“Maslow’s Real Hierarchy” by Mike Kline

Note: Createquity’s original definition of a healthy arts ecosystem included references to self-actualization as one of the benefits of the arts. We weren’t sure about how self-actualization and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs were viewed in the research field, however, so we conducted a bit of due diligence to come to a stronger understanding. This work eventually led us to a large body of research on wellbeing, about which we published a feature article in August 2015.

These initial research reports were completed in 2014 by members of the Createquity editorial team. They are intended to give a sense of our (very) preliminary thoughts on the topic in question. We welcome discussion and debate. – IDM

A bit about our process

Rather than generating specific hypotheses regarding the relationship between self-actualization and the arts, we did a scan of existing literature on self-actualization, wellbeing, and identity to get a rough sense of possible answers to the following questions:

• How seriously do psychologists and social theorists take self-actualization today?
• If it does have currency today, does self-actualization have a generally accepted scientific meaning and if so, what is that meaning?
• What is the relationship between self-actualization and more “basic” needs? Is it possible to reach self-actualization without other needs having been met first?

After doing a preliminary “data dump” into Zotero, compiling articles and reports on Maslow’s theory of self-actualization and alternate theories, we paused to determine the best way to move forward. Falling down the rabbit hole of “Was Maslow right or not?” was tempting, but we decided to expand beyond self-actualization specifically while refocusing our energies in two broad areas: examining literature related to the arts and psychological wellbeing, and literature related to the arts and identity. We also each read a handful of articles that emerged during our initial scan and seemed to be particularly relevant.

Extent to which existing research addresses our research questions, and extent to which there seem to be areas of consensus and debate

We found a lot of literature on Maslow’s theory of self-actualization and its application to a range of disciplines (i.e. management theory, mental health). As noted above, whether or not Maslow was “correct” is still hotly contested. Wahba and Bridwell’s literature review of research on Maslow concludes that his theory has been generally disproven. That review, however, focused on research inside the workplace. Another seminal report, Tay and Diener’s “Needs and Subjective Well Being Around the World,” found there are specific categories of need that are consistent across cultures, and there is some suggestion of a needs “hierarchy” that is more fluid than Maslow suggested. They did not explicitly mention self-actualization in their survey, choosing instead of examine individuals’ feelings of mastery/pride in work, self-direction, and autonomy. However, in speaking about the study, one of its authors did refer to self-actualization, noting, “An important departure from Maslow’s theory is that we found that a person can report having good social relationships and self-actualization even if their basic needs and safety needs are not completely fulfilled.”

In short,  while the term continues to be bandied about with some regularity, there does not appear to be one agreed-upon definition of self-actualization and there is a lack of empirical support for Maslow’s hierarchy. In popular literature, Maslow’s pyramid is referred to “quaint and old-fashioned and badly in need of updating.” There is also another, more philosophical critique of the self-actualization idea that questions Maslow’s assumption of there being a stable Self that merely needs to be “actualized.” We didn’t find studies that directly take Maslow to task for this (and we may be  exaggerating his essentialism as we haven’t read his work ourselves), but it seems inherent in the way that postmodern theorists and identity studies scholars talk about identity formation.  From our vantage points as neophytes in psychological research, however, it appears that the concept of self-actualization has been folded into broader discussions of psychic wellbeing, and may be the cornerstone of the burgeoning field of “positive psychology,” which studies the conditions that make people happy as opposed to the conditions/symptoms of psychological distress.

Lacking an agreed-upon definition of what self-actualization is and how it can be achieved, we had difficulty moving forward on the majority of our other research questions. However, we did find a few tidbits here and there.  A rough summary of  questions and relevant notes follows:

• What is the relationship between self-actualization and overall life satisfaction? Have there been any studies looking at both?
  • A 2004 study by Vitterso argues that self-actualization and subjective wellbeing are two separate things. The author cites a lot of literature in outlining the two concepts. Interestingly, Vitterso doesn’t cite Maslow on self-actualization and indeed we’re not sure how closely Vitterso’s use of the term resonates with Maslow (Vitterso certainly isn’t interested in the hierarchy of needs). For Vitterso, SWB is a form of happiness that is related to “being” while self-actualization is related to “doing.” Without reading up on the literature that Vitterso cites, we can’t tell how/if “self-actualization” differs from a more general sense of “personal development.” Vitterso’s use of the term certainly seems to imply that its the process of self-actualization that is important (i.e. that makes people happy) rather than being self-actualized.  Vitterso concludes that “that traditional measurements of SWB are insensitive to important aspects of human lives, and that the concept misses important aspects of psychological well-being.”
  • Tay and Diener’s international survey of subjective wellbeing doesn’t mention self-actualization at all, but instead uses terms of self-direction and autonomy.

