They spend so much time on so much crap. Why not spend some time on something critically important? I just don’t understand it. My motivation theory was published 20 years ago, & in all that time nobody repeated it, or tested it, or really analyzed it or criticized it. They just used it, swallowed it whole with only the most minor modifications.
Abraham Maslow, 1962 Journal Entry
(Cited in Lowry, 1979, p. 190)
The paper Maslow used to introduce his famous hierarchy of needs is a four-part paper. His presentation of the hierarchy proper is only the second part of that paper. Its title is “A Theory of Human Motivation.” His first part is mainly a synopsis for an earlier, less famous paper titled “Preface to Motivation Theory.” His less known preface to motivation was published earlier in 1943, the same year as the famous paper on human motivation.
In the earlier paper (so again in the first part of the later paper), Maslow introduced his principle of prepotency as an organizing idea in motivation theory. The list (hierarchy) of needs in the second part of the later paper relies on the principle of prepotency from the first part to allow a recognizable “hierarchy” of needs rather than just a randomly ordered “list” of needs.
Next, bearing in mind the challenge of theorizing about explicitly human motivation, Maslow opens his third part by showing seven common human anomalies to the principle of prepotency, the organizing principle supporting the hierarchy introduced in his second part.
As noted, the needs from the second part benefit from the organizing principle of prepotency, as it lends the recognized hierarchical order to that list of needs. By contrast, the list of seven human anomalies opening Maslow’s third part is presented in random order. The list of anomalies from the third part does not benefit from an organizing principle, as do the needs in the second part. If the list from the third part does benefit from an organizing principle, the benefit is only by way of contrast from, or conflict with the principle of prepotency, the organizing principle for the needs in Part II.
One opportunity inherent to Maslow’s theory is that of recognizing a principle that lends order to the list of human anomalies found at the beginning of his third part and now presented in only a random fashion. This would allow the anomalies in the third part to benefit from an ordering principle, similar to the way that the needs in the hierarchy benefit from the ordering principle of prepotency.
And there is at least one other important, implied call to opportunity. Maslow presented the two lists back to back, the principally ordered hierarchy of needs from Part II, followed by the randomly listed anomalies at the beginning of Part III. An even larger opportunity consists in having the lists complete one another by merging them into a more expansive and thorough model of human motivation. I believe this is a key opportunity perceived by Maslow, one he intended to offer, one he believed he had successfully communicated, yet one that is mainly missed or otherwise neglected by the rest of us for now over 80 years. In pursuing this broader opportunity, as already noted, we might first seek to recognize an ordering principle for the random list of anomalies at the beginning of Maslow’s third part. That newly recognized order for the anomalies might combine with the hierarchy of needs, perhaps even by commanding a reorganization for the hierarchy of needs. In other words, it would expand or by expansion maybe even replace our current understanding for the operating principle of prepotency. Rather than being a randomly fashioned list of anomalies to the presently recognized organizing principle of prepotency, those anomalies to prepotency would become integrally compliant with or even commanding to a new order of a fresh, more expansive and thorough understanding of human motivation.
I suspect Maslow took these challenging opportunities (and others) for granted as he fretted about the failure to accomplish more with his work. But these problematic opportunities are lost when his hierarchy of needs is so far removed from the context of the other three parts to his paper. And this is the way the zeitgeist for Maslow’s paper has grown over the years, as though Part II is all there is to it. But it is not until Part III that his problematic opportunities, or his core probletunities, really start to be perceptible. In order for us to receive the opportunities Maslow delivered in the work, the hierarchy of needs requires the context he provided it. Our failures to maintain his provided context continue to cost us his intended opportunities.
At the time Maslow published the paper, he didn’t view the hierarchy of needs as being necessarily correct. His two-page introduction to the theory ends with the suggestion that its main value resides in the questions it raises, the problems it poses, or in effect, the progress it demands. Maslow uses his paper to express a problem set centered around the challenge, “How and why is it that the hierarchy of needs must not be quite right?” I call this a massive probletunity. Maslow’s paper on motivation is his attempt to express this broad, opportunity-laden problem set. And neglecting his problems has thus far cost us their resulting opportunities.
20 years after the theory was published, musing in a personal journal, Maslow wrote the journal entry quoted above. There we can see that Maslow was somewhat bewildered by what struck him as a lacking response on the part of his audience, and this despite the accrued fame, acclaim, and 11 reprints by the time of the journal entry. Maslow believed he had built a significant probletunity into his paper. If a lacking response on the part of the audience had to do with a misconnection that still presided 20 years after the paper was published (the time of Maslow’s journal entry), then which of our understanding about Maslow’s paper has changed between then and now? If Maslow never did gain clarity regarding the misconnection between his work and its audiences, he would never have been able to coach to a corrected understanding. If, between then and now, or between 20 and 80 years following publication, there has been no appreciable change in our understanding of Maslow’s work, then what may we still be missing?
Yes, the word “if” can be deceptively large. And yes, this is quite the series of “ifs” I have strung together here. So the aim is to start fresh with Maslow’s work, allowing it to shed new light on our paradigm for understanding it. Hopefully this will empower an invigorated, positive contribution from his paper—this by unfolding and sharing a few key challenges and resulting opportunities—the probletunity—that has somehow gone missing from our appreciation of it.
Philosophy and religion before it have long attempted various approaches to meanings of life. The work here suggests Abraham Maslow hoped to catch key aspects of these big-issue challenges for science by targeting his focus on the nature of motivation and its goals rather than meanings for life. Now, more than 80 years since initial publication of Maslow’s most famous work, we still neglect core aspects of its invitation. Minding Maslow’s Mystery offers germinal remedy for this situation.
References
Lowry, R. J. (Ed.). (1979). The journals of A. H. Maslow (Vol. 1, p. 190). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Maslow, A. H. (1943a). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
Maslow, A. H. (1943b). Preface to motivation theory. Psychosomatic Medicine, 5(1), 85–92.