Human Constants: Absolute Constant or Relatively Stable Tendency?

Introduction

The term "constant" in the title of the Theory of Human Constants may at first encounter create the impression that the meaning refers to phenomena that are completely stable, unchangeable, and similar to physical constants. If such an understanding of the theory were to arise, a fundamental question would be raised: how can the concept of "constant" be reconciled with the vast diversity of humans, cultures, societies, and historical transformations?

The answer of the Theory of Human Constants is that "constant" here is not an absolute and numerical constant; rather, it refers to a fundamental and relatively stable human need, tendency, or requirement.

This distinction is fundamental for proper understanding of the theory.

What Is an Absolute Constant?

In natural sciences, certain quantities or relationships are defined as constant within a specific theoretical framework, independent of the conditions being studied. For example, the gravitational constant or the speed of light in vacuum have precise mathematical and physical definitions.

Such a constant cannot be easily changed by historical, cultural, or social conditions.

But human beings and society are phenomena of a different kind. Human behavior is subject to a complex set of biological, psychological, social, cultural, historical, and environmental factors.

Therefore, if the term "constant" in the Theory of Human Constants is interpreted to mean an absolute and unchangeable constant, this concept will not be compatible with the very nature of the subject matter.

As a result, the theory from the outset must distinguish between a physical constant and a human constant.

A Human Constant as a Relatively Stable Tendency

What is meant by a human constant is the existence of a fundamental pattern that, under different historical and cultural circumstances, maintains relative continuity despite changes in its outer forms.

For example, humans in all historical societies have not lived by exactly one way of life; but the question of survival has always existed in some form.

Humans in all periods have not lived under a single communication system, but the need for connection and social interaction has not disappeared.

The same matter is also raised concerning meaning and order.

Therefore, what is called "constant" in the Theory of Human Constants is not the form of realization of a need; rather, it is the persistence of the need itself or the fundamental tendency.

This concept can be summarized as follows:

Human constant = a tendency or fundamental need that over time and among different societies, despite change in the form and intensity of its manifestation, maintains relative continuity.

Why Still the Term "Constant"?

One might ask: if these elements are subject to change, why not use words such as "fundamental needs," "stable tendencies," or "common human factors" instead of "constant"?

This question is conceptually entirely serious.

The term "constant" in this theory has been deliberately chosen to emphasize the existence of a relatively stable core amid the vast transformations of human life.

If only "needs" were mentioned, it might create the impression that the four domains in question are merely a collection of ordinary psychological or social needs.

But the term "human constants" makes a stronger claim: that beneath historical and cultural diversity, one can identify certain stable patterns that have fundamental importance for analyzing human systems.

Of course, this terminological choice is defensible only if the concept of "constant" is clearly defined and refrains from absolutist claims.

Four Constants; Four Fundamental Tendencies

In the formulation of the Theory of Human Constants, the four principal domains are:

Survival, connection, meaning, and order.

These four should not be regarded as four independent and completely separate variables.

Survival is related to the preservation and continuation of life.

Connection is related to bonds, interaction, cooperation, and relationships among humans.

Meaning is related to the interpretation of the world, values, identity, and the direction given to life.

Order is related to the organization of behaviors, rules, institutions, and the coordination of collective life.

These four domains are arranged in a system of reciprocal relations, and change in one can affect the others.

Constant, Not Constant Form

One of the most important distinctions in the theory is that one must distinguish between the constancy of a need and the constancy of the form of its realization.

For example, the need for survival has relative stability, but the method of securing survival has changed.

Humans have progressed from hunting and gathering to agriculture, from agriculture to industry, and from industry to knowledge-based and technological economy.

In the domain of connection too, humans have progressed from direct and oral communication to writing, printing, telegraph, telephone, and the internet.

In the domain of meaning, myths, religions, philosophies, ideologies, and scientific systems have also transformed throughout history.

In the domain of order too, tribes, cities, kingdoms, empires, nation-states, and various systems of governance have emerged.

Therefore:

A human constant is not constant in form; it is constant in fundamental tendency.

Constant and Varying Intensity

Even the intensity of a need or tendency is not necessarily the same at all times.

In times of war, survival and security may gain much greater importance. In conditions of stability and prosperity, greater opportunity is provided for focusing on meaning, connection, and developing human capacities.

In conditions of political crisis, the question of order may become prominent, and in conditions of social collapse, connection and trust may gain greater importance.

Therefore, a human constant can change in terms of intensity, priority, and manner of manifestation.

This is in no way contradictory to the principle of its stability.

Human Constants and Cultural Difference

One important test of the concept of human constant is its capacity to explain cultural differences.

If the four constants truly have a universal human nature, they should be observable in very different cultures; but not necessarily with exactly the same form and content.

For example, "meaning" in one society might appear primarily in the form of religion, in another in the form of philosophy, in another in the form of nationalism or ideology, and in another in the form of individualism or scientism.

Therefore, the unity of a constant should not be taken to mean the unity of cultures.

A constant can be shared while the cultural response to it differs.

This distinction allows the theory to attend simultaneously to two realities:

1. The existence of certain fundamental commonalities among humans; 2. The existence of vast historical and cultural differences.

Human Constants and Historical Change

If constants are truly relatively stable tendencies, how is historical change possible?

