Modern education, shaped by industrial-age thinking and dominated by Western philosophical frameworks, has long followed hierarchical models that prioritize individual achievement, linear progress, and control. One of the most emblematic representations of this approach is Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs,” a pyramid that places self-actualization at its peak and assumes a stepwise progression from physiological needs to spiritual fulfillment. However, recent revelations about the true origins of Maslow’s thinking, rooted in the communal practices of the Blackfoot Nation, challenge the legitimacy and utility of such a model. When examined alongside Paulo Freire’s critique of the “banking concept of education” and the Buddhist principle of innate Buddha-nature, we are presented with a compelling opportunity to reimagine education not as a hierarchy but as a circle: an inclusive, relational, and co-creative process.
The flaws of the triangle: Maslow, misappropriation and individualism
In “The Blackfoot Wisdom That Inspired Maslow’s Hierarchy,” the article reveals how Maslow was deeply influenced by his time with the Blackfoot people, who embodied a holistic, communal worldview. Contrary to the linear progression of Maslow’s pyramid, the Blackfoot model is cyclical and collective, emphasizing community actualization and responsibility to future generations over individual attainment. Maslow observed these values but ultimately reframed them through a Western lens, producing a pyramid that subtly reinforced capitalist ideals: self-fulfillment as a personal endpoint, success as solitary, and progress as upward mobility.
This distortion has deeply influenced not only psychology but also educational systems. Schools, built around standardized testing, competitive grading, and compartmentalized knowledge, mirror Maslow’s ladder. They nurture a belief that one must climb: first to survive, then to belong, then to excel, and only then can one become whole. In doing so, they isolate the learner from the community and promote personal achievement at the expense of collective growth.
The banking model and the erasure of humanity
Paulo Freire’s essay “The Banking Concept of Education” critiques this mechanistic model of learning, wherein students are treated as passive receptacles into which teachers deposit knowledge. This model, Freire argues, dehumanizes both students and teachers by denying their agency, creativity, and mutual interdependence. It mirrors the triangle’s logic: top-down, hierarchical, and power-laden. Education becomes a tool of control rather than liberation, conditioning students to accept the status quo rather than question it.
Freire advocates instead for a dialogical model of education; one rooted in conversation, co-creation, and mutual transformation. Knowledge is not transmitted but generated, not owned but shared. In this model, the classroom becomes a circle, where teacher and student sit together, exchange ideas, and co-develop understanding. This mirrors the Indigenous practice of council or circle dialogue, and it resonates deeply with the notion that wisdom is not a peak to be reached alone, but a well to be tended together.
Buddha-Nature and the innate potential of all beings
The Buddhist concept of Buddha-nature further destabilizes the hierarchical model of education by asserting that every sentient being possesses the seed of enlightenment. Wisdom is not something acquired from above or earned through struggle; it is inherent and requires only the right conditions to bloom. This view encourages educators to approach learners not as empty vessels or broken beings needing repair, but as whole, luminous individuals whose potential is always present.
This aligns with both Freire’s belief in the learner’s agency and the Blackfoot model’s focus on balance, community, and stewardship. It calls into question any pedagogy that presumes deficiency and instead invites practices that honor presence, interconnectedness, and responsibility.
Circles, not pyramids: the new paradigm for education
A future of education grounded in collective wisdom and innate potential must replace triangles with circles. Rather than progressing up a pyramid of needs, students can be seen as participating in a living system, a communal field where learning is regenerative, relational, and circular. In such a model:
Responsibility replaces control: Education becomes a shared responsibility, not only to the self but to community, ancestors, and descendants. Teachers are not authorities but caretakers of a sacred trust.
Belonging precedes achievement: Instead of using achievement as the gateway to self-worth, education affirms each student’s belonging as the foundation for growth.
Knowledge is co-created: Just as Buddha-nature teaches that enlightenment is already within, education can draw out rather than impose. Learning arises through relationship, not transmission.
