Social Development

Interests and Needs

It is well known that any social change, and thus social development, results from human activity. But what, then, underpins this activity? In the quest to answer this question, thinkers have long drawn attention to interests.

This was notably emphasized by French materialists of the 18th century such as Helvétius, Holbach, and Diderot. In contrasting human interests with both divine determinism and the random circumstances surrounding societal development, they saw interests as the real foundations of morality, politics, and social order. “If the physical world is governed by the laws of motion,” asserted A. Helvétius, “then the spiritual world is no less subject to the law of interest. On earth, interest is the all-powerful magician that alters the appearance of every object in the eyes of all beings.”

However, in attempting to explain social life and its development through interests, the French materialists regarded interest as a mere sum of individual interests, deriving the latter from a sensuous nature of humanity, which they believed to be unchanging. This, in particular, formed the basis for Helvétius's thesis that hunger and love govern the world.

Hegel identified the vulnerabilities in such an approach, emphasizing the unacceptability of reducing interests to mere crude sensuality or natural origins. Stating that “the actions of people arise from their needs, their interests,” the philosopher highlighted that while people “strive to satisfy their interests, something further is also realized, something hidden within them that they do not consciously acknowledge or intend.” This “something” refers to needs. Hegel argued that through the vast array of needs and interests, the world spirit manifests itself.

In seeking to preserve the positive elements in the interpretation of interests achieved in the history of global social thought, dialectical materialism aimed to provide a materialistic explanation of interests, underscoring the objective foundations of social interest. In his work “On the Housing Question,” F. Engels asserts that “the economic relations of a given society manifest themselves primarily as interests.”

The issue of interest has also been actively explored by Soviet authors. However, to consider it as entirely exhausted would be erroneous, as there remains a lack of consensus on the nature of interest. Two opposing viewpoints exist on this matter. Proponents of the first argue that interest is objective, while those of the second suggest it is subjectively objective, reflecting in the consciousness of the subject their objective position.

Advocates of the first perspective assert that interest exists objectively, independent of whether it is recognized or not. Regarding the reflection of objectively existing interest, this represents a crucial aspect of transforming interests into a motivating force for activity. They emphasize that consciousness may be vague, superficial, or spontaneous. Nonetheless, even in such cases, the interest reflected in consciousness propels action.

We can agree with the assertion that interest exists objectively, provided it is recognized solely as the acknowledgment of the independence of this phenomenon's existence from human consciousness, will, and desires. Every rational person possesses interests, just as they have feelings, perceptions, and notions. However, acknowledging this fact does not yet unveil the nature of interest. Indeed, we lack answers to two critical questions: 1) What is the essence of interest? 2) What are the reasons underpinning its existence?

To better understand the nature and essence of interest, let us refer to V.I. Dal’s explanatory dictionary, which denotes this concept as benefit, profit, empathy for someone or something, and care. Benefit and profit, as is well-known, presuppose the conceptualization of a particular need, the satisfaction of which is desirable for the subject due to certain reasons related to life activity, development, and the resolution of various tasks. Without such conceptualization, discussing benefit, profit, and thus any subject’s interest is simply meaningless. It is precisely the conscious, conceptualized needs that manifest as phenomena denoted by the term “interest.”

Every socially existing organism is characterized by the presence of certain needs, whose satisfaction is linked to the life activity and development of social organisms. The contradiction between needs and the capacity for their satisfaction serves as the primary source of social development. Needs are variously reflected in human consciousness. Incomplete awareness of needs may occur, leading to secondary needs being mistaken for primary ones or others' needs being misidentified as one's own, laying the groundwork for the formation of illusory or false interests. This is tied to the specific features of a particular social organism and the nature and level of its consciousness. This circumstance allows us to conclude that interests, as forms of reflection of the existing needs of social organisms, possess a subjectively objective character.

The diversity of social organisms and their inherent needs determines the existence of an immense variety of interests, which can be classified according to various foundations. Specifically, researchers in the social sciences find it possible to differentiate interests by their degree of generality (individual, group, social), by sphere of focus (economic, political, spiritual), by the character of the subject (national, state, party, etc.), by the degree of awareness (acting spontaneously versus based on a developed program), by the feasibility of their realization (realistic versus illusory), and by their relation to the objective trends of social development (progressive, reactionary, conservative).

Overall, this classification may be considered acceptable. However, it does not exhaust the full diversity of interests. In our view, it should be supplemented by distinguishing at least one more essential foundation—the character of the needs reflected in interests—differentiating between interests primarily connected with the satisfaction of needs of various levels, which form social needs with their highest manifestation being the needs for self-realization and self-affirmation, that is, creative activity. It is with this level of needs that the formation of subjects of social development is linked.