The Possible: A Sociocultural TheoryA Sociocultural Theory
Abstract
This book explores an eminently human phenomenon: our capacity to engage with the possible, to go beyond what is present, visible, or given in our existence. Possibility studies are an emerging field of research including topics as diverse as creativity, imagination, innovation, anticipation, counterfactual thinking, wondering, serendipity, the future, social change, hope, agency, and utopia, among others. The present contribution to this wide field is represented by a sociocultural and pragmatist account of the possible grounded in the notions of difference, position, perspective, dialogue, action, and culture. Put simply, this theory proposes that our explorations of the possible are enabled by our human capacity to relate to the world from more than one position and perspective and to understand that any perspective we hold is, at all times, one among many. Such an account transcends the long-standing dichotomy between the possible and the real, a sterile separation that ends up portraying possibility as separate from and even opposed to reality. On the contrary, the theory of the possible advanced in this book goes back to this notion’s etymological roots (the Latin possibilis —“that can be done,” from posse —“to be able”) and considers it as both a precondition and outcome of human action and interaction. Exploring the possible doesn’t take place outside of or in addition to our experience of the world; rather, it infiltrates it from the start, infuses it with new meanings, and ends up transforming it altogether. This book aims to offer conceptual, methodological, and practical tools for all those interested in studying human possibility and cultivating it in education, the workplace, everyday life, and society.
... While engaging with a broad landscape of affordances is recognized for its positive outcomes (Rietveld and Kiverstein, 2014;Glăveanu, 2021), the consequences of socio-cultural norms that discourage interactions with affordances in certain forms of life is less extensively discussed. Reed (1993) uses the term field of action to discuss social processes that encourage or discourage intention toward specific affordances. ...
... Building on the donor sport idea, we argue that "donor activities", defined here as activities outside the domain of sport, could help broaden an athletes' perspective of the affordance landscape. After all, Glăveanu (2021) suggests that difference is what enables and cultivates perspective, and such difference could be achieved by exposing athletes to a variety of donor activities. Moreover, it is our contention that to evolve and support athletes' holistic growth, the sport system must accept, embrace, and even encourage differences in athletes' approaches toward excellence. ...
... What happens, then, when flexible perspectives meet a rich and significant field of affordances? According to Glăveanu's (2021) sociocultural theory, at the interaction between perspective and affordances lies meaningful actions. Actions can be considered both normative due to cultural influences, but also agentic when one embraces the freedom to act differently. ...
This conceptual analysis aims to challenge the state of high-performance sport by questioning the concept of specialization. To start, we offer a brief, but critical overview of what specialization currently entails. Then, shifting the paradigm, we suggest an expansion rather than a reduction of developmental possibilities once an athlete reaches the "top". Specifically, rather than athletes conforming to national standards imposed by governing bodies about what it means to be "elite", we suggest sport systems consider a person-environment fit approach to support ongoing development. Drawing on an ecological dynamics rationale and various socio-cultural theories, we explore how concepts such as affordances and perspectives can be harnessed to create a better "fit" between athletes' action capabilities and the opportunities within their broader environment. Our conception of specialization requires moving away from a definition of success based on the accumulation of medals, toward one that accounts for the exploration and achievement of the possible. We argue that a person-environment fit welcomes diversity, so long as it sustains the person's health, wellbeing, and performance. This, it is suggested, is about collectively holding open spaces for each other to explore beyond the constraints of high-performance sport, encouraging all to carry on their lives in directions meaningfully impactful for them. We conclude this conceptual analysis with a brief case example demonstrating what our theorizing could look like in practice.
... Although the notion of the possible has been addressed throughout philosophical thought, it has rarely been explicitly discussed in the field of psychology. This limited attention is surprising, given psychology's concern for psychological processes embedded in a diverse and cultural world (see Glăveanu, 2020). According to Glăveanu (2021), psychology pays more attention to the limits and constraints in human psychological potential than it does to processes and consequences. ...
... According to Glăveanu (2020), the possible is a relational phenomenon embedded within selfother, person-world relations. Specifically, possibilities find their foundation in differences, particularly in the difference between perspectives. ...
... This sociocultural perspective understands the possible not as something contrary to what is actually "real" but as an action that shapesthrough a perspectival worldthe individual's experience in the real. In this sense, the antithesis of the possible would be the denial of multiple perspectives rather than the real experience itself (see Glăveanu, 2020). ...
... PET (Gillespie, 2012;Gillespie & Martin, 2014) begins with the understanding that we occupy different positions, different locations in the world, whether those are physical, psychological, social, or symbolic (Glăveanu, 2018(Glăveanu, , 2021. Those positions can be transient (e.g., speaking) or relatively stable (e.g., being a student, being a woman). ...
... Actionability thus is not only a process taking place after the completion of the systems map but on the very path to its creation. To avoid any misinterpretations, we here, in line with Glăveanu (2021) who view action as it relates to perspectives not as "intentions or goals" but rather as "orientations that channel our thinking and our doing" allowing us to "open up the possibility of acting on the world in a certain manner" (p. 54). ...
... Which of those positions (and associated perspectives) become centred during the GMB process is part of the participants' mutual adjustments and of facilitation practice. Assisting participants to see the common positions they occupy can help them develop empathy and better coordinate perspectives and action (Glăveanu, 2021). ...
Participatory Modelling is a distinct approach in the field of System Dynamics, aiming to include stakeholders in a formal process of model development. Scholars have investigated the micro-level interactions between stakeholders and explored how those arrive to common meanings and coordinate further action. We delve deeper into this question from a Meadian and neo-Meadian social theoretical perspective and find that GMB can be considered a symbolic meaning-making activity entailing perspective-taking between participants. Symbols are proposed by the stakeholders and represented as object/variables which are constantly expanded and enhanced with the perspectives of other members. This process leads to the coordination of participants' perspectives and allows for the emergence of possibilities for action that may have not been imagined before. We also explore how the different social positions that participants occupy can become central during their interactions, and observe that conflicts can emerge due to the failure to identify being in the position of the other. Based on our findings, we propose that practice can benefit from decentring (transient) positions that may impede participants' ability to take the perspective of the other toward themselves.
... The chapter starts with a general discussion of the notion of possibility and, more specifically, outlines a pragmatist, sociocultural account of both the possible rooted in the notions of difference, position, perspective, and dialogue. At the heart of this account, we find the idea that possibility depends on the diversity of perspectives, and these, in turn, depend on openness to difference (Glăveanu, 2020a). It will be argued that certain forms of ignorance capture precisely this openness to what is and to what is to come. ...
... This close connection between possibility and action is built upon in sociocultural theory and especially a sociocultural approach that follows pragmatist principles (Glăveanu, 2020a). From this standpoint, our awareness and exploration of possibilities are always anchored by our positioning in the world. ...
... Wonder thrives on ignorance, the kind that accepts that multiple perspectives exist and that one never has a full grasp of them, especially the perspectives of other people. If our sense of the possible is related to recognizing multiple perspectives and placing them in dialogue with each other (Glăveanu, 2020a), then it requires a degree of humility, of admitting one's ignorance and using it as a platform on which to build deeper forms of understanding. This is a very different attitude than using ignorance as an excuse (in default ignorance), as a tool (in deliberate ignorance), or as a cover-up for one's lack of knowledge (in masked ignorance). ...
This chapter is dedicated to an exploration of the connections between ignorance, possibility, and impossibility. While traditionally studies of ignorance have been firmly anchored in debates about knowledge (and the lack of knowledge), what I propose here is that this phenomenon is (also) essential for our engagement with the possible. The sociocultural theory of the possible claims that possibility emerges at the intersection between multiple perspectives that, in turn, build on differences of position within a shared social, material, cultural, and psychological space. Conversely, the impossible is concerned less with what cannot be actualized as much as with the singularity of perspectives and the negation of difference. The argument I develop is that ignorance plays a key role in both the dynamic of possibility and impossibility. More concretely, ignorance can keep us away from recognizing and embracing other perspectives, while it can also make us humble and curious about those perspectives and positions in the world that are inaccessible to us. I will take the case of the perspective of others, especially migrants and refugees, to illustrate a small typology including: default ignorance or the state of not being aware, on a daily basis, of perspectives different than our own; deliberate ignorance or the conscious decision not to engage with the perspective of specific others; masked ignorance or the assumption of understanding a perspective one has no understanding of; and wondrous ignorance or a state of complete openness to new perspective without the expectation of final or certain knowledge. In the end, the embodied and distributed nature of each of these forms of ignorance will be discussed in light of how they contribute to the (im)possibility of an authentic engagement with others and otherness.KeywordsIgnorancePossibilityImpossibilityWonderPerspectivePositionMigration
... Dieting is, therefore, a behavior subject to different meanings. Accordingly, considering that the possible reside in the meeting of perspectives (Glăveanu 2021), it is plausible to suggest that the possible of dieting (as will be argued here) may be subject to mediations related to the different meanings attached to it. ...
... We can conceptualize it as a behavior related to control, restriction, treatment, and a regular practice associated to a way of life. These differences have been apparent throughout history and suggest that what can be achieved through diet or dieting may refer to meaningmaking dynamics of the possible (Glăveanu 2021). ...
... We can reflect that the possible of dieting addressed in this work can fit in perspectives of results and intersubjective experience. Thus, to outline it, we will start from the understanding of Glăveanu (2021), for whom the possible can be understood as residing in the meeting of perspectives. From a socio-historical conception, we can infer that dieting took on a character of what Vygotsky called "fossilized behavior," that is, its meaning as we currently understand it faded over time through a long stage of historical development. ...
