human need and stressed their importance for the philosophical understanding of social justice (Wiggins, 1987; Wiggins, 2005).

Braybrooke, David (1987). Meeting Needs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Critiques liberal and Marxist lists of needs as essentially endless and not philosophically rigorous. Proposed course-of-life needs which meet certain standards and criterion and which render a principle of preference, one that enhances our moral capacity to make useful social policy decisions.

Brock, Gillian (1994). Braybrooke on Needs. Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 104(4), 811-823.

Critiques Braybrooke 1987’s effort to append needs concepts to utilitarianism. She argues that Braybrooke’s acceptance of the subjectivity of needs made consensus about needs difficult. As a result, some needs might be considered fraudulent and others might be based upon paternalistic definitions of need by some on behalf of others.

Doyal, Len (1998). A Theory of Human Need. In Gillian Brock (Ed.), Necessary Goods: Our Responsibility to Meet Others' Needs (pp. 157-172). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.This chapter within a collection of philosophical discussions of human need provided Doyal an opportunity to re-state and re-assert the objectivity and universality of need, despite the strength of subjective feelings people have about individual needs and the reality of cultural differences in how needs are met.

Rawls, John (1993). The basic structure as subject. American Philosophical Quarterly, 14(April), 159-165.In this re-statement of his distributive theory of justice, Rawls states that justice does not require an equal division of social primary goods, but it does require equal rights and liberties as well as equality of opportunity.

Thomson, Garrett (2005). Fundamental Needs. In Soran Reader (Ed.), The Philosophy of Need (pp. 175-186). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Distinguishes instrumental needs from fundamental needs, which the author defines as uncircumstantial and unavoidable necessary conditions for avoidance of serious harm.

Wiggins, David (1987). Needs, Values, Truth: Essays in the Philosophy of Value. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Distinguishes wants from needs and instrumental needs from absolute needs, but shows that for both individuals and communities the avoidance of serious harm requires certain identifiable necessary conditions which are not circumstantial.

Wiggins, David (2005). An Idea We Cannot Do Without: What Difference Will It Make (Eg. To Moral, Political and Environmental Philosophy) to Recognize and Put to Use a Substantial Conception of Need? In Soran Reader (Ed.), The Philosophy of Need (pp. 25-50). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Criticizes conceptions of justice which don't incorporate concepts of need. Supports instead, in the context of a discussion of environmental sustainability, a precautionary principle which supports social policies that focus on meeting present human needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their human needs.

Nursing Theories

Drawing on developments in the humanities and social sciences, the nursing literature views human needs theory as central to an ethic of caring for the needs of those whose illnesses or disabilities prevented them from fully meeting their own needs. Building upon the work of Montagu (1955) and others, Fortin 2006 traced the evolution of nursing’s use of human needs theory. At least two textbooks integrated human needs concepts throughout: Ebersole, Hess, Tough, Jett and Lugen, 2008 and Ellis and Nowlis, 1994. Powers 2006 was concerned that needs might be construed as deficiencies and that needs-based approaches might result in oppressive approaches to nursing practice. Others, however, used critical theory to propose humanist discourse about need (Holmes and Warelow, 1997), or introduced a transcultural approach to reconciling objective human needs with culturally informed nursing practice (Kikuchi, 2005).

Ebersole, Priscilla, Hess, Patricia, Touhy, Theris A., Jett, Kathleen, & Luggen, Ann Schmidt (2008). Toward Healthy Aging: Human Needs and Nursing Response (Seventh ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby/Elsevier.This textbook for gerontological nursing uses a human needs framework as its integrative perspective. The book is divided into sections covering basic biologic needs; safety and security needs; the need to belong; self-esteem, and self-actualization.

Ellis, Janice Rider, & Nowlis, Elizabeth Ann (1994). Nursing, a Human Needs Approach (5th ed.). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.

This nursing textbook uses a human needs framework consistent with nursing’s concepts concerning human response formulations. The book has sections on human needs across the life span; physiological needs; psychosocial needs, and special needs.

Fortin, Jacqueline (2006). Human Needs and Nursing Theory. In Hesook Suzie Kim & Ingrid Kollak (Eds.), Nursing Theories: Conceptual & Philosophical Foundations (2nd ed., pp. 10-16). New York, NY: Springer.This literature review of human needs theory in nursing is counterpoised in the same edited collection by the critical approach to needs concepts provided by Powers (2006).

Holmes, Colin A., & Warelow, Philip J. (1997). Culture, Needs and Nursing: A Critical Theory Approach. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(3), 463-470.Explains how theories of human need underlie political ideologies and nursing practice. Since theories of need are ultimately socially constructed, need must be articulated in a humanistic manner as part of a theory/practice praxis. This ensures the concept of need doesn't serve consumerist notions of infinite demand within the context of capitalism.