Time is nonlinear: Progress isn’t a race to the top but a spiral of deepening understanding, where cycles of learning, unlearning, and re-learning are embraced.
Education as a living circle
To move forward, we must not only question the triangle but honor the circle, both symbolically and practically. This means elevating Indigenous wisdom systems, embracing dialogical pedagogy, and nurturing the sacred potential in each learner. A circular education values presence over productivity, relationship over ranking, and stewardship over status. As the climate crisis, social fragmentation, and systemic inequality call us toward new ways of being, we must transform education into a site of collective renewal. In doing so, we may finally realize what Maslow saw but misrepresented: that true self-actualization is not an individual achievement, but a communal responsibility.
Addendum: the Biopsychosocial model and education
The biopsychosocial model, developed by psychiatrist George Engel, proposes that health, and by extension, mental health, is not the product of biological factors alone, but a dynamic interplay of biological, psychological, and social dimensions. In educational contexts (read: Applying the Biopsychosocial Model to Teaching and Learning by Amanda Cappon & Lynne N. Kennette), this model offers a holistic framework for understanding student wellbeing, moving beyond narrow academic metrics to account for the full human experience.
When we apply the biopsychosocial lens to education, we uncover deep alignments with the critique of hierarchical models and the advocacy for circular, communal paradigms outlined in the essay.
Biological: a foundation, not a limitation
Traditional education systems often echo Maslow’s model in assuming that basic needs (sleep, nutrition, physical safety) must be met before higher-order learning can occur. While these biological needs are indeed foundational, the biopsychosocial model resists isolating them. For example, a student’s chronic stress (biological) cannot be fully addressed without understanding the psychological trauma of racism or the social alienation of poverty.
A new paradigm education recognizes that biology is not a fixed barrier, but part of an interconnected web. It integrates movement, rest, sensory engagement, and environmental care as part of learning, not as a prerequisite, but as a constant practice in harmony with the whole self.
Psychological: the inner world and learning
Psychologically, the model acknowledges the role of emotions, identity, trauma, resilience, and mindset in learning. Paulo Freire’s insistence on education as a liberatory practice is inherently psychological; it respects the learner’s inner landscape and encourages the development of critical consciousness.
Furthermore, the Buddhist idea of Buddha-nature resonates with this dimension by affirming the innate worth and potential of each learner. Education, in this sense, is not a corrective for deficiency, but a mirror held up to one’s intrinsic light.
Social: community as context and catalyst
The social component is where the biopsychosocial model most powerfully intersects with Indigenous knowledge and circular learning models. Social conditions (family dynamics, cultural identity, systemic oppression, peer relationships) are not external to learning; they are its soil. A student cannot thrive in a system that devalues their identity or isolates them from meaningful connection.
The Blackfoot emphasis on communal actualization, and Freire’s model of dialogical education, both honor this truth: learning is a social act. Circles, not pyramids, support learners by embedding them in networks of care, accountability, and shared responsibility.
Integration: Biopsychosocial is circular, not linear
In contrast to rigid, linear models, the biopsychosocial framework is inherently systemic and circular. No one factor precedes the others. Biological, psychological, and social aspects influence each other continuously, just as in a thriving educational ecosystem. This mirrors Indigenous worldviews that do not separate mind, body, spirit, and community but see them as one.
By integrating this model, education can move toward a regenerative, trauma-informed, and community-rooted paradigm. Support systems in schools, from mental health services to curriculum design, can evolve to reflect the interconnectedness of student wellbeing, honoring the circle over the ladder.
Closing thought
Embracing the biopsychosocial model in education is not just a matter of providing more services; it is a philosophical shift. It calls for rethinking what education is for, not the creation of high-achieving individuals, but the cultivation of resilient, wise, and connected human beings. When we replace pyramids with circles, and isolation with interdependence, we align not only with science and psychology but with the deepest traditions of collective wisdom.