Dieting refers to a common practice with a history of different meanings and associated consequences. Its complexity and controversies have spurred significant scientific attention. When studied empirically, this phenomenon can be investigated using different measurements that generally refer to the history of dieting, a current dieting engagement, or a more specific construct, such as dietary restraint. Its consequences have been widely discussed, with authors highlighting weight loss as a possible end and, on the other hand, adverse consequences, such as weight gain/regain and eating disorder risks. Sociocultural theories, for example, see it as a typical behavior in search of ideal, frequently unattainable health and body. This text mainly focuses on the different senses and meanings of the term and its possible outcomes. To this end, it begins by defining dieting and its history before moving on to summarizing research in the field. Some reflections on how to achieve...
Available at https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_211-1
... Although the notion of the possible has been addressed throughout philosophical thought, it has rarely been explicitly discussed in the field of psychology. This limited attention is surprising, given psychology's concern for psychological processes embedded in a diverse and cultural world (see Glăveanu, 2020). According to Glăveanu (2021), psychology pays more attention to the limits and constraints in human psychological potential than it does to processes and consequences. ...
... According to Glăveanu (2020), the possible is a relational phenomenon embedded within selfother, person-world relations. Specifically, possibilities find their foundation in differences, particularly in the difference between perspectives. ...
... This sociocultural perspective understands the possible not as something contrary to what is actually "real" but as an action that shapesthrough a perspectival worldthe individual's experience in the real. In this sense, the antithesis of the possible would be the denial of multiple perspectives rather than the real experience itself (see Glăveanu, 2020). ...
In this chapter, we argue for the possible, as that which is opened through the juxtaposition of different perspectives in the unfolding of language, as both the main field of, and transformed by, concepts. We follow Vygostky’s (1934/1987) theory of concept formation to understand concepts not as mental and neutral representations but as different and related perspectives that unfold through specific ways of speaking and thinking in a horizon of positioned meanings (Bakhtin, 1981). The particular case of argumentation as a discursive practice in forming the possible, and, through it, forming concepts, is discussed. The political and social implications of this understanding are addressed.
... Establishing theoretical relationships between the adoption institute and studies of the possible is to reflect on how to break with the dominant cultural form (becoming pregnant) of becoming a father and mother. Based on the theory of the possible, proposed by Vlad Glăveanu (2018aGlăveanu ( , 2018bGlăveanu ( , 2021, we started to broaden our understanding of the sociocultural dynamics of adoption. According to this same author (2021), when we relate to the world, in most cases, we act from culturally consolidated forms, we play the roles legitimized by society, and "we reinforce the sameness" (p. ...
... Becoming aware of the space created between two or more perspectives is a precondition for engaging with the possible. (p. 3) Glăveanu (2021) advocates that imagining possible futures such as becoming parents requires a dialogical relationship between the self and others. From this dialogue between the position of future parents and the world (others), the person can access a world of alternatives, through imagination (see section ▶ "Imagination"), expanding possible futures, and not just being dominated by a perspective from a socially dominant positionin this case, to be a parent, the mother must become pregnant. ...
... With each choice, or perspective taken, made (adoption) after the dialogue established between different perspectives (blood ties, non-blood ties). According to Glăveanu (2021), a new space of possibility is formed (adoption: dominant, nondominant) and, therefore, the same sociocultural and semiotic process will occur. ...
Adoption is a noun form of the verb adopt, which comes from the Latin verb adoptāre, meaning “to choose for oneself.” We chose to define adoption as a way of becoming a parent and, more specifically, the so-called legal adoption. However, over time and in communities that are more isolated from the dominant collective culture, as in so-called traditional communities (e.g., indigenous, African-based, etc.), spontaneous adoptions occur, guided by community cultural practices, without any state intervention, and this phenomenon can be designated as the circulation of children, in which neighbors, relatives, and, at times, the entire community take care of that child or children in general. It is important to point out that all the ways of conceiving adoption depend on the dominant perspectives both on the child’s place in society and on the relationship of adults to them. Thus, we emphasize that this concept is changeable over time and in emerging contexts. Legal adoption designates a way of becoming parents that is available for that purpose and under the responsibility of the state. Adoption is a way of forming a family that is increasingly on the rise, having gained visibility in several countries in recent decades. Children and adolescents eligible for adoption are always victims of abandonment, neglect, psychological and physical abuse, and even wars or natural disasters. This modality of family construction is crossed by sociocultural and psychological aspects, both for the adoptees and the adopters. Legal adoption requires adopters not only show affection but compliance with the legal procedures required in each nation. In the broad sense, adoption defines the spontaneous acceptance of people, animals, social causes, etc., which can lead a person to always act in defense, or militancy, of what was adopted by him. We will address adoption to the studies of the possible as an alternative resulting from the dialogue established between the dominant and nondominant perspectives, in the context of building parenting.
... psychology has rarely engaged until now with new mobilities approaches, although it could both contribute to and benefit from them (Glăveanu 2020a). ...
... By bringing to the fore acts of re-positioning, position exchange and perspective-taking, it depicts human existence as relational, dynamic, and open to the future and to the possible. Indeed, our agency and creativity are both based on the possibility of moving between positions and of placing perspectives in dialogue with each other (Glăveanu 2020a;Martin and Gillespie 2010). While not every one of our movements is an expression of agency and free will -and we can think here about forced migration for instance, a context we return to later in this article -it is the case that physical, social and symbolic mobilities underpin our sense of the possible (and the impossible) and their exploration. ...
... Sociocultural psychology has a lot to offer in this regard as a discipline that recognises the interdependence between person and context and studies both developmentally and in movement. The pragmatist language of doing and undergoing, exchanging positions and perspectives infuses sociocultural approaches, in addition, with an orientation towards the future and the possible (Glăveanu 2020a) that can substantially enrich affective mobilities. In the end, moving leads to being in the world differently, i.e., in a different position, a difference that is enjoyed, feared or hoped for because of its intimate relation to open, indeterminate and ultimately unknown futures. ...
This paper aims to contribute to the emerging field of affective mobilities by proposing a pragmatist inspired, sociocultural theory of affect that is grounded in the notions of experience, action, position, and perspective. Conceiving mobility as an act of repositioning that is guided by affect and oriented towards a fundamentally open future, this approach makes us sensitive to the intricate connections between movement, emotion and possibility. Emotional states that may enable one’s engagement with the possible, connected for example to feelings of hope, anxiety, and wonder, are contrasted with what are typically possibility - reducing emotional states of despair, fear, and anger. By discussing the case of two asylum seekers in Greece, this initial typology of emotions is troubled by the simultaneity of experiencing hope and despair, mobility and immobility, possibility and impossibility, a marker of the refugee’s unique position in the world. Some final reflections are offered about the future of affective mobilities and its contribution to a broader understanding of movement, affect, and human (im)possibility.
... Especially for educators who are motivated to design social justice interventions, it becomes essential to understand how each one of the processes above contributes to reimagining a fairer, more equal society. Recently, Glăveanu (2020a) proposed the notion of "pedagogies of the possible" to refer to a type of education that helps students and teachers think and act beyond the here and now, that propels them into the future. These pedagogies, and the societies of the possible that both foster and depend on them, require us to pay particular attention to the phenomena discussed in this chapter and book. ...
... Teachers who want their students to understand the value and urgency of social change would do well to foster in them a sense of the possible and the passion to extend human possibility. The fate of the world depends on us developing and practicing "pedagogies of the possible" as opposed to pedagogies of sameness and standardization (Glăveanu 2020a). ...
... This is why, for instance, in case of fire, most people don't run as far as possible-the unmediated, biological reaction-but, once at a safe distance, look for a fire extinguisher or call the firemen. Knowledge that an extinguisher might be there or that firemen exist is not present in the immediate environment 5 For details, see Glȃveanu (2020b in the sense that none of these are in sight. But the symbolic existence of both and the meanings associated with them (e.g. ...
... A process that is continuous and often not conscious. 28 See Glȃveanu (2020b). ...
This entry focuses on the relationship between mobility and possibility and postulates that movement – physical and psychological – underpins the possible and its exploration in individuals and in society. This basic argument is supported by a brief examination of objects and inventions on the move throughout prehistory, the circulation of ideas in past and present societies, the mobility of people within and between national boundaries, and the movements of the mind, expressed as episodes of daydreaming and imagination. In each case, potential and actualized forms of mobility support the expression of possibility-expanding phenomena such as creativity and innovation. But this relation is neither linear nor easy to unpack. Less mobile lives can be lived very creatively, just as constant travelling can be disempowering and reduce one’s agency. Final reflections are offered on the interplay between (im)possibility and (im)mobility and the way it shapes human existence.
... On the other hand, socioculturalists would argue that even if some situations push us, more or less, into doing things we would not normally do, it is also the case that there would be no human agency without social interaction and exchanges of position (Martin and Gillespie 2010) to begin with. Indeed, it is in and through the self-other relation that we experience the world as another person would, develop new perspectives on it, and get to understand our own perspective as one among many (Glăveanu 2020), all of these important, possibility-enabling processes. ...
... Paolo Freire raised this important issue decades ago (Freire 1973) and his efforts to work with marginalized and oppressed communities toward their emancipation resonate today with the struggle against oppression and discrimination of many people around the world. Pedagogies of the possible (see Glăveanu 2020) can only be based on a critical understanding and engagement with the world in order to reimagine it through the process of learning and education. ...
As the science that studies the mental functioning, behavioral expression and contextual embeddedness of human beings, psychology is well equipped to deal with questions related to the possible and, more specifically, to human possibility (and impossibility). This entry examines seven main branches – general psychology, developmental psychology, individual differences, social psychology, clinical psychology, organizational psychology, and educational psychology – and focuses on: a) how the notion of the possible and associated concepts are employed by key theories; b) what the consequences of focusing on human possibility – and its inter-play with impossibility – are for our understanding of psychology’s sub-disciplines; and c) what new questions we could raise and studies we could conduct that would place psychology at the heart of the emerging field of possibility studies. The aim is to offer a prospective look at old psychological questions, one that integrates agency, indeterminacy, multiplicity, and the future into our concerns, research, and practice.
