The Myth of the Muse Supporting

Virtues That Inspire Creativity Examine

the Role of Creativity in Your
Classroom 1st Edition Douglas Reeves
Brooks Reeves
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-myth-of-the-muse-supporting-virtues-that-inspire-c
reativity-examine-the-role-of-creativity-in-your-classroom-1st-edition-douglas-reeves-
brooks-reeves/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Creativity in the Primary Classroom 2nd Edition Juliet

Desailly

https://ebookmeta.com/product/creativity-in-the-primary-
classroom-2nd-edition-juliet-desailly/

Hidden Truths Lost Lake Academy 2 1st Edition Lydia

Reeves [Reeves

https://ebookmeta.com/product/hidden-truths-lost-lake-
academy-2-1st-edition-lydia-reeves-reeves/

The Handbook of Individual Therapy Sixth Edition Windy

Dryden Andrew Reeves

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-handbook-of-individual-therapy-
sixth-edition-windy-dryden-andrew-reeves/

Achieving Equity and Excellence : Immediate Results

from the Lessons of High-Poverty, High-Success Schools
(a Strategy Guide to Equitable Classroom Practices and
Results for High-Poverty Schools) 1st Edition Douglas
Reeves
https://ebookmeta.com/product/achieving-equity-and-excellence-
immediate-results-from-the-lessons-of-high-poverty-high-success-
schools-a-strategy-guide-to-equitable-classroom-practices-and-
The Nature of Human Creativity 1st Edition Robert J.
Sternberg

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-nature-of-human-creativity-1st-
edition-robert-j-sternberg/

Building Products for the Enterprise Product Management

in Enterprise Software 1st Edition Blair Reeves

https://ebookmeta.com/product/building-products-for-the-
enterprise-product-management-in-enterprise-software-1st-edition-
blair-reeves/

Learning Leader How to Focus School Improvement for

Better Results 2nd Edition Douglas B Reeves

https://ebookmeta.com/product/learning-leader-how-to-focus-
school-improvement-for-better-results-2nd-edition-douglas-b-
reeves/

In the Moment: Build Your Confidence, Communication and

Creativity at Work 1st Edition Neil Mullarkey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/in-the-moment-build-your-
confidence-communication-and-creativity-at-work-1st-edition-neil-
mullarkey/

How to Develop Your Creative Identity at Work:

Integrating Personal Creativity Within Your
Professional Role 1st Edition Oana Velcu-Laitinen

https://ebookmeta.com/product/how-to-develop-your-creative-
identity-at-work-integrating-personal-creativity-within-your-
professional-role-1st-edition-oana-velcu-laitinen/
 THE

MYTH
OF THE

MUSE
Supporting Virtues
That
Inspire Creativity

DOUGLAS REEVES & BROOKS REEVES

Copyright © 2017 by Solution Tree Press

Materials appearing here are copyrighted. With one exception, all rights are
reserved. Readers may reproduce only those pages marked “Reproducible.”
Otherwise, no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without prior
written permission of the publisher.

555 North Morton Street

Bloomington, IN 47404
800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700
FAX: 812.336.7790

email: info@SolutionTree.com
SolutionTree.com

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/21stcenturyskills to download the free

reproducibles in this book.

Printed in the United States of America

20 19 18 17 16 1 2 3 4 5

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Reeves, Douglas B., 1953- author. | Reeves, Brooks, author.

Title: The myth of the muse : supporting virtues that inspire creativity / Douglas
Reeves and Brooks Reeves.
Description: Bloomington, IN : Solution Tree Press, [2017] | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016028123 | ISBN 9781935249481 (perfect bound)
Subjects: LCSH: Creative thinking--Study and teaching. | Creative ability in
children.
Classification: LCC LB1590.5 .R45 2016 | DDC 370.15.7--dc23 LC record available
at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016028123

Solution Tree
Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO
Edmund M. Ackerman, President

Solution Tree Press

President: Douglas M. Rife
Editorial Director: Tonya Maddox Cupp
Managing Production Editor: Caroline Weiss
Senior Production Editor: Tara Perkins
Senior Editor: Amy Rubenstein
Copy Chief: Sarah Payne-Mills
Copy Editor: Evie Madsen
Proofreader: Miranda Addonizio
Text and Cover Designer: Laura Cox
Editorial Assistant: Jessi Finn
 To Amy, Mary, and Brooks
—D.R.

