Crafting Creativity: A Tale of Two Theories. Biological Determinism vs. Cultural Constructs
“I want to be creative,” I once scribbled in my journal.
It sounded good.
Well, it is good.
Who wouldn’t want to be creative? Creativity is something we all admire. It is something that’s celebrated and rewarded. But the more I thought about it, the more I wondered.
Growing up, I was in awe of people like Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg. Hell, I memorised the entirety of Black Hawk Down, just so I could quote it on Basic Training.
I also remember stumbling upon the works of Chakrabhand Posayakrit, whose art breathed my mother’s culture. It helped me understand her culture and what I inherited.
Then I really defined my relation to my body with Mamoru Oshii’s definitive work of Ghost In The Shell. Hell, I even wrote a thesis on Motoko Kusanagi’s treatment of the body in manga compared to her screen appearances.
These were the creatives I admired. I felt like they possessed something magical, something I wanted for myself. But as I got older, I realized that this idea of creativity, this thing I wanted so badly, was something I may not have.
Perhaps I was being cruel to myself, as I felt I needed to kick and scream for it. It felt like the three I admired above had something I did not.
Were they just born with it?
When people talk about creativity, they often start with the brain. We mainly hear about the prefrontal cortex. This part lights up when we are really thinking. The notion is that creativity is inherent, a byproduct of neural activity that we may possess or lack.
But is it really that simple? Brain good equals big idea? Is it just biology?
Creativity perhaps has a deep intertwining with our environment, identity, and experiences. Howard Gardner, a prominent psychologist, argues that we can’t fully grasp creativity without considering the ‘domains’ in which it operates.
Gardner challenges the notion that creativity is only an internal process. Instead, he suggests there is a complex interplay between our cognitive abilities and the external. Consider how cultural differences shape what’s considered creative. An idea that is innovative in New York might be terrible in Tonga. This cultural relativity of creativity underscores the importance of context in creative processes.
Creativity isn’t just about individual neurons firing. It’s about how these neural networks interact with environment, experiences, and cultural frameworks.
Robert J. Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence offers another critique of the notion that creativity is purely a product of biological determinism. Sternberg argues that considering the cultural and environmental contexts in which intelligence develops is necessary to fully understand intelligence. Especially creative intelligence. This is not a single, fixed attribute but rather a combination of three components:
1. analytical,
2. practical, and
3. creative intelligence.
Creative intelligence, in particular, is the ability to generate novel ideas and solutions. But Sternberg emphasizes that cultural and situational factors deeply influenced this ability.
Sternberg’s critique of biological determinism extends to his belief that creativity is not an isolated trait but one that is nurtured, or hindered, by external factors. Yes, hindered. These include education, social norms, and resources. He argues that focusing solely on the biological underpinnings of creativity overlooks how cultural context shapes creativity. More crucially, it overlooks how individuals relate to pursuing creative endeavors. For example, in societies that value conformity over innovation, creative individuals might struggle to express their ideas, regardless of their biological predispositions.
Teresa Amabile’s Componential Theory of Creativity affirms this same notion. According to her, creativity arises from the interplay of three key components:
1. domain-relevant skills,
2. creative-thinking skills, and
3. intrinsic motivation.
While domain-relevant skills and creative-thinking abilities may have some biological underpinnings, Amabile argues external factors significantly shaped these components. For example, the development of domain-relevant skills, such as expertise in a particular field, depends largely on the opportunities for learning and practice. Cultural and societal norms often dictate these.
Hmm, seems like a reoccurring theme.
This emphasis on motivation further highlights the importance of cultural constructs. After all, it’s your surroundings that motivate you. Intrinsic motivation, which is defined by being driven by internal satisfaction rather than external rewards, is crucial for creativity. However, what motivates individuals? Well, that really depends.
In some cultures, creativity might be driven by a desire for personal expression, while in others, the need to solve community-based problems might drive more motivation. Amabile’s theory underscores how cultural and environmental factors work alongside biological traits to shape creative potential.
Proponents of this view might argue that, while cultural and environmental factors can certainly influence the expression of creativity, the core of creative ability is biologically determined. Research in neuroscience that highlights the role of specific brain regions supported this perspective in creative thinking. So… if the brain is structured to be creative and functions in that way… there is a biological determination for creativity!
Moreover, twin studies have shown that creativity contains a genetic component. Heritability estimates suggesting that genetics contribute significantly to creative ability. This suggests that biological predisposition may play a role in making some individuals more creative than others, regardless of their external circumstance. So, while culture and environment can nurture or stifle creativity, they do so based on underlying biological potentials.
A twin study by Gregory J. Feist in 1998 examined the heritability of creative achievement across several domains. These included art, music, writing, and science. The study found that genetics plays a role in creative potential. In various creative fields, heritability estimates ranged from 22% to 58%, as determined by the study. This suggests that, while environmental factors are important, there is a genetic component of creativity.
Critics of the cultural construct argument might also point out that there are universal aspects of creativity that transcend cultural boundaries. By this I mean that it's suggestive that some creative capacities are hard-wired into the human brain. For example, the ability to engage in symbolic thinking appears to be a universal human trait. It roots in our shared biology rather than in any specific cultural context.
I think that’s the lesson from this side of the coin, biological potential, not biological predetermination.
So maybe the truth is somewhere between the two. There is a degree of Biological Determinism and Cultural Constructs.
So what are the “tactile” lessons we can apply from there?
First, it’s essential to recognize that creative potential is not just something we’re born with. Or without. Our environments, experiences, and the cultural norms we are exposed to play an equally critical role in shaping creativity, alongside biological factors. This means that fostering creativity requires more than just nurturing; it also involves creating opportunities and systems that encourage it.
Second, understanding the interplay between biology and culture in creativity challenges us to rethink how we approach creative development. Instead of seeing creativity as a fixed trait, its a dynamic quality. It is to be nurtured, shaped, and expanded over time.
For now, all I can really do is be good at the practical element of my domain, be analytically quizzical about the practice, and actually care about what I’m doing.
In the end, my creativity is my responsibility. My parents gave me ample amounts of clay through genetics and space to experience it. But now, as an adult, it is up to me to develop and make something of it. The tools and environment I choose, the risks I take, and the failures I learn from… All of these shape what I create.
It’s not about waiting for some spark to strike, but about the daily work of turning potential into reality.
Sheesh, it’s exhausting, but science has suggested I am doing the right thing.
I hope you are too.
Biblography
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. Springer.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review
