The Suppression of Creativity

It is often argued that studying creativity or even exploring what it means to “be creative” is an effete distraction from the more important business of “getting things done” in the moment.   This position is exceedingly ignorant and shortsighted.   There is nothing meaningful to be done by practical men until creative ones have told them what to do.

Certainly, it is necessary to deal with routine sustenance tasks in a competent manner, but this is a negative goal.  One may focus entirely on efficiency, but this accomplishes the same thing as before with fewer expenses.   Efficiency is accomplished in paying close attention to the existing processes rather than considering whether there might be a far more efficient and effective method of accomplishing the same goals – or whether there might be better goals to pursue.

The results of creativity, however, are significant accomplishments that effect dramatic changes and entirely new processes.  It seeks to solve, rather than ameliorate, the problems with traditional methods of accomplishing goals that are laborious, tedious, and unfulfilling.   What creativity creates, in effect, is greater satisfaction with less tedium.   It makes substantial, positive, and life-improving changes.

There is a conflict in each person when confronted with the risk entailed in doing something new and different, and it is particularly tempting to perpetuate a known and reliable method of achieving a goal – however onerous and wasteful its methods, it seems the safer choice.   Creativity involves a much higher degree of risk than following conventions, and people differ greatly in the degree to which they are willing and able to tolerate that risk.

So in the current culture a great deal of empty praise is given to creativity and innovation while actual behavior favors traditional approaches that yield more immediate benefits with greater certainty.   Some token effort is made to innovate, but this quickly gets dragged back to the existing practices with some consideration of minor improvements that do not change the nature but merely reduce the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of business as usual.

In everyday business, which consumers the majority of our waking attention, managers promote the idea of innovation while discouraging any risk-taking, and the system of rewards and punishments is rigged to discourage creativity even in organizations that loudly proclaim its necessity.   New ideas are actively discouraged in favor of business as usual, and even when they are adopted they are often mangled and stripped of their potential in sacrifice to preserving the status quo.

The same occurs in academic situation where students are encouraged to think, but rewards are bestowed on those who toe the line and follow the canon.   Academics who pursue unusual or disagreeable ideas are shunned and discredited by any means necessary.   Students are not taught how to think, but told what to think, and are tested and graded on their ability to memorize and repeat traditional knowledge rather than using their minds in an original and creative manner.

Even the “creative” arts in the present day does not explore new ideas, but instead reproduces the ideas of the past.  The most creative minds of our culture are not being creative at all - they are making sequels, remakes, mash-ups, and adaptations of the known.   The “alternative” is become mainstream and feeds upon itself rather than continuing to challenge traditions and offer new ideas.

As such, the suppression of creativity is not limited to boardrooms and business meetings, but is pervasive throughout current culture.   There is no single source of anything new, and the focus is on repeating the past in the safest and least distracting manner.  Perhaps that seems cynical - but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is entirely accurate.