Creativity and Integral Theory: Levels, States, Lines, or Types?
Table of Contents
Abstract Introduction Definitions Creativity vs Innovation Types of Creativity Creative Contributions Developmental Stages [Developmental trends in creativity by key developmental stages](Developmental trends in creativity by key developmental stages (@runco2020encyclopedia, p323)) Discussion Conclusion References
Creativity and Integral Theory: Levels, States, Lines, or Types? sticky
Paper in pictures
Abstract
Creativity as a concept continues to defy simplistic definitions. It manifests differently depending on who is examining the phenomenon and which definitions currently in use are applied. Is it a capability that grows by stages or levels? Is it a state or peak experience? Is it it’s own developmental line, or a concept better described by tpes? I propose in this paper that creativity can be interpreted using all four lenses. Like the particle vs. wave debate, it depends on who is looking at what creative behavior and how they choose to define and measure it.
Keywords: adult development, creativity, human development, Integral Theory
Introduction
In 1950, then American Psychological Association President J. P. Guilford lamented in his annual address about a neglected but critical attribute of research regarding the human condition: creativity (@sternberg2003wisdom). In that address, Guilford reported that entries in the Psychological Abstracts journal numbered less than 0.2 percent of total entries since the journal began publishing in 1927. Attention to the subject had not improved much between 1975 and 1994, rising only to .5 percent of entries. For comparison, articles published on reading were three times that of creativity during the same time period.
The cry for creativity since the late 1990s has only increased, important at both individual and societal levels across a wide range of domains. In particular, at the societal level, creativity is seen as the catalyst for new inventions, social programs, and scientific findings that may advance humanity in the face of surmounting environmental, political, and racial problems. Businesses in particular cite the importance of creativity to develop new products and services that create jobs, and the ability to survive at all by remaining competitive.
While creativity is needed at organizational and societal level, neither of those entities can deliver it, for creativity exists at the individual level. At it's essence, creativity is a human developmental concern. How it manifests, develops, is applied, and atrophies, are the topics touched on in this paper. The discussion matters because creativity continues to this day to remain a proportionately marginal topic regardless of domain, and yet is desperately needed in greater quantities to address modern challenges.
Creativity is described across the literature as a syndrome or complex, meaning that it consists of numerous traits, capacities, and skills. This classification thus results in challenges to explicate what creativity actually is and how it develops across the life span. There is also debate as to when creativity actually presents itself, embodied in the question "creative to whom and for what purpose?". Thus, when examining the developmental nature of creativity, it's also necessary to bound the discussion by specifying who and what is impacted. To frame this exploration of creativity across developmental stages, we first need clarity on how creativity is defined in current literature. Following the definitions, this paper dives into Ken Wilber's Integral Theory to explore the relationships between its quadrants, levels, states, lines, and types concepts, and that of creativity. This paper strives to answer whether we can gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the creativity landscape using Integral Theory, and what conclusions does this exploration indicate regarding creativity in adults?
Definitions
Creativity can be, and has been, defined in a variety of ways. Some scholars categorize creativity into broad characteristics, while others attempt to define creativity in clearly delineable segments. However, similar to other constructs like love and joy, creativity tends to resist definition. For the purposes of this paper, I will define creativity across three parameters, 1) the distinction between creativity vs. innovation, 2) types of creativity, and 3) types of creative contribution. I will then use these definitions to explore where and how creativity appears in Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory model of human development.
Creativity vs Innovation
Frequently, the words "creativity" and "innovation" are used interchangeably, which leads to confusion in the scholarly literature. While some researchers define creativity as producing something novel and new to the creator, irrespective of whether it has been created before by someone else (@kaufman2009big), others conflate creativity with innovation in their research, describing creative outputs as being both novel and useful (@runco2020encyclopedia). Creativity is acknowledged to be a precursor to innovation, the latter relying on the creation of something novel, but also the ability to put the creation into practice or to use in a particular domain. Thus, innovation indeed requires a behavioral "usefulness imperative" for any creative endeavor. The issue in much of the literature is that "creativity" research continues to also assume these innovation concepts of regarding usefulness and value. (sp- needs more sources cited, they are available)
Types of Creativity
In the years after Guilford's address and plea for more scientific creativity research, Mazlow was one of the scholars who stepped into the breach. In conjunction with his Hierarchy of Needs (yyyy), he also described two types of creativity, primary and secondary (maslow, 1967, ????). He defined primary creativity as the type used to become self-actualized and to find fulfillment in oneself and one's life, and secondary creativity as the type leading to creative achievements recognized by others in a relevant field. Maslow essentially set the course for distinguishing between creativity for the self (primary), and creativity for professional intentions or others (secondary). Three decades later, these types of creativity were recast as "little-c" and "Big-C" creativity (@csikszentmihalyi1996creativity). While the naming convention changed notably, the definitions remained much the same.
