Abstract
The chapter explores the enigma of creativity in science on the basis of the study of Vygotsky’s case. The chapter proposes the examination of several shifts in contemporary creativity research focusing on the need to develop a dialectical framework. Vygotsky’s life course and the development of his theory are examined as a unique case of creativity in science that should be investigated in a broader social and historical context. Vygotsky’s creative development is a complex, multidimensional, dynamic phenomena. The chapter discusses several facets of Vygotsky’s creative development: the links between the social commitment and the production of new knowledge, the relations between the crises and creativity, the potential for a critical dialogue , the significance of collaborative, shared action , the significance of the unity of theory and social practice , the interrelations between classic and romantic science , the role of the images of the future for social and scientific change.
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
(Edward de Bono)
Science is called science because we learn through it something that is bigger than us, something that we don’t know and could not know on our own, something which we see as being above us, as given by someone who is much greater and from a place that is much greater than us. Taught by the legacy of history; the sprouts of humanity lie in history —and in what still awaits. The role of science isn’t, of course, to insist on what it prefers at all costs, but to reach out in pursuing the future.
(Alexei Ukhtomsky, cited in Zueva and Zuev 2015, p. 32)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Facets are not variables or factors” (Gruber and Bödeker 2005, p. 193). The concept “facets” refers to important dimensions or aspects of a creative case that enable a fruitful way of its conceptualization.
- 2.
Social commitment and social responsibility are not reduced to the acknowledgement of the priority of social obligations over individual desires based on the separation of social and individual. The outstanding Russian scholar Ukhtomsky offered an excellent definition of the essence of social commitment connected with the process of becoming a personality: “Neither the common, nor the social can be set above personality, because they are made of persons and for persons; and a person cannot be opposed to the common and the social, because a Man becomes a person only by devoting to other persons and the society” (Ukhtomsky, cited in Zueva and Zuev 2015, p. 22).
- 3.
Yasnitsky (2016) sketches different phases of the development of Vygotsky and Luria’s circle. The first phase refers to the prehistory of the circle (1924–1927). The second phase covers the period of the circle formation (1927–1931). During the third stages, the differentiation and separation of the circle began (1931–1934). The fourth phase (1934–1936) is examined as the period of disintegration of its original research program. The fifth phase (1936–1941) is considered by Yasnitsky (2016) as the period of the establishment of the narrative of the “Vygotsky–Leontiev Luria” school.
- 4.
There are striking similarities between Bernstein’s and Vygotsky’s theories. Both Bernstein and Vygotsky criticized Descartes: Vygotsky called into question Cartesian dualism, while Bernstein revealed the shortcomings of the mechanistic explanation of the body. Both Bernstein and Vygotsky criticized reductionism and elementarism. Vygotsky was involved in the study of higher mental functions. Bernstein focused on the study of complex movements (labour, sport, etc.). Vygotsky’s concept of “ideal forms” brings to mind Bernstein’s “model of the required future.”
- 5.
There is a traditional Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times.” However, these times of uncertainty require from us to develop new ways of thinking and acting.
- 6.
The Vygotsky’s term “acmeist psychology” comes from the Greek word “acme,” that refers to the highest point or culmination.
References
Benack, S., Basseches, M., & Swan, T. (1989). Dialectical thinking and adult creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity. Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 199–208). New York: Plenum Press.
Bernstein, N. A. (1990). Phyiziologiia dvizhenii i aktivnost [Physiology of movement and activity]. Moscow: Nauka.
Blunden, A. (2010). An interdisciplinary theory of activity. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishing.
Cohen, L. M., & Ambrose, D. (1999). Adaptation and creativity. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 9–22). San Diego, Calif., London: Academic Press.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). A systems perspective on creativity. In J. Henry (Ed.), Creative management and development (pp. 3–17). London: Sage.
Dafermos, M. (2014a). Soviet psychology. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1828–1835). Berlin: Springer.
Dafermos, M. (2014b). Vygotsky’s analysis of the crisis in psychology: Diagnosis, treatment, and relevance. Theory and Psychology, 24(2), 147–165.
Dafermos, M., & Marvakis, A. (2006). Critiques in psychology—critical psychology. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 5, 1–20.
De Vos, J. (2013). Psychologization and the subject of late modernity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Elder, G. H., Jr., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–22). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Feldman, D. H. (2003). The creation of multiple intelligences theory. A study in high-level thinking. In R. K. Sawyer et al. (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 139–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.
Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. New York: Basic Books.
Gillespie, A., Baerveldt, C., Costall, A., Cresswell, J., de Saint-Laurent, C., et al. (2015). Discussing creativity from a cultural psychological perspective. In V. Glăveanu, A. Gillespie, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Rethinking creativity. Contribution from social and cultural psychology (pp. 125–141). London: Routledge.
Glăveanu, V. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New ideas in psychology, 28(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007.
Glăveanu, V. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories–Research–Applications, 1(1), 10–32.
Gruber, H. (1989). The evolving systems approach to creative work. In D. Wallace & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work (pp. 3–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gruber, H. E., & Bödeker, K. (Eds.). (2005). Creativity, psychology and the history of science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Haenen, J. (1993). Piotr Gal’perin: His lifelong quest for the content of psychology. Druk: OMI, Universiteit Utrecht.
Hanchett Hanson, M. (2015). Worldmaking: Psychology and the ideology of creativity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hegel, G. W. F. (2004). Phenomenology of spirit (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hofstadter, A. (1981). On the dialectical phenomenology of creativity. In D. Dutton & M. Krausz (Eds.), The concept of creativity in science and art (pp. 201–209). The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Holm-Hadulla, R. M. (2013). The dialectic of creativity: A synthesis of neurobiological, psychological, cultural and practical aspects of the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 293–299.
Hurlburt, R. T., & Knapp, T. J. (2006). Münsterberg in 1898, not Allport in 1937, introduced the terms ‘idiographic’ and ‘nomothetic’ to American psychology. Theory and Psychology, 16(2), 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354306062541.
Huxley, T. (1896). Darwiniana: Essays. New York: D. Appleton and company.
Leontiev, A. N. (1997). On Vygotsky’s creative development. In R. Rieber, & J. Wolloc (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 3, pp. 9–32). New York, London: Plenum Press.
Levitin, K. (1982). One is not born a personality. Profiles of Soviet educational psychologists. Moscow: Progress Publisher.
Luria, A. (2010). Making of Mind. In M. Cole, K. Levitin, & A. Luria (Eds.), The autobiography of Alexander Luria. A dialogue with the making of mind (pp. 17–188). New York: Psychology Press.
May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Mentinis, M. (2013). The cook, the chef and their lover: Reflexions on the neoliberal adventures of the “Greek” self. Annual Review of Critical psychology, 10, 484–405.
Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of development and creativity. In R. K. Sawyer et al. (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 61–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piaget, J. (1962). Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks concerning. The language and thought of the child, and judgment and reasoning in the child. Retrieved September 12, 2017, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/comment/piaget.htm.
Polak, F. (1973). The image of the future. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
Ponomarev, I. A. (2008). Prospects for the development of the psychology of creativity (I). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 46(3), 17–93.
Razmyslov, P. (2000). On Vygotsky’s and Luria’s cultural-historical theory of psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 38(6), 45–58.
Robbins, D. (1999). Prologue. In R. Richer, & A. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of Vygotsky (Vol. 6, pp. v–xxii). New York: Plenum Press.
Robbins, D. (2007). Guest editor’s introduction. Journal of Russian and Eastern Europe Psychology, 45(2), 3–10.
Rubinštejn, S. L. (2000). Osnovi obshei psychologii [Foundations of general psychology]. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR & Sankt Peterburg: Piter.
Rudneva, E. I. (2000). Vygotsky’s Pedological Distortions. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 38(6), 75–94.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003a). Introduction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Creativity and development (pp. 3–11). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003b). Emergence in creativity and development. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Creativity and development (pp. 12–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56(4), 360–362.
Stetsenko, A. (2004). Scientific legacy. Tool and sign in the development of the child. In R. W. Rieber, & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), The essential Vygotsky (pp. 501–537). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (2004). Vygotskian collaborative project of social transformation: History, politics, and practice in knowledge construction. The International Journal of Critical Psychology, 12(4), 58–80.
Teo, T. (2005). The critique of psychology: From Kant to postcolonial theory. New York: Springer Verlag.
Toulmin, S. (1978). The Mozart of psychology. New York Review of Books, 25(14), 51–57. September 28.
Umrikhin, V. (1997). Russian and world psychology: Common origin of divergent paths. In E. Grigorenko (Ed.), Russian psychology: Past, present, future (pp. 17–38). Commack, New York: Nova Science Publisher.