To Dad, for your patience, enthusiasm, and love

—B.R.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many artists and creativity scholars have guided our thinking in this
overwhelming field of inquiry. Listing them in the “References and
Resources” section is a woefully inadequate means to recognize their
contributions to the field of creativity research and to our work in
particular. A few deserve special mention, including Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi for his pioneering work recognizing common
themes in a variety of creative domains, Howard Gardner for
challenging much of the prevailing wisdom on creativity in the
educational context, and Douglas Hofstadter for creating enduring
understandings of how creativity of necessity involves many
disciplines and perspectives. Shelley Carson has expanded our
conception of the accessibility of creativity to a wider group of
practitioners, while Oshin Vartanian, Adam Bristol, and James
Kaufman have helped apply the latest evidence from neuroscience to
creativity. Ronald Beghetto, James Kaufman, and Tony Wagner have
brought the subject to classrooms, schools, and educational systems
around the world. Edward Tufte was doing design thinking (that is,
linking art, mathematics, history, sociology, politics, and sports in
ways that are substantive and beautiful) decades before the term
became in vogue. There will be plenty to say about Wolfgang
Amadeus Mozart, Pablo Picasso, and their creative colleagues later.
Our publisher, Solution Tree, has been unusually patient in
bringing this book to press. It is Doug’s eighth collaboration with this
premier educational publisher, and we are grateful for their support,
challenging insights, and careful editing. It takes a courageous
publisher to bring challenging work to the mainstream of
professional educators and leaders around the world, and Solution
Tree does this with a commitment to quality that is without peer.
We are particularly grateful to Douglas Rife, publisher of Solution
Tree Press, Jeff Jones, CEO of Solution Tree, and the anonymous
reviewers who left our original work and our delicate egos in tatters
more than a year before the final work was completed. Although we
have done our best to incorporate their thinking into the pages that
follow, the errors that remain are solely our responsibility.
—Douglas Reeves
—Brooks Reeves

Solution Tree Press would like to thank the following reviewers:

Ronald A. Beghetto
Associate Professor of Educational Psychology
Cognition, Instruction, Learning, & Technology Program
Department of Educational Psychology
Neag School of Education
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut

Boon Boonyapat
Director of Teaching and Learning
Charles R. Drew Charter School
Atlanta, Georgia

Paul Curtis
Director of Curriculum
New Tech Network
Napa, California

Danah Henriksen
Assistant Professor
Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special
Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Donna Jackson
Principal
James A. Jackson Elementary School
Jackson School of the Arts (K–5)
Jonesboro, Georgia

Wesley Manaday
Principal
John P. Oldham Elementary School
Norwood, Massachusetts

Trisha Riche
Third-Grade Inclusion Teacher
Richard L. Brown Elementary School
Jacksonville, Florida

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/21stcenturyskills to download

the free reproducibles in this book.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

INTRODUCTION: THE CREATIVITY

IMPERATIVE
The Creativity Chasm
Research on Creativity
Virtues of Creativity
About This Book
Preconceptions of Creativity
Creativity Reflections

1 CREATIVITY MYTHS
The Muse
The Creative Type
Big C and Little c Creativity
Completely Original Work
The Artistic Personality
Elements of Creativity
Our Creative Responsibility
Creativity Reflections

2 CURIOSITY
The Vice of Confidence
Mixed Social Cues
Curiosity in the Digital Age
Curiosity in the Classroom
 Conclusion
Creativity Reflections

3 VERSATILITY
Creative Freedom and Creative Reality
Techniques for Increasing Versatility
Versatility in the Classroom
Conclusion
Creativity Reflections

4 SYNTHESIS
Creativity as Building Blocks
Synthesis and Students
Attribution
Synthesis in the Classroom
Conclusion
Creativity Reflections

5 DISCIPLINE
Daily Disciplines of Creativity
Approaches for Maintaining Discipline
Discipline in the Classroom
Conclusion
Creativity Reflections

6 COLLABORATION
Evidence of the Power of Collaboration
Collaboration in the Arts
Structures for Collaborative Enterprise
Practices for Successful Collaboration
Collaboration in the Classroom
Conclusion
 Creativity Reflections

