HUMAN NEEDS THEORY, CONFLICT, AND PEACE

IN SEARCH OF AN INTEGRATED MODEL∗

H.B. Danesh

Although the concepts of human needs, conflict, and peace are interrelated and affect all
aspects of human life, academics and practitioners have usually addressed them in a
rather fragmented manner. Human needs theories propose that all humans have certain
basic universal needs and that when these need are not met conflict is likely to occur.
Abraham Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs beginning with the need for food, water,
and shelter followed by the need for safety and security, then belonging or love, self-
esteem and, finally, personal fulfillment and self-actualization. Later in his life Maslow
(1973) proposed self-transcendence as a need above self-actualization in the hierarchy of
needs.
John Burton (1990) also identifies a set of needs, which he considers to be universal
in their occurrence but with no hierarchical significance. His list of needs includes
distributive justice, safety and security, belongingness, self-esteem, personal fulfillment,
identity, cultural security, and freedom. While Maslow and Burton emphasize human
biological, psychological, and social needs, Marshall Rosenberg introduces a new set of
needs that could best be categorized as psycho-spiritual in nature, among them the need
for “love integrity,” “celebration and mourning,” and “spiritual communion.” Likewise,
Max-Neef and his colleagues added their own uniquely understood human needs,
including the need for “creation,” and “leisure and idleness.” (for a comparative review
of these theories see Kok 2007) Simon Hertnon (2005) proposes the Theory of Universal
Human Needs based on just two needs: survival and betterment. Under survival needs he
identifies physical and mental well-being, respect from others, and self-esteem (all
required for happiness) and a safe and healthy environment, logical reproductive
practices, appreciation of life and doing good things (all required for contentment). There
are still many other formulations of human needs. As is clear from this brief review, the
concept of human needs is an evolving concept in the search for a more universal,
integrated framework. Such a framework will be addressed later in this article.
Human needs theorists distinguish between human needs and interests, and argue that
human conflicts emerge when people’s efforts to meet their fundamental needs are
frustrated. It is further argued that conflict and even violence are inevitable because
human needs are non-negotiable, while human interests are open to negotiation and
compromise. The line of demarcation between needs and interests, however, is not very
clear and itself subject to dispute.
While human needs theory is accepted as a valid and useful model for understanding