Kikuchi, J.F. (2005). Cultural Theories of Nursing Responsive to Human Needs and Values. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(4), 302-307.Responds to critiques similar to those later presented by Powers 2006, as well as to proposals for culture-specific theories of nursing. Suggests instead a culturally-sensitive transcultural theory of nursing which retains conceptions of objective human needs.

Montagu, Ashley (1955). The Direction of Human Development: Biological and Social Bases ([1st ed.). New York: Harper.Presents a holistic view of the person as integrated by the pursuit of human needs. This view was influential on nursing's theory of need (Fortin, 2006).

Powers, Penny (2006). The Concept of Need in Nursing Theory. In Hesook Suzie Kim & Ingrid Kollak (Eds.), Nursing Theories: Conceptual & Philosophical Foundations (2nd ed., pp. 71-88). New York, NY: Springer Pub. Co.Traces the substantial history of needs concepts within nursing. Notes concern that the concept remained undertheorized and that it stressed human deficits. States that needs-based approaches risk perpetuating oppression.

Religion, Spirituality and Human Needs

Approaches to human needs also arose from theology and religious studies. Spirituality and/or religious practice are now seen as an important aspect in many conceptions of human need (Canda, 2008). The origins of religion were traced to the human need for an organized response to human deprivation (Nelson, 2006). For instance, the biblical concept of justice was traced to concern for the needs of widows, orphans, migrants, and the poor (Marshall, 2006). Also, the need for religion was linked to the need to belong (Seul, 1999). The evolution of human culture was found to be tied to the practice of religious rituals in nearly every cultural context (Rappaport, 1999). The major Abrahamic religions have all developed conceptions of human need, including Judaism (Heschel, 1965), Islam (Ismail and Sarif, 2004), and Christianity (Hugen, 2004).

Canda, Edward R. (2008). Human Needs: Religion and Spirituality. In Terry Mizrahi & Larry Davis (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Social Work (20th ed., pp. 413-418). New York: Oxford University Press and National Association of Social Workers.Describes how social work has increasingly recognized spirituality and religion as important aspects of human needs and diverse cultures.

Heschel, Abraham Joshua (1965). The Problem of Needs. In Fritz A. Rothschild (Ed.), Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism (pp. 129-151). New York: Free Press.Discusses human needs in relationship to both rights and obligations. Although there is a minimum of needs for all people, there is no maximum level common to all. Heschel stresses the need to be needed, and the needs of people in relationship to the needs of God.

Hugen, Beryl (2004). The Geography of Faith: Mapping the Features of Faith-Based Practice. Social Work & Christianity, 31(1), 3-24.Discusses the role of faith-based practice in responding to people in need.

Ismail, Y, & Sarif, SM (2004). An Islamic Response to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Motivation Theory. In Ahmad Sunawari Long, Jaffar Awang & Kamaruddin Salleh (Eds.), Islam: Past, Present and Future (pp. 1145-1178).Stresses that human needs transcend the material and that the motivation to work is and should be subordinate to the need to serve God.

Marshall, Christopher D. (2006). The Meaning of Justice: Insights from the Biblical Tradition. In Anthony J. W. Taylor (Ed.), Justice as a Basic Human Need (pp. 25-38). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Relates the concept of justice to Biblical principles of partiality towards the needs of widows, orphans, resident aliens and the poor.

Nelson, Geoffrey K. (1971). Deprivation and Needs in the Origin of Religious Groups. Social Compass, 18(2), 237-246.Nelson traces the very origin of religion to its response to human deprivation.

Rappaport, Roy A. (1999). Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.This anthropological work integrates the author's lifetime of research on the centrality of religious ritual across many cultures. Religious practices are shown to be central to the evolution of human culture.

Seul, Jeffrey R. (1999). 'Ours Is the Way of God': Religion, Identity, and Intergroup Conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 36(5), 553-569.Explores how religious meaning systems respond to a human need to define individual and group identity.

SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Despite one dissertation which contended that concepts such as peace, freedom and human needs are central to both social work practice and social welfare policy (Hage-Yehia, 1983), no extant practice model in social work has human needs as a central concept. Reynolds (1991[1938]) distinguished between the needs of people and the needs of society. Joseph (1986) contended that human needs concepts should be central to community organizing. Reid (1978) and Saleeby (2006) both raised concerns that a focus on needs might be disempowering to clients. Both the goodness of fit approach of the ecosystems-based life model of practice and the needs resource approach to assessment incorporate needs concepts (German and Gitterman, 1980; Vigilante and Mailick, 1988). Dover and Joseph 2008 concluded that both the strengths perspective and the eco-systems perspective are both compatible with human needs concepts.