Valsiner, J., & van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind: Construction of the idea. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1993). Understanding Vygotsky. A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vasilyuk, F. (1991). The psychology of experiencing. New York, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Vygodskaya, G. L., & Lifanova, T. M. (1996). Lev Semenovich Vygotskii. Zhizn’. Deyatel’nost’. Shtrikhi k portretu [Lev Semenovich Vygotsky: Life, Career, Brushstrokes of a Portrait]. Moscow: Smysl.
Vygodskaya, G. L., & Lifanova, T. M. (1999a). Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. Part 1. Journal of Russian and Eastern European Psychology, 37(2), 13–90.
Vygodskaya, G. L., & Lifanova, T. M. (1999b). Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. Part 2. Journal of Russian and Eastern European Psychology, 37(3), 3–90.
Vygodskaya, G. L., & Lifanova, T. M. (1999c). Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. Part 4. Journal of Russian and Eastern European Psychology, 37(4), 3–27.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1993). Introduction: The fundamental problems of defectology. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: The fundamental of defectology (Vol. 2, pp. 29–51). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–354). Oxford: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis of psychology. In R. Rieber, & J. Wolloc (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 3, pp. 233–344). New York, London: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1926). Vvedenie [Preface]. In R. Schulze (Ed.), Praktika eksperimental’noi psikhologii, pedagogiki i psikhotekhniki [Practice of experimental psychology, pedagogy and psychotechnics] (pp. 3–5). Moscow: Voprosy Truda.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1929). The function and fate of egocentric speech. In J. M. Cattell (Ed.), Ninth international congress of psychology held at Yale University. New Haven, Connecticut September 1st–7th, 1929 (pp. 464). Princeton, NJ: Psychological Review Company. Retrieved September 12, 2017, from http://psyhistorik.livejournal.com/59654.html.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1993). Etiudii po istorii povedenija [Studies of the history of behavior]. Moscow: Pedagogika-Press.
Vygotsky, L., & Luria, A. (1994). Introduction to the Russian translation of Freud’s beyond the pleasure principle. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Vygotsky Reader (pp. 10–18). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press.
Yan, B., & Arlin, P. (1999). Dialectical thinking: Implications for creative thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 547–552). New York: Academic Press.
Yaroshevsky, M. G. (1985). Psikhologiya tvorchestva i tvorchestvo v psikhologii [Psychology of creativity and creative work in psychology]. Voprosy Psikhologii, 6, 14–26.
Yaroshevsky, M. G. (1989). Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. New York: Progress.
Yaroshevsky, M. G. (1998). Shkoli v nauke [Schools in Science]. In A. G. Allakhverdyan, G Yu. Mashkov, A. V. Yurevich, & M. G. Yaroshevsky (Eds.), Psychologia nauki [Psychology of science] (pp. 105–118). Moscow: Flinta.
Yaroshevsky, M. G., & Gurgenidze, G. S. (1997). Epilogue. In R. W. Rieber, & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 3, pp. 345–370). New York: Plenum Press.
Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky circle as a personal network of scholars: Restoring connections between people and ideas. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 45(4), 422–457.
Yasnitsky, A. (2016). Unity in diversity: the Vygotsky-Luria circle as an informal personal network of scholars. In A. Yasnitsky & R. Van der Veer (Eds.), Revisionist revolution in Vygotsky studies (pp. 27–49). London, New York: Routledge.
Yasnitsky, A., & R. van der Veer, R. (Eds.). (2016). Revisionist revolution in Vygotsky studies. London, New York: Routledge.
Zavershneva, E., & Van der Veer, R. (2018). Vygotsky’s notebooks: A selection. Singapore: Springer.
Zinchenko, V. P. (1999). Foreword. Journal of Russian and East European psychology, 37(2), 3–12.
Zittoun, T. (2012). Life-course: A socio-cultural perspective. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 513–535). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zittoun, T., & de Saint-Laurent, C. (2015). Life-creativity. Imagine one’s life. In V. Glăveanu, A. Gillespie, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Rethinking creativity. Contribution from social and cultural psychology (pp. 58–75). London: Routledge.
Zueva, E. Y., & Zuev, K. B. (2015). The concept of dominance by A. A. Ukhtomsky and Anticipation. In M. Nadin (Ed.), Anticipation: Learning from the past. The Russian/Soviet contributions to the science of anticipation (pp. 13–36). Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dafermos, M. (2018). Developing Creativity in Science: The Case of Vygotsky. In: Rethinking Cultural-Historical Theory. Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research, vol 4. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0191-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0191-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0190-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0191-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)