Читать книгу Positive Psychology - Группа авторов - Страница 30

I will define positive creativity as the generation of an idea or product that is both novel and useful or effective in some way, but that also serves a positive, constructive function for the domain or field in which it is useful or effective and also for society. Similarly, I will define negative creativity as the generation of an idea or product that is both novel and useful or effective in some way, but that also serves a negative, destructive function for the domain or field in which it is useful or effective as well as for society (see also Clark & James, 1999; Cropley, Cropley, Kaufman, & Runco, 2010; Cropley, Kaufman, & Cropley, 2008; Cropley, Kaufman, White, & Chiera, 2014; James, Clark, & Cropanzano, 1999; James & Taylor, 2010; Runco, 2017; Sternberg, 2010, for discussions of positive and negative creativity and of the “dark side” of creativity). Negative creativity is sometimes distinguished from malevolent creativity, where not only the outcome, but also the intention is negative (Cropley et al., 2008). I will not pursue this distinction in this chapter, because sometimes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” That is, seriously negative outcomes can occur even when scientists or others are well intentioned. Neutral creativity is the generation of an idea or product that is both novel and useful or effective in some way and that serves neither a positive nor negative function for the domain or field in which it is useful or effective.

An idea or product can be positively creative at one time or in one place and yet negatively creative at another time or in another place. For example, in the context of World War II, the development of nuclear weapons may have seemed like a positive contribution to the world – a way of ending a prolonged and extremely costly war. But in creating, creators need to think not only about the short run but also about the long run. In the long run, the positivity of the creation of nuclear weapons is, to say the least, highly questionable. As was almost inevitable, they have spread and it is reasonable to fear that they will be acquired by terrorists, if they have not already been so acquired. At that point, the weapons that seemed at one time like they might save the world now potentially could destroy it.

As another example, carbon‐based fuels have had many positive effects on the world. Chances are that you or whoever is in charge of heating your living unit relies on carbon‐based fuels. Automobiles, buses, trains, planes – all have served a vital role in industrial and other forms of development. But now the world is paying the price for the proliferation of cheap carbon‐based fuels. And the collateral damage of such fuels, like that of nuclear weapons, may be immensely destructive. Indeed, one easily could argue that it already has been highly damaging and that the damage in terms of global climate change is likely to continue for some time to come.