Dover, Michael A., & Joseph, Barbara Hunter Randall (2008). Human Needs: Overview. In Terry Mizrahi & Larry Davis (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Social Work (20th ed., pp. 398-406). New York: Oxford University Press and National Association of Social Workers.The authors contend that human needs are realized or restricted at the intersection of the individual and the social environment. Human need theory and research could enrich the ecosystems perspective and contribute to a unifying paradigm for social work practice.

Germain, Carel B., & Gitterman, Alex (1980). The Life Model of Social Work Practice. New York: Columbia University PressCriticize approaches that tend to fit people’s needs into the practice model being used. Emphasize goodness-of-fit between life tasks, needs, goals, resources and stimuli.

Hage-Yehia, Amin S. (1983). Peace and Freedom in a Reformulation of Basic Human Needs: Implications for Welfare Theory and Practice. A Dissertation in Social Work. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Proposes that emerging definitions of peace and freedom warrant their inclusion as basic human needs. Proposes a needs-based model that could inform social work practice and social welfare policy.

Joseph, Barbara Randall (1986). Taking Organizing Back to the People. Smith College Studies in Social Work (Bertha Capen Reynolds’ Centennial Issue), 56(2), 122-131.

Argues that human needs should be an organizing principle for community organizing practice. This may require restructuring our society towards a more equitable approach to meeting needs.

Reid, William James (1978). The Task-Centered System. New York: Columbia University Press.Reid criticizes social workers who act upon what they feel clients of different circumstances need, rather than on what they want. By defining problems as unsatisfied wants, he points out that acknowledged problems are contextual and are often structured by various constraints people face.

Reynolds, Bertha Capen (1991[1938]). Re-Thinking Social Casework. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 2(2), 83-101.Points out that Virginia Robinson's more psychological approach to social casework promised a more egalitarian relationship with clients than previous instrumentalist, economic need-oriented approaches did. But the author identifies conflicting social needs to which social work was responding: the needs of clients and the needs of society to ensure it was not troubled by those who were not economically successful.

Saleebey, Dennis (2006). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Saleebey was concerned that stigmatizing clients as needy could in turn lead to their disempowerment. However, the model's focus on client assets is consistent with the capabilities approach within human needs theory.

Vigilante, Florence Wexler, & Mailick, Mildred D. (1988). Needs-Resource Evaluation in the Assessment Process. Social Work, 33(2), 101-104.The authors proposes a needs-resource formulation which addresses human developmental needs in relation to social pathologies and which stresses identifying the internal and external resources available to clients.

SOCIAL POLICY

Russell Nixon 1970 contended that there were fundamental limitations on the meeting of human needs within a capitalist economy. Olson 1982, however, stressed that radical reforms could result in meeting human needs under capitalism. The post-Cold War recognition that capitalism would be a longstanding social formation produced criticism of defeatist approaches towards the meeting of human needs in the meantime (Dover, 1992). Gil’s 1992 approach to policy analysis provided a tool for need-based social policy advocacy. Despite earlier work which distinguished between service needs and human needs and introduced the concept of human capabilities (McKnight, 1989), McKnight later criticized needs assessment approaches which stressed deficiencies (McKnight, 1995). Nevertheless, Robertson 1998 stressed the manner in which human needs concepts were a countervailing discourse to the dominance of market principles, and Gough 2000 explained that most nations had mixed economies in which the needs of people and the needs of capital could be reconciled given advances in social production and social policy. Dover, Michael A. (1992). Notes from the Winter of Our Dreams. Crossroads: Contemporary Political

Analysis & Left Dialogue, 27(December), 20-22.Criticizes the view that meaningful reforms can't be achieved under capitalism, contending that this is a defeatist position towards the meeting of human needs.

Gil, David G. (1992). Unravelling Social Policy: Theory, Analysis, and Political Action Towards Social Equality (5th ., rev. and enl ed.). Rochester, VT Schenkman Books.Gil typologizes human needs as biological-material; social-psychological; productive-creative; security; self-actualization, and spiritual in nature. He views social welfare policy from the standpoint of the degree to which it contributes to or detracts from the meeting of human needs, which is required for achieving social justice.

Gough, Ian (2000). Global Capital, Human Needs, and Social Policies: Selected Essays, 1994-99. New York: Palgrave.Discusses the needs of people and the needs of capital in light of recent empirical research guided by the Doyal/Gough theory of human need.

McKnight, John (1989). Do No Harm: Policy Options That Meet Human Needs. Social Policy, 20(1), 5-15.Distinguishes between service needs and human needs and stresses the identification of human capacities.

McKnight, John (1995). The Careless Society: Community and Its Counterfeits. New York: Basic Books.Criticizes the focus by helping professions on needs as deficiencies and proposes instead a focus on human assets.

Nixon, Russell A. (1970). The Limitations on the Advancement of Human Welfare under Monopoly Capitalism. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of American Psychological Association.