∗
This is a pre-publication version of:
Danesh, H.B. (2011). Human Needs Theory, Conflict, and Peace: In Search of an Integrated Model. In D. J.
Christie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
some of the fundamental aspects of human behavior, there are nevertheless significant
questions that remain to be answered. How can we define human needs? Are human
needs universal or cultural in nature? Is there indeed a hierarchy of needs, making some
needs more important than others? How can we distinguish between human needs and
human interests? Is the nature of conflicts emerging from unmet needs essentially
different from those caused by differing sets of interests? These questions concerning
needs, interests, and conflict require a better understanding of the nature of human
conflicts and their genesis. In this regard it should be noted that there is a general
agreement among most scholars and practitioners that issues of security, identity, and
recognition play fundamental roles in the creation of severe and intractable conflicts.
Early elements of conflict theory can be found in the writings of Machiavelli and
Thomas Hobbes. Current generally held views on the nature and role of conflict in human
life, although varied, are fundamentally based on the notion that conflict is an inherent
aspect of human nature and, as such, is not only inevitable but even necessary. For
example, Galtung and Jacobsen (2002?) comment that “conflict, incompatible goals, are
as human as life itself; the only conflict-free humans are dead humans” and that “war and
violence are like slavery, colonialism, and patriarchy; however, they come and they go.”
Others consider conflict useful for identity development, social change, creativity, and
enlivening human relationships.
The four basic assumptions of modern conflict theory are competition, structural
inequality, revolution, and war. Competition takes place in the context of the scarce
resources required for satisfaction of both needs and interests. Structural inequality refers
to the inevitable unequal distribution of power, which often results in conflict between
social classes, giving birth to revolutions. War likewise has its genesis in the same
dynamics of competition, limited resources, and unequal distribution of power (see New
World Encyclopedia). These notions, along with the idea that conflict is an inherent
aspect of human nature, are problematic. They justify human conflict and violence as
natural expressions of the concept of the survival of the fittest that informs the biological
theory of evolution. Likewise, the idea of social Darwinism (as applied to economic,
political, and social practices) is invoked to justify extremes of wealth and poverty, cut-
throat political competition, and competitive, aloof social relationships. These are fertile
grounds for ongoing, intractable conflicts, which by their very presence make satisfaction
of the basic human needs of all involved extremely difficult or impossible and render the
human eternal quest for peace utopian and unrealistic.
Although peace has always been the central objective of many religions, poets,
mystics, philosophers, writers, and ordinary people, there is neither an agreed upon
definition of peace nor consensus on how to achieve it. In fact, there is not even a
definitive agreement that peace is necessarily always desirable. Views on the nature and
types of peace include Emmanuel Kant’s notion of perpetual peace; Johan Galtung’s
concept of negative peace (absence of war) and positive peace (presence of harmony);
Salomon and Nero’s classification of micro-level peace (harmony between individuals)
and macro-level peace (absence of war, armed conflict, and violence at the level of the
collective); Ben-Porath’s “holistic” and “narrow” (conflict resolution-based) categories of
peace; and the “democratic peace theory” based on the notion that democracies do not go
to war with one another. Some current scholars hold the view that the “democratic peace
theory” is a new version of Kant’s concept of peace put forward in his 1795 essay
Perpetual Peace (see Barash and Webel, 2008). This range of views about peace clearly
indicates the need for a more systematic, comprehensive, integrated approach to the
concept of peace, its definition, forms of expression, prerequisites for its creation, and its
relationship with conflict and human needs. The remainder of this article outlines the
main elements of an integrated formulation of issues of conflict, peace, and human needs.
This formulation is based on currently accepted views on human needs, conflict, and
peace and on my own observations and research in the decade-long course of the
implementation of the Education for Peace Program involving some 100,000 children and
youth along with their teachers and parents, as well as community leaders, in several
countries in Europe, North America, and Africa. These populations included individuals
from war-ravaged, poverty-stricken, authoritarian societies as well as from prosperous,
democratic countries.
In 2002, Danesh and Danesh (2002) put forward the notion that unity, not conflict, is
the primary law operating in all human conditions and that conflict is simply absence of
unity. They further argued that both conflict resolution and peace creation are specific
processes of unity building. They defined unity as a conscious and purposeful condition
of convergence of two or more unique entities in a state of harmony, integration, and
cooperation to create a new evolving entity or entities, usually of a same or higher nature.
Later, I formulated the Integrative Theory of Peace (ITP), which holds that our
understanding of human needs, as well as conflict and peace, are shaped by our
respective worldviews—our view of reality, human nature, purpose of life, and human
relationships (Danesh 2006). The Integrative Theory of Peace asserts that
• Peace is a psychosocial and political as well as moral and spiritual condition
requiring a conscious approach, a universal outlook, and an integrated, unifying
strategy;
• Peace is the expression of a unity-based worldview;
• The unity-based worldview is the prerequisite for creating both a culture of peace
and a peace-based approach to conflict resolution;
• Only a dynamic, progressive, conscious, and all-inclusive state of peace resulting
from a unity-based worldview is capable of meeting the fundamental tripartite
human needs—survival, association, and transcendence—which shape all human
endeavors and life processes at both individual and collective levels.
Of these needs, survival is the most immediate, association the most compelling, and
transcendence the most consequential. Not surprisingly, much of human knowledge,
effort, and attention has always been and still is focused primarily on our survival needs.
Most scientific theories give primacy to survival in their explanation of various human
activities and behavior. They explain that much of the biological tendencies and
psychosocial preoccupation of individuals and groups is limited to concerns for their
personal and/or group survival. Within the developmental paradigm of ITP, a reasonable
level of preoccupation with survival needs is both understandable and necessary.
However, the fact that this focus in the modern world has now reached unhealthy
proportions—expressed in the extreme self-centered individualism and/or collective
coercion in many societies—merits serious attention and modification.
Association needs refer to issues of human relationships such as equality, freedom,
and justice. Different societies address these needs with varying degrees of success, and
much remains to be done with respect to these needs in every society. In fact, the major
contemporary schools of thought view most, if not all, human needs within the context of
both survival and association needs. They concentrate on the twin issues of economic
conditions and modes of governance with a focus on safety, security, and economic
development, on the one hand, and democracy, freedom, human rights, and personal
success and happiness on the other. These programs, although valuable, basically either
ignore the third category of human needs—the need for transcendent purpose and
meaning—or relegate such needs to a subsection of the second category. Even with
respect to human association needs, little if any effort is made to understand and develop
the main sources of all human relationships and associations—unity, with its animating
force, love. Such programs neither consider the dynamics of human love in all its
grandeur, depth, and creativity, nor consider the powerful and creative force of unity as a
worthy subject of scientific inquiry and experimentation. Even in their emphasis on such
lofty issues as equality, justice, and freedom, they underline the existing divisions,
dichotomies, and conflicts and do not approach them from a truly universal perspective in
the context of the principle of unity in diversity. Consequently, the supraordinate human
need for transcendence and spirituality receives little, if any, attention from parents,
teachers, and the community at large. Even when issues of religion and morality are
included in the education of each new generation, unfortunately, in most cases these
concepts are taught within the parameters of survival- and identity-based worldviews
revolving around concepts of otherness, conflict, and the superiority of one group over
others (Danesh 2006).
This brief review of the integrative formulation of human needs, conflict, and peace,
based on the Integrative Theory of Peace (ITP), outlined above becomes clearer when the
role of worldview regarding these issues is further delineated. The following table depicts
the link between worldview, human needs, human rights, conflict, and peace.

