Berquist - A Comparative View of the Creative Theories

Summary of “A Comparative View of the Creative Theories:

Psychoanalytic, Behavioristic, and Humanistic”

It is human nature to identify, classify and integrate complex ideas and concepts.  Creativity is a concept that eludes theoretical study and mystifies attempts at concrete classifications.  Carlisle Berquist provides an excellent introduction to several theories pertaining to creativity in “A Comparative View of the Creative Theories: Psychoanalytic, Behavioristic, and Humanistic.” Berquist is clear that psychological and scientific studies reveal creativity’s manifestations and characteristics, but are unable to identify creativity’s source.  Berquist identifies that no one theory fully explains creativity.  However, in his approach, Berquist provides enough detail suggesting creativity is a collection of ideas rather than one specific theory.  A synthesis of the theories and their application is needed.  More specifically, a review of the Psychological, Behavioristic, and Humanistic theoretical models in conjunction with Vaune Ainsworth-Lands notions of the four orders of process will reveal the breadth and scope of the ideas of creativity.

The Psychological model theorizes that creativity “wells up from unconscious drives”  (Berquist).   The theory suggests that creativity is the manifestation of a primary drive.  The sexual drive is identified as the prominent source and Berquist emphasizes the link between the manifestations of creative acts and the inhibition of primary drives.  Sigmund Freud suggests similarities between creativity and neurosis (Berquist).  Carl Jung furthers the notion through his description of psychological art: That a primary process generates creativity where relief from pain is the incentive more so than the act itself (Berquist).   The thrust of the theory is that creativity is a function of inhibitions or neurosis of the psyche.

The Behavioristic model theorizes that creativity is the result of social conditioning.  Berquist is clear that only observable phenomena are allowed for psychological and scientific study.  As “Creativity, thoughts, and emotions are not observable,” (Berquist) then Behavioristic observations are curtailed to the characteristics of the creative process.  J.B. Watson suggested that operant conditioning of social reward or rejection was the primary drive for creativity (Berquist).  B.F. Skinner parallels Watson’s ideas by suggesting that artist’s feel better through conditioning and learning creative responses.   Berquist suggests neither theory fully accounts for the creative process and notes, “Creativity tends to be man reaching beyond his current conditioning and knowledge.”   The substance of Behavioristic theory is that creativity is linked to the social environment and conditioning of the individual.

 The Humanistic model fuses creativity with wholeness and a healthy human being.  Rather than a compensatory model, this model suggests someone who is self-actualizing and attempting to connect with a greater experience.   Maslow suggests three levels of creativity. The primary level is inspiration derived from primary drives.  The secondary level is associated with higher thought and intent.  And finally, the integrated level that fuses the primary and secondary levels together and is reflective of people self-actualizing (Berquist).   Carl Jung adds to this notion through his description that Visionary Art “Connects us with the superhuman and timeless worlds beyond our conscious knowing”  (Berquist).  Humanistic theories ranges from personal issues an artist is struggling with to attempts at creative encounters with the creator.  What is important is the Humanistic model is reflective of healthy human growth, self-actualization, and intense encounters that guide us beyond ourselves.

The models are varied and do not necessarily agree with each other.  Berquist cites Vaune Ainsworth-Land’s notions on the four orders of processes to help organize the many theories.  The first order “Operates out of necessity” (Berquist).  It tends to revolve around satisfying or resolving primary drives and is also apparent in learning for small children.  The second order involves self-conscious acts and higher reasoning to produce a work.  The third order is “Synthesizing and innovation”.  This is a pivotal period where the artist is giving up control and synthesizing with the concept.  “Ultimate form” and “merging” are aspects of a larger reality and is associated with the fourth order.  Berquist and Ainsworth-Land associate the idea of “cosmic conscious” with the fourth level.

Berquist ends the essay noting that most theorists identify an encounter with creativity.  However, he also references the many disagreements between the working theories.     Ainsworth-Land’s model on the four orders of process suggests more than mere classifications.  His notions reflect the breadth of creativity ranging from uncontrolled impulses, derived from the psyche, to the conscious attempt to experience the creator.  It is reasonable to infer that all of the models illuminate important aspects of creativity and may be used in varying combinations throughout a person’s life.  It seems appropriate that creativity is a collection of ideas more so than one unifying theory or explanation.  It is also satisfying that creativity shares the conundrum of identification with other great ideas such as curiosity, motivation, exploration, and the desire for the human mind to look beyond itself.     

Berquist, Carlisle.  “A Comparative View of Creativity Theories: Psychoanalytic, Behavioristic, and Humanistic.” Vantage Quest.  N.p. N.d.  May 13, 2013. http://www.vantagequest.org/trees/comparative.htm. Web.