“The argument of needs is the major argument of the great supporters of growth: one absolutely must aim for the strongest possible growth, because human needs are infinite. And when this is said, there is nothing to add. Anyone wanting to contradict this must, instead, simply “pack their bags”; because, really – how can one dare to not want to satisfy human needs, and thus help humanity progress; to make them happier, always more liberated from the tyranny of necessity?” Dominique Méda, “Qu’est-ce que la richesse ?” – Ed. Aubier – 1999.
Media literacy and the consumer society, part 2. Tourev’s « Besoins ou désirs ? » given as a companion piece for part 1.
Wants or needs?
The combination.
[First posted April 23, 2018]
(« Besoins ou désirs ? » by Pierre Tourev)
Behind the notions of the market, free trade, of growth at any cost, we find the necessity to satisfy the needs of the consumer. These needs are linked to a given time, and to a type of society. For us, in the consumer society, these needs seem not only to be rapidly growing, but practically unlimited.
This notion of the “needs of the consumer” is in fact a combination, somewhat perverse, between needs that are natural and necessary; and then wants or desires, which are changing, ephemeral, and subjective. This is perverse, as we are led to believe it is imperative to satisfy these “needs”.
The distinction between wants and needs is ancient. The philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) established a doctrine of enjoyment, based not on pleasure (as satisfying desires), but on natural and necessary pleasures; and on control of the passions. One ordered wants and desires within this system.
Comparison between wants and needs
|
Needs |
Wants or desires |
| Natural and necessary | Not natural, ephemeral |
| Objective | Subjective |
| Almost identical from one society to another | Strongly related to context, society, culture, and period |
| Needs are not infinite | Individual wants are practically infinite |
| One must suffer until these are met. Not satisfying them can lead to death. | Even satisfied, they return. |
| Mainly physical | Mainly psychological |
What practices dominate the economy – if not those that encourage confusion between our wants and needs? Yet it is easy to decipher them. Simply consider a second level for televised ads.
With the need for food, clothing, housing, and social involvement … it is not the same to want the latest yogurt with bifidobacteria, or the latest fashionable dress; or a bed controlled by three independent motors; or the newest smart phone for watching your favorite football team.
Knowingly perpetuating this combination, the economy is fixed on an infinite mission: satisfying every desire people have, the infinite desires they create and sustain for them.
Is this progress? That is another topic.
To be aware of this combination of wants and needs is to already take a large step toward a more free and independent mind. And then, when one satisfies some caprice “as seen on TV” – it is with complete knowledge of the cause; and not automatically, “lobotomized” by advertising. (Et lorsqu’on satisfait l’un de ses caprices “vu à la télé”, c’est en toute connaissance de cause, et non en automate “lobotomisé” par la publicité.)
Translation by Edward Eggleston.
The original license: Licence Creative Commons BY NC SA « Le contenu de La Toupie est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution – Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International. Fondé sur le contenu du site http://www.toupie.org. » (http://www.toupie.org/Divers/Licence.htm)