تعبیر دوباره جنون و خلاقیت بحث: ماهیت ساختار خلاقیت چیست؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32073||2009||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9764 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 46, Issue 8, June 2009, Pages 755–764
This paper aims to reframe the debates about the association between creativity and mental illness. For centuries the link between the two has been debated, yet research has largely ignored the underlying nature of creativity in this context. The full understanding of the creativity construct, however, is essential to completely grasp its relationship with psychopathology. Three possible models for the creativity construct are proposed: the existence of different kinds of creativity each associated with specific types of psychopathology, creativity operating as a continuum, and creativity as a single entity. Support for each model is examined among the current literature. It is concluded that all three models are viable possibilities for the conceptualization of the creativity construct, each offering ample predictions and hypotheses for future research.
The knowledge of a link between creativity and madness has persisted throughout history. Socrates and Plato were both aware of the association, while over the past century questions of creativity and madness have entered the world of scientific research, fuelling debates about the nature of this association. Despite its sceptics, it is now generally accepted that the link is empirically grounded. The debate has instead shifted to determining exactly which types of psychosis, either schizophrenia or affective disorder, are connected to creativity. Underlying these questions are intrinsic disagreements within psychiatry research. One of the most controversial subjects is whether affective disorder and schizophrenia are inherently distinct, or the alternative products of the same underlying aetiology. An additional key question that remains unexplored within the current literature is the definition of creativity itself. Most research assumes that creativity is a single construct. But creativity can be conceived in different ways. Paralleling dimensional conceptualizations of psychosis, the creativity construct could extend along a continuum; or it could exist in different distinct and independent forms. Each conceptualization of creativity will lead to specific implications for its association with psychopathology. Identifying the underlying nature of creativity is thus necessary. In this paper, three possible conceptualizations of the creativity construct are proposed, the support for each being assessed from current theories and research. Part I will set out the background for these models, reviewing the consensuses and debates within the literature about the different psychopathologies and their association to creative ability. Part II will then propose three models for the conceptualization of the creativity construct. Finally Part III will establish their compatibility in evolutionary psychology accounts, revealing the role of creativity in the evolution of human nature.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
5. Conclusion The field of creativity and madness research should examine the issues within the context of the underlying nature of the creativity construct. Theorists have failed to directly address this, yet the establishment of a universal definition of creativity is vital to fully understand its association with mental illness. Whether different kinds of creativity exist, and if so whether they relate to distinct forms of psychopathology would have arresting implications for treatment of patients, education, and societal and cultural perceptions of creativity. The three proposed models for the creativity construct are all equally plausible, each supported by existing research, and fitting into evolutionary perspectives. Furthermore, all three models offer predictions for future findings and routes for exploration. A model involving different kinds of creativity related to different psychopathologies suggests that the science and art domains each harness a different creative capacity, each underlined by and intricately tied to specific psychopathologies. Though this may be a reductionist approach for a highly complex interaction, it provides initial hypotheses to test in future research. Future studies could devise creativity tests tapping into the cognitive styles of each psychopathology and determining their specificity to that particular mental illness and domain.