Introduction

The majority of readers of this Conflict Series, and of this Volume

in particular, will understandably be surprised at the emphasis on
"human needs" and that human needs theory is the framework
of the Series. Is this some special religious approach, a narrow
psychological approach, perhaps an interest focus like that of the
Greens, or perhaps some other orientation designed to bring to
attention some particular concern or belief?
It is none of these. Social and political sciences, and the philosophi-
cal traditions from which they emerged, were structured within
societies that were hierarchical, subject in many cases to revolts and
revolutions, and almost universally defensive of existing structures,
institutions and roles. The focus of interest was the institutions that
had to be protected at all costs. From this frame were deduced the
rights and obligations of members of society. It was society that was
supreme, not its rank and file members. Within this frame the social
good as interpreted by elites was the measure of legitimacy, not the
development of individuals in society.
A reason why the individual was so relegated to this subservient
status was that there was no understanding of the power of human
needs and, therefore, the role of the individual in political processes.
There was (and still is in most societies) wishful thinking on the part
of ruling elites. The assumption was that the person was what they
would like "it" to be: a wholly malleable tool. As psychology and
psychiatry emerged as separate disciplines they were, understandably,
not greatly interested in the human person as a unit of analysis or an
entity; their interest was and has remained the normal or abnormal
responses of persons to their social environments. If the individual
could not cope, then help might be given. The remedy was never the
changing of the institutions of society. Sociology was until recent
years largely concerned with the processes whereby groups were
socialized and adapted to social environments. With the added
incentive of trying to be "scientific" economics invented a special
construct, economic man, whose behaviors could be predicted, thus
validating economic theories and policies.
The interest in human needs in this Series is to point to this
traditional failing of social sciences and to incorporate the individual
and the identity groups of the individual as the units of analysis and,

J. Burton (ed.), Conflict: Human Needs Theory

© John Burton 1990
2 Introduction

furthermore, to treat this individual as a real person. There could

have been a hypothesis that economic man is the reality, and a quite
different theory would have emerged from which would have been
deduced quite different settlement processes. With such a construct
all disputes could be settled by one side or the other paying the
necessary price. Indeed, there are those in the dispute field who seem
to work on this assumption: disputes are settled by bargaining and
by compromise. We have chosen, however, to deal with the real
person, regardless of complexities. This has made necessary more
consideration of that person than is generally the case. If there were
no other variables at all, then a dispute between two persons over
the price of an article could possibly be settled in a predictable way
by reference to the human construct within this economic frame. But
once we start trying to understand the nature of conflict - that is, a
situation involving not just interests (as disputes do), but human
needs, and the processes parties must go through in order to move
from an aggressive frame to a problem solving one - we have to try
to deal with the real person.
This study of conflict pays attention to human characteristics that
are ontological and universal. The approach removes the study from
anyone separate discipline, and removes it also from the bulk of
past thinking and past research.
It could well be that human needs theory as presently conceived is
as wide of the mark as the constructs of the past. Certainly, as these
contributions will demonstrate, we are at a very early stage in
discovering the real human person; but they do recognize that there
is a real person involved. Furthermore, they recognize that whether
conflict be within the family or within the international system, the
person is the same one in all cases; the person in the family is also
the person in the market place, as well as the person who as head of
state declares war, and the person who is the terrorist, and the person
who runs risks and makes a sacrifice for others. Once we try to
understand conflict we are in the world of political and social realities.
Introducing some tamed construct that conforms, that can be deterred
or incorporated by compromise, tells us little about the nature of
conflict and even less about what it takes to resolve it. This is why
human needs theory is our starting point.
Let us recall that at the week-long conference at which the authors
of these papers were present, there were two groups, those from
needs theory and those from conflict resolution. The frames of
reference were accordingly different. The needs theorists were