The question of the universal applicability of creativity
In ‘The Limits of Creativity in Education: Dilemmas for the Educator’, Anna Craft says that creativity may not be a “universally-applicable concept” (p. 120). However there are studies that show that creativity is not impeded in collectivist societies (Du & Wang, 2009). One article specifically addressed the creativity in China that led to innovations because people were more willing to follow leaders than in Western society. Still, creativity takes courage to “think independently of social norms” (Craft, 2003, p. 120).
Craft seems to further suggest that creativity is limited by its cultural specificity – as if there is no creativity in socialist or Eastern nations because “extraordinary and ordinary creativity reflect the globalization of significant aspects of Western culture” (p. 121). She even ignores the idea of everyday creativity, which is vaguely enough defined to include everyone. This geocentric view is either flat-out racist or represents Craft’s own ignorance of the subject of creativity. As if creativity is something that sprang from the loins of the Old Country, was fertilized in the New World and disseminated to all the lesser nations of the world. (Craft does not cite anyone to support her assertion in this section of her paper though she does cite a couple of articles to support a position just one paragraph earlier.)
While a single view of creativity may be related to Western culture with its stark individualism and its emphasis on people who get the credit. Other countries in all areas of the world certainly have experienced creativity. People dance. People sing. People create regardless of where they live.
If the question is “whether or not creativity should be taught if it is culturally specific?”, then the answer would be it depends on how each school system sees creativity. Being creative doesn’t actually have a culture. In the United States, it might be taught in the context of a market economy and increasing production. In Bhutan, it might be taught in a context of Gross National Happiness. Creativity carries as many values as a hammer; it is a tool that people and nations can adapt for their own purposes.
If teaching creativity means confirming that a “throw-away society” is a given, Craft asks if it should be taught at all. The thing about creativity, which craft also points out is that in order to be creative, people have to get rid of their assumptions. People taught creativity in this manner may be more likely to disrupt the status quo and to question the way things are done. Creativity may seem like a double-edged sword, but progress – whatever that means – can only happen with creativity. The status quo is an illusion that people hold onto because they fear change.
Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British journal of educational studies, 51(2), 113-127.
DU, J., & WANG, D. N. (2009). Person-Environment Fit and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Collectivism [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 10, 009.
Craft seems to further suggest that creativity is limited by its cultural specificity – as if there is no creativity in socialist or Eastern nations because “extraordinary and ordinary creativity reflect the globalization of significant aspects of Western culture” (p. 121). She even ignores the idea of everyday creativity, which is vaguely enough defined to include everyone. This geocentric view is either flat-out racist or represents Craft’s own ignorance of the subject of creativity. As if creativity is something that sprang from the loins of the Old Country, was fertilized in the New World and disseminated to all the lesser nations of the world. (Craft does not cite anyone to support her assertion in this section of her paper though she does cite a couple of articles to support a position just one paragraph earlier.)
While a single view of creativity may be related to Western culture with its stark individualism and its emphasis on people who get the credit. Other countries in all areas of the world certainly have experienced creativity. People dance. People sing. People create regardless of where they live.
If the question is “whether or not creativity should be taught if it is culturally specific?”, then the answer would be it depends on how each school system sees creativity. Being creative doesn’t actually have a culture. In the United States, it might be taught in the context of a market economy and increasing production. In Bhutan, it might be taught in a context of Gross National Happiness. Creativity carries as many values as a hammer; it is a tool that people and nations can adapt for their own purposes.
If teaching creativity means confirming that a “throw-away society” is a given, Craft asks if it should be taught at all. The thing about creativity, which craft also points out is that in order to be creative, people have to get rid of their assumptions. People taught creativity in this manner may be more likely to disrupt the status quo and to question the way things are done. Creativity may seem like a double-edged sword, but progress – whatever that means – can only happen with creativity. The status quo is an illusion that people hold onto because they fear change.
Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British journal of educational studies, 51(2), 113-127.
DU, J., & WANG, D. N. (2009). Person-Environment Fit and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Collectivism [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 10, 009.