Bourdieu's and Csikszentmihalyi's Perspectives on Culture and Creativity - Essay Example

Pierre Bourdieu presented a seemingly complex set of sociological concepts to explain cultural practice. These included the concepts of cultural capital, the field, the field of works and an individual’s habitus. Bourdieu argued that the interaction between these spheres makes cultural production possible. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi expounds an idea of creativity that incorporates what he labels person, field and domain in a system of circular causality. From his unique psychological perspective Csikszentmihalyi argues that this systems model of creativity can be studied by investigating moments within it. Compare and contrast Bourdieu’s and Csikszentmihalyi’s perspectives. 1. Introduction The evaluation of critical social elements, such as culture and ethics, is usually related to the characteristics of the social environment in which the relevant activity is attempted. Under certain terms, the views of theorists on these elements present similarities, especially if referring to the same social and economic context. Reference is made to the economic environment of each region, since economy has the power to influence society and culture, more or less in countries worldwide. This fact is emphasized in the work of Bourdieu who tried to present all dependencies of culture, meaning its relationship with sectors such the economy and the politics. On the other hand, Csikszentmihalyi considers culture as related with creativity, which mostly refers to the personal views and capabilities of the artist and not the social or economic environment of each particular region; however, the potential interaction between creativity and the above frameworks/ concepts cannot be rejected. The review of the work of Bourdieu and Csikszentmihalyi in regard to the explanation of cultural production and the terms of evaluation of cultural products has led to the assumption that these two theorists use similar criteria for explaining the context of culture and the terms of cultural production. The perceptions of Bourdieu on cultural production may be broader from those of Csikszentmihalyi but such result could be characterized as expected – taking into consideration the fact that the latter emphasizes on the personal factors (i.e. the background/ skills of the artist) that influence the cultural production while the former considers culture as being able to interact, simultaneously, with social and personal factors (meaning the social trends/ ethics and the skills/ beliefs of the artist). 2. Bourdieu’s and Csikszentmihalyi’s perspectives on culture and creativity 2.1 Bourdieu and cultural production In order to understand the description of cultural production as developed by Bourdieu, it would be necessary to explain the above theorist’s view on culture. In accordance with Bourdieu, culture has been a framework dependent on capital. In other words, Bourdieu has adopted a view similar to Marx; or else, it could be stated that the theory of Bourdieu on culture is strongly affected by the theory of Marx on the production of capital. In accordance with Marx, it is the capitalism that controls the production of capital. For Bourdieu, culture is produced in order to achieve specific economic benefits. It is implied that only those who can afford to invest on culture can participate in the process. Culture becomes a sector independent from the personal skills/ capabilities and becomes an economic transaction. It is probably for this reason that cultural production has been found to be extremely high during the bourgeois period – when the development of capital of a small percentage of people has been highly favoured (Fowler 1997). Under the influence of Bourdieu’s view on culture, cultural production is based on three ideologies: ‘the ideology of the fresh eye, the ideology of the charismatic artist and the ideology of natural taste’ (Fowler 1997, p.43). Another implication of the theory of Bourdieu on cultural production is the following one: in the context of the theory of Bourdieu the cultural products (such as poems, novels and so on) are considered as economic products being available for evaluation using economic criteria, i.e. their price in the market. Another characteristic of the view of Bourdieu on culture is the following one: culture is considered to be related to religion; in this way, cultural production is regarded as a process based partially on mystery, an element of religion. This means that not all elements of culture can be revealed to the public, reflecting the personal views of the artist. In order to reflect the above relationship, Bourdieu noted that an artist is likely to prefer that type of culture, which has parts not fully, explored (Susen et al. 2011). At the same time, the view that the ability to create products of culture is a ‘natural gift’ (Susen et al. 2011, p.44) is also part of the theory of Bourdieu on natural production. Regarding this issue, the following contradiction seems to characterize the views of Bourdieu: culture is considered as part of the economy, i.e. related to the market price of the cultural products. However, the artist needs to have a ‘natural gift’ for getting involved in the production of culture. Thus, culture is related to two different criteria/ principles: the price of the cultural product (which indicates the value of the product in the market) and the capabilities of the artist (the natural gift of the artist), which indicate the value of a cultural product as an object reflecting the cultural trends of a particular period but also the view of the artist on culture as a concept. From this point of view, a cultural product can be regarded either as property of the artist – if purely economic criteria are used for identifying the value of the product – or as property of the public also, under the terms that the cultural product reflects the culture and the social ethics of a specific society. Despite the fact that cultural production is related to the economy, its relationship with the social values is close, as noted in the theory of Bourdieu. Indeed, using the views of Bourdieu on cultural production, the following assumption could be made: culture reflects the financial but also the cultural capabilities of the artist. However, in accordance