• What is the relationship between self-actualization and more “basic” needs? Is it possible to reach self-actualization without other needs having been met first?
  • From article on “Renovating the pyramid of needs”: The researchers state in the article that while self-actualization is interesting and important, it isn’t an evolutionarily fundamental need. Instead, many of the activities that Maslow labeled as self-actualizing (artistic creativity, for example) reflect more biologically basic drives to gain status, which in turn serves the goal of attracting mates.
  • Tay and Diener found that while there is some evidence of a consistent hierarchy across countries, it is indeed possible to fulfill “higher” needs first — i.e. to report strong social relationships and feelings of love and belonging without necessarily having all basic needs secured.

• How do scholars who specialize in self-actualization see the arts fitting in? What are examples of other pathways to self-actualization that don’t involve the arts
  • There doesn’t seem to be much research that addresses this specifically. (We found a few articles that purport to look at the relationship between a specific art form and self-actualization, but they did not not appear to be robust studies.) The closest parallel might be Mikhail Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of “flow,” which is frequently brought up in discussion of creativity and education. Flow is not specific to the arts, however; it can be achieved through any individual activity provided that activity triggers the right combination of passion and challenge in a given person.

• Do we have any idea how many people are self-actualized, whatever that means? How would one go about estimating this?
  • If the initial scan of the Vitterso study is correct, self-actualization doesn’t refer to a state which some people have reached and others haven’t, it refers to the a person’s relationship to a particular task/experience. Vitterso cites the theory of “flow” experiences which roughly states that people are most happy when they are challenged but able to fulfill the task.

Where do we go from here?

Unless we want to come up with our own definition of the term, self-actualization may be a dead end. However, further investigation of how psychologists and other researchers characterize subjective wellbeing, and the relationship between SWB and autonomy and creativity may be warranted. It may also be worth looking into how SWB manifests across communities, not just individuals — one critique of Maslow’s pyramid is that it is oriented to an individual’s experience at the expense of collective experience. Arts engagement cultivates both, and Tay and Diener’s work touches on how the attributes of a specific country or community can influence the likelihood of individuals reporting higher SWB.

Green Leaves – by Flickr user Thangaraj Kumaravel, Creative Commons license

(For the most up-to-date version of our healthy arts ecosystem definition, please see this page.)

At its core, Createquity is a research-based investigation of the most important issues in the arts and what we can do about them. That description sounds straightforward enough, but it belies a complicated dilemma: how can we decide what issues are most important? To guide us, we’ve invested quite a bit of time reflecting on what a healthy arts ecosystem looks like. This conception, and the gaps between that healthy arts ecosystem and the status quo, underlie all of our research and advocacy work.

Our definition of a healthy arts ecosystem is rooted in several core principles:

Improving Lives. In our view, a healthy arts ecosystem maximizes the arts’ capacity to improve the lives of human beings in concrete and meaningful ways. While the evidence base for the benefits of the arts is continually developing and evolving, we feel confident in our core operating assumption that participation in the arts offers value to a large majority of human beings, and that arts participation (especially more active forms of participation such as creation or performance) can in some cases be deeply consequential or even life-changing. The nature of these benefits is wide-ranging, and can be as fuzzy as acquiring new perspectives on the world or as concrete as more money in one’s bank account. In particular, we see the arts as a uniquely effective tool for many people in the pursuit of self-actualization (conceived in the popular sense as the drive to reach one’s highest potential). We also recognize that the arts have a role in addressing other human needs, such as health, safety, and belonging, and that participation by some people in the arts can impact others who do not participate directly – for example, by fostering tighter community relationships or creating new economic value.

Pluralism. Experience and research alike tell us that different people relate to the arts in vastly different ways across different contexts, and for that reason our approach focuses on matching individuals with the opportunities that are most appropriate for them. While we do not assume that everyone will or needs to benefit enormously from having the arts in their lives, we do believe that the only way to determine who can benefit the most is through widespread and varied exposure to the arts.

Net Benefit. Our approach considers the arts to be in dialogue with the rest of the world, and as such we do not consider participation in the arts to be its own justification. Depending on the situation and people involved, cultural products and experiences can provoke boredom, contempt, or worse; in other circumstances, their production and consumption can contribute to bigotry, inequality, and other social ills. Even when arts experiences are harmless, they may not always represent the best use of anyone’s time and resources – especially when such resources are scarce. We don’t ever want to be in the position of supporting the arts at the expense of the rest of society, and we don’t think the arts ecosystem can be considered healthy unless people’s lives really are being improved in concrete and meaningful ways as a result of their participation in it.

People, Not Institutions. Unlike many discussions of a healthy arts ecosystem that place a heavy emphasis on nonprofit institutions, our definition focuses almost exclusively on people. We make this choice because it is not hard to see how the interests of institutions and their allies could (and perhaps do, regularly) come into conflict with the interests of other elements of the ecosystem, including those of professional and nonprofessional artists, audience members, donors, and the broader community. By maintaining a consistent focus on people, we still recognize the value of institutions – but only insofar as they facilitate or make possible the all-important task of improving people’s lives in concrete and meaningful ways.