... Dialogue also rests on perspective-taking and our human propensity to understand the minds of others. We need a more sustained exploration of the way in which dialogues of perspective construct spaces of emergence and possibility in education and how these spaces, in turn, resonate with wider dialogues within society and the alignment and clashes that substantiate them (Glăveanu 2020a). ...
... Developing students' capacity for utopian thinking and for hope (Solnit 2016) is crucial for the kind of social transformation that starts with education and fundamentally shapes it. In the end, Pedagogies of the Possible are both enablers of and enabled by "societies of the possible" (Glăveanu 2020a) and their commitment to plurality, alterity, and to an open future. Moreover, enacting new pedagogies and projects that go beyond the walls of schools and classrooms entails an inherent responsibility of anticipating and monitoring the potential unintended consequences of innovative efforts. ...
... Especially for educators who are motivated to design social justice interventions, it becomes essential to understand how each one of the processes above contributes to reimagining a fairer, more equal society. Recently, Glăveanu (2020a) proposed the notion of "pedagogies of the possible" to refer to a type of education that helps students and teachers think and act beyond the here and now, that propels them into the future. These pedagogies, and the societies of the possible that both foster and depend on them, require us to pay particular attention to the phenomena discussed in this chapter and book. ...
... Teachers who want their students to understand the value and urgency of social change would do well to foster in them a sense of the possible and the passion to extend human possibility. The fate of the world depends on us developing and practicing "pedagogies of the possible" as opposed to pedagogies of sameness and standardization (Glăveanu 2020a). ...
... I am intrigued here by two issues in particular. First, going deeper into the notion of possibilization that I also consider essential for a sociocultural approach to creativity and to psychology more generally (Glăveanu, 2020b). Beyond novelty, originality, and usefulness-some of the main concepts used in a product-focused psychology of creativity-I am concerned by the interplay between the actual and the possible in creative work and the way in which possibility can become an overarching frame that connects creativity to culture, to materiality, to society, and to ethics. ...
... Luis, you refer to the Creal in this regard and the generative processes associated with crealectics. I refer to the possible as a category that opens up human existence to what is beyond its immediate experience of the world (Glăveanu, 2020b). Creativity is crucial for both these projects, but it is a creativity that challenges 20th-century views with their neoliberal undertones and fascination for eminent (usually western and privileged) individual creators. ...
This article is the fruit of a written dialogue between a sociocultural psychologist and a philosopher invested in the study of the Creative Real, in a context that resonates with process philosophy and posthumanism. Each of the two authors come from a different tradition (or, rather, different traditions) to the topic of posthuman creativity and their approaches overlap considerably but include as well important points of difference, ranging from writing style to key concepts and areas of application.
... This is why, for instance, in case of fire, most people don't run as far as possible-the unmediated, biological reaction-but, once at a safe distance, look for a fire extinguisher or call the firemen. Knowledge that an extinguisher might be there or that firemen exist is not present in the immediate environment 5 For details, see Glȃveanu (2020b). 6 For a comprehensive review see the Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible on SpringerLink. ...
... A process that is continuous and often not conscious. 28 See Glȃveanu (2020b). ...
The concluding chapter considers the nexus between mobilities and possibility studies as potentially leading to a new paradigm within social science. This paradigm considers ‘possible mobilities’ (i.e. new forms of movement of people, things and ideas) and ‘mobile possibilities’ (i.e. the contribution of movement to all our engagements with the possible) as two sides of the same coin. Ongoing research in this direction is discussed, as well as future perspectives.
... This is why, for instance, in case of fire, most people don't run as far as possible-the unmediated, biological reaction-but, once at a safe distance, look for a fire extinguisher or call the firemen. Knowledge that an extinguisher might be there or that firemen exist is not present in the immediate environment 5 For details, see Glȃveanu (2020b in the sense that none of these are in sight. But the symbolic existence of both and the meanings associated with them (e.g. ...
... A process that is continuous and often not conscious. 28 See Glȃveanu (2020b). ...
Given possibility studies is the ‘newer’ paradigm compared to new mobilities, it deserves a separate chapter. This paradigm has, in fact, equally old if not older roots, bringing together fields as diverse as futures studies, creativity research, the psychology and philosophy of imagination, utopian thinking, wonder and wondering, etc. The sociocultural theory of the possible that places movement between positions and perspectives at its core is presented here as a key bridge to mobilities.
... This way of framing post-modernism brings it close to current sociocultural theories of the possible (see Glăveanu 2020), theories that discuss this phenomenon with the help of notions like difference, multiplicity, perspectives, and dialogue. However, it is on the topic of relativism that post-modernism and sociocultural theory split, in particular when the latter is grounded in pragmatism. ...
This entry examines the phenomenon of post-truth in its relation to the notion of the possible. It starts by outlining the roots and main characteristics of the post-truth context, including its relation to politics, social media, and post-modernist assumptions about the relativity of truth. While the spread of falsehoods and lies is not uncommon across the history of society, what makes the current trend particularly alarming is the fact that we are dealing with more than distortions of what is true; we are witnessing a growing disregard, in the case of some individuals and groups, of reality itself. To overcome the pitfalls of relativist accounts, what we need is a recognition of the fact that the possible is not the opposite of the real but its ever-present companion. And, also, that cultivating possibilities, including in the form of “possible truths,” should be guided by ethical question about what these truths “do” for self, others, and society.
... We seek to advance this sociocultural recontextualization of social psychology. We argue that humans are not only embedded in the past; they also live, at a psychological level, in many potential futures (Boesch, 1991;Glăveanu, 2020). This expansion takes us beyond the traditional historicalsociocultural paradigm and invites us to articulate the conceptualization of social psychology as world-making in two ways. ...
Academic abstract:
Social psychology's disconnect from the vital and urgent questions of people's lived experiences reveals limitations in the current paradigm. We draw on a related perspective in social psychology1-the sociocultural approach-and argue how this perspective can be elaborated to consider not only social psychology as a historical science but also social psychology of and for world-making. This conceptualization can make sense of key theoretical and methodological challenges faced by contemporary social psychology. As such, we describe the ontology, epistemology, ethics, and methods of social psychology of and for world-making. We illustrate our framework with concrete examples from social psychology. We argue that reconceptualizing social psychology in terms of world-making can make it more humble yet also more relevant, reconnecting it with the pressing issues of our time.
Public abstract:
We propose that social psychology should focus on "world-making" in two senses. First, people are future-oriented and often are guided more by what could be than what is. Second, social psychology can contribute to this future orientation by supporting people's world-making and also critically reflecting on the role of social psychological research in world-making. We unpack the philosophical assumptions, methodological procedures, and ethical considerations that underpin a social psychology of and for world-making. Social psychological research, whether it is intended or not, contributes to the societies and cultures in which we live, and thus it cannot be a passive bystander of world-making. By embracing social psychology of and for world-making and facing up to the contemporary societal challenges upon which our collective future depends will make social psychology more humble but also more relevant.
... And the realm of the possible doesn't stop with the future, it also helps us imagine 'what might have been', in the past, and what exists 'as if' in the present. To engage with the possible means to infuse 'what is' with new perspectives and, in doing so, to radically transform it (Gaggioli, 2020;Glăveanu, 2020a). ...
... Beyond these broad phenomena such as serendipity, insight, and creativity, surprise underpins and explains aspects of human cognition across several different levels and, we will argue, is fundamental to understanding how we interact with the unpredictable and unexpected nature of the possible (Glǎveanu 2021). We go further to suggest that increased attention to the role of surprise in thinking and behavior can support our understanding of how cognition unfolds in the face of uncertainty, allowing us to flesh out and adjudicate between different models at different cognitive levels. ...
An unexpected or inexplicable event with significance to the self that is accompanied by a strong emotional marker (which can be positive , negative, or mixed in valence). Keywords Surprise · Insight · Serendipity · Error Surprise and the Possibility Space Possibility refers to that which is not actual. It invites us to consider "what could be," "what is to come," "what could have been," and "what is not / will never be." In interaction with the world (sometimes only our internal world), possibilities can lead us to "what was unexpected." These unexpected events, when they are of subjective significance, are marked by the epistemic emotion of surprise. We can all recognize the feeling of surprise, typically when we encounter something unexpected but which we instinctively believe even if we are curious about its origins. Take for example, the serendipitous surprise of bumping into a dear friend in a country that you did not expect them to be in. A further surprising event, to take a more thoroughly researched example, might be scientists receiving reports of unexpected side effects of drugs which indicate new unanticipated ways that the drug works on the body (Rocca et al. 2019). These reports are not expected, but they trigger curiosity and exploration. Surprise can be not only a marker of this expected violation, but also a marker of unexpected understanding (insight). In the case of the latter, surprise marks both the recognition of prior ignorance and the discovery of new knowledge. Beyond these broad phenomena such as seren-dipity, insight, and creativity, surprise underpins and explains aspects of human cognition across several different levels and, we will argue, is fundamental to understanding how we interact with the unpredictable and unexpected nature of the possible (Glǎveanu 2021). We go further to suggest that increased attention to the role of surprise in thinking and behavior can support our understanding of how cognition unfolds in the face of uncertainty, allowing us to flesh out and adjudi-cate between different models at different cogni-tive levels. In this respect, it is "surprising" that this complex phenomenon has often been relegated to a minor role (Nevo and Erev 2012). We shall end by considering the importance of surprise to the complex interactional process of ser-endipity and suggest that the importance of
... There is no creativity without a knowledge base that enhances the ability to distinguish conventional ideas from alternative and original ones (Glăveanu, 2021) and broadens the repertoire of potential steps one can use to solve a novel problem (Sweller, 2009). Still, however, the relationship between creativity and learning (to put it dynamically, see Beghetto, 2021) or school achievement (to take a more static approach, see Gajda et al., 2017) is far from straightforward. ...
