Creativity, identity, and representation: Towards a socio-cultural theory of creative identity

Critical Analysis

A creative identity, the authors argue, is constantly defined and redefined based on social experiences and interactions; creativity is not something that is a personality trait, and to view oneself as creative is a constant social project. The authors build on the theory of social representations to explain how dialogue constructs knowledge about creativity, and this knowledge—a representation of creativity—is the “very substance of our identities” (14). Because identity is social, it is always under construction (although over time, identities gain stability and can be more resistant to change). More succinctly, the authors argue that “the self adopts a creative identity depending on social interactions with others and in relation to the meaning both self and others give to creativity” (14). Discrete interactions present personal identity work through discourse, and these interactions also offer participation in societal discourses.

Because identity development is argued to be largely social, “the identity of being a ‘creator’ is certainly a developing project that requires others to see and relate to the person ‘as a creator’—they must be labeled as such explicitly or implicitly. Identity is also individually performative, and “taking their own image as creative people to be a personal project is not uncommon for great creators” (15). As a result, “a creative identity is both acquired and maintained in a social context that can be more or less favorable to its formation” (15). As related to social representations, the social conversation is about the knowledge and meaning of creativity itself—creative identity development comes through actively participating in the definition of what it means to be creative.

Language gives us a view into the creative identity development in process; an argument for a theory of social representations with respect to creativity indicates that “Reported or constructed narratives embody self representations that are precisely the ‘stuff’ of identity and the interview method is a privileged way to access them in a contextual manner” (19). Dialogue provides insight into the situated nature of identity development in action.

The authors summarize five primary conclusions about the nature of creative identities and the knowledge created and understood through representational dialogue. “Creative identities are individual projects of social origin” (19), as they are built through personal knowledge-work in the context of a social space of creativity discussion. These identities are dynamic, adaptable, and contextual; people have multiple roles, and identities may be connected to each at once. A role of a student and a role of a designer may conflict (or may support one-another). Finally, a creative identity is a “mediated structure… mediated not only by social interaction, as mentioned before, but also be societal discourses and ideologies” (19). As a student engages in the dialogue of creative identity development, they are engaging with firmly-held social beliefs, coming in force from their faculty and from industry at large, which are inevitably negotiated.