Change in the Theory of Human Constants

Introduction

Change is one of the most fundamental characteristics of human and social life. No society remains constant over time; populations migrate, technologies transform, institutions form and disappear, values and worldviews change, and modes of production, connection, and governance evolve. Nevertheless, the existence of change does not mean that everything in human and social systems is constantly and irregularly transformed.

The Theory of Human Constants begins from this very point: amid the vast transformations of human life, certain fundamental needs and tendencies remain relatively stable. These needs and tendencies are formulated in the present theory through four concepts: "survival," "connection," "meaning," and "order."

Therefore, the principal question of the Theory of Human Constants is not the denial of change; rather, it is the attempt to understand how change at the level of phenomena coexists with the continuity of certain fundamental needs and tendencies at a deeper level of human and social life.

Change: A Fundamental Characteristic of Human Systems

Human beings are not static entities. Living environments, resources, populations, knowledge, technology, power structures, and social relations constantly affect human behavior and social organization. Therefore, any theory concerning human beings and society that ignores change will face serious difficulties.

On the other hand, if we regard all human phenomena merely as products of changing historical and social conditions, it becomes difficult to explain the persistence of certain basic patterns in human life.

For example, the form of the family has differed across various societies, but the human need to create bonds and social connection has not disappeared. The methods of livelihood have changed from hunting and gathering to industrial economy and digital economy, but the question of securing resources and protecting life remains. The belief systems and values of societies have transformed, but humans continue to seek an interpretation of the world, a determination of values, and a place for themselves within it. Similarly, the forms of governments and political institutions have changed, but the need for some kind of order and social coordination still exists.

From this perspective, change in forms does not necessarily mean change in all fundamental needs.

Human Constants and the Question of Change

The term "constant" in the Theory of Human Constants should not be equated with the concept of an "absolute constant" in the natural sciences. A human constant does not refer to a numerical quantity that is unchangeable and has exactly the same value at all times and places.

"Constant" in this theory refers to a relatively stable human tendency or need; a tendency that can take different forms under different circumstances, but the fundamental issue that human beings and society face does not disappear.

Therefore, there is no necessary contradiction between "stability" and "change" in the Theory of Human Constants.

One can say:

Stability at the level of fundamental needs and tendencies, accompanied by change at the level of means of realizing them, is one of the basic principles of the Theory of Human Constants.

A human being may depend on hunting and gathering during one period for survival, on agriculture in another period, then on industry, and in the present age on knowledge-based economy and technology. The fundamental need for survival remains, but the tools and methods of achieving it change.

The same logic applies to connection, meaning, and order.

Change in "Survival"

Survival is the first domain where change and stability can simultaneously be observed.

Throughout history, humans have created very different methods of securing food, water, shelter, security, and other necessary resources for life. Hunter-gatherer societies interacted with the natural environment differently from agricultural societies, and industrial societies created a completely different structure for securing resources.

Today, as well, new technologies, artificial intelligence, new forms of energy, and global production and trade networks have changed the conditions of survival.

Despite this, the fundamental issue has not disappeared: humans must still secure the necessary resources for the continuation of individual and collective life and must protect themselves against natural, social, and technological threats.

Therefore, change in the means of survival does not eliminate the necessity of survival.

Change in "Connection"

Human connection too has undergone vast transformation.

Connection in primitive societies was largely face-to-face. Subsequently, language, writing, roads, postal systems, printing, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, and the internet continuously expanded the capacity of humans to connect.

Today, a person can establish connection with someone at another point in the world in a matter of seconds. Social networks have also created new communicative structures that would have been difficult to imagine in the past.

But however communication technology may change, the fundamental principle of the human need for connection, cooperation, belonging, and social interaction does not disappear.

As a result, change in the means of connection is not the same as change in the need for connection.

Change in "Meaning"

The domain of meaning may have been more affected by history and culture than any other domain.

Myths, religions, philosophies, ideologies, moral values, and worldviews have changed throughout history. One society may interpret the world on the basis of religious myths while another society may do so on the basis of a philosophical, scientific, or ideological system.

Nevertheless, even with the transformation of meaning systems, questions such as "Who am I?", "Why do we live?", "What is valuable?", and "What is the human place in the world?" continue to be raised in various forms.

From the perspective of the Theory of Human Constants, this persistence can be seen as an indication of the stability of the human need for meaning; not the stability of any particular meaning.

Therefore, meaning can change, but the need for meaning does not necessarily disappear.

Change in "Order"

Social order too has taken very different forms.

The tribe, the city, the city-state, the empire, the kingdom, the nation-state, federal systems, and other types of political and social organizations are examples of different methods of organizing collective life.

Even within a single society, institutions and laws change over time.

