To understand ourselves as individuals, a good place to start is to examine what other people have already said on the subject of human beings more widely.

Understanding the human condition has been a topic for many of the world’s great thinkers for hundreds of years and even longer. We have already heard the view of one philosopher in the quote from Socrates.

In more recent times a more objective scientific approach has been adopted and a number of theories have been put forward for what drives and motivates us as human beings. We will begin by examining a selection of these key theories to see if there are any conclusions we can draw from the different disciplines.

From a physiological, evolutionary perspective all human beings, like other animals are driven by evolution to pass on their genetic code to the next generation – to reproduce. You will have heard of Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest, where each animal or species competes with the other for limited resources. The weakest die out whilst the strongest survive and they are then able to pass on their genes to the next generation. So evolution favours those that adapt to their environment the best – and when the best interests of the individual animal coincides with the best interests of the group, the group survives as well.

This could lead you to believe that competing, fighting and putting yourself first is the natural way of things – yet this does not really explain how human society’s work. There is clearly altruism operating in society where one person looks after another, rather than everyone always acting in their own narrow self-interest, so maybe there’s a piece of the story missing.

Dawkins

In 1976 the scientist Richard Dawkins famously talked about evolution and his ideas of what motivates us in his book The Selfish Gene. In it he argues that it is not the human being that wants to reproduce so much as the gene that wants to ensure it continues to exist beyond the lifetime of the human that it inhabits.

At a simple level one might assume that once you have got past the age of reproducing, evolution has no more need for you and you are thrown on the scrapheap – in effect your purpose for living ends once your children are sufficiently grown to be independent and have “flown the nest”.

Richard Dawkins however has a much more interesting and illuminating insight about the selfish gene. He was curious to explain why altruistic behaviour exists, not just in humans but in the wider animal kingdom. The conclusion was that it is not the individual animal that wants to reproduce (although they clearly do), at a deeper level it is as if the gene wants to ensure its survival. So in a family or close community – a tribe – there is a willingness to be altruistic and support others at the expense of themselves to increase the chances of the shared genetic code surviving and getting passed on.

There is a common misconception that the “selfish gene” means that we are all programmed to be selfish – that is almost the exact opposite of what he is saying, the gene is selfish for itself and will sacrifice the human it inhabits for ensure its survival, it is not that it drives the individual human to be selfish.

We are designed to be in a community, to live in tribes and ensure that it – and the genetic code within it – survives. Survival is not just for our own individual sake, or for the sake of those around us because we want to survive comfortably, but altruism is literally in our DNA. Relating to others and supporting others is a natural – and evolutionary necessary – aspect of our human nature.

Most people would tend to assume that the only driver of evolution at an individual level is to reproduce and to have children. Richard Dawkins suggests that this not quite it – as supporting the families and tribes is in the selfish gene’s best interests, i.e. supporting the environment where children can be born and flourish is also a key driver of human nature.

The psychologists’ view

Freud and Jung

Psychology has constantly tried to understand what motivates us. For example Sigmund Freud, the renowned German psychoanalyst, introduced the concept of the unconscious mind, where many human motivations exist, hidden from conscious awareness –  and bringing those into consciousness was   one of the main objectives of psychoanalysis. Freud proposed the idea that the main motivator in the unconscious was the libido.

His student, Carl Jung, also a psychoanalyst, developed different theories. For Jung the purpose of life was about “individuation” – becoming fully ourselves, a movement towards the ideal of wholeness. As Jung said – “the privilege of a lifetime is to become who you truly are.”

It is this approach that which underlies a great deal of personal growth and development – there is potential in people which can be released and developed. “Finding yourself” is neither automatic not easy, it is however to Jung the core purpose of a human life.

Maslow

In 1943 Abraham Maslow developed a theory of motivation based on looking at well developed people, as opposed to the psychologists who studies people who are not in a mentally healthy state. His theory suggested that there are a range of needs that each person is motivated to meet and this “hierarchy of needs” .