7 EXPERIMENTATION
Experimentation in Science
Experimentation in the Arts
Experimentation in the Classroom
Conclusion
Creativity Reflections

8 TENACITY
Tenacity for Students
Tenacity for Educators
Tenacity in the Classroom
Conclusion
Creativity Reflections

EPILOGUE

APPENDIX A: ASSESSING CREATIVE

PROCESSES IN THE CLASSROOM
Reconciling Creativity and Academic Standards
Research on Creativity in the Classroom
Evaluating Creative Processes in the Classroom
Creativity Reflections

APPENDIX B: GUIDELINES FOR LEADERS

Get Brainstorming Right
Establish a Process of Mutually Exclusive Decision Alternatives
Foster a Work Ethic That Respects All Feedback
Think Inside the Box
Learn From Failure
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

INDEX
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Douglas Reeves, PhD, is the author of more than thirty books and
many articles about leadership and organizational effectiveness. He
was named the Brock International Laureate for his contributions to
education and received the Contribution to the Field Award from the
National Staff Development Council (now Learning Forward). Doug
has addressed audiences in all fifty U.S. states and more than
twenty-five countries, sharing his research and supporting effective
leadership at the local, state, and national levels. He is founder of
Finish the Dissertation, a free and noncommercial service for
doctoral students, and the Zambian Leadership and Learning
Institute. He is the founding editor and copublisher of The SNAFU
Review, a collection of essays, poetry, and art by veterans suffering
from post-traumatic stress disorder. Douglas lives with his family in
downtown Boston.
To learn more about Douglas’s work, visit Creative Leadership
Solutions (https://creativeleadership.net) or the Change Leaders
blog (www.changeleaders.com), or follow @DouglasReeves on
Twitter.
Brooks Reeves is a playwright, actor, and author. He authored New
York Times-reviewed The City That Cried Wolf. His frequent leading
roles in New England area theaters have been reviewed by the
Boston Globe and many other New England publications. Brooks
received the Best Supporting Actor award from the New Englander
Theater Critics Association in 2015. He lives in Boston. To learn more
about Brooks’s work, visit his blog at www.BrooksReeves.com, where
his latest literary and artistic work appears.
To book Douglas Reeves or Brooks Reeves for professional
development, contact pd@SolutionTree.com.
 INTRODUCTION

THE CREATIVITY IMPERATIVE

Much of history is divided into epochs based on the development of

human innovation: the rise of agriculture, written language,
philosophy, geometry, the printing press, the steam engine, the
transistor, vaccines, and the Internet, just to name a few. These
innovations and many others have fundamentally shifted not only
our worldview but also our capacity to grow. Cultures are defined by
their art, music, and literature. Things that are useful—and perhaps
more important, that are meaningful, beautiful, and good—can be
seen as an outgrowth of the creative process. Creativity is at the
heart of the solutions to our most intractable challenges and is,
therefore, essential for survival.
Readers would doubtless do anything to spare their children,
grandchildren, and complete strangers of future generations the pain
of disease, hunger, violence, and oppression that are part of the
daily lives of too many people today. Creative solutions in medicine,
government, and technology have made modern life immeasurably
better than that of our ancestors. But now the torch has passed, and
we are not merely the beneficiaries of creativity but the authors of it.
In particular, society now depends on creative solutions to address
competing demands. For example, how do we cure devastating
illnesses and feed the hungry while providing the resources to
sustain a growing population? How do we address the global
challenge of climate change while still encouraging economic growth
and technological innovation? How do we fight global terrorism while
respecting commitments to democratic ideals and privacy rights? If
the lesson of the 20th century was as Alan Deutschman (2007)
asserts, change or die, then the lesson of the 21st century is create
or die—and die miserably. And yet, in few areas of human endeavor
is there a wider gap between aspiration and reality than in creativity.

