Hartley Dean discusses the intellectual journey that influenced the writing of his revised edition of Understanding Human Need. (Re)Understanding Human Need: Writing the Revised Edition

Dean, Hartley

English

LSE Research Online

(Re)Understanding	Human	Need:	Writing	the	RevisedEditionHartley	Dean	discusses	the	intellectual	journey	that	influenced	the	writing	of	his	revised	edition	of	UnderstandingHuman	Need.(Re)Understanding	Human	Need:	Writing	the	Revised	EditionI	suspect	that	most	academics	would	like	to	think	that	their	published	articles	andbooks	are	if	not	the	final	word,	then	at	least	a	lasting	statement	on	the	subject	onwhich	they	have	written.	But	in	practice	we	know	perfectly	well	that	they	can’t	be.Which	is	why,	particularly	when	it	comes	to	books,	we	may	sometimes	decide,	orbe	persuaded,	to	have	another	go	and	write	a	revised	edition.	Many	books	–especially	standard	teaching	texts	–	necessarily	go	through	multiple	editions	toreflect	general	developments	in	their	subject	areas.	But	sometimes	authorsthemselves	have	moved	on	individually	in	their	thinking	and	have	new	and/or	verydifferent	things	of	their	own	to	say.	The	choice	then	is	whether	to	write	a	new	bookor	significantly	revise	an	existing	publication.This	is	a	choice	I	have	faced	on	more	than	one	occasion	in	my	own	academiccareer,	a	career	which	followed	on	from	an	earlier	life	as	a	professional	welfarerights	worker	and	so	remained	focused	on	intersecting	themes	such	as	welfarecitizenship,	social	rights	and	human	needs.	As	my	thinking	evolved,	I	produced	aseries	of	books	with	slightly	different	titles,	which	nonetheless	explored	thesethemes	in	different	ways.	I	also	produced	three	editions	of	a	short	introduction	tomy	own	subject	area,	for	which	revision	was	an	altogether	different	and	straightforward	matter	of	factual	andhistorical	updating.In	2010,	however,	I	published	what	was	to	be	the	first	edition	of	Understanding	Human	Need.	It	was	written	at	atime	when	social	policy	academics	were	agonising	over	the	increasingly	ambiguous	and	pejorative	ways	in	whichconcepts	of	‘welfare’	and	‘wellbeing’	were	being	framed	within	popular	and	political	discourse.	My	hope	was	that	byforegrounding	something	as	ostensibly	fundamental	as	human	need,	it	would	be	possible	to	shift	the	discourse	andmore	critically	and	precisely	pin	down	the	legitimate	goals	of	social	policy.	The	result	was	a	book	which	developedan	integrative	model	to	categorise	the	main	approaches	to	human	need	and	demonstrate	how	they	are	reflected	indifferent	sorts	of	policy	goals.	It	concluded	with	some	discussion	of	the	relationship	between	human	needs,	socialrights	and	the	politics	of	needs.LSE Review of Books: (Re)Understanding Human Need: Writing the Revised Edition Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-09Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/11/09/reunderstanding-human-need-writing-the-revised-edition/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/Image	Credit:	Photo	by	Ryoga	Otake	on	UnsplashI	was	aware,	however,	that	the	book	had	not	adequately	achieved	my	initial	purpose.	In	the	months	and	years	thatfollowed,	I	reflected	further	on	one	key	element	touched	on	in	the	book:	namely,	the	Marxist	theory	of	human	need.Marxist	thinking	had	been	a	strong	influence	for	me	since	my	undergraduate	days	in	the	late	1960s	and	early1970s.	Yet	only	recently	have	I	grasped	how	some	of	Karl	Marx’s	relatively	neglected	or	misrepresented	earlywritings	captured	what	it	is	that	constitutes	essential	human	need:	what	it	is	that	defines	our	‘species	being’	in	termsof	our	consciousness,	our	metabolism	with	Nature,	our	fundamental	sociality	and	the	way	in	which	we	materiallyshape	our	own	history.	