Takes the position that there are fundamental limitations on the ability to meet human needs in capitalist societies.

Olson, Laura Katz (1982). The Political Economy of Aging: The State, Private Power and Social Welfare. New York: Columbia University Press.Argues that radical reforms can meet working class and community needs, even within the context of a capitalist society.

Robertson, Ann (1998). Critical Reflections on the Politics of Need: Implications for Public Health. Social Science and Medicine, 47(10), 1419-1430.Provides an overview of the political implications of human needs in modern welfare states, stressing human needs concepts as a countervailing discourse to the domination of market principles.

RESEARCH

Given the relatively recent development of theories of human need which are amenable to empirical testing (something which was less feasible for earlier theories that were lists of disparate needs), it is only in recent years that empirical research based upon theories of human need has begun to develop. The following is a selective examination of research related to direct practice, gerontology, cross-national comparative social welfare, and needs assessment, focusing on works which draw explicitly upon various theories of human need.

Direct Practice Research

Parallel to theoretical and discursive approaches to human needs, empirical research sought to apply human needs theory to the requirements of direct practice in fields such as social work, and psychology. For instance, efforts have continued to apply Maslow’s theory of needs to practice (Harper, Harper, and Stills, 2003; Tebb, 1992; Zalenski and Raspa, 2006). Quality of life research has now evolved which explicitly integrates more recent human needs theory (Costanza et al, 2007; Karademas et al, 2008), including the Doyal/Gough theory (Little, Axford and Morpeth, 2004; McMunn, Bartley and Kuh, 2006).

Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., et al. (2007). Quality of Life: An Approach Integrating Opportunities, Human Needs, and Subjective Well-Being. Ecological Economics, 61(2-3), 267-276.An integrative definition of quality of life is presented that links measurement of human need satisfaction with those designed to reflect subjective well-being and happiness.

Harper, Frederick D., Harper, Jacqueline A., & Stills, Aaron B. (2003). Counseling Children in Crisis Based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Basic Needs. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 25(1), 11-25.Children in crisis are children whose basic needs have not been met. They criticize prevailing Western mental health approaches for failing to utilize needs concepts. They propose a cross-cultural counseling approach which focuses explicitly on ensuring that a child's material and psychological needs are met.

Karademas, Evangelos C., Bakouli, Argyro, Bastounis, Anastasios, Kallergi, Fani, Tamtami, Panagiota, & Theofilou, Maria (2008). Illness Perceptions, Illness-Related Problems, Subjective Health and the Role of Perceived Primal Threat: Preliminary Findings. Journal Of Health Psychology, 13(8), 1021-1029.

This empirical report of a study of perceived primal threats is based upon a combination of two theories of human need that include four components of basic needs: social integration, self-preservation, personal identity and growth, and worldview.

Little, Michael, Axford, Nick, & Morpeth, Louise (2004). Research Review: Risk and Protection in the Context of Services for Children in Need. Child and Family Social Work, 9(1), 105-117.The authors report that in England and Wales, legislation promotes the use of needs concepts in assessment and intervention. Using the Doyal/Gough theory to assess needs of children at risk, they explain that the related concepts of risk and protective factors are one basis for the assessment of need during child development.

McMunn, Anne, Bartley, Mel, & Kuh, Diana (2006). Women's Health in Mid-Life: Life Course Social Roles and Agency as Quality. Social science & medicine, 63(6), 1561-1572.Their theory of role quality centers on agency, seen as synonymous with autonomy. Unmet autonomy needs can prevent the meeting of health needs. Patriarchal structuration of family and work roles can limit the ability to express agency (in other words, achieve autonomy), thus negatively impacting health outcomes.

Tebb, Susan (1995). An Aid to Empowerment: A Caregiver Well-Being Scale. Health and Social Work, 20(2), 87-92.Presents the Caregiver Well-Being Scale, which includes two sub-scales. One sub-scale is based on 22 questions addressing basic human needs derived from the application of Maslow's theory of human need.

Zalenski, R.J., & Raspa, R. (2006). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: A Framework for Achieving Human Potential in Hospice. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 9(5), 1120-1127.The authors contend that using Maslow’s hierarchy of need approach in hospice care is essential, in that it could permit the design of interventions that might help many develop greater potential at end of life.

Gerontological Research

Gerontological research has been an area in which human needs-theory has evolved in recent years (Schroder-Butterfill and Marianti, 2006). For instance, one sociologist of aging has now explicitly endorsed the Doyal/Gough theory (Estes, 2008). Increasingly, convergence between human needs theory-based research and more data-driven approaches has evolved (Blane, Higgs, Hyde, and Wiggins, 2004; Wiggins et al, 2008).