Kaufman (2009)(@kaufman2009big), a prominent contemporary researcher of creativity, then extended "little-c" and "Big-C" definitions to close gaps in explaining the type of creativity seen in children, and to distinguish between professional creativity and eminent creativity. He defined his 4 types of Creativity thus (@kaufman2009big):
mini-c creativity - individual impact for creator only; personal; developmental; genesis of creative expression
little-c creativity - impact on small circle of individuals; everyday creativity; recognizable expressions of creativity
pro-c creativity - impact in a field or domain, and creator is recognized and admired in that field for this output; highly accomplished but not yet eminent creativity; professional creativity
Big-C creativity - impact that puts creator into the history books; eminent creativity
Creative Contributions
As the definition of creativity began to morph in the 1980s and 90s driven by the research of hegemonic Western Academy researchers , it skewed toward a focus on the ability to produce useful and valuable original works. The most recent edition of The Encyclopedia of Creativity (2020) notes that "genuine creativity requires two further elements over and above mere novelty. A product must be relevant to the issue at stake and must offer some kind of genuine solution, i.e., it must be effective" (@runco2020encyclopedia, p.318). This focus on value and usefulness resulted in additional frameworks defining creative contributions. This trend can be seen, for example, in Howard Gardner's definition of the possible creative contributions (Gardner, H. 1993, Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice).
solving a well-defined problem devising an encompassing theory creating a "frozen work" performing a ritualized work rendering a "high-stakes" performance
Another prominent creativity researcher, Robert Sternberg, observes that creativity can be of different types depending on how the contributing ideas are used or remixed (@sternberg2003wisdom, ch. 5). While he notes that these types can be observed regardless of age or domain, even the language used in his Propulsion Theory of Creativity skews towards a business or disciplinary focus (adapted from @sternberg2003wisdom, pgs. 126-140):
Paradigm-Preserving Contributions that Leave the Field Where It Is
Replication - helps solidify the current state of a field
Redefinition - change in perception as to where the field is
Paradigm-Preserving Contributions that Move the Field Forward in the Direction It Already Is Going
Forward incrementation - using a piece of work to take the field from where it is and moving it forward from that point in the space of contributions in the direction it is already going (emphasis mine)
Advance forward incrementation - indicated when an idea is "ahead of it's time"
Paradigm-Rejecting Contributions that Move the Field in a New Direction from an Existing or a Pre-Existing Starting Point
Redirection - attempting to take the field from where it is and move it in a new direction
Reconstruction - involves moving the field back to a point it previously was and then moving it in a different direction.
Paradigm-Rejecting Contributions that Restart the Field in a New Place and Move in a New Direction from There
Reinitiation - occurs when a contributor suggests that a field or subfield has reached an undesirable point or has exhausted itself moving in the direction it is moving. Contributor suggests moving in a different direction from a different point in the multidimensional space of contributions
Integration - contributor suggests putting together ideas formerly seen as distinct and unrelated or even as opposed.
need a paragraph here to transition from types to frameworks
Developmental Frameworks
As evidenced by Patrice Laslett's document (@laslett2015adult) defining developmental theorists and frameworks spanning from the 1890s to 2010s, there are many potential ways to examine and explore the intersection between creativity development and human development. For the purposes of this paper, I have opted to explore creativity through Integral Theory. The Levels in that framework have enough similarity to stage theories of development that it will serve as a reasonable surrogate, while also enabling exploration via its additional frames of levels, lines and types (@wilber2006summary and @wilber2000integral). The next section reviews Integral Theory and its various components.
Wilber Integral Theory
Commonly referenced as AQAL, standing for "all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states, and all types", Wilber's Integral Theory (xxxx) aims to explain how every human phenomena is experienced, consciously or not, across ~~four~~ multiple dimensions simultaneously. In essence, every experience is now, and all of these ~~four quadrants~~ dimensions arise together in every experience of now. However, the AQAL framework itself is not totalistic, meaning it leaves out most phenomenological details so the framework can be applied and tested in new areas. This section reviews the essentials of Integral Theory, followed by an exploration of creativity through the framework’s various lenses.
Quadrants - Wilber's model uses a matrix diagram to describe the relationship between two fundamental parameter pairs: interior/exterior and individual/collective. The resulting intersections, commonly denoted as UL (upper left), UR (upper right), LL (lower left), and LR (lower right) reflect the four dimensions of being-in-the-world, represented by I, We, It, and Its.
