Self-actualization. It’s a term coined by Abraham Maslow and has influenced decades of psychology, self-help culture, and even our understanding of what it means to be successful. I am inclined to claim that it has actually been appropriated to rebrand philosophy altogether. But what if this very idea is built on what some would call a 'spook'? What if the ultimate fulfillment of the self is not found in climbing a hierarchy of needs, or…any hierarchy for that matter…but in rejecting such structures and concepts entirely?
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT REJECTING OR NEGATING THE IDEA THAT NEEDS ARE VALID. OBVIOUSLY SURVIVAL NEEDS MUST BE FULFILLED.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a psychological theory proposed by Abraham Maslow in 1943, often illustrated as a pyramid representing different human needs arranged in a specific order. At the base of this pyramid are physiological needs, which are the most fundamental for survival, encompassing the essentials such as air, water, food, shelter, sleep, and clothing. Once these needs are met, individuals seek safety needs, which include physical safety from violence and natural disasters, health and well-being through access to healthcare, financial security, and emotional stability. After achieving safety, individuals turn their attention to love and belongingness needs, striving for social connections, friendships, family bonds, intimacy, and acceptance within communities. The next level involves esteem needs, which are divided into self-esteem and recognition from others, encompassing feelings of accomplishment and self-worth. At the pinnacle of the hierarchy is self-actualization, representing the realization of one’s potential and the pursuit of personal growth, creativity, problem-solving, and acceptance of oneself and others. Maslow posited that individuals must satisfy lower-level needs before addressing higher ones, although he acknowledged that this progression may not be linear for everyone. The first four levels, often referred to as 'deficit needs,' create discomfort when unmet, while self-actualization represents a 'growth need,' where fulfillment leads to personal development. Ultimately, Maslow's hierarchy provides a framework for understanding human motivation, emphasizing the significance of fulfilling basic needs to achieve self-actualization and personal fulfillment.
So…Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is fairly simple: you move through basic physiological needs like food and shelter, all the way up to the need for self-actualization—where one supposedly reaches their full potential. Scholars like Alan Fiske and Jonathan Haidt describe this as a progression from necessity to growth, which is basically a path that humans must follow to truly flourish.
Max Stirner’s Thoughts on Ego Development
But Max Stirner would likely have scoffed at this, as with so many other things. Stirner, as some scholars like Saul Newman and Ruth Kinna suggest, believed that any such hierarchy is nothing more than a construct—what he would call a 'spook' or an illusion. According to Stirner, what he calls 'der Einzige’ which is personified in his own subjective understanding of himself is not bound by a need nor ability to control the progression through stages of life.
Stirner’s perspective on development is unique. In The Ego and Its Own, he posits that the journey from childhood to egoism or 'ownness' is not a linear ascent through hierarchical stages but rather a fluid and subjective process. He argues that each individual comes to understand themselves through their experiences and desires. This self-discovery is not constrained by an external framework; it unfolds organically in alignment with one’s own interests.This stands in stark contrast to Maslow’s framework, where one must fulfill lower-level needs before moving on to higher aspirations.
Let me explain further: Stirner's development highlights subjectivity, rather than overarching psychological processes rooted in need. While he outlines a general idea of progression, the fundamental aspects are exploration, and defense against indoctrination, which Stirner sees as a force of constraint on an individual’s physical and philosophical experience, or subjectivity.
Stirner highlights the importance of physical and philosophical struggle for this self-liberation rather than seeing fulfilled needs as a fundamental aspect of progress.
The process of becoming or rather BEING 'the Unique' is tied to a deep understanding of causality—recognizing that one’s desires directly influence one’s trajectory.
Adding Some Deleuze - Desire as a Productive Force
From a Deleuzian perspective, desire is not simply a lack to be fulfilled but a productive force that drives creation and self-actualization. Gilles Deleuze sees desire as a fundamental aspect of existence that shapes our identities and realities. In this sense, Stirner’s view aligns closely with Deleuze's conception of desire, emphasizing that alignment with one's desires is essential for genuine self-development.
For Stirner, understanding and embracing one’s desires leads to a liberated self, unbound by the constraints of hierarchical structures. This alignment with desire is what allows the individual to navigate their journey. It highlights that development is not about climbing a predetermined ladder of needs but about continuously affirming one's own will and desires—a sentiment that echoes Deleuze's idea that our identities are in constant flux and shaped by our interactions and affirmations of desire.
Reaching the Top
So, what happens when we reach Maslow’s top level—self-actualization? According to Maslow, this is where we transcend selfish desires, focusing on creativity, morality, and problem-solving for the good of humanity. Scholars like Carl Rogers and Rollo May built on this idea, suggesting that self-actualization aligns with a deeper, universal truth about what it means to be human.
But Stirner would probably disagree. For him, reaching a 'higher self' sounds suspiciously like enslaving oneself to a new ideal. In The Ego and Its Own, Stirner argues that these so-called higher pursuits are nothing more than spooks—mental constructs we’ve been conditioned to believe in. Instead of chasing after an abstract 'self-actualized' version of ourselves, Stirner suggests we should focus on our 'ownness'—the realization that each individual’s desires are valid in and of themselves, with no need for validation from external measures of success.