Blane, D., Higgs, P., Hyde, M., & Wiggins, R. D. (2004). Life Course Influences on Quality of Life in Early Old Age. Social science & medicine, 58(11), 2171-2179.Their needs theory-based measure of quality of life has two domains: control (freedom from) and autonomy (freedom to). Quality of life in early old age is largely independent of the circumstances of early life, and it is therefore possible to design policies which can enhance quality of life in early old age.

Estes, Carroll (2008). First Generation Critic Comes of Age: Reflections of a Critical Gerontologist. Journal of Aging Studies, 22(2), 120-131.From a gerontological perspective, states agreement with the Doyal/Gough theory that human needs are universal and transcultural.

Schroder-Butterfill, Elisabeth, & Marianti, Ruly (2006). A Framework for Understanding Old-Age Vulnerabilities. Ageing & Society, 26(1), 9-35.Applies both the capabilities approach and the Doyal/Gough theory to the development of a conceptual framework for understanding vulnerabilities among older people.

Wiggins, R. D., Netuveli, G., Hyde, M., Higgs, P., & Blane, D. (2008). The Evaluation of a Self-Enumerated Scale of Quality of Life (Casp-19) in the Context of Research on Ageing: A Combination of Exploratory and Confirmatory Approaches. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 61-77.Relying upon the Doyal/Gough theory of need, derives an empirical model to conclude that both biological and social need satisfaction are important for a self-enumerated quality of life measure, which included control, autonomy, self-realization and pleasure.

Cross-National Comparative Research

One major application of human needs theory has been in cross-national comparative research on human well-being and need satisfaction. Early efforts were theoretically eclectic (Moon, 1994). More recently, the empirical findings of the human capabilities approach have been assessed (Clark, 2005; Nussbaum, 2000; Sen, 1985), as well as compared to research based on the Doyal/Gough theory (Clark and Gough, 2005). The value for cross-national well-being research of a variety of interdisciplinary macro and micro theoretical perspectives has also been discussed (Gough and McGregor, 2007). Clark, David, & Gough, Ian (2005). Capabilities, Needs and Wellbeing: Relating the Universal and the Local.

In Lenore Manderson (Ed.), Rethinking Wellbeing. Perth, Australia: API Network.Nussbaum's model (2000) comes under scrutiny in this chapter, which also compares her model to Sen's more open-ended approach to capabilities (Sen, 1885), to Doyal and Gough's work on identifying human needs (Doyal and Gough, 1991) and to Clark's empirical approach to determining the values of particular groups (Clark, 2005).

Clark, David A. (2005). Sen's Capability Approach and the Many Spaces of Human Well-Being. The Journal of Development Studies, 41(8), 1339-1368.Concludes that Sen 1985 reconciles utilitarian approaches that focus on mental constructs of optimal well-being and resources approaches that emphasize the material foundation of well-being. Agrees with Doyal and Gough 1991 about the need for expanding the list of capabilities and distinguishing how they reinforce or conflict with each other.

Doyal, Len, & Gough, Ian (1991). A Theory of Human Needs. New York: Guilford.Theorizes two primary basic needs (health and autonomy) which must be met to avoid serious harm and engage in social participation.

Gough, Ian, & McGregor, J. Allister (Eds.). (2007). Wellbeing in Developing Countries: From Theory to Research (1st ed.). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.This edited collection suggests a new paradigm for research on well-being, based upon concepts related to human functioning, capabilities and needs, resource use and livelihoods, and subjective well-being and happiness.

Moon, Bruce (1994). The Political Economy of Basic Human Needs. Journal of international development, 6(1), 135-136.Uses an eclectic theoretical perspective consistent with worlds systems and dependency theory to show that nations experiencing the strongest economic growth have not experienced proportional growth in human welfare, but that efforts to meet basic needs have been correlated with economic growth.

Nussbaum, Martha Craven (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Drawing upon theories of justice and upon Sen (1985), further developed lists of universal human capabilities, the threshold level of which can be the basis for constitutional provisions.

Sen, Amartya Kumar (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. New York: Elsevier.Argues that social and political participation are correlated with basic political and liberal rights and the exercise of the claim that economic needs be respected.

Needs Assessment Research

Needs assessment research which distinguished between service needs and human needs was developed using a human needs theory-guided approach. The Doyal/Gough theory spawned two book-length approaches to community-based needs assessment (Percy-Smith and Sanderson, 1992; Percy-Smith, 1996). One study found that when conceptions of need of clients and providers are compared, clients were more focused on basic human needs and providers were more concerned with the service needs they perceived clients to have (Darling, Hager, Stockdale and Heckert, 2002). The more recent emergence of theory-informed community profiling in Britain has now been applied to social work education (Baldwin and Teater, 2009).

