Evolutionary theorists reason that human beings, like other organisms, are designed by selection to reproduce. Does that imply that anyone aspiring toward creative and artistic excellence is doing the wrong thing, and should instead go forth and multiply?
A paper published in a recent issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science suggested that Maslow’s pyramid of needs ought to be renovated, to take into account later theory and research in neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. I described the basic features of the renovation in an earlier blog: Rebuilding Maslow’s hierarchy on an evolutionary foundation. I also responded to some initial misunderstandings in another blog, Self-actualization dethroned: Did we murder Maslow’s sacred cow? As I noted, we were neither denying people experience “higher” strivings (such as desires to create art or music, or reach a higher philosophical understanding), nor claiming that those higher strivings are accompanied by conscious ruminations about showing off our brilliance to attract the opposite sex.
But a more recent and widely distributed press release generated a new round of misunderstandings, some accompanied by anger. The latest fury is fueled by the perception that, by putting “parental care” at the top of the renovated hierarchy, we are implying that it is somehow “good” to have children, and conversely, “bad” not to. Based on that perception, my coauthors and I have been branded as homophobic conservatives, and champions of population growth.
On the one hand, you shouldn’t get your blood pressure up, and waste time writing an articulate (or even inarticulate) “rebuttal” to a scientific paper after just reading the press release. But on the other hand, maybe it's natural to respond to press releases without doing further research. Because I don’t want to unnecessarily contribute to increasing people’s blood pressure, I’ll try to root out the source of the problem, and correct it.
Aspirations versus Pinnacles
Here’s where I think the misunderstanding lies: Maslow’s goal of self-actualization was seen as something to which we should all aspire. This fit with his humanistic inclination to emphasize higher ideals. Indeed, Maslow chose an elite set of highly accomplished, highly sensitive people to demonstrate what he meant by self-actualization. That's all nice, and it's part of why we love Maslow.
But Maslow also believed that the goals in his hierarchy were human universals, and that they unfolded in a particular developmental order. Our renovation is concerned with those assumptions. Based on inclusive fitness theory, we argued that human motives are, like all psychological mechanisms, designed to facilitate reproduction, and that Maslow largely overlooked that. Based on research and theory on evolutionary life history theory, we argued that, developmentally, parenting is the goal at the top. This means parenting goals will come to the fore only after other social and reproductive goals have been accomplished. But in our renovated pyramid, the pinnacle is NOT designed to be aspirational.
So we are NOT saying that everyone should aspire to have as many children as they can, or even to have any children at all. My personal belief is that the world is already more than sufficiently overpopulated (and as I pointed out in another blog, I’m one of those darned Sierra Club types who thinks unchecked population growth is bad for what’s left of the planet). So, if you’ve chosen to be childless, or if you’re exclusively homosexual, Bravo for your contribution to slowing population growth. And by all means, please use your free time to self-actualize—to write music, to create art, or better yet, work for world peace or population control. As Sonja Lyubormirsky and other positive psychologists have pointed out, having children would just add to your stress, and not make you happy anyway.
The naturalistic fallacy comes naturally, but it's still fallacious
When people hear evolutionary analyses of behavior, they often fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy— the idea that “natural” = “good.” Maybe this makes sense when you think about “natural foods” or “natural scenery.” But here are some other natural things—wasps that paralyze their hosts and lay their eggs inside (allowing the larvae can eat their way out), viruses that slip through people’s immune systems, male lions that cannibalize the young offspring of previously dominant males when they take over a new group. Don’t use those examples to presume that I’m now saying that parenting is therefore bad. An evolutionary perspective is a way to understand all aspects of nature, not judge them. And this isn’t a new spin, we’ve been saying that for decades, as we've studied aspects of human nature about which people often have strong moral feelings. The moral feelings themselves also serve adaptive functions, and sometimes its good to exercise them. Just don’t waste them on half understood press releases.
If you want to read the actual article and thoughtful set of commentaries:
Kenrick, D.T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S.L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 292–314.
Ackerman, J.M., & Bargh, J.A. (2010). The purpose-driven life: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 323–326.
Kesebir, S., Graham, J., & Oishi, S. (2010). A theory of human needs should be human-centered, not animal-centered: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 315–319.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Boehm, J.K. (2010). Human motives, happiness, and the puzzle of parenthood: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 327–334.
Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2010). What happened to self-actualization? Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 320–322.
Schaller, M., Neuberg, S.L., Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D.T. (2010). Pyramid power. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 335–337.
Related posts:
Rebuilding Maslow’s hierarchy on an evolutionary foundation.
Self-actualization dethroned: Did we murder Maslow’s sacred cow?