Creativity is agentic, and so is learning. People create and learn new things most effectively when they are convinced that they can respond appropriately to the task (creative confidence) and value the activity at hand. This investigation explores the role of the relatively understudied aspect of creative agency: self-regulatory strategies. In a longitudinal study, we tested whether self-regulation strategies, previously found to be essential drivers of academic achievement and learning in general (rehearsal, elaboration, critical thinking, and metacognition), might also support creativity in learning. Specifically, we tested sequential mediation, where creative confidence and self-regulation longitudinally mediated the relationship between creative potential (divergent thinking) and effective application of creative skills to solve problems embedded in school subjects. Our findings confirm that self-regulatory strategies predict providing creative solutions to school tasks (a proxy of creative learning) and mediate the relationship between divergent thinking, creative confidence, and creative learning.
... Though it may seem unlikely, the idea of the possible (Glaveanu 2020) in Alchemy resides in the fact that Chemistry, now recognized as scientific knowledge, originated from active dialogue with Alchemy, whose oldest traditions (previous to those of Chymistry) seem to be precisely the antithesis of what came to be Chemistrywith regard to relations with mysticism and art. ...
Also known as “hermetic science” in reference to the writings of Hermes Trismegistus, Alchemy is a type of knowledge that has developed over the centuries based on the interactions between mysticism, science, and art. Although not considered a natural science like today’s chemistry, physics, biology, among others, Alchemy still permeates human thought, in a way that references can be found in several cultural manifestations. Thus, the objective of the present entry is to discuss the idea of the possible on the threshold between these two perspectives: Alchemy and Chemistry, with special attention to the relationship between science, mysticism, and art. For this, we explore the question of the possible from an analysis of the processes of signification of some alchemical representations, observing how such knowledge could have unfolded in what we know today as Chemistry, with particular attention to the concept of fusion, which is understood in Alchemy as a process of joining bodies through the purifying power of fire, and, in Chemistry, as a change in physical state or a type of junction of melting metals to form alloys.
In this chapter we outline how schools can move from transactional pedagogies toward pedagogies of the possible, which provide young people with opportunities to creatively contribute to the learning and lives of others. Building on recent conceptions of transformational giftedness and leadership, we introduce and outline new possibilities for designing pedagogical experiences that enable teachers and students to make a positive and sustainable difference in their schools, communities, and world. The chapter will open with a discussion of how pedagogies of the possible represent a transformative alternative to the prototypical transactional pedagogies and curricula in schools and classrooms. We also discuss the nature of creative learning experiences – how such experiences might be designed and developed in educational settings. We close with a discussion of possibilities for transformation and provocations to help move thought, policy action away from transactional learning approaches and toward transformative creative learning experiences.KeywordsBeautiful risksCreative experiencesCreative learningPedagogies of the possibleTransactional pedagogiesEducational design
This essay presents conceptualisations of the Possible as they were developed in “(Classical) Antiquity.” This period is defined as encompassing the history of the Greek and Roman civilizations in their Mediterranean and Eurasian contexts between approximately 500 BCE–500 CE (Naerbout and Singor 2014). First, we provide a general overview of how people in Antiquity coped with the uncertainty of future possibilities, which was mainly through divination, ritualized procedures for seeking knowledge of the (immediate) future. Secondly, we discuss how the horizon of the Possible was expanded during this period through increasing connectivity (Globalization). This facilitated a new role for imagination as part of social life as there was now more “Other” to imagine than (ever) before. We argue that paying attention to the (deep) past of socio-cultural concepts like the Possible matters greatly for two main reasons, one methodological and the other ontological. The ability to move between “what is” and “what could be” has been shown to be an important constituent of the human niche. A deep history of the Possible therefore provides a way to investigate the development of human imagination. The other main reason to argue for a deep history of the Possible is ontological, in that it focusses on future-oriented activities in past societies with their specific worldviews, which produce and define specific conceptualizations of the future. However, their future may not be the same as our past. Our own specific ontology, our philosophy of existence, heavily influenced by Modernity, is thus put into perspective.
Action research is an approach to research which aims at both taking action and creating knowledge or theory about that action as the action unfolds. It starts with everyday experience and is concerned with the development of living knowledge. Its characteristics are that it generates practical knowledge in the pursuit of worthwhile purposes; it is participative and democratic as its participants work together in the present tense in defining the questions they wish to explore, the methodology for that exploration, and its application through cycles of action and reflection. In this vein they are agents of change and coresearchers in knowledge generation and not merely passive subjects as in traditional research. In this vein, action research can be understood as a social science of the possible as the collective action is focused on creating a desired future in whatever context the action research is located.
Also known as “hermetic science” in reference to the writings of Hermes Trismegistus, Alchemy is a type of knowledge that has developed over the centuries based on the interactions between mysticism, science, and art. Although not considered a natural science like today’s chemistry, physics, biology, among others, Alchemy still permeates human thought, in a way that references can be found in several cultural manifestations. Thus, the objective of the present entry is to discuss the idea of the possible on the threshold between these two perspectives: Alchemy and Chemistry, with special attention to the relationship between science, mysticism, and art. For this, we explore the question of the possible from an analysis of the processes of signification of some alchemical representations, observing how such knowledge could have unfolded in what we know today as Chemistry, with particular attention to the concept of fusion, which is understood in Alchemy as a process of joining bodies through the purifying power of fire, and, in Chemistry, as a change in physical state or a type of junction of melting metals to form alloys.
Anchoring is a concept describing the process or activity through which relevant social groups connect what presents itself to them as new to something they deem familiar (Sluiter, Eur Rev 25:20–38, 2017). It enables people to perceive or construct forms of continuity within change, and it helps them to accommodate and absorb new inventions, practices, objects, or ideas. As such, it is a necessary ingredient of successful innovation processes. As we will argue, anchoring should be regarded as a precondition for imagining the possible, in that it provides the imagination with a starting point: the familiar (which often is the familiar past). Anchoring can be positive, where a direct connection is established with something already accepted, already playing a role in society; or it can be negative, when a foil is used to identify what something or someone is not or does not want to be. It can take the form of a link with the past and the traditional, on which more below, or it can connect a new phenomenon in one societal domain to a familiar analogue taken from another domain. For instance, when young people are asked to contribute a year of community work to society, recourse is had to the familiar analogue with the military domain, where we know “compulsory military service”: this yields the anchoring expression “civilian service,” which directs the audience toward the imagination of a new possibility. It is the process of anchoring that makes the new imaginable. Anchoring often takes place conceptually through language and discourse (Sluiter, Old is the new new: the rhetoric of anchoring innovation. The language of argumentation, Springer, Cham, 2020). In the example of civilian service, the category of “service” is borrowed from the military and accommodated to the new domain by the addition of the qualifier “social.” In order to imagine the possible, we do not create ex nihilo, but we take as our starting point a familiar anchor. Any theory or analysis of the Possible should therefore take anchoring practices into account.
This essay presents conceptualisations of the Possible as they were developed in “(Classical) Antiquity.” This period is defined as encompassing the history of the Greek and Roman civilizations in their Mediterranean and Eurasian contexts between approximately 500 BCE–500 CE (Naerbout and Singor 2014). First, we provide a general overview of how people in Antiquity coped with the uncertainty of future possibilities, which was mainly through divination, ritualized procedures for seeking knowledge of the (immediate) future. Secondly, we discuss how the horizon of the Possible was expanded during this period through increasing connectivity (Globalization). This facilitated a new role for imagination as part of social life as there was now more “Other” to imagine than (ever) before. We argue that paying attention to the (deep) past of socio-cultural concepts like the Possible matters greatly for two main reasons, one methodological and the other ontological. The ability to move between “what is” and “what could be” has been shown to be an important constituent of the human niche. A deep history of the Possible therefore provides a way to investigate the development of human imagination. The other main reason to argue for a deep history of the Possible is ontological, in that it focusses on future-oriented activities in past societies with their specific worldviews, which produce and define specific conceptualizations of the future. However, their future may not be the same as our past. Our own specific ontology, our philosophy of existence, heavily influenced by Modernity, is thus put into perspective.
Future-making is a collective enterprise. Learning and creativity are as much psychological as they are social and cultural phenomena. The creation of new technologies requires division of labour, their use connects us with those around us. And the future of the emerging field of learning, creativity and technology studies is ours to envision and to bring into being. Any speculation about the futures (always in plural) of creativity, technology and learning is therefore dialogical and depends on exchanges between different individuals and groups within society. Our final ‘creative provocation’, then, is meant to recognise and capitalise on the social roots of learning creatively, with technology, and speculate about these futures in an equally dialogical manner. This exchange brings together three authors with expertise in a range of relevant areas, from engineering and learning to sociocultural studies and the psychology of creativity. Our hope in using this format is that it will not only be more enjoyable and authentic but bring insights that both build on and expand what the present book offers in its rich array of contributions, views, and provocations.