The Creativity Chasm

In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama
touted the importance of creativity, saying, “In America, innovation
doesn’t just change our lives. It is how we make our living” (The
White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2011). A 2010 IBM study
of more than fifteen hundred chief executive officers shows that
creativity ranked number one on the list of qualities that these CEOs
valued in their employees (IBM, 2010). John Hattie’s landmark
synthesis of more than nine hundred meta-analyses (2012; Hattie &
Yates, 2014) concludes that creativity is strongly linked to academic
achievement, particularly when instruction in creativity takes place.
The themes that surface again and again from these diverse realms
of world politics, business, and education emphasize that innovation
and creativity in science and politics, and collaboration among
nations and individuals, will be essential for our civilization to
conquer future challenges, from poverty to climate change.
The value placed on creativity is well documented, but the reality
is that the deck is stacked against the creative process. Creative
business leaders are tolerated as long as they avoid the risks
required in creative work. Artists, writers, and musicians struggle to
earn a living in an increasingly globalized marketplace that values
conformity over originality. Educators invested in building creative
skills in students risk lowering test scores and jeopardize the jobs
they have dedicated their lives to. Policymakers proposing innovative
solutions to domestic and international problems are often
discounted by a system mired by gridlock. For example, Adam Grant
(2016) finds that in a variety of fields from the classroom to the
boardroom, the behaviors essential for creativity—risk taking, testing
boundaries, challenging rules—are least associated with short-term
success and the approval of teachers and bosses. When schools and
public officials who fund them (unintentionally) undermine creativity
among students, teachers, and administrators, they not only
diminish the beauty of the earth but also threaten our collective
ability to preserve it. Schools rarely undermine creativity
intentionally. After all, vision and mission statements extolling the
virtues of creativity are ubiquitous. But when we compared the good
intentions of schools as they aspired to enhance creativity with their
actual behavior (Reeves, 2015), we found an enormous gap between
rhetoric and reality.
To better understand the gap between how much educational
systems claim they value creativity and how much they actually do,
as well as to better understand the science of creativity as whole, we
must turn to the research.

Research on Creativity
What with the aforementioned climate change and global
terrorism to contend with—along with myriad other challenges we
face in the modern world—we assert that creativity is essential to
the survival of civil society and the planet. If we are to successfully
respond to this great responsibility we now face, then we must first
understand what creativity truly is. It is not a matter of applying
decoration and glitter to an otherwise mundane presentation. It is
not a curricular afterthought, with time and resources allotted to
students and teachers once their standardized tests have been
completed. Creativity is also not merely a form of entertainment to
be enjoyed by the wealthy or performed by artists who possess
some inherent creative genius.
In exploring what creativity is, we are committed to an evidence-
based approach to a topic in which folklore often takes precedence
over research. Pervasive myths have led to gross misconceptions in
our society about what creativity is, where it comes from, and how it
can occur. Our understanding of who creative people are—or can be
—is often reduced to caricatures, clichés, or tropes. The reality is
much less simplistic and opens up creativity to many more
possibilities.
While since the mid-1990s, we have seen many studies devoted
to the subject of creativity, rarely have these studies been cited or
explained to a general audience. Indeed, in surveying business or
self-help literature, the same stories and anecdotes are dredged up
time and time again with the same reliability of ghost stories told
around a campfire. Staples of marketing and science literature have
retold the stories of Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, and Bob Dylan for
decades without citing the source or researching for accuracy.
Rather than cherry-picked anecdotes and personal war stories,
our approach is based on the preponderance of the evidence,
including observations, interviews, quantitative analyses, qualitative
observation, meta-analyses, and syntheses of meta-analyses. We
should note that, as you read, you will see quoted material from
students. Student quotations are composites of authentic
conversations we had with students and are used with the
permission of students and their parents.
In appendix A (page 99), we will share our research on the ways
creativity is assessed in schools. However, we offer this new research
as only a pebble on the mountain of research on the subject. We
have sought the insights of a wide variety of scholars who employ
different methods. Some are connoisseurs of creativity, offering
insights born of decades of thought and reflection, while others are
systematic observers. Still others take a quantitative approach,
examining the creative work products that result under specifically
described conditions. We also consider syntheses of the research. It
is therefore not a single approach to the research that is definitive,
but rather the preponderance of the evidence that will best serve the
reader seeking the truth about creativity.
Some of the research findings may seem obvious, though we’ve
often been surprised at the counterintuitive nature of some results.
Although scholars disagree on many issues, there is an emerging
consensus on the science of creativity. This includes long-term
historical studies extending back two centuries or more, and the
latest in 21st century research on human cognition and brain
function (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Grant, 2016; Johnson, 2010).

