Nothing to Prove: Needs, Wants and Possibilities

Contents

Acknowledgements

Preface

Introduction

1 Needs vs. Wants

2 The Capitalist System

3 Implications for poorer countries

4 Implications for the western world

5 Environment

6 Influences

7 The Basis for Change

8 A New Way of Doing Things

9 Society Anew

References

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank all the people who offered me encouragement as I set about writing this book. Although it was something I had on my mind to do for some time, it was made much easier when those whom I respected were behind me.

I would like to thank those who have offered advice, criticism and guidance on draft work notably Kieran Allen, my mother—Maria Bradley, Wayne Bedford, Shana Cohen, David Collins, Vincent Donnelly, Michael McAleer, Paul O’Mahoney, David Phillips and Sean Shanagher. I wish to singularly thank Natalija Jarosenko who was constantly supportive of my undertaking and offered much valuable feedback and guidance. I am also hugely thankful to Denis Doolan who agonisingly went through draft work so effectively.

As always, I am hugely appreciative of my family and friends without whom I never would have arrived at a point where I was able to produce this work—with quick wit and a knowing smile—thank you all so much. Of course, all omissions, errors and oversights in this work remain my responsibility.

Preface

Through this book I aim to raise awareness amongst the general population about how we have come to view the world from a singular viewpoint that is not necessarily healthy. As such, scenarios presented are not intended to present any individual or group as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than another, simply to acknowledge the facts of the matter. Efforts have been made to allow the reader the chance to reflect on the relevance of the arguments in relation to their personal situations. The presentation of such scenarios is not intended to act as a scare tactic but rather to allow the reader appreciate the relevance of the more general points to their own circumstances. It is also the case that although I have dedicated substantial time to this work, it remains, by its very nature, a work in progress. Just as individual circumstances vary so the relevance of the arguments presented here may take on greater or lesser weight for individual readers. At another level, some of the issues raised in this work are of a superficial nature while others direct one’s attention more centrally to one’s self. To this end the work has not provided clear distinctions between emotional and physical issues but has treated them as one and the same. Writing this work has been a massive learning experience for me personally and I only wish that some of this comes across in the reading.

Introduction

At a most basic level we all have needs. These vary from individual to individual but more generally it may be said that as a species, as humans, we all have certain common needs. Through a process of economic globalisation our needs have come to be presented to us from external agents—there has been a loss of self-reliance. The opening chapter of the book details the extent of commodification of our needs and how they have been at least partially replaced by externally generated wants.

In chapters two to four, the capitalist system’s involvement in the shaping of our needs is examined. Some of the major impacts of the current system are then explored in relation to richer and poorer countries. Of course, materially poor is a singular measure of condition but this terminology has been used here as it captures the unbalanced nature of current global divisions.

Chapters five and six look in more detail at the expression of capitalism in our lives. An attempt has been made to show how easy it is to take for granted and even assume as superior, the ‘standard of living’ we have become accustomed to in the west. The final three chapters question the prevailing capitalist logic existing in the world at present and its relevance to our lives. By recognising the roles we are currently playing it is possible to begin to make changes that challenge us individually, and points hopefully to a better direction for society into the future.

1 Needs vs. Wants

He was weighed in the balance and found wanting, His houses were built upon the sand.¹

It is somewhat a constituent of human nature to compare ourselves with others; we notice if a person is fatter, thinner, taller, shorter and so on. There has also been a trend however, towards measuring one’s possessions against those of our neighbours. At a most fundamental level such comparisons are mere observations, but when such observations prompt in us a yearning for the possessions of others, it is at least unhealthy and at worst, a disease.

Of course, there are certain ‘needs’ common to all mankind. We all need certain levels of nutrition in order to grow and function. Even if we have sufficient nutrition, as warm blooded creatures we also need adequate protection from extremes of hot and cold. Shelter is therefore another need common to all mankind. Other needs have been identified by various authors, in particular Abraham Maslow (1943), who identified physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualisation as hierarchical needs for human beings (pp.372-383).

Accepting that we have some basic needs to satisfy before we would begin to think about other things, how then has a world been created where some people are dying of hunger while others are dying of eating too much?

Firstly, in attempting an answer to this question we must take a brief journey through basic changes in society over past millennia. It is not that earlier humans were simpler and therefore had more simple needs—there have been changes in how humans have come to satisfy their needs.