Baldwin, Mark J., & Teater, Barbra A. (2009). Exploring the Learning Experiences of Students Involved in Community Profiling Projects. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting. Discusses the field education potential of a community profiling research project that utilized the Doyal/Gough theory of human need.

Darling, Rosalyn Benjamin, Hager, Mark A., Stockdale, Jami M., & Heckert, D. Alex (2002). Divergent Views of Clients and Professionals: A Comparison of Responses to a Needs Assessment Instrument. Journal of Social Service Research, 28(3), 41-63.Research on client views showed that they were more concerned with basic human needs than providers, who were more focused on service needs related to domestic violence, child abuse, and substance abuse.

Percy-Smith, Janie (1996). Needs Assessments in Public Policy. Philadelphia: Open University Press.This two-part book begins by discussing theoretical and methodological aspects of needs assessment, drawing upon Bradshaw 1982, Doyal and Gough 1991 and others. The second part discusses needs assessment related to housing, health, and other areas.

Percy-Smith, Janie, & Sanderson, Ian (1992). Understanding Local Needs. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.This study applies the Doyal/Gough theory of human need to community-based needs assessment, producing findings which distinguish both the extent of met and unmet universal human needs and the nature of expressed needs in Leeds, England.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN NEEDS

Since the ground-breaking and incisive work of Illich (1978), opposition has arisen to efforts to reduce human beings to bundles of unmet needs which are in turn defined as merely technical problems within the purview of the helping professions. Yet Reichert 2003 and has pointed out that declarations of human need were originally at the root of promulgations of international human rights. Wronka added that human rights provide the legal framework for insisting that human needs be met Wronka (Wronka, 1992, 2008). O’Neill has discussed the relationship of needs to rights and concluded that the human obligation (responsibility) to meet needs should be prioritized (O’Neill, 1998). For example, at the level of bioethical decision making about the obligations of patients and caregivers, the protection of human rights to such things as medical privacy has been linked with the meeting of human needs such as autonomy and avoidance of harm (Barilan and Brusa, 2008). Re-examining the relationship between rights and needs, Noonan’s 2005 work has suggested the path towards a fuller social democracy, in which needs take primacy over some property rights. Within social work, Witkin 1998 has concluded that our concern for human rights is linked ultimately to our commitment to the right to human need satisfaction.

Barilan, Y. M., & Brusa, M. (2008). Human Rights and Bioethics. Journal of Medical Ethics: The Journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics, 34(5), 379-383.Links the moral power of human rights with bioethical issues such as medical privacy and with human needs such as autonomy, bodily integrity, survival, and avoidance of suffering.

Illich, Ivan (1978). Toward a History of Needs (1st ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.Criticizes the health-denying effect of systems of care which reduce the human condition to technical problems that might deny the capacity of people to autonomously address their human needs for creativity, dignity, freedom and personal satisfaction.

Noonan, Jeff (2005). Modernization, Rights, and Democratic Society: The Limits of Habermas's Democratic Theory. Res Publica: A Journal of Legal and Social Philosophy, 11(2), 101-123.Explores how Western conceptualizations of rights often prioritize property rights in a way which can ultimately prevent the meeting of human needs.

O'Neill, Onora (1998). Rights, Obligations, and Needs. In Gillian Brock (Ed.), Necessary Goods: Our Responsibility to Meet Others' Needs (pp. 95-112). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Explores the relationship between human needs and human rights and suggests the value of considering human obligations.

Reichert, Elisabeth (2003). Social Work and Human Rights: A Foundation for Policy and Practice. New York: Columbia University Press.Reveals how declarations of need were the basis of statements about human rights, such as Article 25 of the International Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Witkin, Stanley L. (1998). Human Rights and Social Work. Social Work, 43(3), 197-201.Explores how social work's concern for human rights is rooted in its concern for human needs and the role of rights in upholding and fostering needs.

Wronka, Joseph (1992). The Relation between Needs and Rights. In Human Rights and Social Policy in the 21st Century : A History of the Idea of Human Rights and Comparison of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights with United (Revised ed., pp. 23-25). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Wronka points out that human rights standards are in part designed to ensure that basic human needs are met. He accepts the immutability of basic needs, which he points out are often translated into rights in times of crisis.

Wronka, Joseph (2008). Human Rights and Social Justice: Action and Service for the Helping and Health Professions. Lanham, MD: Sage Publications.Views human rights as the cornerstone of social justice and recognized that human rights provide the legal mandate for meeting human needs.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN NEEDS

Since Braybrooke 1968’s philosophical recognition of fundamental universal needs, there has been growing philosophical consensus that social justice can’t be conceptualized or achieved without incorporating the concept of human needs (Brock, 2005). One eloquent appeal sought to link the needs of strangers to any society’s sense of social solidarity or aspiration for liberty and justice (Ignatieff, 1986). Gil 2004 later clarified that no conception of social justice can exist without first defining human needs and how their satisfaction is related to the achievement of justice. Wakefield drew upon human needs theory in his discussion of the use of the concept of distributive justice within the helping professions (Wakefield, 1988a, 1988b). More recently, Olson 2007 has conceptualized a needs-based formulation of social justice for the social work profession.

