Apologies for the slip of the finger. Unfortunately I cannot edit the post – this is up to the editor of this blog. [Editor's Note: Fixed. Not sure how one 'Man-Neef' slipped into a sea of 'Max-Neef', but it did!]

I like the way you analyse the difference between the two approaches – static and dynamic. As you say I don’t think they are opposite approaches.

I don’t think they identify exactly the same needs: Max-Neef’s leisure doesn’t appear in Maslow’s list on my reading. (A difference between Latin and Anglo culture? I’m an Australian, a culture which is decidedly Anglo in some ways.)

Thanks very much for your comment.

I don’t think they are necessarily opposite approaches. I do believe Maslow’s theory tends to create this feeling of “restriction”, when saying that you need to satisfy lower level needs in order to move up in the pyramid. However, I believe the key to this difference is the perspective they are both based on.
Max-Neef (not MAN-Neef, please correct that in your post) analyzes the human behaviour in a continuous period of time. During that continuous, low and high level needs are satisfied at the same time. However Maslow sees it in an “instant”. If you take a photo of my needs, right now, you can classify them hierarchically. Some will be more important than others, of course.

Maslow’s analysis is static, Max-Neef’s is dynamic. And like Carol noted, they identify the same needs.

Best,
Pablo, from Argentina.

I like your critique of Maslow very much. I hope you like Max-Neef.

Hi Caroljeanwk,
I’m sure you’re right (in my experience) about identity and transcendence. I hadn’t thought of the link between leisure and the sabbath, very true though.

Hi Diane,
For me too. I couldn’t see myself being satisfied with working, eating, sleeping.

Thank you all for extremely valuable comments.

Yes! I think self-actualization and self-trancendance are important to my life. They are what make life worth living.

When I first read Maslow’s hierarchy it was distressing. Actually, it’s still distressing because I wasn’t fitting the mold. It was as if he said to me you have to get all this stuff done, accomplished and well-established and then and only then will you be able to move on to self-actualizing. The thought of giving up before I started was in effect handed to me.

What I found in my own life is there is not only not this order to things, the order changes for all kinds of reasons, intermingles, one affects another, etc., whether I like it or don’t. There is inevitability, times when I seem to have no control.

Yes, I can force the hierarchy, and have, even continue to attempt it, but at the same time it makes me a slave to it. With almost the guarantee I won’t get to the sought after increments in the ‘upper three’ portions. All my energy could possibly be usurped by maintaining my wealth or some other pursuit in the lower levels. Or even just a combination of concentration in only those areas. It is definitely about a delicate balance, to suit my own being, where I have to dance with different partners almost simultaneously or at least with seamless transition.

I never read anything by or about Man-Neef’s list, but it does seem my view may be closer to his. I’ll take a look. Thanks.