Virtues of Creativity
Amid the platitudes and botched science, certain findings are
consistent, coalescing around a handful of essential ideas. By
defining and examining these themes, it is easier to conceptualize
the underlying patterns of the creative process as a whole. These
themes, or virtues as we have come to call them, are neither
absolute nor all encompassing. Nevertheless, there is a substantial
body of research that supports focus as a key to learning,
leadership, and change. Just as an expert actor might think of a
thousand or more ways to develop and portray a character, the vast
majority of this artist’s work comes down to a very few
considerations: voice, body, tone, feeling, and instruction from the
director. We could add historical context and contemporary
relevance. Ultimately, Brooks would argue, presence and
engagement are the most important qualities in bringing a character
to life. Our focus on seven virtues, therefore, is a means of
accessibly communicating a complex and vast field. If you find
additional virtues in your quest to understand creativity, we
encourage you on such a journey. We have chosen to focus on the
following seven virtues.
1. Curiosity: This is the hunger for knowledge. It is the passion
that drives us to look around each corner and turn every page.
Curiosity is fundamental, and while the simple act of asking a
question and seeking the answer is not necessarily inherently
creative, it is certainly a prerequisite to creative activity. It can
also be a drive that is too easily quelled when the answer to
almost any question is seemingly a Google search away. We
will consider how you can be your own explorer in a world
awash in easy information. Creativity challenges boundaries.
 Critical thinking challenges assumptions. Together, they are
the twin attributes that propel new ideas.
2. Versatility: Having a creative vision is not always a matter of
sticking to your guns. Adapting one’s work to a changing set
of circumstances can often lead to powerful breakthroughs.
We explore how unlimited freedom can be counterproductive
in innovation and how constraints both real and imaginary can
push the mind to places it would never go on its own.
3. Synthesis: Instead of viewing creativity as the act of pulling
original ideas out of the ether, we consider how creativity is
actually the joining of disparate notions and sources together
into something greater than the sum of its parts. We will
explore the myth of the lone genius and review the anatomy
of invention. We will also look at the controversial issue of
intellectual property laws and ask the important question, Who
owns ideas?
4. Discipline: Ideas, art, and invention are not the product of
mystical inspiration. Instead, they are almost always the
consequence of hard work. We will examine the consistent
role of ritual and habit in the work of many of the greatest
writers, artists, and thinkers. We will discuss tools you can use
to break through blocks and rough patches as well as show
you how to push through your inner critic and the voice of the
desperate procrastinator.
5. Collaboration: Some of the most fruitful inventions and
artistic endeavors have been the work of creative individuals
working in tandem (Shenk, 2014). While some artists and
thinkers have staunchly preferred to work in isolation, the
realities of life often require working collaboratively with our
fellow human beings. We will identify fundamental principles
of successful collaboration while also examining how to avoid
common pitfalls of human interaction.
 6. Experimentation: Great ideas are rarely the result of eureka
moments. Rather, the creative process is often one marked by
trial and error. We argue that the nature of art and science are
more similar than one might suspect.
7. Tenacity: Creating something new means upsetting the
prevailing order of things. The role of a revolutionary is rarely
easy. We look realistically at the consequences and rewards of
struggling to promote new ideas within a system that resists
creativity and experimentation, and is intolerant of error. We
also examine how the grit and perseverance that are an
essential prelude to creativity benefit students.
You can find successful artists and innovators who directly violate
each of our virtues at some point. There are famous artists who
scorn collaboration and great innovators who seem to have stumbled
into instant rewards. For example, Ludwig van Beethoven refused
entreaties from well-meaning critics to “improve” the dissonant
chords in his symphonies (Greenberg, 1996), and Alexander
Fleming’s discovery of penicillin was a fluke based not on
collaboration, but on idiosyncratic and unplanned observation
(Brown, 2004). These are exceptional cases, however, and do not
undermine our essential principles. We must ensure these principles
are encouraged in classrooms through individual lessons and the
school culture. To do so, we provide some practical advice for
educators and policymakers at every level.

