Written By Renato Rizzuti & Artwork By Maria Rizzuti
Creativity is a fascinating and perplexing subject. It sometimes seems so mystical that it cannot be subjected to theoretical scrutiny and research. In this blog, some clarifications about creativity will be made. First of all, a definition of creativity must be established. Secondly, an examination of the origins of creativity will be undertaken. Thirdly, the consequences of differences in creativity in formal schooling will be considered.
Before embarking on an investigation of creativity and its relation to other factors, a definition of creativity must be formulated. A single definition of creativity will not suffice since creativity must be defined both conceptually and operationally. This is undoubtedly the first and most crucial step in investigating creativity.
First, a conceptual definition is needed that demythologizes the notion of creativity as something ineffable and semantically transcendent. In order to achieve this, a few common myths about the concept of creativity must be dispelled.
Perhaps one of the biggest myths is that creativity is synonymous with intelligence. Studies have shown that this is not necessarily true. A highly intelligent person is not automatically a creative person. A highly creative person may score higher than a highly intelligent person as far as inventiveness and originality are concerned. Intelligence and creativity are not necessarily mutually inclusive concepts.
The main difference is that creativity involves a thinking process called divergent thinking whereas intelligence is characterized by convergent thinking. For example: using convergent thinking a brick is seen as a building material whereas using divergent thinking a brick can be seen as a weapon.
Freud thinks that creative behaviour is a continuation of and substitution for the play of childhood. Freud’s conception of creativity is rather simplistic and terribly slanted towards labelling the creative person as neurotic. On the contrary, you may argue that the creative person has a healthy facet of their personality which finds satisfaction in artistic pursuits.
An operational definition of creativity can be summarily defined as the ability to bring something new into existence. This would cover a diverse group of people such as scientist and artists. The operational definition of creativity gives everyone a fair chance at being creative to some degree and do not single out an elite.
One very important factor in creativity research is the origins of creativity in children. A logical place to start is to look at the biological roots of creativity. In his article entitled “The Biological Roots of Creativity” Herbert Gutman states “The blueprints residing in the genes are thus analogous to the ideas underlying the creative activities of man.” Gutman goes on to conclude “Human creative activity is rooted in the general life principle of self-duplication.” This establishes a link between the process of reproduction and creation.
This idea sheds some light on the origins of creativity in children since children cannot achieve self-duplication via the adult way of reproduction and thus their biological urges are most likely to find self-expression through some form of creative activity. This may lead us to conclude that children, more than adults, must seek more creative expression because they have a greater need for it.
Then there are the environmental factors affecting the origins of creativity in children. In the case of children, it is the family environment that is of primary importance. The educational factor of the parents, the age of the parents, and the kind of reading material available in the home have a strong influence on the child.
Of primary importance is: what are the consequences of differences in creativity for formal schooling? It can be assumed that the high creativity student will be in a state of tension and conflict while he is in the formal schooling system. The low creativity or average student will be more comfortable in the formal schooling system than his more creative peers. Since the system breeds conformity and “normality.” Whereas the highly creative student can be labelled as difficult, nonconforming and eccentric.
The development of young people in the present formal school setting needs a lot more thought and serious consideration. Things are far from ideal in our present educational system. The healthy, bright and starry eyed creative student must not be reduced to a neurotic, dull, and teary eyed creature. To allow this to go on would be to allow a reoccurring waste of human resources to go on and a truly tragic scene to play over and over again.
