As I recently argued (Dover, 2023): “Second, social work could explore how needs theory addresses human spirituality. One way to view human spirituality is as a communitarian commitment arising from human relationships (Etzioni, 2017). Relationships among people should not be separated from knowledge of the divine (Lévinas, 1969, p. 78, as cited in Morgan, 2007, p. 180). Dissanayake (1992, p. 229) discussed how spirituality expresses a human universal predisposition to sharing and reciprocity. Cunningham (1998) and Wattles (1996) discussed the golden rule as a universal ethic of reciprocity. Antweiler (2016) viewed ritual and religion as universal in all cultures, as did Rappaport (1999).”

The goal of this article is to consolidate a fuller understanding of these questions. One conceptual problem for theory of human needs is how it treats what might appear to be a human need for spirituality or for ritual or religion, which anthropologist Roy Rappaport (1999) found was universal in human culture. Maslow’s approach to self-actualization was views as inclusive of such a concern (Citation), whereas THN or SDT do not appear to address human spirituality. Etzioni (2017, p. 517) contended that for Maslow, “Self-actualization, considered the highest need…is highly individualistic,” and “completely self-centered” (p. 512). Etzioni proposed a normative turn in social science towards viewing “people as moral creatures,” and noted the wisdom about human nature of the three Abrahamic faiths, which see human beings as morally flawed but engaged in a “life-long wrestle between the better angels of their nature and their debased self” (p. 512). THN and SDT would see as an effort to achieve the capacity for critical autonomy and self-determined behavior, their closest equivalent to Maslow’s concept of self-actualization.