with Bourdieu culture has also managed to keep its characteristics as a reflection of a particular society, in the context described above, i.e. showing the social ethics of a particular region/ era. Moreover, it seems that culture is so closely related to the society, that when developing a sociological theory, the reference to the culture cannot be avoided; from a similar point of view, any sociological theory is considered as revealing the cultural trends of the region/ period involved (Brown et al. 2000). From this point of view, when having to evaluate a cultural product two different criteria would be used: an aesthetic view on the particular product, i.e. at which the product meets the common standards of products of such type and a sociological approach, as related to the characteristics and trends of the social environment in which the product is created (Brown et al. 2000). As a result of the above relationship between society and culture, it is noted that the evaluation of a work of art – this evaluation can be characterized as a ‘scientific analysis’ (Brown et al. 2000, p.4) – should not be necessarily regarded as an activity which will reduce the value of the specific cultural product; rather, it should be considered as a chance for ‘intensifying the literary experience’ (Brown et al. 2000, p.4). The relationship between the ‘artistic taste and the social background’ (Webb et al. 2002, p.147) has been explored in Bourdieu’s study entitled as ‘The Love of Art’ (in 1991). In the above study, the views of hundreds of museum visitors on art have been captured, a practice also used in the other works of Bourdieu, such as ‘The Photography’ and ‘The Rules of Art’ (Webb et al. 2002, p.147). Bourdieu tried to incorporate all these ‘groups and experiences in one group and one experience’ (Webb et al. 2002, p.147) so that the results produced to reflect the view of a significant (or else dominant) part of the population (Webb et al. 2002, p.147), increasing the credibility of his work. In any case, Bourdieu, tried to show the potential independency of culture on specific social trends; this assumption is based on the following fact: when conducting the empirical research for supporting his views on cultural production, Bourdieu used the term field in order to show ‘the distance between the cultural production and his own sociology’ (Fowler 2000, p.219), meaning that culture is not necessarily related to specific social contexts. 2.2 Creativity as explained by Csikszentmihalyi Csikszentmihalyi has tried to explain the concept of creativity, as this concept is related not just to culture but also to various social and economic activities. In accordance with Csikszentmihalyi, creativity cannot be explained by ‘isolating individuals and their works from the social and historical milieu in which their actions are carried out’ (Sternberg 1988, p.325). In other words, creativity is evaluated as a characteristic of the artist/ creator as a member of a social group within a specific time period. The specific view is similar to that of Bourdieu who also emphasized on the interaction between the cultural production and the social and economic environment in which the specific process is developed. The evaluation of creativity by Csikszentmihalyi is based on a three – systems model, which includes ‘aspects of the person, the domain and the field’ (Starko 2009, p.64). The model aims to answer the following question: ‘where is creativity?’ (Starko 2009, p.64). This means that the content of creativity is not under question. The identification of creativity, as a concept related to individuals but also to the society needs to be based on certain criteria, as these criteria are described by Csikszentmihalyi: a) creativity can be related to science, not just to culture; in this context, there are activities which can be characterized as creative even if they don’t involve in the development of works of art – for instance, the creativity as used in medicine (Starko 2009), b) creativity cannot be related to a particular person; rather it should be characterized as ‘an interaction among person, product and environment’ (Starko 2009, p.64). This means that the ability of a person to develop a unique product is not of decisive importance for the value of the particular product. Rather, other factors should be also used for deciding the value of the product within a particular social context – it is implied that the common price of the product in the market could be one of the factors influencing a product’s value; also, the conditions in which the product was developed should be taken into consideration for deciding the product’s value, either in the short or the long term. On the other hand, Albert (1992) notes that creativity, as a concept, is not wide and should be considered rather as ‘a problem-solving activity’ (Albert 1992, p.19) and not as an activity being able to incorporate a wide range of actions. From this point of view, creativity is not necessarily an element of culture but its involvement in cultural production should be evaluated by reviewing the conditions of each such process. The above view cannot be accepted since in this way the value of cultural products is significantly reduced. More specifically, under this view, cultural products are given only an economic value, while their value as products reflecting the ‘natural gift’ of their creator is eliminated. Such perception would be also rejected using the views of Bourdieu who accepted, as explained above, that cultural products can have an economic value but this fact cannot lead to the elimination of their cultural value (meaning their value as works of art). In any case, the work of Csikszentmihalyi in the explanation of creativity and its role in culture should be considered as extremely valuable. Despite the fact that Csikszentmihalyi has accepted the partial independency of creativity of culture – at the level that creativity can be identified in various activities, including sciences – still, he emphasizes on the power of creativity to influence culture. This view of Csikszentmihalyi regarding the interaction between creativity and culture is revealed in the definition of creative person - as this definition has been given by Csikszentmihalyi: ‘a creative person is a person who had played in key role in the change of our culture’ (Pereira 2007, p.19). In other words, creative persons influence culture; this fact implies that creativity is an indispensable part of culture, or else, it is a term for the successful development of cultural production. 