Braybrooke, D. (1968). Let Needs Diminish that Preferences May Flourish. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Braybrooke distinguishes between course-of-life needs (fundamental and universal needs) and adventitious needs, which are culturally and situationally variant.

Brock, Gillian (2005). Needs and Global Justice. In Soran Reader (Ed.), The Philosophy of Need (pp. 51-72). Cambridge, U.K. ;, New York: Cambridge University Press.Provides empirical and thought experiments to support the view that basic needs concepts and standards are required for a plausible view of global justice.

Gil, David G. (2004). Perspectives on Social Justice. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 10(Fall), 32-39.Presents a summary of his views on human needs theory, and argues that conceptions of social justice must contain a theorization of human need.

Ignatieff, Michael (1986). The Needs of Strangers. New York, NY Penguin Books.Calls for a language about needs which can express a human need for a social solidarity consistent with both liberty and justice.

Olson, Jeffrey J. (2007). Social Work's Professional and Social Justice Projects: Discourses in Conflict. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 18(1), 45-69.Proposes a need-based conceptualization of social justice based upon Maslow's theories as the basis for restoring social work's commitment to social justice.

Wakefield, Jerome C. (1988a). Psychotherapy, Distributive Justice, and Social Work—Part 1: Distributive Justice as a Conceptual Framework for Social Work. Social Service Review, 62(2), 187–211.

Proposes a minimal distributive justice approach to the prevention of deprivation as social work’s organizing value. His concern with natural primary goods (health and mental health) involves consideration of social and psychological needs. Although no concept is more central to social work than need, it is important to distinguish wants from basic needs.

Wakefield, Jerome C. (1988b). Psychotherapy, distributive justice, and social work—Part 2: . Social Service Review, 62(3), 353-382.Wakefield draws upon Braybrooke 1968 to stress the importance for social work of a concern for universal and fundamental course-of-life needs (needs found in all people throughout the life course).

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND HUMAN NEEDS

Shortly after Maslow’s formulation of his theory of human need, Lee 1948 raised an issue which has proved durable within discourse on human needs. She contended that hierarchical theories of human need were rooted in Western individualism and were culturally specific, not universal. Etzioni 1968, however, contended that human needs can be universal and yet met in culturally specific ways. Within social work, this has been recognized at the theoretical level (Guadalupe and Freeman, 1999), at the pedagogical level (Blake, 1994), and at the level of the mission of the field as a whole (Mullaly, 2001). In addition, two recent contributions to the practice literature have concluded that a growing understanding of universal human needs and cultural common denominators can create conditions for effective cross-cultural social work (Dover, 2009; Vontress, 2008).

Blake, Richard (1994). Diversity, Common Human Needs and Social Welfare Programs: An Integrative Teaching Strategy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 10(1-2), 129-135.Stresses the importance of including content about both common human needs and human diversity in social work education.

Dover, Michael A. (2009). Rapport, Empathy and Oppression: Cross-Cultural Vignettes. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 15(Forthcoming).Citing Vontress 2006, concludes that an understanding of universal human needs and of the nature of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation can enhance empathetic understanding, even when cultural unfamiliarity inhibits rapid establishment of rapport.

Etzioni, Amitai (1968). Basic Human Needs, Alienation and Inauthenticity. American Sociological Review, 33(6), 870-885.Contributing to sociological discussion of the over-socialized conception of humankind, Etzioni makes an explicitly sociological contribution to human needs theory. He views human needs as universal, met in culturally specific ways, and amenable to empirical testing.

Gough, Ian (2004). Human Well-Being and Social Structures: Relating the Universal and the Local. Global Social Policy, 4(3), 289-311.Criticizing postmodernist and cultural relativist approaches, Gough concludes that universal needs can be understood in the context of local needs satisfiers and of culturally specific subjective understandings of these needs and their satisfiers.

Guadalupe, J. L., & Freeman, M. L. (1999). Common Human Needs in the Context of Diversity: Integrating Schools of Thought. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 6(3), 85-92.Explores how common human needs should be considered along with individual human differences. By drawing upon the need to consider both cultural similarities and differences, both modern and postmodern frameworks are relevant to cultural diversity.

Lee, Dorothy (1948). Are Basic Needs Ultimate? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 361-395.Criticizes hierarchies of primary and secondary need as products of Western individualist thought and as inappropriately inconsistent with the principle of cultural relativism.

