THE CREATIVITY CONCEPT

After having introduced the systemic perspective of creativity and the Creativity Model of Csikszentmihalyi, today I will identify systemic factors which can either be creativity-inspiring or creativity-blocking.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Source: Tschimmel, K. (2019). The evolution of the Creativity Concept: from a psychological to a systemic approach. In The Creativity Virus. Porto: Ed. Mindshake. pp.33-35.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE CREATIVITY CONCEPT

Part 4: Systemic blockages

The findings of systems theory suggest that a society, or culture or domain, as well as other aspects of a work or problem area, can have a significant impact on the creative thinking of an individual and thus can be either creativity-inspiring or blocking. Of course, assuming that multiple factors and especially their combinations and feedback loops, contribute to creative performance, then all of these factors and their overlaps can also severely inhibit creative thought processes. According to Amabile (1996: 17), “whatever an individual’s talents, domain expertise, and creative thinking skills, that individual’s social environment – the conditions under which he or she works – can significantly increase or decrease the level of creativity produced“. In the following, these external, environmental factors that can inhibit the creative thinking of an individual or a group of people are explored. These include the following factors, based on Csikszentmihalyi's creativity model (see post from last week): the cultural environment, the domain, the social conditions and the field of expertise, as well as the environment in which an individual works on a specific task. 

The Cultural Environment

Concerning the cultural environment, Csikszentmihalyi (2004) considers easy access to already produced and stored information of a culture, as well as good relations with, or an opening to, other cultures, as particularly important impulses for creative work. If information is inaccessible, incomprehensible or badly stored, the inclusion of already existing knowledge is made difficult or even impossible, giving rise to the possibilities of repetition. Also, the lack of access to other cultures can make innovation difficult, as new perspectives and knowledge from other cultural domains offer new combinations, and thus stimulate creative thinking processes. Creativity often intensifies at meeting points of different cultures, where different ways of life and values come together and new combinations of ideas can be perceived more easily. 

The Domain

Each culture is composed of different disciplines: from religion or philosophy to the various arts and humanities subjects, to individual scientific disciplines. Even a particular game or a particular belief may be an area in itself. As already mentioned, creative accomplishments or innovations do not take place in a culture in general, but within one of their specific disciplines whose rules must be sufficiently mastered by the creative individual. The rules of an area are passed on from generation to generation through imitation and training. Concerning the influence of the domain on an innovative solution, Csikszentmihalyi includes the following aspects: the availability of the specific knowledge and its anchoring in the respective subject area; access to the subject area and its position within the culture. As a creativity inhibiter, Csikszentmihalyi describes a domain whose knowledge is solidified too much in traditional values, since these are usually very difficult to change. 

On the other hand, too loose integration of expertise is also a blockade, as it makes it difficult to recognise “valuable” innovation. In addition, Csikszentmihalyi points out that access to the subject may vary. For example, expertise can become a monopoly of an elite group, denying others access to the subject and thus preventing the creation of new perspectives. Also, certain areas are harder to renew than others, depending in large part on how dependent a discipline is on its culture or on its sociocultural system. For example, until the 17th century, in Europe it was very difficult to be creative in many scientific fields, as they were subject to ecclesiastical surveillance (as the case of Galileo clearly shows). Csikszentmihalyi also notes that the more important a discipline is within a culture, the more likely creative thinkers are attracted and motivated to create something new. In every historical period there would be a domain that attracts more talented people than at any other time. The attractiveness of a subject depends on several variables: a central position of the faculty within the culture, the opportunity to discover something new and the intrinsic reward that is promised to those working in the field. In general, potentially creative young people do not opt for a faculty where all the basic questions have already been answered, thus seeming uninteresting in regard to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. 