How we might think about the future of creativity, learning and technology? There are, of course, numerous ways to approach this question. One way would be to systematically work through the three concepts and consider possible futures for each. Another approach would be to work within some combination of the relationship among these concepts in relation to a future orientation. Any of these approaches have the potential to result in interesting conjectures for considering the future possibilities for creativity, technology, and learning. Regardless of the approach one takes, however, it is important to recognize that uncertainty plays a central role in any discussion of the future. The purpose of this chapter is to explore how we might move toward creative learning in the context of uncertain futures and consider the potential role that technologies play in these futures. More specifically, I discuss key principles of creative learning under uncertainty and invite researchers and practitioners to consider how existing and new technologies might help or further impede efforts aimed at promoting creative learning in and beyond the walls of schools and classrooms. I organize the discussion in this chapter around a set of provocations aimed at considering the role technology might play in supporting each phase of creative learning now and into the future.KeywordsCreative learningUncertaintyTechnologyLearning futuresEducation
This brief paper explores possibilities for change in political behavior through what I term “political plasticity.” Revolutions provide a suitable context in which to critically examine political plasticity, particularly when the revolutionaries who come to power attempt to bring about radical political changes. The examples of the Bolsheviks who attempted to implement collectivization after the 1917 revolution in Russia, and the Shi’a Muslim fundamentalists, who attempted to create a healthy dictatorial society under velayat-e-faghih after the 1979 revolution in Iran, are used to illustrate limitations to political plasticity, shedding light on possibilities for changes in political behavior.
Knowledge about embodied creativity is in its infancy. In circus arts, performers are nowadays ‘owning’ their creativity making this performance domain fruitful to study embodied creativity. Building on socio‐cultural creativity perspectives and radical embodied cognitive sciences, the current study aimed at exploring movement creativity by tracking the journey of embodied ideas in a Circus School. Specifically, this research questioned how the interactions between actors, audiences, affordances, and actions support the emergence and evolution of movement ideas. A narrative ethnographic research design, gathering process observations in situ, was used to scrutinize the movement ideas generated by student‐artists, teachers, and artistic advisors over a 4‐month period. Reflexive thematic analysis led to the design of an exhaustive mapping which illustrates the key findings. Namely, the journey of an embodied idea is influenced by stimulating spaces and collaborative socio‐cultural environment which ignite the actors' desire to create. This desire, in turn, unfolds into multiple ideational pathways paved with research strategies (e.g., improvisation, constraints, variability) and emotions (i.e., pleasant and unpleasant). Embodied ideas then go through an assessment process leading (or not) to its growth. Results are discussed in light of embodied, pedagogical, and emotional considerations offering an alternative to the conceptualization of idea.
In this chapter, we introduce the ethnographic research methodology as a starting point in organisational and workplace learning research. In approaching learning at work as a practice-based and communal phenomenon, this strategy has been found suitable for studying its nature and practices. We focus on new and innovative ways to conduct ethnography—especially virtual ethnography and digital tools. In this chapter, we first briefly describe the background of ethnographic methodology. We then move on to consider why workplace learning should also be studied in virtual environments and how digital tools, such as subjective cameras, can be utilized in conducting ethnographic research. Then, we present two empirical case examples. The first case illustrates the study of informal learning using ethnography in a virtual environment. The second case illustrates the use of subjective cameras in a subjective, evidence-based ethnographic process. Using these case examples, we show how the basic principles of ethnography can be strengthened and applied in virtual environments and with the help of digital tools in workplace learning research. We also consider some potential ideas for further ethnographic research on workplace learning alongside ethical matters related to ethnographic and virtual ethnographic research.KeywordsEthnographyOrganization ethnographyVirtual ethnographyWorkplace learningSubjective evidence-based ethnography
This chapter focuses on the role and value of not knowing for creativity, learning and development. More specifically, it proposes a typology of states that are conducive, in different ways, for creative learning, including certain knowing, uncertain not knowing, uncertain knowing, and certain not knowing. They are discussed, in turn, in relation to four associated experiences: trust, anxiety, curiosity and wonder, respectively. Towards the end, two models are proposed that specify how and when these experiences contribute to the process of creative learning. The first is focused on macro stages, the second on micro processes. While the former starts from uncertain not knowing, goes through the interplay between uncertain knowing and certain not knowing, and ends in certain knowledge, the processual model reveals the intricate relations between these experiences in each and every instance of creative learning. The developmental and educational implications of revaluing not knowing as a generate state are discussed in the end.KeywordsUncertaintyKnowledgeAnxietyTrustCuriosityWonderCreative learning
Creativity has become an essential curriculum competence, playing a pivotal role in the successful response to the ever-changing demands of contemporary society. Yet, its complex, dynamic, and multi-faceted nature seem conflicted with the predominant quantitative and easy-to-replicate curricular goals, resulting in potential incongruence between educational aims, pedagogical activities, and students' creativity development. Aiming to contribute to this debate, we designed a qualitative study, based on a documentary analysis of the Portuguese preschool and basic education-intended curricula (legislation, legal norms, guidelines, programs, opinions, and recommendations). From an initial set of 194 documents, 20 complied with our selection criteria. Key findings underline the difficulties in outlining a clear and comprehensive definition of creativity as a distinctive dimension of psychological development, with consequences in how creativity-focused pedagogical activities are applied within the classroom. Although recent educational reforms have attempted to overcome these limitations, they appear restricted to arts and sports subjects. Our results highlight the need to develop curricula anchored in an approach to creativity as a unique opportunity for psychological development. By intentionally promoting creativity in the curriculum, students' sense of agency, identity, self-knowledge, and determination can be engaged, ultimately enhancing the underlying complexity of their socio- cognitive emotional structures.
This article explores the story of Einar, a Faroese man who always lived within a 500-meters radius on the island of Suðuroy, who never felt "stuck" or "immobile" in the literal sense of the word. Studies have shown that staying is a process, as much as mobility; yet while mobility studies mainly show that imagination is an incentive to move, we argue that imagination may also actively support staying. Combining sociocultural psychology with mobility studies, we propose to explore the entangle-ment of symbolic mobility (a form of imagination) and various forms of geographical (im)mobility. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and hours of conversation, we present the case study of Einar's life on his island. We follow the sociogenetic development of the island, and the expansion and contraction of the imaginative horizon over time. On this background, we then retrace the life of Einar and show how, within this transforming context, his imagination developed thanks to resources he could use from the mobility of technologies, ideas, and other people. Interestingly, at different bifurcation points, his symbolic mobility almost led him to move away but, at another point, helped him to refuse geographical mobility. Hence, he was always symbolically mobile while staying. We finally propose directions for general-ising from this case study, and implications for cultural psychology and for mobility and migration studies.
Humans live in a world of possibilities that is sustained by semiosis, that is, the dynamic construction of symbolic systems through which we coordinate action and imagine possibilities. In this chapter, I draw on the work of Valsiner to explore the ways in which culture, as a symbolic system, can either expand or restrict this process of guiding ourselves into the future. I examine two extreme cases: first, expansive semiosis is observed in Samuel Beckett’s short story Company; second, restrictive semiosis is observed in an intergroup context. Both cases illustrate the possibility for reversals between “I,” “you,” and “they”; but, while Beckett deliberately proliferates these reversals, in the intergroup context, multiple strategies are used to limit such reversals so that they only occur when there is strategic benefit. These dynamics, of dissolving and reifying the distinctions between self and other, can only be understood by considering the actual semiotic content of the stream of semiosis.
This chapter explores the relationship between creativity and culture by arguing not only that the creative process is intrinsically social and cultural but, most of all, that the emergence, diffusion and transformation of culture are, ultimately, creative processes. This sociocultural proposition is supported by the sociogenetic diffusion of cultural innovations, the ontogenetic emergence of creativity and culture in early episodes of pretend play, and the microgenetic negotiation of cultural elements taking the form of tinkering and experimentation. The chapter ends with a few reflections on the theoretical, methodological and practical implications of understanding culture as a creative process.
Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, creativity, learning, and technology became guiding lights for the debate on transforming conceptions and practices within education systems around the world.
Given creativity’s intersubjective and agentic nature, it can work as an invaluable resource when promoting learning in formal and informal educational settings. Notwithstanding, these same features make it a challenge to know the conditions under which creativity development can be propelled through technology in educational contexts.
Moreover, the technological revolution seems to have accelerated the pace of contemporary societies, often demanding rapid responses to creative challenges. Yet, from a developmental and constructivist standpoint, creativity is embedded in an intricate matrix where individual and sociocultural influences interact to help construct new ways of “worldmaking”. Thus, it can be envisioned as an attribute of the complexity of a psychological subject’s sociocognitive-emotional structures, whose development occurs in the interstitial space between self, others and the world, requiring time to manifest.
Considering that technology modifies the person’s relation, action, construction of world(s), of others and self, we intend to discuss the mode and extent to which it can effectively be inscribed into education to promote the development of creativity. In this conceptual paper, we explore the impact on the continuous process of worldmaking (from where creativity blooms) of moving towards an ever-growing technological society, capable of innovative answers to the pandemic (e.g., distance learning) and other unpredictable challenges. We conclude by discussing how the so-called (re)constructive exploration pedagogies can be aligned with technology-based educational programs – capitalizing on their potential to transform human thinking, (inter)acting, and experiencing-, to nurture the development of creativity in education.
This book is the first to discuss in detail the different sides of Jaan Valsiner’s thought, including developmental science, semiotic mediation, cultural transmission, aesthetics, globalization of science, epistemology, methodology and the history of ideas. The book provides an overview, evaluation and extension of Valsiner’s key ideas for the construction of a dynamic cultural psychology, written by his former students and colleagues from around the world.
See: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030778910#aboutAuthors
This final chapter, before concluding, takes us to the intra-individual level and considers the ways in which embodied moves connect to psychological ones. The examples of mind wandering, wonder and acts of imagination as looping in and out of the here and now are offered to support the general claim that mobility leads to psychological development through the exploration of the possible.
This chapter reviews evidence concerning the development of our species and its prehistoric migrations. By relating these acts of migration to the emergence of innovations and their initial accumulation—in what would become the first human forms of civilisation—the chapter brings phylogenetic examples of the connection between mobility and possibility.
