Monika Reuter, Ph.D. (Sociology) – The Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale
Listening to a report on WLRN, the local national public radio station in August of 2009 about gentrification of Biscayne Boulevard and the “Daily Creative Food Company” in Miami hooked me to something that has not let go of me again. “Creative food?” I thought. I had never considered this before. Then I walked into the restaurant of our college, and in the middle of the room were all the bread creations by the culinary students, and it hit me: food and creativity – why, of course!
I began to pay attention to how the term was used: the Food Network loves the word; Buddy Valastro in his TLC shows Cake Boss and Kitchen Boss mentions the concept at least once per show; during a recent Chopped show, “creativity” was uttered four times in the first 20 minutes alone.
We find the concept in politics (President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address), in advertising, in education, and in philosophy. So – what does it mean? Creativity is snugly at home in Psychology. In a speech for the American Psychological Association annual meeting in 1950, Guilford challenged academics to think about creativity, and sixty years of work began. Many books, and hundreds of articles later (my bibliography so far is 38 pages long, single-spaced), the question has not been answered.
As I kept getting deeper into psychological explanations, I encountered ideas that creativity is the Janus face of madness, a personal trait, a by-product of intelligence or (not) teachable. Chaos theory has been proposed, and so has economics (see Howkins’ 2001 suggestion that the value of global creative turnover is $ 2.2 trillion annually). I also found the how-to consulting industry with oddball ideas such as different colored thinking hats to serious findings on the power of creativity in business (Tanner, 1997). Thousands of books, workshops, seminars, associations, groups and individuals with a wide variety of approaches try teaching people/institutions/corporations/kids on how to be creative.
Outside of person-centered approaches in Psychology, there is a suggestion that creativity might have different meanings in different cultural contexts (Kaufman and Sternberg, 2006). Well … ah duh … said my sociological brain! Much to my astonishment, however, I did not find theories or empirical research on creativity in Sociology except for Florida’s (2002) popular book which has some serious flaws and ignites the ire of many a labor activist, and Collins (1998) who wrote an amazing book on the sociology of philosophies and idea networks mirroring Sawyer’s (2007) proposition that creativity happens in groups. I have found Csikszentmihalyi (1996) and now get “flow.” Ruth Richards’ “everyday creativity” (2007) is interesting, and so is Glaveanu’s “social creativity” (2010). But while Ritzer says “I’d like to see a society in which people are free to be creative, rather than having their creativity constrained or eliminated” by the process of McDonaldization (www.georgeritzer.com), he does not define the term. There are so many explanations for creativity that it is no wonder why no consensus can be found on its meaning.
I was now convinced that we needed a theory of creativity in Sociology, and while I could fall back on Mills, or Berger and Luckman, it would be so much more challenging and fun to come up with something new. What better way than to ask the people who are, supposedly, “creative”? I work for a college that promises creative careers, I have hundreds of students who cannot escape when I ask them to fill out a survey, and I have ways to contact employers in creative industries. If I want to know what creativity is, I should ask students and employers/industry professionals!
Today, I am 1,725 student surveys and 183 employer/industry professional interviews further along, but no wiser. Heeding Babbie’s (2010) advice of “triangulation” as the best methodology to study abstract concepts, I devised both a quantitative survey with students in my “Research Methods in Action” classes, and qualitative interviews for employers/industry professionals. I quickly learned that interviewing may be the queen of all research methods, but she is also the most expensive in terms of time. So I began to e-mail the interviews to employers. These “e-interviews” have reached a few people far away (India, Hawaii, Australia) but most of them were filled out by time-pressed, harried and good-hearted souls locally who answered to my pleading, took out 20 minutes to fill in the open-ended questions, and sent it back.
I have learned a lot. I have learned that students and employers are about as far apart in their conceptions of creativity as the North and the South poles. I have learned that, were I to argue in a Marxian tradition, employers still today, in the 21st Century, really want nothing more than good little working ants. I have learned that students are incapable of thinking inside the box – the box where they will have to go in order to get a paycheck. They are, according to employers, and by their own preferences on the survey, not very good working, or willing to engage, as team members.