Figure 1 - matrix diagram of Ken Wilber's four quadrants (https://integrallife.com/four-quadrants/)
I, (represented in the UL quadrant) - individual interior, purely internal subjective experience, what goes on in the mind
It, (UR quadrant) - individual exterior, your physical body and behaviors (even the brain itself), observable (can be seen by others, hence the "we")
Its, (LR quadrant) - collective exterior, your environment, social structures, and social systems
We, (LL quadrant) - collective interior, this quadrant represents culture, relationships, and shared meaning
Wilber leverages these quadrants as multi-purposes lenses through which to understand human development. These elements (levels, states, lines, and types) make up the AQAL framework.
Figure 2 - matrix diagram of Ken Wilber's Integral Theory (https://integrallife.com/four-quadrants/)
Levels - Levels, like O'Fallon's STAGES model, describe emergent structures as one evolves into a new persistent awareness. For the purposes of this paper, levels and stages are equivalent constructs.
States - Inspiration is a state. Not sustainable for long periods of time. Even descriptors reflect this: "a flash of inspiration"; "inspiration struck"; "flow state".
Lines of development (https://integrallife.com/module-1/the-universe-evolves-heres-how/):
figure x - matrix diagram of lines of development mapped to Wilber's four quadrants
Lines - also called "multiple intelligences" or "streams" of development, lines are specific areas of growth that occur independent to the level one inhabits. For instance, It is possible to have a very evolved line of musical or interpersonal development while inhabiting a level inconsistent with the more evolved line.
Types -
Discussion
So we have established that there indeed types of creativity as well as types of creative contributions.
In ancient Greece, creativity was considered not within the realm of humankind; it was only the providence of the gods and all man could do was imitate. Over the centuries, this perspective has shifted, gradually granting the ability to create to first poets, and then artists of all manner and ilk. But in 1950, J.P. Guilford's APA Presidential Address set creativity research on a path that has not been revisited or contested until recently. He highlighted a significant lack of scientific research regarding creativity, and and implored the membership to remediate this gap. This was the start of scientific research on creativity.
In 1967, Maslow published his concept of typing creativity, as it is a hard concept to wrap your head around. His typing of creativity separated it into primary and secondary. Primary creativity was undertaken for the purposes of self actualization and meaning-making, while secondary productivity met the purposes of inventing something new that was useful to solve a problem, e.g. valuable. That split has continued to proliferate through creativity research with little opposition or question.
Researchers now agree on the four "standard" types of creativity defined earlier in this paper, although a fifth type was proposed in 2020 (see Vilik..... below). And that was by I have it in my head somewhere. Like Mahali, since his last name, I can't pronounce Mahali. The researcher on flow, he further defined well, he renamed it into little C, creativity, and Big C creativity, but they were essentially the same thing. And then there was a further expansion in 2006 into four types, there's many C, which is what children do, there's little c, which is what we do on a daily basis, where we're creative. There's professional, a pro C, which is what we do professionally. And then there's big C, which are the the large innovations that really you don't recognize until decades later, when you when you you can see how it has changed a field a discipline, a society etc. Looking through the Wilber lens, that would be totally in the lower left quadrant in the response from the collective. So my contention has been that it is not possible to exhibit pro C, or professional creativity.
Without maintaining the development of the line, we'll use his term Wilbers tech terminology, like it's a whole lawn perspective, you cannot look at professional creativity in isolation, it's Hold on, you've got to have little c or mini C creativity mastered. As well as little c creative, you know, we're all little c creative. We all do like these little, you know things in our daily lives in order to improve them. But it misses the play aspect, the experimentation, the exploration aspect, that you see in the in the mini see in the childlike creativity. And that's the piece that I've been saying, You need to have mastered that to be able to exhibit creativity in the professional sense. It you can't turn it on and off like a light switch. It's got to be a skill that's constantly nurtured.
This even works when you consider professional artists, dancers, actors, singers, sculptors, comedians, and so on. They continue to tap into their mini-c creativity as part of their identity, meaning making, and self-actualization as a professional artist. So they practice creativity as a part of their professional performance. My hypothesis is that if adults working in non-expressive jobs and careers are encouraged by the WE to play in the I→IT quadrants, even if they choose not to share through the ITS quadrant, would experience growth in their creativity skills such as ideation. Should they choose to share their expressive art product via the ITS quadrant and open themselves to validation in the WE quadrant, even though the validation is of their expressive art and not their work, there would be growth in the ability to take risks to share business related creative ideas and solutions to problems.