There	has	been	a	modest	renaissance	of	interest	in	the	radical	humanist	foundations	ofMarx’s	work	(for	example,	Agnes	Heller,	1974,	republished	in	2018,	and	György	Márkus,	1978,		republished	in2014).	I	decided	to	interpret	and	develop	this	in	a	revised	edition	of	Understanding	Human	Need,	published	in2020.The	second	edition	is	partly	conventional	in	that	it	returns	to	fill	some	of	the	gaps	left	in	the	earlier	edition,	it	bringsthe	account	up	to	date,	it	corrects	or	clarifies	certain	elements	of	my	earlier	arguments	and	it	improves	some	of	myexplanations.	But	more	fundamentally,	the	book	is	restructured	and	now	centred	around	an	explicit	theoreticalcontribution	regarding	the	constitutive	essence	of	the	human	species:	what	is	human	about	human	need	and	whatis	needed	to	be	human.	As	human	beings	we	struggle	to	define	our	needs,	but	the	contention	with	which	this	booknow	concludes	is	that	it	is	by	our	needs	that	human	beings	are	defined	and	define	ourselves.Understanding	Human	Need	is	therefore	a	very	different	book,	though	it	retains	its	relevance	for	social	policy.	Itdiscusses	the	part	played	by	formal	and	informal	educational	institutions	in	forming	and	constraining	humanconsciousness;	the	way	we	may	frame	and	value	(as	‘work’)	the	full	spectrum	of	productive	and	creative	humanactivities;	the	essential	inter-dependence	or	‘sociality’	entailed	in	the	way	we	organise	or	facilitate	social	securityand	provision	for	health	and	social	care;	and	the	way	every	individual	member	of	the	species	must	ultimately	berecognised	as	a	player	in	the	global	course	of	human	history.LSE Review of Books: (Re)Understanding Human Need: Writing the Revised Edition Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-09Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/11/09/reunderstanding-human-need-writing-the-revised-edition/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/It	remains	to	be	seen	whether	it	was	wise	to	expand	upon	something	apparently	innovative	and	potentiallycontroversial	in	the	second	edition	of	an	established	text.	Would	my	newly	adopted	slant	on	human	need	haveattracted	more	attention	had	I	elected	to	publish	an	entirely	new	book,	which	might	turn	out	to	‘bomb’	completely?There	is	a	question	of	principle.	Is	it	better	for	academic	debate	to	be	fostered	in	a	wider	iterative	context	throughthe	extensive	revision	and	development	of	existing	works,	or	is	it	better	for	important	and	exciting	new	arguments	tobe	separately	launched	and	promoted	through	an	incessant	cascade	of	new	books	competing	for	other	scholars’attention?	This	will	be	seen	by	publishers	as	a	question	of	marketing	strategy,	and	by	career	academics	as	aquestion	of	the	relative	status	of	differing	publishing	media.	If	the	advancement	of	human	knowledge	andunderstanding	is	–	as	Marx	so	clearly	contends	–	an	essential	human	need,	then	priority	should	be	accorded	towhat	maximises	neither	the	profits	of	publishers	nor	the	reputational	standing	of	academics,	but	rather	the	numberof	readers	who	may	critically	and	effectively	engage	with	what	is	published.	How	to	achieve	this	remains	the	moredifficult	conundrum.Note:	This	feature	essay	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Review	of	Books	blog,	or	ofthe	London	School	of	Economics.		LSE Review of Books: (Re)Understanding Human Need: Writing the Revised Edition Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-11-09Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2021/11/09/reunderstanding-human-need-writing-the-revised-edition/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/

(Re)understanding human need: writing the revised edition

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/113129/1/lsereviewofbooks_2021_11_09_reunderstanding_human_need_writing_the.pdf

(Re)understanding human need: writing the revised edition

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online