Innovation Observed. Niklas Luhmann and the Theory of Creativity

This is Part II of a three-part article. The article is predicated on the principle that creativity is a universal activity, essential in an evolutionary perspective, to adaptation and sustainability. This manuscript on the sociology of creativity has three purposes: (1) to develop the argument that key factors in creative activity are socially based and developed; hence, sociology can contribute significantly to understanding and explaining human creativity; (2) to present a systems approach which enables us to link in a systematic and coherent way the disparate social factors and mechanisms that are involved in creative activity and to describe and explain creativity; (3) to illustrate sociological systems theory's (Actor-Systems-Dynamics) conceptualization of multiple interrelated institutional, cultural, and interaction factors and mechanisms and their role in creativity and innovative developments in diverse empirical instances. The preceding segment of this article, Part I, introduced a general model of innovation and creative development stressing the socio-cultural and political embeddedness of agents, either as individuals or groups, in their creative activities and innovative productions. This second part, Part II, investigates the " context of innovation and discovery " considering applications and illustrations ranging from, for instance: (i) " the independent innovator or entrepreneur " who exercises creativity based on absorbing a field of knowledge, concepts, challenges, problems, solution strategies, creativity production functions or programs (and who is likely to be in contact with libraries, relevant journals and may be directly or indirectly in contact with a network of others); (ii) groups in their particular fields operating greenhouse types of organization driving problem-solving and creative activities – both self-organizing groups as well as groups established by external powers (whether a private company, a government, or a non-government organization or movement); (iii) entire societies undergoing transformations and radical development as in the industrial and later revolutions. Part III of this article investigates and analyzes " the context of receptivity, selection, and institutionalization " of novelty.

The three-part article of which this one is Part III is predicated on the principle that creativity is a universal activity, essential in an evolutionary perspective to adaptation and sustainability. This work on the sociology of creativity has three purposes: (1) to develop the argument that key factors in creative activity are socially based and developed; hence, sociology can contribute significantly to understanding and explaining human creativity; (2) to present a systems approach which enables us to link in a systematic and coherent way the disparate social factors and mechanisms that are involved in creative activity and to describe and explain creativity; (3) to illustrate a sociological systems theory's (Actor-Systems-Dynamics) conceptualization of multiple interrelated institutional, cultural, and interaction factors and mechanisms – and their role in creativity and innovative developments in diverse empirical cases. Part I of this article introduced and applied a general model of innovation and creative development stressing the socio-cultural and political embeddedness of agents, either as individuals or groups, in their creative activities and innovative productions. Part II investigated the " context of innovation and discovery " considering a wide range of applications and illustrations. This 3rd segment, Part III, specifies and analyzes the " context of receptivity and institutionalization " where innovations and creative developments are socially accepted, legitimized, and institutionalized or rejected and suppressed. A number of cases and illustrations are considered. Power considerations are part and parcel of these analyses, for instance the role of the state as well as powerful private interests and social movements in facilitating and/or constraining innovations and creative developments in society. In the perspective presented here, generally speaking, creativity can be consistently and systematically considered to a great extent as social, cultural, institutional and material as much as psychological or biological.

This commentary examines the social perspective on creativity, as presented in the featured article. There are several attractive aspects to the social perspective, but serious limitations as well, which are detailed in this commentary. The assumptions of the social perspective are also discussed. The most questionable of these assumes that social recognition and impact are inherent parts of creativity. The parsimonious alternative is to define creativity such that it includes only what is related to creativity per se and to recognize that social recognition may follow creation and is certainly extricable from it. A defence of this parsimonious view is presented. A brief discussion of possible crises in the field of creativity studies is also presented, with one suggestion being that the diverse approaches used in the field represent a kind of divergent thinking and as such represent progress, even though it is not linear. This commentary concludes with a discussion about creativity being vital for quality of life. That perspective differs dramatically from the product view of creativity which is often tied to a social perspective.

