Figure 22. Patterns of psychopathology and mental health affected by social support in shamans, creators, and artists.       

"Opinions of researchers have varied widely with regard to the mental health of shamans, generally polarized into shamans being mentally ill or shamans being mentally healthy. One rigorously designed study (van Ommeren et al., 2004) found the shamans in one refugee group to be as mentally healthy or more mentally healthy than the other members of the community. Another study (Stephen & Suryani, 2000) of a different population of shamans found that, from the medical etic perspective, shamanic candidates qualified as mentally ill; yet, after training and initiation, the same individuals were deemed mentally healthy with psychotic features still evident. Moreover, the shamans had gained control of the psychosis, using it voluntarily in their shamanic practices."

"Importantly, because shamans appear to have a different mental illness-mental health trajectory and outcome, shamans may comprise a unique category of creativity that is different from most artists, eminent creators, clinical populations, and everyday creativity. This unique category might be due to established traditions of social support as set out in Figure 22."

From: Benyshek, D. (2012). An archival exploration comparing contemporary artists and shamans. PhD, Saybrook University, San Francisco, CA.  

Available at: Denita Benyshek, PhD, MFA on Academia.Edu


Additional references:

Stephen, M., & Suryani, L. K. (2000). Shamanism, psychosis and autonomous imagination. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 24, 5-40. 

van Ommeren, M., Komproe, I., Cardeña, E., Thapa, S. B., Prasain, D., de Jong, J. T., & Sharma, B. (2004). Mental illness among Bhutanese shamans in Nepal. Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 4, 313-317. 

Creativity is a dynamic process in which “creators think, feel, experience, motivate and direct themselves, and behave related to the generation of original and meaningful creative outcomes” (R. Richards, 1999b, p. 733), requiring certain kinds of cognition (Guilford, 1967; Runco & Sakamoto, 1999; Russ, 1993; Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999), personality traits (Sternberg, 1985), and motivation (Amabile, 1983; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The creative process can result in adaptation and regeneration (R. Richards, 2000-2001), self actualization (Maslow, 1971), or a fulfillment of human potential (May, 1975), which can be expressed through an individual, society, or culture (Csikszentmihalyi, 1994, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995; Simonton, 1988).

The category creativity was divided into a number of sets and subsets by different researchers proposing related yet somewhat different models. Kaufman and Beghetto (J. C. Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) recognized that creativity was typically dichotomized into everyday creativity and high C creativity.  These two categories are the most fully developed and widely accepted concepts of creativity within the field of psychology and the subfield of creativity studies. Some of the categories and subcategories, used by researchers in their studies of creativity, are set out in the table below.

The discussion regarding different types of creativity continues below the table.

You may click on the table to see a larger image.

Everyday Creativity

Everyday creativity includes a wide span of creative endeavors. For R. Richards (1999a), everyday creativity includes “the creative person or creative outcome (products, ideas, or behaviors) that involve day-to-day activities at work and during leisure time. These are characterized both by originality… and meaningfulness to others” (p. 683).

Everyday creativity is a “survival capability – representing the ‘phenotypic plasticity’ that allows humans to adapt to changing environments – and a humanistic force in ongoing growth, personal development, and even transcendence” (R. Richards, 1999a, p. 684).

As a set, everyday creativity can be divided into subsets. These subsets distinguish points on the spectrum of creativity.  Everyday creativity is a broad category reaching beyond leisure activities and “extend[ing] from mini-c to little-c through Pro-c” creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 6), including middle C creativity as well. 

Low C creativity.

Low C creativity is “exemplified by original transformations in small products, thoughts, or expressions. Examples might be a satisfying flower arrangement or a humorous play on words” (Morelock & Feldman, 1999, p. 449).

Middle C and Pro-c creativity.

Middle C creativity results in “products appreciated in terms of interpretive skill, mastery of technical forms, distinctive style, and success in achieving a technical, practical, commercial, or academic goal” (Morelock & Feldman, 1999, p. 449). Middle C creativity is likely to be seen in traditional arts where less value is placed on originality and more value is associated with perpetuating a traditional art form as a means of sustaining and supporting traditional culture. Middle C creativity also “refers to creativity in the expression of professional expertise. It is about creative products appreciated for interpretive skill, mastery of technical terms, distinctive style and success in achieving a technical, practical, commercial or academic goal” (Mann & Chan, 2011, p. 7). 

