C05 General Principle

Which do you think is more likely?

Some needs cannot be legitimate since they cannot be resolved with what’s available.

OR

The necessity to function always occurs without regard for what it requires to function.

Anankelogy

No unchosen need clashes with another unchosen need. Every natural need exists within the functioning individual. It is impossible for the inner reality of any need to compete against the inner reality of a different need.

In the painof the moment from an unresolved need, we can judge too quickly that some need cannot be addressed because of another need requiring the same limited resource. But this shifts from natural needs to a chosen response to such needs.

In the language of anankelogy, core needs do not clash, while resource needs might clash, and access needs for that resource clash all the time. But the inner homeostatic imbalance experienced as a core need always occurs without regard to any outward resource.

Sure, the right resource can resolve the need so you no longer feel it. But the inner reality of that need does not wait on what resource you use to pacify it. Anankelogy recognizes how every inward requirement to function exists independent of every other inward requirement to function.

Need-response

Need-response meticulously distinguishes between unchosen needs and chosen responses to those needs. The more you expect others to adjust something they cannot change, the further you drag yourself needlessly into a conflict.

No unchosen need clashes with other unchosen needs. Keep proper focus of any dispute or disagreement exclusively on chosen responses to such needs. Or risk provoking more problems and pain.

Reactive Problem

Need-response identifies the widespread problem of what it calls need-response conflation. That’s when we fail to distinguish between inflexible natural needs or unchosen needs and flexible or chosen responses to them.

Most conflicts and most wars between groups or nations involve this problem of need-response conflation. You can see this in commentary about the Hamas-Israeli conflict. Emotionally charged pundits claim it is a false moral equivalencyto compare the deaths of Israeli citizens by Hamas attackers with the deaths of Palestinian civilians from the IDF’s reaction.

We can question the actions of either side. But cannot legitimately questions the inner needs that prompted such behavior. Many influential people show themselves complicit in overlooking this vital difference between reacting to unresolved needs and the objective fact of the needs themselves that cannot be easily changed.

Too many misapply the critique of “bothsidesism” or false balance by conflating unchosen needs with chosen responses. That easily leads to double standards, hypocrisy and selfish rationalizing. You can spot this problem of conflation when indulgent side-taking replaces any empathyfor each other’s unchosen needs.

Responsive Solution

Anankelogy cuts through the myopic arguments on either side, about human shields or colonizing occupiers, to first affirm the unchosen needs on all sides. Anankelogy affirms all life as morally equal in value. Any civilian death on one side is equally abhorrent as any civilian death on the other side. Indeed, anankelogy asserts that any loss of life in a violent conflict is objectively equivalent.

Individuals of either side experience the same inflexible needs. Both Israelis and Palestinians do not choose to require freedom from harm to fully function. Both Hamas-represented Palestinians and Likud-represented Israelis naturally need security and self-determination.

Each side can choose how to respond to those needs. But no one can choose to have or not have the needs themselves. Have you ever tried to stop needing any security? Or tried to no longer require the freedom to determine your own destiny?

As you would have others affirm your unchosen needs in a conflict, need-response encourages you affirm the unchosen needs of those you oppose. Opposing what another inflexibly needs does not extinguish a moral conflict, but risks enflaming it. You don’t choose your needs; your needs choose you.

Need-response applies the familiar business communication format of the “praise sandwich” to ensure this distinction is made in a conflict.

• Positive news: Affirm any identifiable unchosen needs. “I recognize how you must follow the rules to avoid rejection from your boss.”

• Negative news: Bring up how their chosen responses affect your unchosen needs. “I need you to see how your apparent misapplication of the rules could cost me my job.”

• Positive news: Continue building rapport for mutual understanding. “The more you respect my need for job security, the easier it can be for me to preserve your acceptance by your boss.”

When faithfully applied, you can recast almost any conflict from an obstacle into an ownable challenge. And turn almost any conflict from such a challenge into a growth opportunity.

The more you affirm the unchosen needs of others, the more inclined they will be to affirm yours. You should then be able to observe a decline in animosities, and a flowering of more peace and love.

Responding to your needs

How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these:

• Is seems possible and sometimes likely to confuse a chosen response with its unchosen need.

• How can we get elites and influential powerholders to appreciates this difference?

• I’m sure there’s a lot more that sparks conflicts that this need-response conflation.

• It seems my actions could change an unchosen needs, adding an element of choice.

Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below.