About This Book

This is not a recipe book for the next great thing, nor do we
claim to divulge secrets that the great geniuses of the world have
been keeping from mere mortals. Our intent is to start a
conversation about what creativity is, the forms it can take, and our
understanding of its function. We believe that understanding and
learning the utility of our seven virtues is important to anyone who
cares about fostering creativity within themselves or throughout their
organization. As such, we envision this text being used as a book
study title for collaborative teams, whole schools, or entire districts
that individual educators, administrators, and other stakeholders
read and then discuss during in-service, collaborative team
meetings, professional development time, or any other collaborative
setting a school or district uses for stakeholders to communicate
about and work toward common goals. Leaders may choose to ask
participants to read the book in its entirety before discussion or
discuss predetermined chapters over the course of multiple
meetings, as is practical with regard to their group’s meeting time
and schedule. We have provided reflection questions at the end of
each chapter to facilitate those discussions. Additionally, we have
included a number of specific examples in mathematics, art, music,
theater, social studies, language arts, and other disciplines. However,
in doing so, we risk two errors. First, if we make the examples too
simplistic, we will alienate our readers who are subject-matter
experts. Second, if we make the examples too complex, we will
alienate our readers who are unfamiliar with that particular
discipline. So, we have deliberately chosen to make the second error,
hoping that readers who don’t find a particular example to their
liking will quickly skim ahead and find an example that engages both
their intellect and their academic preferences.
While this book is conducive to group study and discussion,
individual readers will also benefit greatly from engaging with the
content and reflection questions on their own. Readers who are
interested in creativity may not be those most likely to take a linear
approach to this or any book. Some readers will start with the
“References and Resources” section to identify the intellectual
underpinnings of the authors’ arguments; others will skim the
chapter titles for those that most resonate; others just want to get
to the point. To help you navigate, we provide a brief summary of
the book’s structure.
Chapter 1 explores the common misconceptions about creativity
and the illusions our culture seems to embrace regarding creativity.
We argue the ways in which many of these concepts are, in fact,
more myth than reality. Chapters 2 through 8 each focus on one of
the seven virtues of creativity. We illustrate how each is important to
creativity and provide insights for inspiring and cultivating creative
habits. Once you and your team have reflected on each of the facets
that contribute to creativity and considered the suggested classroom
applications, you’ll no doubt be wondering how such practices can
be assessed. We recognize the term creativity assessment may seem
like an oxymoron. How can such a subjective concept be objectively
evaluated? In appendix A, we provide evidence from our own
research as well as a metarubric practitioners can use to support
creativity assessment, evaluate their existing assessments, and
identify areas in which those assessments can be adjusted to better
support creativity in classrooms. Appendix B offers a few helpful tips
for leaders as they guide teams in their work toward creative virtues.

Preconceptions of Creativity
Please take a few moments to consider your own preconceptions
about creativity by identifying whether you agree or disagree with
the statements in figure I.1 (page 8). Whether you already consider
yourself a creative type or the last time you flexed those muscles
was in creating an art project out of macaroni at summer camp, we
know this is true: every reader approaches the subject of creativity
with certain assumptions. We hope that your candid responses to
these statements will help you identify and confront many of those
assumptions.
However certain you may be of your agreement or disagreement
with these statements, we believe you’ll be surprised by how the
growing body of evidence about creativity will challenge your
preconceptions.
Figure I.1: Creativity assumptions.
Visit go.SolutionTree.com/21stcenturyskills for a free
reproducible version of this figure.

CREATIVITY REFLECTIONS

1. With a partner or in a small group, discuss your responses to the

statements in figure I.1. Note the statements for which there is
no consensus, and discuss your reasoning behind your responses.
2. Start a personal creativity journal. Take notes in whatever format
is useful for you—handwritten journal or typed notes—but keep in
mind evidence suggests that the most effective notes are the
ones taken by hand (McGloin, 2015). You might also consider
using a mind map (Buzan & Buzan, 2002) in which you begin with
a central idea and then use images, arrows, and words to express
how each branch (or associated topic) of the mind map relates to
the central idea and to other branches.
3. What parts of your personal and professional life would benefit
from a higher level of creative thought and expression?
4. What important challenge that you face right now in your
classroom or school have you been unable to address? Please
don’t stop and search for a solution right now, but write the
challenge in your creativity journal and let it percolate as you
continue to read this book. It is important that you approach the
chapters in this book with a specific challenge in mind that is in
serious need of a creative solution.
 CHAPTER 1