I have learned that we, as a vocational college, seem not to do a good job for employers because, to the discontent of many of them, our students are not fully “baked,” i.e., they still have to learn things, and employers have to invest time and money to teach them, and would prefer that we deliver the students ready to hit the ground, running. Some employers also fault the college for the many behavioral shortcomings they see: we educators are not only supposed to teach them the English and math and critical thinking (not too much of that, though, please!) that they need to become good employees. We are also supposed to teach them, in four years, and barring all else they may not/have learned hitherto, to be content with low starting salaries, to be on time, to be well dressed, to not talk back, to not have aspirations of becoming an Indian chief (“there’s no room for two”), and to smile and whistle while they work. On top of everything else, students are incapable of taking professional criticism, and that is the fault of the college, too.
I have also learned that students have absolutely no idea of “the real world.” They cannot comprehend that constant texting on their phones will be as unwelcome by an employer as it is by me during class. They cannot comprehend that there are deadlines, and if they are not met, there will be no paycheck. They cannot comprehend that while they may be night owls, businesses tend to run during the day, and do not appreciate someone who “just can’t get it together before noon” (our Career Services Department can tell many such stories). The college requires a class in professionalism, and students still do not think that a couple of grammar problems on their resume should elicit employers’ sarcasm.
As I said, I have learned a lot. What I have not learned in the past 3 years is what creativity is, or why the public is fascinated with the idea of creativity as an outcome of a few brilliant geniuses who sit around and let it pour out of them. I am stumped when I hear creativity being mistaken for innovation, or the assumption that only that can be creative which sells. Yet, there is much belief that if only we could crank up the creativity, our economy would be on the upswing again (Kao, 2008) – and we could save the world (Meyer, 2000).
What I’m still fascinated by is the idea of a sociological theory of creativity – minus the obvious discussion on art which I avoid. I am asking for your suggestions: Have you seen a creativity theory? Do you know of a model I could follow? Where do you see creativity? Is there a culture I should look into (either in the U.S., or abroad)? Is this a mad pursuit and should I grow earlids (Tucholsky, 1931) to ignore the nagging questions of creativity? How important is this question to Sociology – or is it? Comment please, or send me an e-mail: [email protected] .
References
Babbie, Earl. 2010. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Collins, Randall. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Czikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. NY: Harper Collins Publishers
Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class; and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. NY: Basic Books.
Glaveanu, Vlad-Petre. 2010. “Principles for a Cultural Psychology of Creativity,” in Culture & Psychology, 16: 147-163.
Guilford, J.P. 1950. “Creativity”. The American Psychologist, 5: 444-454.
Howkins, John. 2001. The Creative Economy. NY: Penguin Books.
Kao, John. 2008. Innovation: Wie sich die USA & Europa neu erfinden koennen. Hamburg: Murmann Verlag.
Kaufman, James C. and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.) 2006. The International Handbook of Creativity. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, Pamela. 2000. Quantum Creativity. Lincolnwood (Chicago): Contemporary Books.
Richards, Ruth (ed.). 2007. Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature. Psychological, Social and Spiritual Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: American. Psychological Association. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Sawyer, R. Keith. 2007. Group Genius. The Creative Power of Collaboration. NY: Basic Books.
Tanner, David. 1997. Total Creativity in Business and Industry. New York: Advanced Practical Thinking Training, Inc. (APT T).
Tucholsky, Kurt. 1931. Schloss Gripsholm. Berlin: Ernst Rowohlt.
Interesting. I have found the term “creative” in the context given, to be just another lovely and wishful sentiment. I had spent months upon months unemployed looking for employment through what the unemployment office refers to as ‘Creative Job Search’. What I have discovered is that there is no creativity to it. It is more of who you know and your status and sometimes it boils down to being all relative. Wandering the hallowed halls of the Welfare Department,the Department of Revenue and even the Federal Court Building, I often asked myself “How did some of these people get the position that they have because they clearly are NOT creative nor smart.” I also noticed PhD types applying for welfare. So much for creativity. I am afraid ‘creativity’ in the innovation sense is just another buzz word.