The Definition

With all that in mind, in a healthy arts ecosystem…

• Each human being today and in the future has an opportunity to participate in the arts at a level appropriate to his/her interest and skill:
  • “Common” opportunities (like participating as an audience member, getting a basic arts education or attending a class as an adult) are available to all
  • “Scarce” opportunities (like creating or performing art for a living) are available to those for whom it matters the most and who have the most to contribute
    • Who has the most to contribute?
      • People whose work connects to a large audience
      • People whose work wins unusual acclaim from experts
      • People whose work adds something unique to the cultural diet of humanity or whose culture is deeply marginalized in society
      • People whose work improves people’s lives in other concrete and meaningful ways
• The best possible mix of cultural products and experiences is available for the enjoyment, appreciation and use by human beings today and in the future
• Every opportunity is taken to improve the lives of human beings today and in the future through the arts, whenever the arts (alone or in combination with other practices) offer the most promising pathway for doing so
• Effective mechanisms or infrastructure exist as needed to help accomplish the above goals

Common vs. Scarce and Who Gets to Decide

This concept of “common” and “scarce” opportunities to participate in the arts is an invention of ours, and since it plays an important role in our healthy arts ecosystem we felt it would be useful to define it more completely. The notion of common and scarce opportunities proceeds from an acceptance of two realities: first, that we live in a world of limited resources, and second, that certain forms of participation in the arts require more of those resources than others. Opportunities that are easily provided (aka “common”) should be distributed widely, while more resource-intensive (aka “scarce”) participation opportunities should be concentrated to the extent possible with people who contribute or have the potential to contribute a lot of value through their artwork to the rest of society. To facilitate that idea, we’ve created a more detailed taxonomy outlining where various kinds of activities fall on the common vs. scarce spectrum.

Common – proactive steps should be taken to make opportunity available to all

• Participating at least once as an audience member in all arts disciplines
• Receiving basic exposure to the arts as a child in all arts disciplines
• Attending an arts class as an adult

A bit scarce – opportunity should be available to all, with the understanding that a minority will take the opportunity

• Exploring at least one arts discipline in depth during childhood
• Taking ongoing classes/lessons for one’s own enjoyment as an adult
• Participating regularly as an audience member, e.g. as a subscriber or superfan
• Informal curation such as remixing, maintaining a collection, etc.
• Creating or performing regularly in private

Scarce – opportunity should be available to as many as possible, with those who have the most to contribute receiving priority

• Participating in a pre-professional training program
• Creating or performing regularly for a public audience but not for money
• Creating or performing regularly as a side project or part-time job (part-time by choice)
• Having a public identity as an arts critic

Very scarce – opportunity should be concentrated with those who have the most to contribute

• Creating or performing art for a living
• Making a living as an arts critic

The notion of “the most to contribute” is likewise a new concept, and undoubtedly one with potential for controversy. We should stress that we are not proposing to put ourselves, or any other individual or group, in the sole position of deciding “who has the most to contribute” or what constitutes “the best possible mix of cultural products and experiences.” A close look at the definition reveals a dialogue between consumers writ large and the opinions of “experts” – meaning professional critics, artistic directors, knowledgeable fans, grantmakers, and others who regularly perform a curatorial role of some kind – in determining the composition of the “most to contribute” group. It’s important to recognize that this dialogue already exists in practice and that all we’re doing is putting a name to decision-making processes that happen every day all around us. Indeed, we would argue that every concept that’s described in our definition of a healthy arts ecosystem is also present in our current arts ecosystem – just perhaps not arranged or distributed in a way that serves everyone’s needs and interests as well as it could.

Scope Limitations and the Territory Ahead

Finally, we should close with a few caveats. The scope of our work at Createquity, and by extension our definition of a healthy arts ecosystem, is perhaps arbitrarily constrained in two ways. The first is that, after much debate, we have decided to use a conventional, discipline-based definition of arts and culture for the time being. The industry boundaries that include most of our audience can be described relatively simply as the confluence of the visual arts, dance, film and electronic media, music, theater, and literature, along with support structures for activities in those disciplines. A case can be made for expanding our definition more broadly to include creative pursuits in other fields like the culinary arts and various design fields, and/or mechanisms for cultural exchange such as humanities and heritage traditions that don’t involve one of the disciplines mentioned above. We’re not quite ready to do that, but it’s something we’ll continue to explore, and we feel reasonably confident that our definition of a healthy arts ecosystem can adapt to any such expansion. Second, Createquity’s primary focus is on the arts in the United States. While we are interested in developments and conversations in arts and culture around the globe, we don’t want to pretend that we know more about the international context than we actually do. Again, this is a decision for now rather than forever, and we will give consideration to opportunities to expand our focus as they may come up.

We know this definition of a healthy arts ecosystem won’t necessarily resonate with everyone. Nevertheless, we’ve tried very hard to design it to be capable of speaking for as many people as possible, and are eager to improve it in any way we can. We consider this definition a living document and welcome critical feedback and debate, either on specific details or the entire premise. We plan to pose some of our open questions to our Createquity Insider feed, and asking good questions or pointing out things we haven’t thought of yet are both great ways to get invited to join our editorial team. And we’re always grateful to be made aware of opportunities to explain our thinking more clearly. We look forward to hearing from you!