Soc (2017) 54:530–532
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-017-0183-0
SYMPOSIUM: REVISITING MASLOW: HUMAN NEEDS IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Be Yourself! How Am I Not myself?
II. Society and Politics: Between Essentialist and Existentialist Authenticity
1,2
Uriel Abulof
Published online: 18 October 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017
Abstract Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs is mostly ani-
malistic; only self-actualization is uniquely human. Yet even
this token of Bhuman exceptionalism^ is hampered by sub-
scribing to essentialist, rather than existentialist, authenticity.
If the former is just about recovering an innate, latent, core, it
robs humans of their freedom to (re)create who they are. If we
dare to choose, we cannot but be ourselves.
Keywords Maslow . Human needs . Self-actualization .
Authenticity . Essentialism . Existentialism
The tension between godlike and doglike qualities runs
through Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs. On
the one hand, Maslow (1954: 27) stresses that Bmotivation
theory must be anthropocentric rather than
animalcentric.^ On the other hand, his theory erects a
largely animalistic pyramid, crowned with a human
apex: BMan’s higher nature rests upon man’s lower na-
ture, needing it as a foundation and collapsing without
this foundation… Our godlike qualities rest upon and
need our animal qualities^ (Maslow 1999[1962]: 163, 164).
All animals seek survival and safety, and many animals,
especially mammals, also invest effort in belonging and
gaining esteem. In this manner, man to man is indeed a wolf
– wanting to be part of the pack, respected by peers, and rivals.
* Uriel Abulof
uriel@tau.ac.il; uabulof@princeton.edu
1
Department of Political Science, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
2
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Woodrow Wilson
School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ, USA
The first four of Maslow’s classical five rungs feature nothing
exceptionally human. But what about the fifth and highest
need for Bself-actualization^ – is it human or animalistic?
The answers Maslow and contemporary societies have given
to this question reveal much about modernity and its discon-
tent. At the heart of both are the idea and ideal of authenticity.
Authenticity, literally genuineness, registers the self’s
move from esteem (knowing you are respected) to actualiza-
tion (knowing who you are and acting accordingly). The latter
strongly resonates with the famous instruction by the Oracle
of Delphi, BKnow thyself,^ which may have meant this: Don’t
just settle for telling your story, connecting your identity to the
here and now, to yourself and others, to then and there.
Become aware of it. Get to know the story, so you can both
defend it and reflect upon it, be able to justify – or refute – it.
Have we followed the Oracle’s instruction? Perhaps, but
we may have added another imperative, inspired by the
Oracle of Brooklyn (Maslow, our subject herein): don’t mere-
ly know thyself – be thyself. A Google ngram indicates the
dramatic rise, since the 1960s, in relative frequency of this
modern command: in books, Hollywood films, commercials,
and daily conversations, we advise, even order: be yourself!
(Fig. 1).
One word captures this modern imperative: authenticity.
But what does Bauthenticity^ mean, and what have been its
social roles?
The search for authenticity is a hallmark of romantic mo-
dernity. Romanticists since the late eighteenth century pre-
scribed intuition, emotion and a return to nature as a necessary
corrective, even an antidote, to Enlightenment’s Bcold^ reason
(Engell 1981). The socio-political implications have been im-
mense. Authenticity meshes the private with the public. The
individual may self-actualize, occasionally self-sacrifice, for
the survival, safety and esteem – of the collective. Thus, the
transient individual may seek transcendence by adhering
Soc (2017) 54:530–532
Fig. 1 Google books ngram viewer: Bbe yourself,^ 1800–2008
to the nation, embedding the mortal individual in the
(symbolically) immortal body politic (Abulof 2015). On its
part, the collective may self-actualize by ensuring individual
needs – the nation sheltering its members from the lurking
dangers within and without.
Authenticity, however, is elusive. Its calling – being true to
oneself – deceivingly conceals the deep chasms between its
divergent interpretations. After all, what is the Bself^ that au-
thenticity speaks of, and what constitutes truthfulness to it?
Two interpretations are especially relevant: essentialist and
existentialist authenticity.
