Creativity systems and social dynamics

Much of the research on creativity is focused on the individual. Neurological research does provide fascinating glimpses of the complexity of processes involved in the surfacing of insight at a synaptic scale, but we, as human beings, have been social animals and collaborative problem solvers for all of our known evolutionary history and some level of collective endeavor is significant in every act of human creativity. Individual genius remains alluring as a topic of study partly because of the clarity of definition of the subject. More complex is the issue of creativity at social, industrial and, ultimately, human scale. Whilst all creative ideas emerge from specific brains, all creativity requires a social structure for reception and recognition, and some may emerge through shared endeavour. 

Like many, I'm interested in creativity structures, systems and social dynamics. This encompasses areas of research including workforce development, corporate systems, motivation and drive, working space design, data management, communications, linguistics, psychology, cultural studies, sociology, education, politics, and economics. Rather than try to develop some form of 'grand unified theory' of collective human creativity, the aim here is simply to outline some of my thoughts as I move to expand on some areas of research and focus on more defined points.

The computing, internet and portable smart-device revolution has fundamentally redefined the nature of 'interaction' and 'exchange'. The speed of ideas is increasing exponentially and the temptation to equate increasing communication connectivity as analogous to some form of collective neurological integration is strong. From Open Education Resources (OER) to growing campaigns for open access information, never before has more information be available to so many so immediately. The collective power of online communities, pressure groups, and social media networks is perhaps one of the most significant changes in human interaction of the past 10000 years.

The recent Harlem Shake meme is an entertaining example of creative adaptation and speed of cultural communication. Adapted rapidly to different cultural and practical contexts, the humour remains the consistent factor and the change of situation the impetus for further reinvention. These spikes of creative alignment represent an important form of large-scale creative interaction and information exchange. However, whilst the opportunity to interact with millions is clearly of growing significance in any analysis of collaborative or networked creativity, I am mindful of the continued significance of small-scale interactions, of geography, and the need to at least develop some form of framework through which to consider different scales of interaction and cooperation more generally and more consistently.

The graphic above is my first attempt to map a framework for considering different scales of creative interaction and production. Drawing heavily from James Kaufman's ideas about the 'micro-c' to 'Big-C' spectrum, and Margaret Boden's work on levels of creativity, the aim is to frame thinking rather than represent reality. Whilst I'm already beginning to consider more nuanced categories between 'Individual' and 'Industrial' (family unit/parental instruction, informal associations, amateurism, semi-professionalism, educational instruction, training and simulation), I think this basic framework does suffice in clarifying the underlying scales of creative interaction for analytical purposes:

1. Individual creativity I define as that emerging primarily from individuals. Recognising the need for groups to identify and validate creative ideas, the distinction here is one of creativity emerging through lone working rather than explicitly collaborative or through group structures. This level would encompass everything from the creativity of itinerant and idiosyncratic garden shed inventors, composers and artists, to the physical creativity of rope-less climbers.
2. Group creativity refers to any collaborative interaction between more that two people. This encompasses many small-scale organisational, discipline-based, and ensemble creativity from collaborative song writing partnerships to lab-based team scientific research. Limits of collaborative scale are slightly difficult to determine in precise terms but I consider the upper end of 'group' to relate to subcultural level but the primary focus to be smaller teams.
3. Industrial level creativity relates to large-scale systems-based organisations with defined professional roles, deliberative and command structures. Within a defined industrial sector with international recognition, technology corporations such as IBM or Toshiba as well as educational institutions and political systems would characterise context for 'Industrial' level creativity.
4. Cultural creativity can be considered as both international and intra-national in scale. Relating both to diaspora and geographically concentrated groups, incorporating a wide range of cultural institutions, social practices and conventions, 'cultural' creativity relates to processes including fashion, language, architecture, religion and ideology.
   
5. Global creativity is perhaps the most complex scale of creativity to specify. It may be arguable that no truly collective act of creativity has yet emerged. Correspondingly, it is arguable that all acts of human creativity, of all scales, are the direct consequence of collective knowledge and understanding. Whilst some isolated human communities still remain in parts of South America, the vast majority of human creativity emerges through fully social structures and processes.
   

The issue of scale may require thinking differently about the interactions between different levels in different contexts. The truth is that we all operate across a range of different social structures and apply our creativity in an array of situations and environments. In any given day we can move rapidly from the creativity of play with children, to professional creativity in the workplace, and back to personal creativity in art or research, with boundaries often clearly marked by the closing of doors and periods of movement, but often blurred by communication technology and wandering minds.

I am interested to explore how it is that we are socially creative. Any musician in a band will testify to the tensions and electrifying possibilities of focused group collaboration and creative interaction. Most poets have reveled in isolation and introspection with sharing ideas as the projected outcome. Tech companies the world over reveal the creative potential of larger more coordinated groups. Creativity occurs at different scales of human interaction and in different ways for different people.

This blog will be updated...