Middle C creativity “includes creative acts that have substantial social impact beyond the creative agents’ immediate circle of acquaintances, but which do not transform entire fields or subfields” (Harrington, 2004, p. 180), and generally limited in effect to one organization or a modest sized community (Moran, 2009).

Pro-c creativity, similar to middle C creativity, is a level of professional expertise that is not domain transforming. “Anyone who attains professional-level expertise in any creative area is likely to have attained Pro-c status” (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 5). Generally, 10 years of training, formal or informal apprenticeship, being mentored, and ongoing practice is required to attain pro-c status.

Middle C and pro-c categories of creativity define sets of individuals that make “solid, professional creative contributions” (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 5), but are not  eminent creators or geniuses.

High C Creativity and Eminent Creativity

High C creativity or eminent creativity, including the realms of geniuses and eminent creators, involves a “unique reorganization of knowledge resulting in substantial new contributions to bodies of knowledge. Some rare human beings produce creative contributions that are so significant that they utterly transform a domain of knowledge” (Morelock & Feldman, p. 449).

Conclusion

Although we often limit our idea of creativity to geniuses and artists, creativity can be applied in almost any endeavor, relationship, hobby, career, cooking, vacation planning, homemaking, teaching, playing, inventing, scientific research, volunteering, running a business, or engaging in a change process. The creative process can assist with life transitions such as divorce, helping to build a new life out of the rubble of marriage. Knowledge of creativity can enhance healthy relationships between parents and children and improve the productivity of organizations.

Denita Benyshek, Ph.D., M.F.A.

This article is an excerpt from An Archival Exploration Comparing Contemporary Artists and Shamans (Benyshek, 2012).

References

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.

Benyshek, D. (2012). An exploration of contemporary artists as shamans. Ph.D., Saybrook University, San Francisco, CA.  

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In D. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi & H. Gardner (Eds.), Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity (pp. 135-158). New York, NY: Praeger.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Praeger.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (1995). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In R. Steinberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 329-363). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Harrington, D. M. (2004). Creativity. In A. Kuper & J. Kuper (Eds.), The social science encyclopedia: A - K (3rd ed., pp. 180-182). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12.

Mann, L., & Chan, J. (2011). Introduction. In L. Mann & J. Chan (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in business and beyond: Social science perspectives and policy implications (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Routledge.

Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Big Sur, CA: Esalen books.

May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

Moran, S. (2009). What role does commitment play among writers with different levels of creativity? Creativity Research Journal, 21(2, 3), 243-257.

Morelock, M. J., & Feldman, D. H. (1999). Prodigies. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. II, pp. 449-456). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richards, R. (1999b). Four P's of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. I, pp. 733-742). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richards, R. (1999b). Four P's of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. I, pp. 733-742). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richards, R. (2000-2001). Creativity and the schizophrenia spectrum: More and more interesting. Creativity Research Journal, 13(1), 111-132.

Runco, M. A., & Sakamoto, S. O. (1999). Experimental studies of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 62-92). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Russ, S. W. (Ed.). (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607-627.

Ward, T., Smith, S., & Finke, R. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189-212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

For people who think visually, spacially, intuitively, and/or in terms of relationships, learning how to make and use mind maps can be an important tool for organizing your thinking about your research topic. 


For additional information and free mind map software (personally, I prefer drawing mind maps by hand but know that some folks are very software savvy), please see http://members.optusnet.com.au/~charles57/Creative/Mindmap/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map.

After the initial mind map is drawn, outlines can be built using each major branch as a first level heading. Minor branches become secondary headings, twigs become third level headings, etc.

For additional information regarding building outlines for research papers, see:
http://ask.reference.com/related/Templates+Outline+APA+Style?o=102545&qsrc=121&l=dir (APA Style Outline)  and
http://ask.reference.com/related.