While the previous chapter was necessarily concerned (given the absence of recorded history) with the movement of things, this chapter engages with the history of ideas and recent theories regarding cultural transmission and the circulation of representations. It is again demonstrated that movement and interaction open up new possibilities for thinking for both individuals and society.
This article addresses the conceptual challenges of articulating the ethical–political limits of ‘higher education as we know it’, and the practical challenges of exploring alternative formations of higher education that are unimaginable from within the dominant imaginary of the higher education field. This article responds to the contemporary conjuncture in which possible futures have been significantly narrowed, and yet these possibilities also appear increasingly unsustainable and unethical. It invites scholars of higher education to rethink the epistemological and ontological frames within which most imaginaries and institutions of higher education are embedded. If we fail to denaturalize these frames, then efforts to pluralize possible higher education futures will risk reproducing existing conceptual limitations and enduring colonial harms.
‘Street Art of Resistance’ … is a definitive collection of essays; it has case studies from Belfast to Egypt, art forms ranging from murals to tattoos, and insights that are both theoretical and practical. Street art is a way for suppressed voices to gain representation in the public sphere. These voices combine the power of art to challenge assumptions with the power of the street to make things public; the result is an opening of possibility that refuses to be ignored.’
—Alex Gillespie, London School of Economics and Political Science
This book explores how street art is used as a tool of resistance to express opposition to political systems and social issues around the world. Aesthetic devices such as murals, tags, posters, street performances and caricatures are discussed in terms of how they are employed to occupy urban spaces and present alternative visions of social reality. Based on empirical research, the authors use the framework of creative psychology to explore the aesthetic dimensions of resistance that can be found in graffiti, art, music, poetry and other creative cultural forms. Chapters include case studies from countries including Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico and Spain to shed new light on the social, cultural and political dynamics of street art not only locally, but globally. This innovative collection will be of interest to scholars of social and political psychology, urban studies and the wider sociologies and is essential reading for those interested in the role of art in social change.
Sarah H. Awad is Fellow at the Centre for Cultural Psychology at Aalborg University, Denmark. Her research interests lie with the interrelation between cultural psychology, communication, and social development, and the processes by which individuals develop through times of social change.
Brady Wagoner is Professor of Psychology at Aalborg University, Denmark. His publications span a wide range of topics, including cultural psychology, remembering, creativity and social change. He is associate editor of Culture and Psychology and Peace and Conflict, and co-founding editor of Psychology and Society.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" once remarked Winston Churchill. In this day and age this quotation resonates more than ever. This book explores democracy from the perspective of social and cultural psychology, highlighting the importance of the everyday basis of democratic practices. This approach takes us beyond the simple understanding of democracy in its institutional guise of free elections and public accountability, and towards a focus on group dynamics and personal characteristics of the democratic citizen, including their mentalities, habits and ways of relating to others. The book features discussions of the two-way street between democracy and dictatorship; conflicts within protests, ideology and public debate; and the psychological profile of a democratic citizen and its critique. While acknowledging the limitations of today's democratic systems, this volume aims to re-invigorate democracy by bringing psychology to the table of current debates on social change and citizenship.
Past research demonstrates that the relationship between distinct subgroups within teams can be improved using interventions that emphasize commonalities, such as a superordinate team identity. By comparing the creative outcomes of 51 racio-ethnically diverse teams, comprised of both majority and minority racio-ethnic subgroups, this study shows when a common ingroup identity will lead to higher creativity. We hypothesize that there is a combined effect of racio-ethnic identity and superordinate team identity salience on the usefulness as well as the novelty of team’s ideas. Accordingly, we found that superordinate team identity salience had a positive effect on novelty, but only when differences between subgroups were also made salient. There was no joint influence on the usefulness of ideas. Furthermore, our results showed that the relationship between the simultaneous salience of the superordinate team and racio-ethnic identities on the novelty of ideas generated was mediated by team member’s perception of the team as unified and inclusive. Collectively, racio-ethnic subgroup and superordinate identity salience foster a feeling of a common “we,” which in turn support the generation of novel ideas. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
This paper offers a theoretical exploration of the psychological and social processes involved in perspective taking. Constructing the perspective of other people – i.e., how they view themselves, others, and the world – requires perspective takers to mobilise both personal experiences and cultural resources. While these processes are rarely reflected upon in daily interactions with familiar others, they adopt a particular dynamic in the case of less familiar or stigmatised groups such as refugees. To unpack this dynamic, we propose the Commitment Model, which differentiates between essentialism, situationalism, identification and repositioning in perspective taking. These categories are defined and exemplified with social media comments regarding refugees, their worldview and imagined impact on host communities. By examining the different movements involved in perspective taking, we conclude that it is a multifaceted phenomenon that has different pragmatic consequences. It contributes to building more open societies but it can also lead to separating self and other, closing down dialogue and mutual understanding.
Open access: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1354067X17695769
What does psychology have to offer to the pursuit of actualised democracy? Starting from the assumption – that we share with Moghaddam – that psychology has an important role to play in this regard, we propose to develop a cultural psychological perspective on the topic. To do so, we first revisit four common assumptions about democracy through the lens of cultural psychology. We then present the notion of political imagination as a tool to unpack how (the democratic) self, others and societies are imagined and constructed in discourse. We apply this notion to a series of four examples stemming from the on-going refugee crisis, and we illustrate how the psychological categories proposed by Moghaddam can be used to defend a vision of society that excludes others. Finally, we turn towards the concept of perspective taking, and we conclude that psychology’s contribution should focus on self-other relations – not just on the idealised, democratic self – as these are simultaneously political, psychological and ethical.
This article argues that the discursive construction of difference can shape resistance in organizations. Drawing on an inductive study of international teams in a global leadership programme, the paper reveals how difference is discursively produced and reproduced in team members’ talk. In conditions of normalizing control, the majority of teams engage in individuating practices that reinforce internal differences, preclude group cohesion and marginalize certain members. One team, however, explicitly resists programme stipulations in ways that express members’ heterogeneity and simultaneously reinforce group solidarity and inclusion. Referring to these oppositional practices as ‘resistance through difference’, the article describes how dissent challenges the hierarchies and disciplinary practices embedded in the leadership programme, and theorizes the co-constitution of inclusion and resistance. By examining the construction of difference not as ‘a problem’, but as a productive resource, the paper also addresses the generative outcomes of this managerial resistance. We argue that ‘resistance through difference’ is an important form of dissent that could well become more prevalent as globalized business processes expand.
What role does creativity play in the social interactions of teaching? The purpose of this brief communication is to address this question by introducing the concept of creative openings. Creative openings refer to unexpected breaks in otherwise planned teaching interactions that result in new and meaningful insights, perspectives and understandings. The concept of creative openings builds on recent work that has endeavored to explore how creative thought and action can emerge in the socio-psychological and material interactions of practice. The article opens by briefly introducing creative openings, highlights three key moment (interactional ruptures, interactional responses and interactional outcomes) that researchers can use to examine the trajectory of creative openings. The article closes with a brief example that illustrates these key moments and how they might be represented diagrammatically. Directions for future research are also discussed.
By doing history of psychology, we occasionally find areas of inquiry that have been forgotten in contemporary psychological language. One of these themes is fantasy. In this lecture I present some major contributions to fantasy before the establishment of scientific psychology. The exploration will begin with J.W. Goethe’s (1810) fourfold conception of the human soul: fantasy [Einbildungskraft], sensuality [Sinnlichkeit], rationality [Vernunft] and intellect [Verstand], whose roots can be traced back to Nicholas of Cusa’s "De Docta Ignorantia" (1440). Nicholas of Cusa introduces through the term "intuitio" [Anschauung] a sort of “wise ignorance”, i.e. a special kind of knowledge without grounding [visio sine comprehensione]. The mystic-theological tradition of the intuitio is extended toward a modern framework through Giambattista Vico’s "fantasia" (1725), understood as the main key to enter into the singularity of any human creation. In the context of the Romantic revolt against modern science and the hegemony of rationality, Goethe’s (1810) model of soul attempts to integrate the knowledge of intuition, via fantasia, while maintaining the rational capacities of human beings. Goethe criticizes the lack of fantasy and sensuality of his fellow scientists. Goethe’s plea for a holistic thinking in modern science implies the formation of the less developed fantasy and sensuality. Schiller’s Letters on Aesthetic Education should be framed in this spirit. Thus, during the first part of 19th century the human sciences (anthropology and psychology were indistinguishable at that time) embraced the non-intellectual faculties, primordially fantasy. As a consequence, the history of psychology (before its scientification) is indissolubly inter-twined with the history of aesthetics. By middle of 19th century, the introduction of quantification implied the massive abandonment of non-rational human dimensions: vital forces, empathy, ten-dencies, physiognomic sensibilities, intuition and fantasy, among others. While some of these were still developed in other disciplines —such as the emerging phenomenology and psychoanalysis— some others were radically abandoned. Such was the case of fantasy: It was transmuted into an intellectual process of representing and operating on unreal objects in front of the mind’s eye —the imagination. The connection with vital feelings and aesthetics was lost. Not surprisingly, the original fantasy survives in literary theory and aesthetics rather than in psychology. Thus, the fate of fantasy in psychology is a fractal reflection of the fate of the whole dimension of internal experience: abandonment or transmutation. The challenge for cultural psychology is to recover the forgotten dimensions of the human being, whose roots connect psychology to anthropology rather than to epistemology.