The answer is that historical change can occur chiefly in the method of responding to constants, the relationship among them, and the level of their realization.

Humans may create new methods of securing resources, build new communication networks, create fresh meaning systems, or establish new institutions to preserve order.

Therefore, history can also be understood in part as the history of changes in human responses to relatively stable needs.

This understanding is comparable to some existing approaches in the social sciences that distinguish between general needs and cultural ways of fulfilling them; for example, human needs theories also distinguish between general needs and cultural methods of meeting them.

Are the Four Constants Truly Universal?

This question must be answered with caution.

At the current stage, it is better that the theory not claim that the universality of the four constants has been empirically proven.

The more precise claim is that the theory hypothesizes that survival, connection, meaning, and order can be four fundamental and relatively stable domains for analyzing humans and social systems.

Proving or disproving this claim requires comparative, historical, and empirical research.

This caution is very important; because if any social phenomenon can after the fact be attributed to one of the four constants, the theory might become a framework that renders almost any conclusion explainable and consequently reduces its capacity for falsification.

Therefore, the theory should move toward precise definition, indicator development, and empirical testing.

Difference from the Theory of the Hierarchy of Needs

The Theory of Human Constants should not be regarded merely as another version of theories of hierarchies of needs.

In some needs theories, needs are organized in different levels or tiers. However, there are serious empirical and theoretical discussions about whether needs are hierarchical, and evidence for a fixed and universal hierarchy is limited.

The Theory of Human Constants in its formulation does not necessarily say that survival is always prior to connection, meaning, or order, or that a human must completely pass through one stage to enter the next.

On the contrary, the four constants can exist simultaneously, reciprocally, and in interaction with one another.

This distinction is of fundamental importance to the theory's structure.

Constant and Balance

One important feature of the concept of human constant is that constants should not be regarded as four independent goals.

What matters is the overall state of the system and the relationship among the four constants.

A society may succeed in securing survival but face a crisis in social connection.

A society may have very high order, but the order may be so rigid and inflexible that it restricts connection and meaning.

Similarly, a system may have extensive communicative freedom, but weakness in order-giving institutions may lead to increased conflict and reduced coordination.

Therefore, the primary issue is not merely increasing each of the constants; the balance, interaction, and harmony among them also matter.

Constant and Adaptation

If human constants are relatively stable needs or tendencies, society must be able to adapt to a changing environment in order to respond to them.

Changes in climate, technology, population, resources, economic structure, and international relations can change the conditions for realizing the four constants.

In such circumstances, a society that can reform its methods may maintain its stability; whereas a society that remains dependent on past methods may experience imbalance.

From this perspective, the sustainability of a human system can be the result of a combination of stability in needs and flexibility in responses.

This understanding also has conceptual harmony with studies of social systems; in some models of social systems, the continuation of a system's existence is related to the provision of basic functions and the making of adjustments against incompatibilities created as a result of growth and change.

The Danger of Excessive Interpretation of the Concept of Constant

The term "constant," if used without precise explanation, can expose the theory to criticism.

A critic might ask:

Do humans in all cultures truly have the same needs?

Is the importance of survival, connection, meaning, and order always the same?

Do the four constants cover all of humanity's fundamental needs?

Can they be measured?

Might there be other constants as well?

These questions are not weaknesses of the theory; rather, they are questions that the theory should provide theoretical answers for and, if possible, empirical answers as well.

Scientific theory should not flee from difficult questions; rather, it should make them part of its research program.

Proposed Definition

To avoid ambiguity, the concept of human constant can be defined as follows:

A human constant is a fundamental and relatively stable need or tendency in individual and social human life whose principle persists under diverse historical and cultural circumstances, but whose intensity, priority, form of manifestation, and manner of realization can change.

Based on this definition, a human constant:

• is not absolute;
• is not a fixed number;
• is not exempt from change;
• does not necessarily appear in the same form in all cultures;
• its intensity and priority can change;
• but the principle of the tendency or need can have relative continuity.

The Theoretical Importance of This Distinction

This definition allows the theory to distance itself from two extremes.

The first extreme is complete relativism; that is, the view that everything in human and social life is dependent on culture and history and there is no common pattern.

The second extreme is absolute essentialism; that is, the view that humans possess a completely stable and unchangeable set of characteristics.

The Theory of Human Constants can occupy the space between these two:

Humans are neither completely stable nor completely unstable.

Some needs and tendencies can be relatively stable, while the methods of responding to them constantly change.

Conclusion

"Constant" in the Theory of Human Constants should not be understood to mean an absolute, unchangeable constant similar to physical constants.

A human constant is a different concept: a fundamental and relatively stable tendency that maintains relative continuity amid historical, cultural, and social changes.

Survival, connection, meaning, and order in this framework are not four fixed and unchangeable states, but rather four fundamental domains for studying human life.

The form of their realization changes; their intensity changes; their priority changes; and the relationship among them also changes. But the theory's hypothesis is that the principle of these needs and tendencies can persist over time.

From this perspective, "constant" in the Theory of Human Constants is more a sign of continuity within change than a sign of stasis.

And perhaps the most fundamental statement of this article can be expressed as follows:

In the Theory of Human Constants, what is constant is not the form of human life; rather, it is fundamental tendencies that humans, under various circumstances, create different forms of individual and social life in order to realize them.