interpreted need: A term developed throughout this book to refer to needs that are constructed or attributed to the human individual by practical interpretation. Interpreted needs may be established by observation or analysis, or through claims or demands, but they are established or articulated concretely, or from the bottom-up.
material need: Best understood as an alternative or synonym for ‘substantive need’, though the term may be used more specifically to refer specifically to the material substances upon which human life depends.
mental need: A term applied to psychological or mental health needs or the inner needs of the noumenal self in contrast to the ‘physical needs’ of the human body.
natural need: May be used as a synonym for ‘material need’ to refer to human beings’ needs for the products of nature, but more usually as an ‘inherent need’ definition premised upon normative or teleological assumptions about what constitutes human nature.
normative need: A term used to refer to needs determined by the normative judgement of policy makers, administrators or experts, including scientific experts and especially welfare professionals, such as doctors and other health professionals, teachers and social workers.
objective need: A term most often used to denote the opposite of ‘subjective’ need and which refers to needs that are externally verifiable or scientifically observable.
ontological need: The things we need in order to maintain our individual identity, self-awareness and sense of meaningful being. Ontological need may be contrasted with ‘existential’ need, which refers to what we need merely to exist in a material sense.
particular need: A term accorded a specific meaning in this book and which refers to need that is thinly conceived but theorised to be inherent to the human subject. For policy purposes, what people are assumed to need is defined in terms of their objective individual interests and the opportunities they need in order to compete as freely choosing economic actors.
physical need: Meaning much the same as terms such as ‘vital’, ‘somatic’, ‘physiological’ or ‘viscerogenic need’, alluding to the needs of the human body.
real need: A term that is commonly but loosely used, sometimes to mean ‘true’ need but sometimes ‘substantive’ need.
relational need: Used with reference to human beings’ needs for human contact, interaction, belonging and/or love.
relative need: Most often used to denote the opposite of ‘absolute’ need. The term refers to needs that are not fixed, but which are determined in relation to the climatic, socio-economic and cultural conditions in which the human subject lives. The things required to satisfy ‘intermediate’ needs are by definition relative. When relative need is unmet we speak of relative poverty or relative deprivation.
social need: A term that is commonly but loosely used as a way of distinguishing between the needs that pertain strictly to individuals and needs that are a matter of social concern: a distinction which in practice – as Titmuss observed – is hard to sustain. But the term can also be used to refer to cultural needs.
spiritual need: A term that may have either religious or secular connotations. In a religious context it refers to a need for support in the observation of particular rituals or practices and in the sustenance of belief. In a secular context, it refers to the need to realise the ‘spiritual’ essence of one’s humanity (which does not necessarily equate with the ‘material species’ essence proposed by Marx).
subjective need: A term most often used to denote the opposite of ‘objective’ need and which refers to the needs people think, believe or feel they have, whether they be ‘true’ or ‘false’. Subjective need, though it is founded on individual experience, is assumed by classical economists, for example, to be objectively observable through the preferences people exercise.
substantive need: A term that addresses the substance rather than the process of needing. It is generally used to signify actually existing or ‘real’ need and to capture the sense in which the needs referred to are not merely abstract or theoretical in nature.
technical need: Need that is technically created, through the invention of some new or more effective form of good. The term is most commonly used in the healthcare context to refer to forms of medical intervention that can relieve conditions not previously treatable.
thick need: This term has been accorded particular significance for the purposes of this book and is used to refer to needs that are optimally defined and that include the things that may be necessary for a person truly to flourish and to share a good life.
thin need: This term has been accorded particular significance for the purposes of this book and is used to refer to needs that are minimally defined but which include the things that are necessary for a person, with dignity, to achieve pleasure and avoid pain.
true need: Opposite of ‘false’ need. But what is true, of course, depends on one’s point of view, so the term may be used equally to apply, for example, to ‘objective’ or ‘subjective’ need.
universal need: A term accorded a very particular meaning in this book and which refers to need that is ‘thickly’ conceived but theorised to be inherent to the human subject. For policy purposes, people’s needs here stem from their humanity and what is required for human fulfilment. They are defined or negotiated by and through the way people depend upon and participate with one another. Confusingly, perhaps, it can sometimes also be used as a synonym for ‘basic’ need, not quite in the sense referred to earlier, but as a way of referring to the elemental needs that every human being has.
When writing a book one incurs debts to a great many colleagues, friends and family members. Special mention in this instance must go to those who read and commented on complete or partial drafts of this and/or the preceding edition of this book; who in correspondence or conversation have pointed me to sources, ideas or information of direct relevance; who in the course of unrelated collaborations have inflected my thinking in new directions; or who have offered recognition or encouragement for the project as it unfolded. These include: Orly Benjamin, Irene Bucelli, Tania Burchardt, Ulrike Davy, Michael Dover, Tony Fitzpatrick, Ian Gough, Bill Jordan, Mary Langan, Lutz Leisering, Ruth Lister, Lucinda Platt, Camila Souza and David Taylor. I have also benefited from discussions with the many students who over the past 15 years studied my course on Social Rights and Human Welfare at the LSE. I am grateful to Catherine Gray, of Policy Press – University of Bristol; and to Pam Dean not only for the initial proofreading of typescripts, but for forbearance, support and much else besides. However, insofar as the book exhibits errors and many weaknesses, these are wholly my responsibility: none of these good people are in any way to blame.
The first edition of Understanding Human Need was written at a time when I was grappling with the ambiguities and inadequacies of concepts of ‘welfare’ and ‘well-being’ and in the hope that by focussing on something as fundamental as human need it would be possible to pin down more precisely the central focus of the academic subject in which I work, namely Social Policy. The result was a book which developed an integrative model by which to categorise the main approaches to human need and