Читать книгу Positive Psychology - Группа авторов - Страница 29

Robert J. Sternberg

Creativity is usually defined in terms of the production of an idea or product that has two properties. First, it is novel; second, it is effective or useful for some purpose (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 2013; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). Positive creativity is the production of ideas that are not only novel and useful but also beneficial to humanity (see also Clark & James, 1999; James, Clark, & Cropanzano, 1999; James & Taylor, 2010; Sternberg, in press, for further discussion of positive creativity as well as negative creativity). Positive creativity is a natural object of study for positive psychology, which is conceived of studying human strengths and modes of flourishing (Lopez, Pedrotti, & Snyder, 2018).

Creativity, whether positive or otherwise, probably is not just a single entity, any more than intelligence is (Sternberg, 1985b, 1986; Sternberg & Smith, 1985). A variety of scholars have argued that creativity, although it often is viewed as a single thing, actually is composed of multiple kinds of things.

For example, some scholars have distinguished between Big‐C (world‐class) Creativity and little‐c (everyday) creativity, among other types (see, e.g., Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). In contrast, Sternberg (2018) has distinguished among types of creativity that depend on different combinations of defying the crowd, defying oneself, and defying the zeitgeist. For example, consummate creativity would involve defying the crowd, oneself, and the zeitgeist. Sternberg and his colleagues (Sternberg, 1999; Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002) also have distinguished among different kinds of creative “propulsions,” such as forward incrementation, which involves advancing a field through a small step, versus redirection, where one steers a field in an entirely different direction. Similarly, Kuhn (1970) has distinguished between the creativity of normal versus revolutionary science (see also Simonton, 1994, 2004, for a discussion of greatness in science). The division of creativity can be seen in terms of (a) whether it changes a field or society, and (b) if it does make a change, how much it changes. But neither Kuhn nor Sternberg has classified creativity with regard to the extent to which it serves good (or bad) ends for that society.

Another way in which to divide up creativity would be in terms of its influence on a field, such as science, or even on society as a whole. For that purpose, I will distinguish among positive, negative, and neutral creativity.