This book presents 9 theory-based and practice-oriented methods for assessing and stimulating a multi-voiced dialogical self in the context of groups, teams, cultures, and organizations. All of these methods are based on Dialogical Self Theory. The book deals with the practical implications of this theory as applied in the areas of coaching, training, and counselling. A number of chapters focus on the process of positioning and dialogue on the level of the self, while other chapters combine self-processes with group work, and still others find their applications in leadership development and team-work in organizations. For each of the nine methods, the chapters present theory, method, case-study and discussions and make clear what kind of problems can be tackled using the method discussed. Specifically, the book discusses the following methods: A Negotiational Self Method for assessing and solving inner conflicts; a Self-Confrontation Method used to assess and stimulate personal meaning construction in career counselling; a Method of Expressive Writing in the context of career development; a Composition Method for studying the content and organization of personal positions via verbal and non-verbal procedures; a Dialogical Leadership Method that investigates and stimulates dialogical relationships between personal positions in the self of leaders in organizations; a Personal Position Repertoire Method that combines the assessment of personal positions with focus group discussions; a Team Confrontation Method for investigating collective and deviant positions or voices in organizational teams; a Method for Revising Organizational Stories with a focus on their emotional significance: and a Technique for Assessing and Stimulating Innovative Dialogue between Cultural Positions in global nomads.
Free Will: A Very Short Introduction asks: Are our choices really free? Every day we seem to make and act upon all kinds of free choices. Are these choices ours, or are we compelled to act the way we do by factors beyond our control? Is the feeling that we could have made different decisions just an illusion? And if our choices are not free, why should we be held morally responsible for our actions? This VSI looks at a range of issues surrounding this fundamental philosophical question, exploring it from the ideas of the Greek and medieval philosophers through to the thoughts of present-day thinkers.
This book explains how Facebook devolved from an innocent social site created by Harvard students into a force that makes personal life a little more pleasurable, but at the same time makes democracy a lot more challenging. It talks about the hubris of good intentions, a missionary spirit, and an ideology that sees computer code as the universal solvent for all human problems. It also addresses how "social media" has fostered the deterioration of democratic culture around the world, from facilitating Russian meddling in support of Donald Trump's election to the exploitation of the platform by murderous authoritarians in Burma and the Philippines. The book analyzes the increase of recognition and reaction against Facebook's power in the last couple of years. It reviews the growing public concern about the influence Facebook exerts over lives and politics around the world.
From early in life, human infants appear capable of taking others' perspectives, and can do so even when the other's perspective conflicts with the infant's perspective. Infants' success in perspective-taking contexts implies that they are managing conflicting perspectives despite a wealth of data suggesting that doing so relies on sufficiently mature Executive Functions, and is a challenge even for adults. In a new theory, I propose that infants can take other's perspectives because they have an altercentric bias. This bias results from a combination of the value that human cognition places on others' attention, and an absence of a competing self-perspective, which would, in older children, create a conflict requiring resolution by Executive Functions. A self-perspective emerges with the development of cognitive self-awareness, sometime in the second year of life, at which point it leads to competition between perspectives. This theory provides a way of explaining infants' ability to take others' perspectives, but raises the possibility that they could do so without representing or understanding the implications of perspective for others' mental states. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
This paper engages with the issues of intersubjectivity by raising three main questions about it: What is the status of the other and of the perspective of the other? How would a social ontology that starts from the other look like? and What is the relation between intersubjectivity and the possible? In addressing these questions, I propose four main approaches to self–other relations, each one focused on a different set of theories of intersubjectivity: cognitive (being self), pragmatist (becoming other), dialogical (becoming self), and allocentric (being other). Their main premises, processes, theories and proponents, as well as implications for ethics and the emergence of novelty, are reflected on in turn. Allocentrism emerges as a useful way to shift the focus from self to other in discussions of intersubjectivity, as an ontological condition of the possible, but also as a difficult position to adopt in practice, particularly in polarized societies.
Henry A. Giroux is one of the most respected and well-known critical education scholars, social critics, and astute observers of popular culture in the modern world. For those who follow his considerably influential work in critical pedagogy and social criticism, this first-ever collection of his classic writings, augmented by a new essay, is a must-have volume that reveals his evolution as a scholar. In it, he takes on three major considerations central to pedagogy and schooling.The first section offers Girouxs most widely read theoretical critiques on the culture of positivism and technocratic rationality. He contends that by emphasizing the logic of science and rationality rather than taking a holistic worldview, these approaches fail to take account of connections among social, political, and historical forces or to consider the importance of such connections for the process of schooling. In the second section, Giroux expands the theoretical framework for conceptualizing and implementing his version of critical pedagogy. His theory of border pedagogy advocates a democratic public philosophy that embraces the notion of difference as part of a common struggle to extend the quality of public life. For Giroux, a student must function as a border-crosser, as a person moving in and out of physical, cultural, and social borders. He uses the popular medium of Hollywood film to show students how they might understand their own position as partly constructed within a dominant Eurocentric tradition and how power and authority relate to the wider society as well as to the classroom.In the last section, Giroux explores a number of contemporary traditions and issues, including modernism, postmodernism, and feminism, and discusses the matter of cultural difference in the classroom. Finally, in an essay written especially for this volume, Giroux analyzes the assault on education and teachers as public intellectuals that began in the Reagan-Bush era and continues today. Henry A. Giroux is one of the most respected and well-known critical education scholars, social critics, and astute observers of popular culture in the modern world. For those who follow his considerably influential work in critical pedagogy and social criticism, this first-ever collection of his classic writings, augmented by a new essay, is a must-have volume that reveals his evolution as a scholar. In it, he takes on three major considerations central to pedagogy and schooling.The first section offers Girouxs most widely read theoretical critiques on the culture of positivism and technocratic rationality. He contends that by emphasizing the logic of science and rationality rather than taking a holistic worldview, these approaches fail to take account of connections among social, political, and historical forces or to consider the importance of such connections for the process of schooling. In the second section, Giroux expands the theoretical framework for conceptualizing and implementing his version of critical pedagogy. His theory of border pedagogy advocates a democratic public philosophy that embraces the notion of difference as part of a common struggle to extend the quality of public life. For Giroux, a student must function as a border-crosser, as a person moving in and out of physical, cultural, and social borders. He uses the popular medium of Hollywood film to show students how they might understand their own position as partly constructed within a dominant Eurocentric tradition and how power and authority relate to the wider society as well as to the classroom.In the last section, Giroux explores a number of contemporary traditions and issues, including modernism, postmodernism, and feminism, and discusses the matter of cultural difference in the classroom. Finally, in an essay written especially for this volume, Giroux analyzes the assault on education and teachers as public intellectuals that began in the Reagan-Bush era and continues today.
Dystopian narrative is a product of the social ferment of the twentieth century. A hundred years of war, famine, disease, state terror, genocide, ecocide, and the depletion of humanity through the buying and selling of everyday life provided fertile ground for this fictive underside of the utopian imagination. From the classical works by E. M. Forster, Yevgeny Zamyatin, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and Margaret Atwood, through the new maps of hell in postwar science fiction, and most recently in the dystopian turn of the 1980s and 1990s, this narrative machine has produced challenging cognitive maps of the given historical situation by way of imaginary societies which are even worse than those that lie outside their authors’ and readers’ doors.In Scraps of the Untainted Sky, Tom Moylan offers a thorough investigation of the history and aesthetics of dystopia. To situate his study, Moylan sets out the methodological paradigm that developed within the interdisciplinary fields of science fiction studies and utopian studies as they grow out of the oppositional political culture of the 1960 and 1970s (the context that produced the project of cultural studies itself). He then presents a thorough account of the textual structure and formal operations of the dystopian text. From there, he focuses on the new science-fictional dystopias that emerged in the context of the economic, political, and cultural convulsions of the 1980s and 1990s, and he examines in detail three of these new “critical dystopias:" Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Gold Coast, Octavia Butler’s The Parable of the Sower, and Marge Piercy’s He, She, and It.With its detailed, documented, and yet accessible presentation, Scraps of the Untainted Sky will be of interest to established scholars as well as students and general readers who are seeking an in-depth introduction to this important area of cultural production.
This chapter approaches collective futures from the standpoint of creativity and imagination. Through these lenses, the construction of collective futures is a creative act that engages multiple actors, audiences, and cultural artefacts. By advancing the notion of perspectival collective futures, a key question emerges: How are perspectives on the collective future built, contested, adopted, and transformed in interaction? In this chapter, I outline and illustrate three ways of building collective futures: by imagining the future for others (monological), with others (dialectical), and towards others (dialogical). These are not mutually exclusive types and it is precisely their interplay that should concern us when examining collective futures, their origins, dynamic, and consequences. The chapter finally offers a critical agenda for future researchers in this area.
In this short epilogue, I reflect on a final, basic paradox when it comes to creativity: the fact that creators are simultaneously deeply immersed into their environment and their work and, at the same time, capable of taking distance from both in order to develop new perspectives on the situation or problem at hand. This particular state of “immersed detachment” is enabled by our existence as social and cultural beings, a condition that both constrains and frees our thinking and our action. Understanding this paradoxical condition and fostering it can have wide‐ranging benefits at a theoretical and practical level. Conceptually, it helps us understand why creativity depends, at once, on individuals and society, uniqueness and sameness, continuity and difference. Practically, it encourages those forms of immersion and connectivity that help rather than hinder creative agency.
There are many dimensions to the ongoing European refugee crisis, including economic, political, and humanitarian. Underlying them, however, is the issue of self–other relations and, in particular, the ways in which Western societies imagine others and otherness, defined in cultural, religious, and political terms. At the core of this political imagination, we propose, are certain understandings of refugees, of how they think, feel, and intend to act. In this article, we aim to unpack the social and psychological mechanisms involved in taking the perspective of refugees on digital platforms. The focus here is on refugee-related memes shared on Reddit, and the conversations around these visual artifacts. Our findings indicate that participants in these forums most often construct the perspective of refugees from an outside position, based on a commitment to difference, and rarely try to identify with the situation of refugees.