CREATIVITY MYTHS

We begin with our own working definition of creativity: the process

of experimentation, evaluation, and follow-through that leads to a
significant discovery, insight, or contribution. This definition is in
stark contrast to many prevailing definitions of creativity that focus
only on the final product of creative work and the original genius of
the creator. Many of these popular conceptions are based on myths
that, we will argue, are simply illusions.
Our definition of creativity, however, implies that the failures of
these artists and inventors are every bit as creative as their
successes. Indeed, the iconic works that we celebrate as great art
would not receive the acclaim they are accorded today without
thousands of unknown failures. In this chapter, we will first explore
the myths of creativity and then examine our alternate conception of
creativity and its foundational elements.

The Muse
For at least three millennia, the prevailing explanation for
creativity was divine inspiration or muses—a linguistic heritage that
gives us the modern museum. We get this term from Greek
mythology, in which there are nine sister goddesses (muses) of
music, poetry, arts, and sciences. One of the sisters, Calliope, was
the wisest of the muses. She is often depicted holding a tablet in her
hand and has been credited by poets from Homer to Dante with
inspiration for their work. African, Asian, Nordic, Celtic, Mayan,
Persian, and Native American civilizations shared the same tendency
to attribute creative insights to divine inspiration. But while
contemporary writers may no longer give tribute to Calliope and her
eight sisters, the myth of the muse casts a long shadow that to this
day colors the way many people view artistic work. We may not
attribute creative inspiration to the gods, but it remains tempting to
think of creativity in quasi-mystical terms. In his 1835 essay for The
New-England Magazine, Victor Hugo wrote, “It seems that poetic
inspiration has in it something too sublime for the common nature of
man” (p. 204). Even nearly two centuries later, many Westerners still
cling to the belief that creativity is a mysterious force bestowed on a
special segment of the population at birth. This myth implies that
neither environment, will, nor consequence has the power to nurture
creativity.

The Creative Type

They have been known by many names: bards, bohemians,
tortured artists, absent-minded professors. We all recognize the
caricature: head in the clouds or nose in a book, unconcerned with
conventional appearance or customs, the “creative type” is
simultaneously ridiculed for his or her eccentricity and lauded for his
or her genius. They are tropes in fiction, from Sherlock Holmes to
Victor Frankenstein, and some people continue to attempt to live out
the stereotype of eccentric genius, from the hipster communes of
Brooklyn, New York, to the one black sheep at every family reunion.
They are defined not only by their capacity to be creative but also in
their opposition to the norm. It is a distinction played out over and
over again: there are those who can create, and then there are the
rest of us. The U.S. Department of Labor even distinguishes between
creative and noncreative professions (Burkus, 2014).
But we hope to show you that this distinction is an artificial one.
The notion that some people are simply born creative, that the
miracle of invention can somehow be attributed to genes, was long
ago undermined in a research study of fraternal and identical twins
(Reznikoff, Domino, Bridges, & Honeyman, 1973). After testing more
than a hundred pairs of twins, researchers found “little consistent or
compelling evidence … to support the notion of a genetic component
in creativity” (p. 375). Additionally, David Burkus (2014) notes that
while it may take supremely confident personalities to engage in the
risk taking required for creativity, the skills of creative problem
solving can be learned. He asserts, “Even codependent, risk-averse
narcissists can be taught how to generate ideas more easily and
combine possible outputs to leverage synergy” (p. 7).