2.3 Critical comparison of the views of Bourdieu and Csikszentmihalyi In accordance with Webb et al. (2002) the view of Bourdieu on cultural production can be regarded as similar to that of Panofsky. It is explained that both theorists do not consider culture simply as an activity related to certain aesthetic standards. Rather, they emphasize on the relationship between the culture and its social and economic environment; in this context, cultural products can be evaluated only if regarded as products of a particular time and place (Webb et al. 2002). In the study of Webb et al. (2002) reference is made to another element of the theory of Bourdieu on culture; it is noted that Bourdieu had tried to identify the background of the cultural production, meaning the reasons that have led artists to create the specific products (Webb et al. 2002). The incentives of the artists, as related to the social and economic conditions of each specific era, are not always easy to be identified. In accordance with Bourdieu there is a method of reaching the actual incentives of the artists of cultural products: by identifying the operations necessary for the cultural production (Webb et al. 2002, p.147), meaning all activities required up to the completion of the production process. When trying to identify the elements/ criteria of creativity, Csikszentmihalyi found that each individual is likely to respond differently to culture, meaning that while producing a work of art each individual is likely to perceive differently the messages of his environment; as a result, the perceptions of individuals on the principles on which their works of art should be based are differentiated (Weisberg 2006). The above trend is verified through the following fact: the cultural products of individuals are likely to be differentiated – more or less – i.e. they are not identical (unless their similarity has been pursued). The above fact establishes another difference between Csikszentmihalyi and Bourdieu: the former promotes the idea of the different criteria used in cultural production – as these criteria are influenced by the creativity of the creator – while the latter recognizes a wide range of factors influencing culture, including creativity, the social environment but also the economy. The views of Csikszentmihalyi on creativity, as described above, can result to the following assumption: creativity, as part of the human behaviour, is likely to be influenced more from the personal perceptions/ values than the social environment in which a particular product is developed (Albert 1992). In this context, culture, which is based on various elements including creativity, is more influenced by the skills/ perceptions of artists than from the conditions in the social environment in which cultural production is taken place. The above explanation, as resulted from the views of Csikszentmihalyi on creativity, reveals the key difference between the above theorist and Bourdieu as of the explanation given on cultural production. Even if Csikszentmihalyi does not refer directly to cultural production, still, his views on creativity, as an element of cultural production, can be considered as incorporating the cultural production, as a social activity. 3. Conclusion The explanation of cultural production as developed by Bourdieu has proved the following fact: the theories used for the interpretation of social elements, such as culture or ethics, are not standardized. The personal perceptions of the theorist involved are the basis on which the above interpretation will be based. This means that the evaluation of social life – in all its aspects – cannot be set within limits. In accordance with Bourdieu the continuous interaction between culture and various social, economic and personal factors reveals the dynamic character of culture – meaning its flexibility to be adapted at different conditions. It is this flexibility that characterizes the view of Csikszentmihalyi on creativity. Creativity, as a personal characteristic, can be reflected in various social activities, not just culture. From this point of view, Csikszentmihalyi promotes the idea that creativity, as an element of culture, is a broad term; under the influence of creativity culture should be also expanded incorporating different principles and values. From this point of view, the view of Csikszentmihalyi on culture – as an activity, which necessarily requires creativity – is similar to that of Bourdieu; the latter also emphasizes on the ability of culture to be expanded under the influence of different factors/ values. As proved through the literature review developed for this paper, the key difference between the two theorists is the following one: Csikszentmihalyi, like Bourdieu, accepts the multi-dimensional character of culture, as implied through his views on creativity, which is a crucial element of culture. Bourdieu also notes that culture is a concept incorporating many different elements, without accepting that its dependency on a particular factor (for instance creativity) is extremely strong. References Albert, R. (1992) Genius and eminence. London: Routledge Brown, N., Szeman, I. (2000) Pierre Bourdieu: fieldwork in culture. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Fowler, B. (2000) Reading Bourdieu on society and culture. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Fowler, B. (1997) Pierre Bourdieu and cultural theory: critical investigations. London: SAGE Henry, J. (2006) Creative Management and Development. London: SAGE Pereira, F. (2007) Creativity and artificial intelligence: a conceptual blending approach. The Hague: Walter de Gruyter Starko, A. (2009) Creativity in the Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight. New York: Taylor & Francis Sternberg, R. (1988) The Nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge: CUP Archive Susen, S., Turner, B. (2011) The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays. London: Anthem Press Webb, J., Schirato, T., Danaher, G. (2002) Understanding Bourdieu. SAGE Weisberg, R. (2006) Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2006 Read More