Abstract
In this paper, as-if thinking is addressed as a constitutive component of creativity at the individual and social level. We explore its functions across the life span and envision a fundamental continuity between its use in pretend play during childhood and its involvement in the process of social change. Psychoanalytic theory and its integration with developmental and cultural psychology constitute the background of our contribution and are used to define its starting hypothesis. On the basis of this literature, we also introduce a concept of everyday, ordinary creativity. Two main results are suggested. As-if thinking, that we learn to use in infancy when our capacity to symbolize starts to develop, can add a significant contribution to the process of social evolution. Many children develop creative capacities spontaneously. After childhood, however, the future of creativity is not predetermined and can follow different trajectories, depending on the level of investment in it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
From this point of view, an artist is not different from a dreamer: for both, creativity springs from the tension between reality and unconscious drives and aims at expressing unconscious wishes in a socially accepted manner. However, Freud recognizes also that the phantasies of a “man of literary talent” give us pleasure when we come in touch with them, whereas the phantasies of an ordinary day-dreamer may be boring, or even disturbing (1907). In facts, the artist is able to elaborate her unconscious thoughts so that they lose what is too personal about them and become significant for others. By doing so, the artist allows spectators to share the enjoyment that derives from her creative endeavors.
Many studies have associated creativity with genius and with extraordinary capacities that belong to few, gifted individuals. Glăveanu (2010) argued that three main paradigms dominated the literature on the topic:, the “He-paradigm”, “I-paradigm” and “the We-paradigm”. “The He-paradigm, based on individuality, insight, outstanding ability and fertility of the genius (Mason 2003), gives an elitist account of creativity” (p.3). The relationship between the genius and the community is not considered and the genius is often represented as a misunderstood, or antisocial person. In the I-paradigm the genius is replaced by the individual: “Everyone is capable of being creative since it is no longer a capacity of the few chosen by God, biology or unique psychological features” (ibidem, p. 4). At the same time, this approach “generated partial theoretical models that explore individual cognition and personality in a social vacuum and conceptualize creativity as a quality of the lone individual” (ibidem, p. 5). It is only with the advent of the We-paradigm that the cultural and social dimensions of creativity have gained growing attention, with specific reference to “the social and cultural working from within the creative person and process” (ibidem p. 8). Winnicott’s approach to creativity is syntonic with this last paradigm.
“A representation is the activity of someone, who constructs a psychic substitution of something which is alter, other, to oneself. The subject and the object, therefore, do not coincide. There is a difference between them, and in order to bridge this difference, a representation emerges. This process does not involve a mirroring between the subject and the object; rather, it involves at one and the same time a work of constructing links and preserving differentiation between self and alterity. A representation links self and other and yet, by the same token, it differentiates self and other, for a representation is something that stands in place of something else. Representation is both a mediation that links presence and absence and a boundary that, in separating what is present from what is absent, allows for differentiation and meaning to emerge” (Jovchelovitch 1996, p. 9–10).
References
Bianchi, M. and Patalano, R. (2017), Storytelling and choice. Rounded globe. Available at: https://roundedglobe.com/books/ad46e83f-b971-4a96-8efc-662855976998/Storytelling%20and%20Choice/.
Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning from experience. London: Heinemann.
Bretherton, I. (1989). Pretense: the form and function of make-believe play. Developmental Review, 9, 383–401.
Castoriadis, C. (1975). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, and Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Castoriadis, C. (1996). Psyche and society revisited. In C. Castoriadis (Ed.) (2005), Figures of the thinkable, translated from the French and edited anonymously as a public service. Electronic publication date: February 2005, http://www.costis.org/x/castoriadis/Castoriadis-Figures_of_the_Thinkable.pdf.
Courtney, R. (1989). Play, drama & thought: the intellectual background to dramatic education. Toronto: Simon & Pierre.
Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1996). Playing with reality: I. Theory of mind and the normal development of psychic reality. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 77, 217–234.
Freud S. (1900/1995), The psychology of dream processes, wish fulfillment (1900), in Vol. IV, The interpretation of dreams. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. The Institute of Psychoanalysis and The Hogarth Press, London.
Freud S. (1907/1995, Creative writers and day dreaming (1907), in Vol. IX, Delusions and dreams in Jensen’s Gradiva and other works. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. The Institute of Psychoanalysis and The Hogarth Press, London.