Ultimately, the reason why I want to study in both adults and organizations is because creativity in organizations is an outcome of having a substantial population of creative individuals in that organization. You need everybody in the organization to be able to perceive, accept, and extend ideas from this creative, playful perspective. It's another holonic effect, where creative individuals work within creative teams, within creative departments, within creative business units, and so on until you arrive at the creative organization.
How do we explain what appears to be an inverse relationship between creativity and cognitive development? Creativity and self-expression seem to recede (are suppressed?) the more cognitively developed one gets. See 4th-grade slump, etc.
Up to a certain point. At some point, humans develop beyond their cognitive limitations, and rediscover their self-expression and creativity.
Is this true of all humans? Or are there differences based on culture?
What if Wilber's AQAL explains why there might be a regression of creativity and self-expression internally as reflected by external factors (RLQ, RUQ, and RLQ)?
Without WE validation of creativity, in school, by parents, at work, as something valuable, of course this can explain a regression. And the increase of cognitive demands and problem-solving focus and skills can be mapped to the predicted times in development where the decreases in creativity are observed to occur.
Levels
Is creativity domain-specific or domain-general?
Refer to more granular definitions of creativity - c-creativity, C-creativity, and ..... what's the third one from the encyclopedia??
We construct developmental pathways based on our assumptions about the goals towards which we believe developing humans ideally should develop. (@intellectual)
The developmental psychologist Bernard Kaplan writes that “Development does not lurk directly in the population(s) studied but resides fundamentally in the perspective used” (@intellectual)
< One person's regression can be another's progression, and vice versa.
It's hard to develop an integrated developmental theory with contradictions like these. (@intellectual)Stage, state, or line?
paradox theory? wave-particle dualism. It’s all three, depending on how you’re looking at the phenomenon, how you’re measuring it. For example:
- Art through Integral Theory Lens (@cosm2020ken)
UL/I - the place where ideas and visions are happening, the image we'd like to draw or paint, it's the first step of creating art before the activity that makes it art.
[sp] - This is still a form of creativity through imagination and envisioning. Falls under the expressive arts category of imagery.
UR/It - art form (whether drawing, painting, sculpture, music, and so forth) has come from the individual's inner world into the physical outer world, such as in the artist's sketchbook or studio.
[sp] - If a creator stops here and does not share their creativity with the LR quadrant, it is still creativity. The question becomes, for what purpose? We seem to have no difficulty understanding that UL creativity can and often is solely for the edification of the individual in whose mind the ideas and images arise. But once an idea is manifested in physical form, the purpose needs to be clarified to understand what type of creativity it represents.
LR/Its - art that is shared with the collective, as a musical or theatrical performance, exhibited in a gallery, or viewed in the pages of a book.
[sp] - Creations that progress to this quadrant have a clearer purpose than those in the UR quadrant. Unless unintentionally shared (like someone browsing an artist's sketchbook without permission), creative outputs at this quadrant were likely created with the purpose of being shared.
LL/We - the response (or inner world) of the collective to the work of art. This may be seen through the clapping of an audience, the likes on a web post, a review of your dance performance, or a written article about an art exhibit, and so on.
[sp] - The degree of response to a creative work is another interesting lens to view creativity through. It will vary depending on the nature of the work. Big-C creativity lives in this space, where the impact of a creative output may take decades to be acknowledged. But so can daily creativity as represented by
If considering creating art, then the sequence of evolution through the four quadrants might look like this: UL, ideating a creative work but not having the skills to make it externally to match the internal vision; UR, playing with techniques and methods to approximate an external representation of the internal vision; LR, gaining sufficient confidence to share the artwork with others (note this is regardless of comfort in UR quadrant, and in fact, sharing before gaining technique mastery may be part of the evolution in a different line); LL, receiving feedback on creative works and how others have been affected by them (although how the feedback is experienced is a different topic and line of development).
latest edition of The Encyclopedia of Creativity (@runco2020encyclopedia, p.323) highlights the continuing difficulties in synthesizing creativity over the life span because of
Conclusion
Six years ago, when I began my research into creativity and its relationship with the expressive arts and human development, I hypothesized that the missing link in adult creativity was due to a loss of the capacity to express themselves creatively akin to how children do so. In the literature I read for this paper over the past year and a piece (there is a joke in there somewhere) and most recently during this term, I found the literature that supports my hypothesis and argument. It is embedded in the history of creativity, the 1950 APA presidential address by Guilford, and the early bifurcation of the definition of creativity by Maslow.