Worldview Human Needs Human Rights State of Conflict State of Peace

Survival Needs Right to Security Fear-Based & Force-Based

Survival-Based (Food, Shelter, and Power-Based Peace
Worldview Health Care,…) Sustenance Conflict Authoritarian
First-Order Needs Suppressed Conflict Oppression
Association Needs Right to Equality, Competition- Conflict-Based
Identity-Based (Justice, Equality, Personal Based Conflict Peace
Worldview Freedom,…) Freedom, and Survival of the Adversarial
Second-Order Needs Happiness Fittest Democracy
Spiritual Needs Right to Truth, Unity in Unity-Based
Unity-Based (Transcendent Justice, and Diversity Peace
Worldview Meaning/Purpose) Freedom of
Spiritual All-Centered Consultative
Third-Order Needs Conviction Relationships Democracy
Table1. Correlation of concepts of worldview, human needs, human rights, conflict, and peace
 From this summary review it is evident that our understanding of the relationship
between human needs, conflict and peace is evolving and calls for further research and
deliberation.

Key Terms
conflict, human needs, human rights, peace, unity, worldview

References
Burton, J. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and provention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Danesh, H.B. (2006). Towards an integrative theory of peace education. Journal of Peace
Education, 3(1), 55–78. See also http://www.efpinternational.org/index.php/What-We-
Do/publications.html (accessed December, 2009).
Danesh, H.B., & Danesh, R. (2002). Has conflict resolution grown up? Toward a new model of
decision making and conflict resolution. International Journal of Peace Studies 7(1): 59–
76.
Galtung, J., & Jacobsen, C.J. Searching for peace: The road to TRANSCEND. (p. vii).
Hertenon, S. (2005). http://universallyhumane.wordpress.com/relevant-research/simon-hertnons-
theory-of-universal-human-needs/. (Accessed December, 2009).
Kok, Havva (2007) Reducing Violence: Applying the Human Needs Theory to the Conflict in
Chechnya, Review of International Law and Politics, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 89-108
Maslow, A. H. The farther reaches of human nature. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1973.
New World Encyclopaedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Conflict_theory.
(Accessed December, 2009).

Additional Resources
Barash, David & Webel, Charles. Peace and Conflict Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA, London. Sage
Publications, 2nd 2008
Daniel J. Christie, ‘Reducing Direct and Structural Violence: The Human Needs Theory’, Peace
and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 1997, Vol. 3, No. 4, Pages 315-332.
Doyal, Len and Gough, Ian, (1991) A theory of human needs, Macmillan, London