This year, 2009, is the European Year of Innovation and Creativity. Considering the speed of social, economic, environmental and technological change, the challenge of this millennium is to design a culture of creativity: a culture which is open to all changes and new opportunities and which is able to solve the many serious problems that the world is facing today. A culture in which creative thinking is not only demanded, but also encouraged and stimulated in all professional and private domains and organizations. To better understand this challenge for the future, this paper will describe the evolution of the creativity concept since the 1950's. This will be done in a multidisciplinary approach. Up to the late 1960s, the concept of creativity was dominated by the psychological foundations of Guilford, who introduced the still current concept of ‘Divergent Thinking' as the main ingredient of creativity. Apart from the boom of ‘Creative Techniques’ in the design field, the 1970s were the years in which creativity become an important issue in the development of organizations and commercial success: it saw the start of consultancy work in creativity and the coaching of teams. The most popular concept of this time was De Bono’s concept of 'Lateral Thinking'. From the late 1980s onwards, creativity is no longer a research field for just psychologists and educators, but for researchers in such different domains as physics, biology, neurology, sociology and management. Researchers such as Binnig, Amabile, Csikszentmihalyi or Guntern focused their studies on the evolutionary, social and the systemic perspective of creativity. On a social and political standard, the beginning of the new millennium is characterized by the concept of the 'Creative Age', which replaces a science obsessed era and the focus on marketing. During the mid-1990s, creativity as a broad-based attribute came to be commonplace: terms such as 'Creative Industries', ‘Creative Cities’ and 'Creative Economy' entered the political and popular vocabulary. In this context, in the last decade, several clustering movements and incubation centres have emerged, including in Portugal. At the end of the paper we will speculate about the future: Will the creative age survive into the next 40 years? Which kind of concept of creativity will be dominant? What will be the consequences of the new creativity approach for designers and other professionals in the creative economy?

Preliminary Draft (February 5, 2014); Revised (December 1, 2014) We are grateful to Ugo Corte for his many suggestions and inputs into this manuscript. Also, earlier related collaboration with has played a significant role in the development of the sociology of creativity.

The aim of this paper is to discuss different approaches to creativity and underline the cultural nature of its genesis. Biological genius (the “He-paradigm”) and psychological-individualistic (the “I-paradigm”) standpoints are contrasted with social and cross-cultural ones (the “We-paradigm”) and the cultural psychology of creativity is introduced and positioned. This emerging paradigm, drawing from both social accounts of creativity and the latest developments in cultural psychology and the theory of social representations, emphasises the contextual and generative nature of creative acts and employs a person (creator) – other (community) – object (artefacts) model. Creativity is conceptualized as a complex process that leads to the generation of new artefacts by working with “culturally-impregnated” materials within a representational space. This particular viewpoint highlights the meaning-oriented nature of creativity, its link to personal and group identities, and also calls for ecological research and situational interventions. One of the central issues addressed by the cultural psychology of creativity is the problem of “genesis” or how creativity is developed and manifested within cultural settings. The pioneer in this field is undoubtedly D.W. Winnicott who asserted at the beginning of the 70’s that creativity and cultural experience are twin-born. Children experiment culture creatively and they do so in the “third” or “potential” space, one that we can identify today with the social world of representations. In his view of ontogenesis the origins of creativity are found in the first forms of playing and are shaped by the nature of the mother – child relationship. The final part of the paper will develop further this account and show how creativity emerges from early childhood within a symbolic space where children “play” with artefactual resources, a space of dialogue between self and significant others, constantly alimented by social and collective systems of beliefs and practices, life experiences and communication. Key-words: creativity paradigms, the cultural psychology of creativity, representational space, genetic account, culture, artefacts, play

2013

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (1996) is a foundational text for understanding the lives and work of eminent creators. The study provides powerful insights into the social nature of creativity and presents those insights through advocacy for an evolutionary systems science view of current global struggles. The book thus offers a fertile context, and includes specific advice, for encouraging everyday creators to make powerful contributions to conscious evolution. This paper expands upon Creativity's ideas by explaining how recent research on everyday creativity, domain specificity, chaos theory and multicultural perspectives enrich our understanding of the conscious evolution of creativity.