From the first humans, through an evolutionary process of learning over many thousands of years, we have arrived at today. So what have we learned? Firstly, the needs then, as in the time of the first farmers, were common to the needs of humans today. It is the means of meeting our needs that have changed for much of the world. For example, years ago, there was no such thing as ‘air miles’ for food; modern materials such as glass and plastic were not in use; the internal combustion engine or carbon foot-prints were not invented and electricity had not yet been harnessed.

Through successive stages of history, humans have expanded their know-how and thereby expanded the means of satisfying basic needs. Important milestones on mankind’s journey have been the use of simple tools, agricultural innovations, the use of iron and other metals, the introduction of commerce and trade and the coming of the industrial revolution.

These milestones signalled progress for the most part and they allowed the human population to expand, as they contributed to the faster or more accessible attainment of basic needs. Significant changes over more recent millennia include shifts away from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to that of ‘modern man,’ with consequent changes to how man satisfied his need for nutrition and shelter. In other words, man gradually developed more control over his environment in attempting to satisfy his basic needs.

As the human population continued to expand, further innovations helped serve the attainment of basic needs while at the same time challenging traditional societal roles and expectations. For example, populations concentrated in larger settlements, alternative forms of employment became available, and traditional social structures changed. As more and more layers were introduced into the level of ‘development’ of society, so the distance between any individual and the means of satisfaction of their basic needs was able to increase.

The distribution of the products of agricultural activity at the time of the first farmers was most likely amongst or between families. Those within a household able to till the land or harvest crops did so in order that their families’ nutritional needs were met. In early times, the crops grown or animals reared were likely of local varieties with manual labour providing most of the energy inputs. As agriculture advanced, alongside advances in travel, such as using horses or railroads, it became possible for the varieties of crops and animals to change. Other sources of energy also became established such as draught, wind and water power. Along with these changes in agriculture occurred corresponding changes in society. As less labour was being used in the fields, people could dedicate more time to other activities. These activities were often productive, such as cleaning, cooking, building and making clothes. On the whole however, they signalled the arrival of new ways of living within increasingly complex social structures.

Alongside the possibility of travel, in order to source alternative crops or animals, came the possibility for expanded trade, and, as the human population expanded, and with new settlements developing, the role of trade and traders increased in significance. Traders helped facilitate the association of value with human labour; as labour became more specialised in producing particular goods for example, trade and traders facilitated exchange so that others could access these particular goods. At a societal level, it therefore became possible to attribute a value to human labour. This was a very significant point of departure on man’s journey thus far as it allowed for the separation of man from the direct satisfaction of his needs—a loss of self-reliance.

Through the expansion of trade in the 19th and 20th centuries basic needs have increasingly come to be satisfied in market transactions—as commodities. Consider the following situation—two people are tasked with meeting their individual nutritional needs. In much of the world the options are limited; the only food available may be the food that can be grown locally—an individual can meet their nutritional needs in a self-sufficient manner. In another scenario, wide variations exist on the type of food available—an individual only has to go to the supermarket with the means to pay for food. For both individuals, meeting their basic need for adequate nutrition is a primary concern. The first scenario may be seen as precarious, as an individual in this position is subject to external factors, such as crop failure or severe weather events but likewise, an individual in the second scenario is also in a precarious position as they are now compelled to earn enough to buy their nutrition and further, they have no control over the price set.

It can be argued then, that the economic system has been responsible to a certain extent for the commoditisation of basic needs. People in modern society tend to produce for a market and to consume from a market. The tendency towards profit maximisation however, in a modern market setting and the development of a consumer culture within society, means needs have often become confused with more superficial wants.

Take for example the need for shelter. For many thousands of years man relied on natural materials and his own labour to construct his shelter. In more recent times however, contemporary materials and technologies have come into use and are available to those who can afford to pay for them. Many people have also fallen victim to their own egos, and have allowed the shelter they have sought to become much more than a solution to a basic need. For many, shelter has become as much a status symbol as non-essential products or services such as cars, or designer goods. This has been evidenced in what many consider as one of the causes of the recent so-called ‘economic crisis,’ where many people were speculating on the housing market and ‘up-sizing’ their homes to sizes and prices they neither needed nor could afford. Not alone were people entering the housing market from precarious financial positions but not to be out-done by their neighbours, many home owners took it upon themselves to seek out larger homes, more prestigious locations, or multiple properties. For the majority of these people, they were motivated either by a profit seeking mentality or a competitive individualism—both strongly aligned to the mechanics of the capitalist economic system. Admittedly there were multiple string pullers manipulating ‘the market’, but undeniably, the individuals who let themselves believe that they needed to enter the market from precarious positions, own larger houses or multiple properties also added to the general sense of ‘compete or die.’