Freud S. (1910/1995) Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood (1910), in Vol. XI, five lectures of psychoanalysis, Leonardo da Vinci and other works. The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. The Institute of Psychoanalysis and the Hogarth Press, London.
Freud S. (1927/1955), Dostoevsky and Parricide (1927), in Vol. XXI, The future of an illusion, civilization and its discontents and other works. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. The Institute of Psychoanalysis and The Hogarth Press, London.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain: a cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic Books.
Glăveanu, V.P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. LSE research online, available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29334/; published in New Ideas in Psychology, 28 (1): 79–93.
Glăveanu, V.P. (2011). Children and creativity: a most (un)likely pair? LSE Research Online, available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/37745/ , published in Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6 (2): 122–131.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(3), 165–180.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2017). A culture-inclusive, socially engaged agenda for creativity research. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 275–354.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2018). Epilogue: creativity as immersed detachment. The Journal of Creative Behavior, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.242.
Heimann, P. (1952). Certain functions of introjection and projection in early infancy. In M. Klein, P. Heimann, & S. Isaacs (Eds.), (1989(1952)), Developments in psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.
Isaacs, S. (1989 (1952)). The nature and function of phantasy, in M. Klein, P. Heimann & S. Isaacs (Eds.) (1989(1952)), Developments in psychoanalysis, London: Karnac.
Jodelet, D. (1991). Madness and social representations. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Jovchelovitch, S. (1995). Social representations in and of the public sphere: towards a theoretical articulation. London: LSE Research Online, published in Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 25(1), 81–102.
Jovchelovitch, S. (1996). In defence of representations. LSE Research Online, London, published in Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26(2), 121–135.
Kaës, R. (1984). Le travail de la représentation et les fonctions de l'intermédiaire: Étude psychoanalytique. In C. Belisle & B Schile (Eds.) Les Savoirs dans les Pratiques Quotidiennes: Recherches sur les Représentations. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 373-396.
Klein, M. (1930). The importance of symbol-formation in the development of the ego. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 11, 24–39.
Lawrence, J. A., & Valsiner, J. (1993). Conceptual roots of internalization: from transmission to transformation. Human Development, 36, 150–167.
Lawrence, J. A., & Valsiner, J. (2003). Making personal sense. An account of basic internalization and externalization processes. Theory & Psychology, 13(6), 723–752.
Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: a review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1–34.
Markman, K. D., Klein, W. M., & Suhr, J. A. (2009). Handbook of imagination and mental simulation. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Milner, M. (1952). Aspects of symbolism in comprehension of the not self. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 33(2), 181–195.
Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 211–250.
Moscovici, S. (1994). Social representations and pragmatic communication. Social Science Information, 33(2), 163–177.
Patalano, R. (2007). Imagination and society. The affective side of institutions. Constitutional Political Economy, 18(4), 223–241.
Patalano, R. (2010). Understanding economic change. The impact of emotion. Constitutional Political Economy, 21, 270–287.
Patalano, R. (2016). On the threshold. The invention of institutions as a turning point for change. Funzione Gamma, 36.
Patalano, R. (2017). 11 September. An attack at the limits of thought. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 98 (5), 1359–1384.
Piaget, J. (1954/1981). Intelligence and affectivity: their relationship during child development. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review, Inc.
Salvatore, S., & Zittoun, T. (Eds.). (2011). Cultural psychology and psychoanalysis. Pathways to synthesis. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Stern, D. N. (2000). Interpersonal world of the infant: a view from psychoanalysis and development psychology. New York: Basic Books.
Trevarthen, C. (1987). Sharing making sense: Intersubjectivity and the making of an infant’s meaning. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: essays in honor of Michael Halliday. J. Benjamins: Amsterdam, PA.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1930, 2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42 (1): 4–84.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1933, 2002). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1933/play.htm
Winnicott, D. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International. Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34, 89–97.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). Failure of expectable environment on child’s mental functioning. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 46, 81–87.
Winnicott, D.W. (1967). The location of cultural experience. In D.W. Winnicott (1971a) Playing and reality, London: Tavistock Publications, 95–101.
Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Tavistock Publications.
Zittoun, T., & Gillespie, A. (2016). Imagination in human and cultural development. New York: Routledge.
Zittoun, T., & Glăveanu, V. (Eds.). (2017). The handbook of imagination and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Patalano, R. From the Cradle to Society: “As-If” Thinking as a Matrix of Creativity. Hu Arenas 2, 79–91 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0032-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0032-8