Essentialist authenticity, by far the more popular of the two,
calls upon us to find and follow our destiny, to align our
thoughts and conduct with our innate nature, our inborn core
(Milnes and Sinanan 2010). Essentialist authenticity resonates
with both the individual and the collective. Self-discovery
should guide the former; loyalty, the latter. Individuals ought
to peel layers of masks to reveal what lies at the heart of their
personality and then answer its call. But humans are social,
and belonging to the group is an essential component of es-
sentialist authenticity. To be true to yourself, you neednot only
to discover, and follow, your private core, but your collective
core too – to Btrust the tribe,^ and be loyal to it. The alternative
is, of course, inauthenticity: a failure to realize that Btrue self,^
a horrible lie that turns your life into a sham, a betrayal of
yourself and your group. To wit, essentialism is not determin-
ism; there is an essence one ought to find and cherish, but
many do not.
Existentialism offers a different take on authenticity
(Golomb 1995). Submitting that Bexistence precedes es-
sence,^ Sartre (2007 [1945]) strongly rejected the notion that
we are born with a certain innate nature, either individual or
collective, to which we must adhere. Unlike a paper knife, for
example, which is first mentally conceived, and only then
manufactured, a godless universe does not instill in humans
any preordained essence, which they can (let alone should)
find and follow. Instead, existentialist authenticity prescribes
Bdetermine your destiny!^ If there is any innate core it is a
universal one that all humans share: the freedom to choose,
531
and existentialist authenticity urges all people to become
aware, indeed often painfully aware, of their freedom to
choose their own path, which may, but need not, join that of
others. While essentialists search for signs of self-betrayal,
existentialists defiantly ask, BHow am I not myself?^ and an-
swer: when I forget my freedom, when I surrender to Bbad
faith,^ and believe I have no choice. Otherwise, my choices –
whatever they might be – constitute me.
Importantly, essential and existential authenticities are not
diametrically opposed, and for many they often mesh. This is
especially so since both readings of authenticity are anchored
in a sense of identity, resonating with Bontological security,^
coined by Giddens (1991: 54) to signify protective identity
patterns. BA person’s identity is found neither in behaviour
nor in the reactions of others, but in the capacity to keep a
particular narrative going,^ and so we tell ourselves stories
that connect us to ourselves and to others and help us face
various challenges, abundantly populating the modern era.
Our ontological security boosts our self-esteem and mit-
igates our fears and anxieties, particularly about mortality
(Giddens 1991: 35). We may, however, lose confidence in our
identity. Gradual or sudden attacks on our identities, through
both changing circumstances and reflective processes, may
produce Bfateful moments^ that unearth the dormant
anxiety and foster ontological insecurity, undermining
our sense of self.
What sort of identity can help us keep our sense of self?
Here again we see divergence. Essentialist authenticity sees
individual and social identities as predetermined wellsprings
of expressions one needs to tap into. Existentialism regards
identities themselves as manifestations of such creative ex-
pressions – you are what you make of yourself, not what
you were made of. With essentialist authenticity, the Delphic
maxim BKnow thyself^ acquires a sense of epistemic
realization of an ontological base; with existentialist au-
thenticity, it becomes phenomenological, an experience
of choice in an ongoing, critical, inner dialogue. With
essentialism, there is a path for you to follow; with
existentialism, you create your own path.
532
Which of the two was Maslow closer to? Though he clearly
held existential sensibilities, I believe Maslow ultimately
resorted, and helped popularize, the essentialist version. He
held that the Bself-actualization^ need, read authenticity, sur-
faces only once our animalistic, basic, needs are met.
Authenticity then transpires when Bthe individual is doing
what he is fitted for,^ fulfilling Bthe desire… to become ev-
erything that one is capable of becoming^ (Maslow 1943:
380–382). While lauding this higher need, Maslow (1971:
231) posits that just one-percentage of people actually seek,
let alone attain, it; for others, Bthe higher-need levels would be
mostly at the level of esteem and self-esteem.^
Moreover, even for this exceptional minority, it is unclear
how distinctively human the actualizing Bself^ is. The latter,
after all, constitutes Ban inner, more biological, more
instinctoid core of human nature,^ thus Bthe search for one’s
own intrinsic, authentic values^ checks the human freedom of
choice: BA musician must make music^ (Maslow 1943: 382),
so freedom is limited to merely the choice of instrument
(Maslow 1999 [1962]: 165). It seems the burden of
freedom overwhelmed even Maslow, the pioneer of pos-
itive psychology. Perhaps Bbad faith^ better suits us after
all?