Then there is the scheming kind of creativity. This type of ‘thinking outside of the box’ is nothing more that the birth canal to white collar crimes.
I think Timothy McGettigan nailed it with the notion that when you envision the unthinkable or sometimes considered impossible it kick starts the engine to manifesting those very ideas.
I finally found a home in the creativity field of the right brained kinds. It’s what I know, that sort of creativity to me is second nature. It is what I know and can do well adn that is creativity.
But now for that innovation thing…
Creativity is also the natural outcome of any individual or group who is privileged to freely contemplate ideas without the worry of survival or means of sustaining their existence. It amounts to a conducive environment where individuals are free to be individuals and not judged on their ideas.
It is an observation that capitalism saps real creativity and real creativity has no use for capitalism. I have found that good ideas happen in less stressed environments.
I’ve been reading up on childhood and the culture of consumption. Just finished Barber’s Con$sumed (2007), a critique of the ‘ethos of infantilism’ in Western society and the deleterious role Madison Ave plays in the dumbing down of today’s children. Toys hyped as ‘educational’ stifle creativity and ultimately critical thinking skills necessary to become responsible citizens (not unlike some of the students you reflect upon in your comments). While this isn’t exactly a theory on creativity itself, it does address societal consequences that come with the lack of creativity.
Interesting article. I think that creativity derives from (or is perhaps synonymous with) human agency. I am not surprised that you have encountered difficulties finding specific statements about the nature and source of creativity, because sociologists have been similarly flummoxed by agency.
Karl Popper, one of the most eminent philosopher/scholars of the 20th century, stated that what makes humans unique is our ability to develop intellectually creative solutions to problems. Thus, creativity was absolutely central to Popper’s thinking, however, when it came to identifying the fundamental source of creativity, Popper threw up his hands. Precisely what it is about human cognition that enables creative, innovative, ground-breaking thinking remains unknown.
Clearly, innovative thinking is a biologically-advantageous attribute. Creativity is hard-wired into our genes, but precisely how humans managed to distinguish themselves from other gray-matter-equipped animals remains a mystery. In all likelihood, tool use (probably accidental, or serendipitous at first) conferred additional selection advantages and spurred the development of the “thinking ape,” but there are other apes–chimps in particular–who use rudimentary tools but demonstrate no intrinsic need, desire, or proclivity to elevate or advance the sophistication of their technologies. There is something unique about the human animal that makes us passionate about, and impatient with technology. We are always pushing the technological envelope–and are able to do so because of our intelligence and creativity–but it remains to be determined from whence the wellspring of creativity derives.
On another front, artificial intelligence researchers are trying to crack the secret of innovative human cognition–so that they will eventually be able to incorporate that uniquely-human attribute into machines. However, AI researchers still lack a convincing definition of intelligence. AI researchers (like the rest of us) are intelligent enough to understand the experience of intelligence–i.e., I think, therefore I am–but they are not intelligent enough to understand intelligence. At least, not yet.
I have developed my own definition of agency,
Agency can be understood as a form of inventive thinking that exhibits three distinguishing characteristics:
1. Originality – instead of rehashing conventional thinking, agents concoct novel ideas.
For example, rather than embracing the dominant discourse, Mills’ power elite theory offered a fresh, new perspective on the post-war political landscape in the US.
2. Opposition – given that invisible forms of power tend to inspire conformity, acts of agency are predicated upon a definable element of individual-level opposition to societal influences.
For example, Mills, complete with leather jacket and motorcycle, was not only a rebellious thinker, but he also projected the archetypical image of the 1950s rebel. In addition, although early in his career Darwin was a conventional thinker, Darwin ultimately broke out of his conventional mold and hatched a theory that audaciously challenged every major presupposition of the creationist paradigm.