Mullaly, Bob (2001). Confronting the Politics of Despair: Toward the Reconstruction of Progressive Social Work in a Global Economy and Postmodern Age. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 20(3), 303-320.Explains that social work's emancipatory mission requires recognition of universal human needs as well as the culturally specific ways in which they are met.

Vontress, Clemmont E. (2001). Cross-Cultural Counseling in the 21st Century. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 23(2), 83-97.Advocates for recognizing cultural common denominators as part of efforts to advance cross-cultural counseling.

OPPRESSION, DEHUMANIZATION AND EXPLOITATION AND HUMAN NEEDS

Recent theoretical developments in philosophy and the social sciences have enabled the development of a social work-relevant typology of theories of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation that has relevance for understanding the sources of injustice (Dover, 2008). Each of these three sources of injustice can inhibit the ability of people and communities to meet their human needs in a way that is consistent with their human rights and with their culturally valued way of life. Gil 1998 defined oppression as incorporating economic exploitation, and viewed social injustice as characterized by dehumanization. Van Wormer (2004) also adopted a definition of oppression that incorporated exploitation, as did Appleby, Colon and Hamilton (2007). Marsiglia and Kulis (2009), however, conceptualized oppression as being group-based. This was also done by the feminist philosopher Ann Cudd, who produced the first full-length univocal theory of oppression (Cudd, 2006). She restricted oppression to group-based domination that is systematically coercive and unjust, although it has material as well as psychological components. Cudd’s definition of oppression, while consistent with a theory of animalistic dehumanization, was inconsistent with a theory of mechanistic dehumanization (Haslam, 2006). Cudd also clearly differentiated between oppression and economic exploitation. She denied that all forms of economic exploitation are inherently coercive. Hahnel 2006 identified the manner in which systematic economic exploitation can take place in any social system characterized by the existence of economic inequality. As a result of these theoretical advances, oppression, dehumanization and exploitation were able to be theoretically differentiated (Dover, 2008). These emerging conceptualizations of human need, human rights, social justice, social injustice, and oppression, dehumanization and exploitation reinforce the central role for human needs theory in social work values, theory and practice.

Appleby, George A., Colon, Edgar, & Hamilton, Julia (2007). Diversity, Oppression, and Social Functioning: Person-in-Environment Assessment and Intervention (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.The authors analyze the nature of the oppression suffered by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, and the oppression of women, people of color, and people with mental or physical disabilities. They discuss how oppression and discrimination incorporate the role of social class and of classism.

Cudd, Ann E. (2006). Analyzing Oppression. New York: Oxford University Press.In presenting the first univocal theory of group-based oppression, Cudd contends that oppression has a common set of material and psychological features. She distinguishes oppression from exploitation, which she argued isn’t necessarily coercive and therefore isn’t necessary oppressive.

Dover, Michael A. (2008). Oppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation: Connecting Theory to Experience. In Dorothy Van Soest & Betty Garcia (Eds.), Diversity Education for Social Justice: Mastering Teaching Skills (Second ed., pp. 296-310). Washington, DC: Council on Social Work Education.Introduces a typology of theories of oppression (Cudd, 2006), dehumanization (Haslam, 2006), and exploitation (Hahnel, 2006) in conjunction with the presentation of a student-generated compendium of words and affective phrases associated with the experience of moments of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation.

Gil, David G. (1998). Confronting Injustice and Oppression: Concepts and Strategies for Social Workers. New York: Columbia University Press.Defines oppression broadly to include relations of domination and exploitation. Oppression is seen to include relations between individuals, groups, classes and societies. Injustice is seen as involving the existence of dehumanizing and discriminatory states imposed by oppressors.

Hahnel, Robin (2006). Exploitation: A Modern Approach. Review of Radical Political Economics, 38(2), 175-192.

Describes how unjust outcomes are produced by transactions between unequal parties who have a formal social relationship in the context of an institutionalized environment. The resulting outcome should be considered a product of exploitation.

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An Integrative Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252-264.Provides a literature review of theories of dehumanization. Also presents a theory of animalistic dehumanization (in which one group treats another group as animals, i.e. as subhuman) and of mechanistic dehumanization (which is group independent and which involves treating people as automata, i.e. as nonhuman).

Marsiglia, Flavio Francisco, & Kulis, Stephen Stanley (2009). Diversity, Oppression, and Change: Culturally Grounded Social Work. Chicago: Lyceum Books.Employs a group-based paradigm of oppression, one which doesn't seek to expand the concept of oppression in a way that attributes all injustice to oppression.

Van Wormer, Katherine S. (2004). Confronting Oppression, Restoring Justice : From Policy Analysis to Social Action. Alexandria, Va.: Council on Social Work Education.Van Wormer uses a broad definition of oppression which incorporated exploitation as an economic form of oppression. She links injustice to economic inequities, to unequal power relations, and to the denial of human rights.