Essentialist authenticity seems to be winning, as we con-
tinuously substitute the autonomous, capital BI^ with the cap-
italist chase of yet another iWhatever, which promises a more
authentic, thus happier, self. Essentialist authenticity also per-
meates our politics. The rise of populism – speaking in the
name of the authentic people against enemies from within and
without – is a clear case in point. And yet, where there is
freedom, there is hope.
I have witnessed these dynamics in my home country,
Israel. From its outset, Zionism sought to actualize itself by
ensuring the survival and safety of Jews, and by giving them a
sense of belonging and esteem; and Zionists have partially
realized themselves by building the Jewish state, securing it,
trying to make it a respectable member of Bthe family of na-
tions.^ Throughout, some have searched for an inherent core
of the collective self, one can either be loyal to, or traitor of;
others have sought to legitimate Zionism by making the
Jewish state a conscious choice, constructing a moral case
for it (Abulof 2017).
All this suggests that human needs, high or low, do not
exhaust human motivations. To grasp what drives us, as dis-
tinctively human, we must go beyond needs, to probe creeds
and greed: beliefs about right and wrong, and the desire to
have more than what one needs. The three, we may discover,
interplay. There is no greed that creed cannot turn into need:
money, territories, or wi-fi—can all be narrated as part of what
we need. The stories we tell ourselves and others about what
would help us survive, become safe, belong, gain esteem, and
realize ourselves—these stories of human nature—partake in
creating our reality, and our politics.
Soc (2017) 54:530–532
Nietzsche (2005: 199) famously opined that BDarwin for-
got about the mind,^ but may not have read his works. Darwin
(1981 [1871]) actually did pay attention to human exception-
alism. But we have not always followed suit. We do not al-
ways grasp that human evolution is not merely about Bnatural
selection,^ but about human selection too, that the Bsurvival of
the fittest^ suits those who need to adapt to their environment,
rather than those who have adapted the environment to their
needs, or to what they consider them to be. In the evolution of
our species, offspring of humans, fast enough to flee from fire,
have survived, but so have descendants of humans who
learned how to make fire, using it to scare other animals and
roast their flesh.
Further Reading
Abulof, U. 2015. The Mortality and Morality of Nations. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Abulof, U. 2017. Conscientious Politics and Israel’s Moral Dilemmas.
Contemporary Politics, 23(1): 34-52.
Darwin, C. 1981 [1871]. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation
to Sex. Princeton, N.J:Princeton University Press.
Engell, J. 1981. The Sreative Imagination: Enlightenment to
Romanticism. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the
Late Modern Age. Stanford, Calif:Stanford University Press.
Golomb, J. 1995. In Search of Authenticity: From Kierkegaard to Camus.
New York:Routledge.
Maslow, A. H. 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological
review, 50(4), 370–396.
Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and Personality (First ed., ). New York:
Harper & Row.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1999 [1962]. Toward a Psychology of Being. 3rd
ed. cNew York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Maslow, A. H. 1971. The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York:
Viking Press.
Milnes, Tim, and Kerry Sinanan, eds. 2010. Romanticism, Sincerity, and
Authenticity. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Nietzsche, F. W. 2005. The Anti-Christ,Ece Homo, Twilight of the Idols,
and Other Writings. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Sartre, J.-P. 2007 [1945]. Existentialism Is a Humanism. New Haven:Yale
University Press.
Uriel Abulof is a Senior Lecturer (US Associate Professor) of Politics at
Tel-Aviv University and a non-resident fellow at LISD/Princeton
University. His recent books include The Mortality and Morality of
Nations (Cambridge University Press, 2015) and Living on the Edge:
The Existential Uncertainty of Zionism (Haifa University Press, 2016),
which received Israel’s best academic book award (Bahat Prize). Abulof
is the recipient of the 2016 Young Scholar Award in Israel Studies, and
studies political legitimation, existentialism, social movements, national-
ism and ethnic conflicts. His articles have appeared in journals such as
International Studies Quarterly, International Political Sociology,
Nations and Nationalism, British Journal of Sociology, European
Journal of International Relations, Ethnic and Racial Studies and
International Politics.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.