'Imagined Communities' examines the creation & function of the 'imagined communities' of nationality & the way these communities were in part created by the growth of the nation-state, the interaction between capitalism & printing & the birth of vernacular languages in early modern Europe.
This paper examines the contrast and distinction between divergent and convergent scientific creativity, and the paradoxical relationship of scientific creativity with cultural factors in elementary students. With a newly developed measure of potential for scientific creativity, EPoC Science (Lubart et al., in press), students produce ideas in response to scientific problems, and both divergent-exploratory as well as convergent-integrative processes involved in scientific creativity are analyzed. An empirical study (n = 118) was conducted in France with elementary school children (ages 7–10). The divergent-exploratory task was scored for fluency and statistical uniqueness. For the convergent-integrative task, the number of concepts that a student integrated and synthesized, and the originality of the synthesis were scored. Results showed that divergent and convergent task performances were weakly related to each other. This suggests that divergence and convergence are two relatively distinct processes for scientific creativity, and that the relation is more complex than commonly assumed. In terms of culture-related variables, immigrant cultural background (number of family members born outside of France) was significantly and negatively correlated with the originality of divergent and convergent scientific creativity. Findings are discussed and educational implications are proposed.
The experience of wonder is often said to be at the origin of acts of creativity, both historical and mundane, from big breakthroughs in science to the everyday discoveries of children at play. And yet, wonder and wondering have rarely been theorized until now, at least in the psychology of creativity. Understood as one of the main ways in which we engage with the possible, wonder presents us, upon closer inspection, with a paradox typical for creativity—experiencing what is present (the here and now) through the lenses of what is absent (the not-yet-here). Wondering is grounded in the possibility of adopting multiple perspectives on a certain reality; many of which are yet unknown to the creator while anticipated and actively looked for. In this paper, the creative process fuelled by the experience of wonder is described as a cyclical interplay between awareness, excitement, and exploration of the possible. Thus, one of the main consequences of reflecting on wonder and wondering is not only a renewed focus on process in creativity research but, most of all, a new emphasis on the less “visible” and yet essential aspects of creative action as it bridges the actual and the possible.
The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to examine the developmental trajectory of creative potentials of Polish students. A total of 1,522 Polish students aged between 7 and 18 from lower and upper primary school, middle school, and high school participated in the study. Creative potential was measured by means of the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production. The findings showed that older students achieved higher scores than the younger ones, drops in mean scores among students aged 13 and 16 were noted, and levelling of scores was found among students aged from 10 to 13, with a slight drop at the age of 13. Moreover, a phenomenon was discovered which was described as a mini plateau, i.e., an emergence of similar mean scores in 2 consecutive age groups. Possible explanations of the results are discussed, including interpretations in the context of the CMC and educational and environmental conditions which act as inhibitors or stimulators of the development of creative abilities.
How might teachers transform routine tasks into non-routine ones? The purpose of this article is to address this question. The article opens with a discussion of why non-routine problems require creative and original thought. Specifically, I discuss how non-routine problems require students to confront uncertainty and how uncertainty can serve as a catalyst for creative thought and action. Next, I discuss how the logic of routine tasks can impede original and creative thought. I then introduce the concept of lesson unplanning and explain how it can be used to convert routine tasks into non-routine problems. I also discuss how non-routine problems can range from more modest in-classroom assignments to more ambitious efforts. The paper closes with a brief discussion of directions for future research and practice.
This book presents the theory of anticipation, and establishes anticipation of the future as a legitimate topic of research. It examines anticipatory behavior, i.e. a behavior that ‘uses’ the future in its actual decisional process. The book shows that anticipation violates neither the ontological order of time nor causation. It explores the question of how different kinds of systems anticipate, and examines the risks and uses of such anticipatory practices. The book first summarizes the research on anticipation conducted within a range of different disciplines, and describes the connection between the anticipatory point of view and futures studies. Following that, its chapters on Wholes, Time and Emergence, make explicit the ontological framework within which anticipation finds its place. It then goes on to discuss Systems, Complexity, and the Modeling Relation, and provides the scientific background supporting anticipation. It restricts formal technicalities to one chapter, and presents those technicalities twice, in formal and plain words to advance understanding. The final chapter shows that all the threads presented in the previous chapters naturally converge toward what has come to be called “Discipline of Anticipation”
This article is concerned with the long-standing question of how human agency can exist within the determinant universe typically assumed in psychological theory. It proceeds by offering a hermeneutic view of human agency based on 3 related claims: that anxiety reveals entities as having both actuality and possibility, that possibility is an immanent part of the world itself, and that agency is a meaningful projecting and pressing into possibilities. In taking this position, the author makes use of the Heideggerian notions of metaphysics, nihilism, unconcealment, and the essential strife of world and earth. Rather than invoking special mechanisms that putatively allow for a range of agentic action within a determinant universe, as theories of free will often seek to do, this hermeneutic alternative reframes the nature of world such that it is filled with possibility and thus provides the ontological ground of agency. (PsycINFO Database Record
Is another future possible? So called 'late modernity' is marked by the escalating rise in and proliferation of uncertainties and unforeseen events brought about by the interplay between and patterning of social-natural, techno-scientific and political-economic developments. The future has indeed become problematic. The question of how heterogeneous actors engage futures, what intellectual and practical strategies they put into play and what the implications of such strategies are, have become key concerns of recent social and cultural research addressing a diverse range of fields of practice and experience. Exploring questions of speculation, possibilities and futures in contemporary societies, Speculative Research responds to the pressing need to not only critically account for the role of calculative logics and rationalities in managing societal futures, but to develop alternative approaches and sensibilities that take futures seriously as possibilities and that demand new habits and practices of attention, invention, and experimentation. © 2017 selection and editorial matter, Alex Wilkie, Martin Savransky and Marsha Rosengarten. All rights reserved.
Preface PART 1: TWO NATURAL KINDS 1. Approaching the Literary 2. Two Modes of Thought 3. Possible Castles PART 2: LANGUAGE AND REALITY 4. The Transactional Self 5. The Inspiration of Vygotsky 6. Psychological Reality 7. Nelson Goodman's Worlds 8. Thought and Emotion PART 3: ACTING IN CONSTRUCTED WORLDS 9. The Language of Education 10. Developmental Theory as Culture Afterword Appendix: A Reader's Retelling of "Clay" by James Joyce Notes Credits Index
Employing political philosophy to argue the need for social and public art projects to be a part of the everyday lives of Americans, Boros creates a new synthesis of philosophical ideas to support the political value of public art.
Previous research has reported that there is a discrepancy between the creativity students display when they are in school and that which they display when they are not in school. The present investigation explored this creativity gap. A measure that captures creative activity and achievement in various domains (art, science and technology, everyday creativity) was administered to 254 Turkish undergraduates. This investigation also used statistical techniques that allowed the explanatory power of personality, creative attitudes and values, students’ perceptions of supports and barriers at school, and various background variables, such as parental education) to be determined. Results confirmed that there was a discrepancy between the in school and outside of school creative activities and achievements. Significantly more creativity was reportedly displayed outside rather than in school. Students’ social preferences, creative attitudes and values, and creative personality traits explained much of the discrepancy. Various interpretations of these results are examined, one being that students have creative potential, as evidenced by their creative activities and achievements outside of school, but these potentials are not displayed when they are in school, perhaps because usually there is more structure and more restrictions in school, and creativity entails autonomy and independence. Limitations and future research are discussed.
A talking body part, a character that is simultaneously alive and dead, a shape-changing setting, or time travel: although impossible in the real world, such narrative elements do appear in the storyworlds of novels, short stories, and plays. Impossibilities of narrator, character, time, and space are not only common in today’s world of postmodernist literature but can also be found throughout the history of literature. Examples include the beast fable, the heroic epic, the romance, the eighteenth-century circulation novel, the Gothic novel, the ghost play, the fantasy narrative, and the science-fiction novel, among others. Unnatural Narrative looks at the startling and persistent presence of the impossible or "the unnatural" throughout British and American literary history. Layering the lenses of cognitive narratology, frame theory, and possible-worlds theory, Unnatural Narrative offers a rigorous and engaging new characterization of the unnatural and what it yields for individual readers as well as literary culture. Jan Alber demonstrates compelling interpretations of the unnatural in literature and shows the ways in which such unnatural phenomena become conventional in readers’ minds, altogether expanding our sense of the imaginable and informing new structures and genres of narrative engagement.
This article starts from the premise that creativity is a social construction and focuses on historical and scientific accounts of this phenomenon. Using a perspectival model in a pragmatist key, it outlines three historical perspectives on creativity—the He-, I-, and We-paradigms—differentiated internally by two positions—artist and engineer. It then argues that, instead of dialogues between perspectives, fruitful for creativity research, we are often facing monological relations. In the end, possibilities for “thirdness” are explored, including the position of the craftsman, in developing a sociocultural as well as critical account of what it means to create.
Utopia should be understood as a method rather than a goal. This book rehabilitates utopia as a repressed dimension of the sociological and in the process produces the Imaginary Reconstitution of Society, a provisional, reflexive and dialogic method for exploring alternative possible futures.
The perspective of creativity as rooted in difference opens up new questions for researchers and educators concerning the sharing of perspectives and, most importantly, the role of contradiction between perspectives within the educational act. While differences of perspective between students, teachers, or students and teachers, can be considered a precondition for the emergence of new and valuable ideas or practices, this condition is necessary but not sufficient. The process of engaging with difference in a productive or creative manner includes,being aware or, recognising, and valuing different perspectives, but this process itself doesn’t explain how exactly novelty emerges in classroom settings. Furthermore, not any kind of difference fosters creativity under any circumstances. What type of difference is favorable for creative action in educational settings? The present chapter addresses this question based on a series of theoretically-informed empirical examples.