The Social Context

As mentioned above, it is impossible to rate creative accomplishments without a social background. The social context explains phenomena such as Van Gogh's, who in his day was considered a “poor madman” and is now recognised as a brilliant painter, which suggests that social conditions can hinder the achievement of novelty. A society can be closed to new ideas for socio-cultural political reasons, be these prevailing ideologies and tendencies, existing hierarchies, preferred communication styles or otherwise. Arieti (1993) describes nine factors that make a society a “creativity-generating system”, a culture that stimulates and promotes creative thinking and innovative achievements: 

1. the availability of cultural and material resources;

2. the opening for cultural impulses;

3. the orientation towards the future;

4. the free access to cultural resources for all without discrimination;

5. freedom of expression;

6. contact with other cultures and values;

7. the tolerance of divergent opinions;

8. the stimulation of interactions of creative individuals;

9. the promotion and reward of creative achievements. 

According to Csikszentmihalyi (2004), creative developments in a particular domain are only possible if there is sufficient available energy in a social system, as illustrated by the examples of Florence in the 15th century and Paris in the 19th century. The relatively high level of material wealth allowed those places and times to learn and experiment beyond the essentials of life. 

The Working Environment

On the basis of Csikszentmihalyi's creativity model, another factor that can inhibit or promote creativity can be added: the working environment, which refers to physical as well as social factors. An inappropriate physical environment, such as poor lighting, interior design that compromises our aesthetic well-being, an unpleasant room temperature, poor ventilation or background noise (loud running music, speaking colleagues, constantly chirping phones, etc.) negatively impact creative thinking processes. It is no coincidence that many people who work creatively prefer to work late in the evening or early in the morning, because at that time hardly anyone interrupts their flow of thought. And it also explains the fact that creative professionals attach great importance to a harmonious design of their work spaces. But emotional well-being is not only influenced by physical factors but also by social factors. How important a working atmosphere is, so having a positive effect on our emotional state, is emphasised by Damásio (2000) in this work about Emotions. For example, a work environment characterised by competition, lack of cooperation, and lack of trust in peers and superiors can block creative thinking immensely, as also pointed out by Adams (1986: 90): “An atmosphere of honesty, truth and support is absolutely necessary to get the best of a person's creative capacity.” Someone who is afraid of embarrassment or criticism can not freely play out his imagination. An over hierarchical working structure in an organisation therefore usually inhibits a free and spontaneous production of new ideas. Lack of administrative or financial support from “Above” also often prevents the development of new ideas and products. In particular, time pressure and stress often have a very negative effect on creative processes, because ideas can not mature. Innovation requires time for thinking differently and experimenting. 

The Expert Field

In addition to the cultural, social and physical environment and the knowledge domain, the expert field is an important factor that can stimulate or hinder creativity, because it is above all the experts who determine whether a creation is valuable and innovative or not. There are areas where there are few experts, while others have numerous expert groups. Csikszentmihalyi points out that an expert field can prevent the recognition of creative achievements if it is politically opposed to a creative individual or if it is trapped in formal- aesthetic values. If conflicts or envy and competitive struggles prevail within an expert field, this blocks the recognition of creative achievements, since everyone is only occupied with exercising and asserting their own interests. Generosity, openness and curiosity of the experts, however, lead to greater recognition of new creations. The quantity and quality of creative performance at a given moment in history does not depend only on how many creative people try to create something new within a discipline, but also on how receptive an expert field is. 

- - - - - - - - - - - 

As we saw, according to the systemic approach, creativity is a phenomenon that emerges in the interaction between creator and audience. To finish this series of posts about the concept of creativity, next week I will share the final conclusions arising from the systemic perspective of creativity. You are welcome to join in and to give your opinion!

Bibliographical references of this text are:

Adams, J. L. (1986). Guía y juegos para superar bloqueos mentales. Barcelona: Editorial Gedisa, [orig. Conceptual Blockbusing: A guide to better ideas, Freemann, San Francisco, 1974]. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview: Boulder. Arieti, S. (1993). La Creatividad. La Síntese Mágica. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica [orig. Creativity. The Magic Synthesis, 1976]. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). “Society, culture, person: A systems view of creativity”. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 325-339. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). “Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity”. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press. pp. 313-335. [1st Ed. 1999]. Damásio, A. (2000). O sentimento de si. O Corpo, a Emo??o e a Neurobiologia da Consciência. Mem Martins: Publica??es Europa-América.