Moral Aspects
Maslow’s theory is ultimately built on the idea that there is a moral or ethical dimension to self-actualization—that we should use our self-development to serve a greater good. This idea has been widely accepted in both psychology and culture at large. But Stirner flips this on its head.
For Stirner, any external 'good'—whether it’s for society, morality, or even personal growth—is just another spook, a ghostly idea we’ve internalized to make us conform. He doesn’t see any value in transcendent morality; for him, the only valid criterion is individual desire. This tension is what makes the comparison between these two figures so interesting.
The Role of Freedom
Both Stirner and Maslow are, in their own ways, concerned with freedom. For Maslow, self-actualization is the freedom to live a creative, fulfilled life. For Stirner, freedom is something much more raw—it’s the freedom to act based on one’s own desires without concern for moral or social constraints.
In fact, Stirner’s view on freedom is more radical. He doesn’t believe that true freedom is found in reaching the top of a pyramid but in rejecting the pyramid altogether. Stirner argues that we are already free, but we imprison ourselves with spooks—like Maslow’s hierarchy.
Radical Self-Rejection & Actualization as a Thing-In-Itself
So, whose vision of the self do we follow? Do we aim for Maslow’s ideal of self-actualization, believing that true freedom comes through fulfilling a hierarchy of needs? Or do we side with Stirner, tearing down those same ideals as mere illusions and seeking freedom in our own desires?
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between, or maybe, as Stirner might argue, the only answer that matters is your own. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Is self-actualization just another spook, or is there value in striving for Maslow’s higher self?
I think we need to reject the self altogether. It’s a limiting concept that boxes us into commodified versions of who we are. Mainstream ideas of self-actualization and coping mechanisms fall short because they ignore the deeper unconscious processes driving us. Desire, through the lens of psychoanalysis, Marxism, Hegelianism, and post-structuralist thought, turns the ego into an object—whether it’s a brand, an identity category, or Lacan’s small other (objet petit a). Meanwhile, these frameworks set up a "big Other," a grand narrative that shapes your life’s direction, whether it's thought before matter, existence before essence, or some other fundamental dialectic.
But there’s a third way—combining Stirner’s egoism with Deleuze and Guattari’s framework, where capitalism becomes more than a socioeconomic system; it’s how our desire manifests under existence itself. We exist because nothingness isn’t an option. Egoist criticism builds from Stirner’s “stages of the times”—from Unfreedom, where society controls you, through Rebellion, where you fight back but still react to external forces, and finally to Ownness, where you embrace your desires without external control.
Traditional self-actualization treats fulfillment as a personal goal, but it's tied to socio-cultural power dynamics. Desire is never independent; it’s interwoven with forces that commodify even self-expression. Capitalism turns unique self-determination into a diluted copy of itself.
There’s no fixed self outside this commodification, so identity is fluid, and desire is suspect. By utilizing Stirner’s egoism, we can resist commodification and reclaim true autonomy—not as a destination, but as a constant rejection of the spooks that try to define us.
In the realm of egoist criticism, a key principle emerges: agency over identity doesn’t mean rejecting identity altogether. It signals a shift in how we approach identity, echoing Deleuze and Guattari’s idea of nomadic and schizophrenic subjectivity. Instead of being bound by rigid cultural norms, we’re in a constant state of becoming, where self-determination is the main priority. Identity is dynamic, constantly in flux.
This doesn’t mean discarding the subcategories like culture, race, class, or gender. Those are tools for self-expression, not fixed roles. And no, Ben Shapiro…calm down. I’m not saying physical realities don’t exist. I can’t just identify as a Grammy-winning rapper from Compton and suddenly wake up in Kendrick Lamar’s mom’s house. Material reality is staring me down, forcing me to deal with it.
I am not looking for another identity! So identifying defeats the purpose, doesn’t it? I don’t want to be legitimized. Make sense?
Embracing nomadic subjectivity in egoist criticism is about transcending the limits of fixed identities, but still existing in the material world where identity gets negotiated. It’s a shift to a more fluid understanding of the self—but it doesn’t stop at social categories or shapeshifting. It’s about ownness.
Ultimately, Maslow's notion of self-actualization presents a structured pathway to fulfillment, but Stirner’s radical egoism—and my take on radical self-rejection—challenges this entire concept. Instead of striving to actualize a so-called "self," we should reject the very idea of a fixed self altogether. The hierarchy of needs, just like identity itself, is nothing more than a spook—a phantom designed to constrain our desires and bind us to external ideals. Real fulfillment doesn’t come from ascending a pyramid, but from dismantling it. By embracing radical self-rejection, we liberate ourselves from the trap of self-actualization, focusing instead on our ownness, where identity, needs, and societal expectations are nothing more than tools we can wield—or discard—as we see fit.
Works Cited
**if you use some of these links to make a purchase, I will receive a commission via the Amazon Associates Program**
Carroll, John. The Philosophical Anatomy of Freedom. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005
Kinna, Ruth. Anarchism: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2011
Maslow, Abraham. "A Theory of Human Motivation." Psychological Review, vol. 50, no. 4, 1943, pp. 370-396.
Newman, Saul. The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001.