Reflective Journals

Hierarchy of Needs, Human Relationships, and Implications for Social Policy Name: Student ID: Course Code & Name: SOC604 – Comparative Social PolicyDate of Submission: Word Count: 2961 Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Part 1: Initial Reflection PAGEREF _Toc214903521 \h 3 Inspiring Topics PAGEREF _Toc214903522 \h 3 Confusing Aspects PAGEREF _Toc214903523 \h 5 Relevance to my Interest in Social Policy PAGEREF _Toc214903524 \h 6 Part 2: Critical Discussion and Literature Integration PAGEREF _Toc214903525 \h 7 Critical Discussion of the Themes PAGEREF _Toc214903526 \h 8 The Role of Social Capital in the Success of Policies PAGEREF _Toc214903527 \h 8 Policy as a Pathway to Meeting Human Motivational Needs PAGEREF _Toc214903528 \h 9 Implications of the Themes Discussed above for Social Policy PAGEREF _Toc214903529 \h 9 Comparative Perspective PAGEREF _Toc214903530 \h 10 Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc214903531 \h 12 References PAGEREF _Toc214903532 \h 13 Part 1: Initial Reflection The experience of attending the Comparative Social Policy Symposium was an insightful and thought-provoking experience. Being led by Professor Mariano Rojas, I explored valuable ideas about the Hierarchy of Needs, Human Relationships, and Implications for Social Policy that not only challenged some of my initial assumptions but also reinforced some of the beliefs I have always held in high regard. The aspects of the discussion that I found most inspiring and challenging are discussed below, followed by my reflection on how the insights I gleaned from the discussion connect to my interest in social policy. Inspiring Topics My perception of the model by Maslow was limited to the individual psychological level of application, although I already possessed a basic knowledge of the model. The most interesting part of the discussion was the way Professor Rojas showed its implications at the policy level with specific emphasis on the relevance to societal concerns. Maslow's theory in a conventional context addresses the motivation on an individual level, like in human resource management. In the discussion, I also examined the opportunities of how policymakers can instrumentalize it to meet the changing demands of the general population, whether it is the provision of basic resources or the fueling of self-esteem and facilitating opportunities for people so that they can actualize their potential. As an example, once, the professor described how specific interventions in the social policy can satisfy the needs of the population in terms of safety. The processor facilitated easy decoding of how the policies, such as healthcare schemes, housing policies, and income security schemes, are not only aiming to maximize the welfare, but also touch on collective psychological health since they provide the enabling opportunities of human potential to manifest itself. This topic was particularly inspiring since I came to realize that policy-based interventions need to be seen in their entirety, where they not only serve the materialistic cause but also provide an environment that appreciates respect for human dignity, growth, and collective well-being. Another topic that I found eye-opening was ‘social embeddedness of people’, which specifically compelled me to revisit some of my views about the criteria for an effective policy. Previously, I believed that the usefulness of a policy was closely associated with focusing on the problematic areas and controlling the results to make timely revisions and continue the improvement. Nonetheless, throughout the discussion, I realized the importance of relational factors that are usually ignored in the process of making decisions on the policy level, and I was surprised to learn that it is among the most critical predictors of policy failures. Our few examples shared, and one of the most interesting ones was the one concerning the vaccination-related policies when it comes to situations where the community leaders and culturally instigated beliefs are the potential obstacles. Based on this discovery, I must say that policymakers should consider the dynamics of familial relations, social networks, and other relation domains to enlighten and guide the required changes, such as a vaccination campaign accompanying an awareness campaign. Also, I was especially motivated by the discussion of interdisciplinary collaboration. The panel stressed that no successful social policy could be developed on the basis of a single disciplinary action; psychology, sociology, economics, and public administration have to be combined. Professor Rojas demonstrated how a psychological theory could be used in the design of economic policy and that the sociological knowledge of the behavior of communities could be applied to make the policy work. This interdisciplinary lens has allowed me to broaden my understanding of policy-making by showing me that the holistic solution involves collaboration and that cross-disciplinary policy makers must be open to various theoretical contributions so as to come up with responsive and sustainable interventions. The other important field of interest that attracted my attention was the focus on participatory and community-based policy practices. The panel contended that policies that are formulated in partnership with the community are more culturally competent, generally embraced, and sustainable. It is evident that beneficiaries should be involved in the decision-making process to enable empowerment as well as to make sure the policies are based on the lived experiences and priorities of the populations they are supposed to serve. This viewpoint will prompt me to reflect on the importance of bottom-up policymaking, according to which communities actively take part in the process of creating interventions and not just treated as passive recipients. It also supported the notion that meaningful participation may help bridge the divide between policy intention and actual outcomes, which will ultimately improve policy effectiveness and legitimacy. Confusing Aspects While the discussion was overall satisfying, I found a few areas challenging that I consider for further exploration in the future. For example, the professor highlighted the potential for the policy to address the collective well-being along with its broader goals. However, the question arises of how policymakers would address individual variations while applying Maslow’s model at a broader level. For example, while individuals may differ considerably in what they define as safe and satisfying living conditions. Therefore, I find it challenging for a housing policy (with its uniform approach as usual) to equally contribute to the physical and safety needs of all individuals. Similarly, while the discussion touched on culturally tailored solutions, it did not address variations at subcultural levels. Even in a city or locality, a considerable diversity of subcultures may exist, raising administrative complexities for the policies that may tend to address the well-being-related needs of each subgroup. Considering the cultural context, I find the assimilation-based perspective (based on my knowledge of this area) even a more complex challenge for the policymakers seeking to apply Maslow’s hierarchy, since it tends to support the majority and is based on the assumption that individuals, even from the minority groups, are willing to identify with the dominant group. I wonder if policies guided by Maslow’s framework are in a position to address the hidden dimension of oppression and imbalances of power that determine the distribution of resources and opportunities in such a society. Professor Rojas introduced us to another valuable consideration, which is the need for...