The idea is that each person needs to satisfy the most basic needs before proceeding up the hierarchy. At the lowest, most basic level, people are motivated by physiological needs – food, water, shelter and sleep for example. Then they are motivated by safety – the absence of threat. For example this could include being part of a family, having an income and a safe place to live – in Western society this is more around psychological safety than physical safety.

Third comes love and belonging, which introduces emotional and inter-personal needs which are absent from the first two levels. This could include building friendships and establishing a family, being in relationship with other individuals and groups. People are motivated by an absence of a feeling of love and belonging.

Fourth comes esteem and self-esteem which derive from achievement or mastery in some form. Esteem from others comes the recognition received from external achievements. This can lead to desires for fame, status and prestige, perhaps found through a profession or hobby. Self-esteem, or self-respect is derived from the satisfaction of achieving something, like a certain level of competence or knowledge in something. The respect arises internally rather than being dependent upon an external person.

Maslow suggests that when all these needs have been met, then a fifth need arises, the need for self- actualisation. This is the idea of becoming oneself fully, to fulfil one’s potential and become “everything that one is capable of becoming”. How this expresses itself is by definition unique to the individual and could be anything from art to understanding, and from peace to living up to an ideal. This is about what gives meaning and purpose to our lives.

There is much debate about this model and not all needs will sit in this hierarchy for everyone and different societies may experience some of the needs in a different order, but the overall message is clear.

The concept of self-actualisation echoes and is consistent with the work of Jung – individuation and self-actualisation amount to much the same thing. The key point is that what ultimately drives us in life is personal development. This is an ongoing process and “finding yourself” is the result of this positive growth tendency that both cite.

Maslow suggests that the self-actualising person is more integrated, happier and more contented, more able to take responsibility and better able to relate to others. Understanding yourself and relating to others go hand in hand.
             

The management theorists’ view

A third lense through which to look at what motivates us is the study of what motivates people at work. Modern management theory started during the industrial revolution with a focus on how to make labour more productive, i.e. how to motivate employees to work harder and produce more in the same time. We will briefly examine two theories from this perspective, from McGregor and Herzberg.

McGregor

In the 1960s, Douglas McGregor proposed that staff could be motivated differently depending upon the attitude that they brought to work. He came up with two types of employee, theory X and theory Y. Theory X employees generally dislike work and are motivated by external pressure from their managers and the money that they will take home at the end of the day. They are not motivated by the work itself, but by external factors (extrinsic motivation). Managers who assume that their employees are theory X (or who perhaps are theory X themselves) will attempt to motivate their staff through target-setting, close supervision, reward (usually money) and blaming them when things go wrong.

Theory Y employees on the other hand are motivated by the work itself and derive satisfaction from doing a good job (intrinsic motivation). Managers who have this understanding of their staff are likely to motivate by giving more challenging work, creating a climate of trust and giving recognition of a job well done.

The parallel with Maslow is striking. Theory X is similar to those motivated by the lower of Maslow’s hierarchies and Theory Y assumes that staff are motivated by the higher levels.

Herzberg

In 1959 Frederick Herzberg proposed that there were factors in the workplace that created employee satisfaction and factors which created dissatisfaction. These he labelled “motivators” and “hygiene factors”. The key point is that hygiene factors only create dissatisfaction, not satisfaction and do not in themselves motivate, whilst motivators need to be in place to positively motivate staff.

So hygiene factors include things such as working conditions, relationships with the boss and with colleagues, security and salary. Money here is not a motivator,  but a perceived lack or underpayment  is demotivating.

Motivators include things such as the work itself, achievement, recognition, advancement and growth.

Again it is striking how these echo the Maslow approach – the lower order needs cease to be relevant when they are met and are not motivators, whilst esteem and self-actualisation are motivating.

Conclusion

Deep within our DNA there is an altruistic drive to support the group which demonstrates how important relating to others is. What motivates us as individuals starts with the basic needs such as food and shelter. After that our main motivating factors are relating to others, being ourselves and developing to fulfil our potential.

Finding and understanding yourself is not simply an interesting pastime for the few, it is an intrinsic need in all of us.

However we are not all at the same stage of this development and there does seem to be a journey through different levels of needs and development that we tend to travel through. We will now examine some of the main priorities in the typical stages of life.