But any society that wishes to continue its existence on a large scale and for a long duration must inevitably face the question of coordination of behaviors, resolution of conflicts, determination of rules, and organization of resources.

As a result, change in the form of social order does not necessarily mean the elimination of the need for order.

Law may change, institutions may change, and government may change; but the question of creating some form of social order remains.

Change and Balance Among the Four Constants

The Theory of Human Constants does not merely present four separate needs. Its principal importance lies in examining the interaction among survival, connection, meaning, and order.

Change in one of these domains can affect the other three.

For example, a technological transformation may initially appear in the domain of survival, but simultaneously change patterns of connection. This change in connection can affect values and the meaning system and ultimately require modification of social laws and institutions.

Similarly, change in the meaning system of a society can transform social relations, create new conflicts, and place the structures of social order under pressure.

Therefore, social change cannot always be explained in a linear and single-factor manner.

Change in one constant can create a chain of changes in other constants.

Balanced Change and Imbalanced Change

From the perspective of the Theory of Human Constants, every change is not necessarily crisis-inducing.

If a human system can absorb and regulate new changes with appropriate capacities, change can lead to adaptation, learning, and transformation.

But when the speed or intensity of change exceeds the system's regulatory capacity, imbalance may be created.

For example, rapid development of communication technology may increase the capacity for connection, but if social institutions, legal rules, and public culture cannot adapt themselves accordingly, consequences such as a decline in trust, the spread of conflict, or disruption of social order will occur.

Therefore, the issue is not merely the "existence of change"; rather, how the human system confronts change is what matters.

Change as a Test of Theory

One important point in scientific engagement with the Theory of Human Constants is that the theory should not be defined in such a way that any type of social change can be explained using the four constants after it occurs. Such an approach creates the danger of transforming the theory into merely an interpretive framework that cannot be tested.

If the theory claims that the four constants are fundamental and relatively stable human tendencies, it must be able to make distinctions among different cases, present specific hypotheses, and be subject to evaluation with historical, social, and empirical data to the extent possible.

For example, one could examine whether societies facing severe economic or technological changes, if they maintain balance among the four domains, show greater stability than societies that experience widespread imbalance.

Such questions guide the theory from a merely philosophical understanding toward a program of inquiry that can be examined.

Change, Adaptation, and Sustainability

Change cannot be regarded as the opposite of sustainability.

A sustainable human system may be continuously changing. Sustainability in this sense does not mean stasis; rather, it can mean the capacity to maintain the fundamental functions of the system under changing conditions.

A society that undergoes no change is not necessarily a stable society. It is possible that the inability to change itself becomes a source of crisis.

On the other hand, continuous and unregulated change can also destabilize the system.

From this perspective, one can distinguish among three conditions:

Stasis: very limited change or strong resistance to change.

Regulated change: change accompanied by the capacity for adaptation and the maintenance of relative balance.

Uncontrolled change: changes that exceed the system's regulatory capacity and accumulate imbalance.

The Theory of Human Constants emphasizes the importance of the capacity to regulate change more than it defends stasis.

Change and Historical Transformation

Human history can be understood as a sequence of changes; but these changes have not occurred in a vacuum.

In confronting their environment, scarcity of resources, new opportunities, threats, technology, competition, cooperation, and meaning transformations, humans have created new structures.

In this process, some structures have become stable and others have disappeared.

From the perspective of the Theory of Human Constants, the study of history can provide an opportunity to examine the hypothesis that major historical changes can to some extent be explained on the basis of change in the state of the four domains of survival, connection, meaning, and order.

In this framework, revolutions, wars, migrations, the rise and fall of states, economic transformations, and civilizational changes can be studied as examples for examining the relationship among change, imbalance, regulation, and reconstruction.

Conclusion

Change is one of the inseparable characteristics of human beings and society; but the existence of continuous change does not mean the absence of any stability.

The Theory of Human Constants distinguishes between two levels: the level of phenomena and historical forms that are constantly changing, and the level of fundamental needs and tendencies that can remain relatively stable.

In this framework, survival, connection, meaning, and order are not fixed and unchanging forms of human life, but rather tendencies and needs that manifest themselves in different ways under varying historical, cultural, and environmental circumstances.

Therefore, the fundamental question of the theory is not resistance to change, but understanding the relationship among stability and change, change and adaptation, change and regulation, and ultimately change and balance.

On this basis, one can hypothesize that the durability of a human system does not necessarily mean that it remains unchanged; rather, it may be the result of its capacity to change without losing the fundamental balance among survival, connection, meaning, and order.

This perspective takes the concept of change beyond a merely destructive or constructive force and transforms it into one of the principal elements in the dynamics of human systems.