We may then, as a society, have taken backward steps from more simple times when markets played a lesser role in the satisfaction of our needs. As Marcel Mauss (1950) stated however, trade in itself was not necessarily harmful to society:

Societies have progressed in so far as they themselves, their subgroups, and lastly, the individuals in them, have succeeded in stabilising relationships, giving receiving, and finally, giving in return. To trade, the first condition was to be able to lay aside the spear. From then onwards they succeeded in exchanging goods and persons, no longer only between clans, but between tribes and nations, and, above all, between individuals. Only then did people learn how to create mutual interests, giving mutual satisfaction, and, in the end, to defend themselves without having to resort to arms. Thus the clan, the tribe, and peoples have learnt how to oppose and to give to one another without sacrificing themselves to one another. This is what tomorrow, in our so-called civilised world, classes and nations and individuals also, must learn. This is one of the enduring secrets of their wisdom and solidarity (pp.105-106).

Contrasting needs and their satisfaction in bygone times with how the same needs are satisfied in modern society is an exercise in exploring extremes. In the modern world, needs are invariably satisfied through the purchase of goods or services, usually inferring a degree of separation between the individual and this satisfaction. In times past however, needs were usually satisfied locally with no market transaction necessary in order to do so. Alongside the separation now apparent between an individual and the satisfaction of their needs has arisen another development—the blurring of lines between needs and wants.

By referring to wants, we, in this context mean those things that essentially serve to satisfy an individual’s ego rather than a basic need. Such things can vary from individual to individual but have in common the fact that they are usually offered in the form of a commodified good or service, have some association with wealth or status, and are not essential to survival. Perhaps if we hadn’t seen such riches we could live with being poor!²

This desire for the goods and services offered within modern society has been variously described as consumerism and materialism. Individuals have evidently come to establish priorities based not solely in satisfaction of basic needs, but also in satisfaction of wants and desires. It is the societal implications of satisfying these wants and desires with which we are most concerned here. For example, in focusing on these particular ends, individual personalities are shaped by this consumer culture, and, cumulatively, people come to believe that attainment of certain wants/desires is actually serving their real interests. On a quest to achieve these material things, people lose focus on other areas and the consumption alone becomes the major driving force in the direction of people’s lives. The net result is a tendency towards competition at an individual and societal level. There are many obvious problems with such an attachment to superficial, commodified happiness, but as Oliver James (2007) observes, problems are most pronounced where wants have come to replace actual needs:

Emotional distress will not invariably follow from a strong drive to have more money if it is really needed; the problem comes when the money (or possessions or appearance or fame) is a confected want, not a need (p.18).

Capitalism is a worldwide system premised on returning maximum profit. Its role in shaping modern expectations at an individual and societal level shall therefore be the focus of the next chapter.

2 The Capitalist System

Capitalism is an economic system in which the production, distribution and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations. Under capitalism and the free market ideal, the prevailing logic insists that competition is healthy. It is actively encouraged as a means to increase efficiency within a market setting. Not alone has capitalism been adopted as a model through most of the world, but the prominence of economists in many institutions has lead to the perception of economic growth being a basic requirement of any nation.³ While this explanation simplifies many complex processes, the point to take is that competition, at the level of nations, is a very real issue.

With the ideological support of mainstream economists, a nations’ major aim is economic growth, often pursued by adopting a capitalist system and allowing competition to flourish. In order to achieve some level of economic growth, a nation strives to create the conditions which allow businesses to operate effectively. While there are again many complex processes involved, the point to take is that competition at the international level is thereby transferred to the level of business. While there is much variation in the scale and scope of these businesses, the rules of the game are the same—they must compete in order to survive.

At yet a further level of analysis, these businesses, whether their products are goods or services, require both a labour force and a market for their output. If they can offer a price for labour which is attractive to some individuals with the relevant skills, they can gain for themselves a workforce. If there is a demand for their good(s) and/or service(s) then they can establish a market. This is the point at which the story starts to involve us, the ordinary