3. Redefinition – in contrast with the assertions of social determinists, I argue that individuals are capable of challenging and eliminating the influences of invisible social power through a process of redefining reality.
I fear that after this long diatribe, I have still not answered your original question. However, I want to assure you that a lot of folks are working diligently to answer the very same–or, at least very similar–profound and fascinating(!) question that you have posed.
Best,
Tim
I appreciate the comments from all of you, and all of them add to the mystery that the concept has become to me. Right now, I am finishing up a very hectic term, and I will get back to all of your comments in a day or two. Thank you, for now, for commenting!
How quickly people forget that in order to become creative (to add something to the melting pot of ever growing-knowledge) you have to know everything there is to know about the field you’re interested in. That requires years of experience and learning. But the first sentence in the good book of dramathurgy is: If you want to create good (original) movies you should avoid watching any other cinema creations. I have to agree with the first one because science and art are fundamentally different but work on the same fuel – an idea 🙂
What Ive come to understand about creativeness is that it works on different principles in different time periods. Ive watched an excellent clip (I’ll past it) about time perception and about 6 minutes into the clip Professor Philip Zimbardo explains why is it much harder for young people to focus now-days. When you watch it you will begin to understand that perhaps our already learned concepts are limiting us in more ways than we originally thought, and that perhaps thinking “outside the box” is difficult because of a learning process that is honed all through elementary school and college. Perhaps its time for more radical steps in changing education.
I absolutely disagree with this. You do not have to know everything about a field in order to be creative in it. I mean, you should know something, but you don’t have to know everything. In fact, in my opinion this stipulation is exactly what undermines creativity in the sciences. You spend your entire academic career searching for what “others had to say” and you crush your own creativity. Such an activity is the antithesis of creativity by default, since creativity is, by definition, about creating new things. How can you create something new if you slavishly kow-tow behind “the giants” in a field. All that does it create profound levels of intellectual mediocrity and servitude.
If scientists want to learn to be creative then the first thing they must do is begin to develop their own creative voice. This is exactly the point of The Socjourn which is established to give Sociologists a creative outlet for their work. We are an academic publication but we do not follow the tired model of scholarly publication, established a century ago, and now so dated and stale as to be almost comical.
We do have to step outside the box and radically transform education, but first we must aside the ideas that box us in, and this idea that art and science are different, and that creativity in either is based on different principles, is one of the first ideas that has to go.
I concur with Mike. One does not need to know ‘everything’ within a particular field of endeavor in order to generate creative ideas. First of all, it is simply impossible for any single individual to know everything about anything. Our digital society simply produces too much information for such a thing to be possible (even if it ever was).
To generate creative ideas, one must be sufficiently conversant within a particular domain of intellectual endeavor to understand the problems, limitations and ‘black boxes’ in that field. Thus, to a degree, one’s thinking must be framed (or limited, bounded or constrained) by the knowledge parameters that define a particular field in order to competently engage in intellectual explorations in that field. Nevertheless, those same constraints can also enable individuals to transcend the existing boundaries of knowledge.
For example, Richard Feynman (a famous physicist) refused to keep up with the literature in his field. Instead, he would read the introductions to books and papers in order to understand ‘the problem’ that the publications explored, and then he would find his own solution to the problem.
Thus, genius (or intellectual creativity) is something that is both constrained and enabled by established knowledge structures.
This is an older post, which means you may or may not see this comment, however, I have learned some interesting things that may help or may not, perhaps they will be something you already know or that I am reiterating in my terms.
Either way, I think we cannot think of creativity as some sort of “thing” or “stuff.” Otherwise we will get to caught up in trying to decipher what “it” is, when in reality it is something that is created differently in each persons mind. If you ask someone what it means to be creative, then you will never get one straight answer from each person, their tones, looks while they say it, words and mood will completely different. This leaves me to reason with this theory, perhaps… just perhaps, creativity is a form of how we interpret and create things (physical or mental) depending on circumstances, how one was raised (values, moral compass and what fulfills them) and the envirnoment/culture that the person was raised up in.
That’s just my two scents.