ABSTRACT
The universalisation of creativity discussed in the Introduction to Part II is, by definition perhaps, what might be called ‘culture blind’ (Ng 2003). Creativity is called for in the context of liberal individualism closely tied to the marketplace, therefore the form of creativity called for is one that represents that political stance of liberal individualism. In other words, the discourse around creativity is one in which high value is placed on individuality and being open to thinking generatively outside of social and other norms. ‘Thinking outside of the box’ is a phrase frequently used at a lay level. As Ng (2001) puts it, creativity represents a form of individuated behaviour. Essential to it, he argues, is critical thinking, i.e. rejection of some sort of norm. Ng (2001: 225) argues that ‘culture has a strong influence on whether and to what extent the person engages in creative and individuated behavior, as opposed to uncreative and conforming behavior’. Perhaps most importantly, he argues that the East, in particular, brings a different and contrasting perspective to the creativity discourse. This is echoed by Yeung (1999), who notes that despite analysts who describe the ‘globalised’ society as ‘borderless’ (Ohmae 1990, 1995; O’Brien 1992; Horsman and Marshall 1994; Chen and Kwang 1997), there is evidence of Asian models of capitalism, in particular, characterised by business
remaining distinctly tied in to political and economic alliances (Berger and Dore 1996; Hefner 1998). And yet, to return to the theme of creativity in particular, the call for
creativity is one that is often both universally described and applied, through the argument which goes something like ‘people need to be more creative to survive and thrive in the twenty-first century’ (Craft 2004), without regard for cultural or sub-cultural values and approaches to life, with evident implications. This chapter attempts to explore some of the issues involved in framing creativity as universal in this way.