Big C and Little c Creativity

Researchers have often drawn distinctions between Big C
creativity—the sort of insights that lead to Nobel Prizes or talents
that seem to be inborn—and little c creativity—the sort of insights
that are merely functional in nature or that are developed through
study. Recent research, however, challenges this dichotomy.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart didn’t write the majestic Coronation Mass
in C Major without playing some C major scales and arpeggios; and
Francis Crick, Maurice Wilkins, and James Watson didn’t conduct
groundbreaking research on DNA without first learning the essentials
of math and chemistry. The grandiosity of Big C creativity has
necessary antecedents—the structure, hard work, and many
mistakes that are the stuff of little c creativity.
Creativity involves a complex interaction among creators,
products, and audiences. Creators can appear to be larger-than-life
figures, sometimes elevated to their status based on the evaluations
of their contemporaries but, more likely, viewed as creative
superstars only through the rearview mirror of history. Nobel Prizes,
for example, are most often awarded for work that took place
decades prior (Cima, 2015). The young researcher laboring away
through the tedium of trial and error that is the essence of creativity
doesn’t seem particularly intimidating. “I could do that,” their
colleagues remark. When the same researcher is delivering the
Nobel Lecture in formal attire before Swedish royalty, colleagues
stand in awed reverence, muttering, “I could never do that.” Making
rock stars out of Big C creators threatens society’s creative
enterprise. While the recognition may be nice, the impact is the
opposite of that intended.
Architect and engineer I. M. Pei created iconic buildings ranging
from the Louvre Pyramid to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but few
people remember the names of the engineers (and carpenters,
surveyors, plumbers, electricians, and scores more craftspeople) who
brought Pei’s vision to life. Novel visions require novel approaches to
implementation. Pei’s visions depend on the similarly visionary work
of those who helped the buildings leap from the architect’s plans to
three-dimensional structures. Some of Picasso’s most recognizable
work, such as the untitled giant horse sculpture in Chicago, required
the collaboration of others who could transform the master’s
conception into reality. For example, the engineers and craftspeople
at American Bridge Company, which had never previously done this
sort of artistic work, applied their knowledge from one domain,
bridge building, to a completely new domain, the cutting, welding,
transportation, and installation of Picasso’s new work (Srivastava,
2014).
Scholar Mark A. Runco (2014) argues there is no evidence for
this dichotomy and, more important, that the emphasis on Big C
creativity undermines the essential work of little c—that is, the
foundation for application and dissemination of the Big C ideas. He
argues:

Little c creativity is meaningful in and of itself. This is in

part because it is not really extricable from Big C
creativity. Little c creativity may develop into Big C
creativity. Big C creativity involves things that lead to
social recognition, but the creativity results from the
same process that is involved in little c creativity. (p. 132)
 We reject this dichotomy not only because it is inaccurate but
also because it is pernicious, undermining the contributions we all
must make to create a future that is brighter, safer, and more
enjoyable than yesterday.

Completely Original Work

One of the worst epithets that can be directed to one’s
competitors in the creative realm is that their work is merely
derivative. As Blaise Pascal (1910) said, “The greater intellect one
has, the more originality one finds in men” (p. 10). Ella Wheeler
Wilcox (1899) added, “A poor original is better than a good
imitation” (p. 290). These ideas are the basis of much of the
academic distinctions between innovation and creativity, with the
latter representing original ideas and the former derivative. But Nina
Paley (2010) has argued that everything is derivative. By the logic of
the distinction between original and derivative work, the invention of
the wheel was creative, but every other form of land transportation
since then, from the horse-drawn wagon to a Formula One race car,
is derivative; the aircraft that flew for twelve seconds at Kitty Hawk,
North Carolina, under the direction of the Wright brothers was
creative, but the Space Shuttle was derivative; choral tones
identified by Pythagoras three millennia ago and harmonies played
on didgeridoos on the Australian continent more than a thousand
years ago were creative, while the works of Ludwig van Beethoven
were derivative. Poppycock! By denigrating the creative efforts of
today and dismissing them as derivative, critics go down the
reductionist rat hole that anything since the Big Bang was derivative
and not worthy of being called creative.
Innovation and creativity are often distinguished from one
another, with creativity representing the landmark insights and
innovation representing merely the application of creative insights to
contemporary challenges. Whether it is the expansion of the color
palette and the use of perspective in visual arts; variations in meter
and rhyme in poetry; dropping the barrier for the audience in
theater; the representation of statistical data in multiple dimensions;
or the conception of time and space as relative, these remarkably
creative endeavors are, when pedants argue about the term, merely
innovative. We find this distinction and its implied hierarchy to be
useless. There is innovation in every creative enterprise.
If we accept the premise that creativity is vital for the future of
our families and of the planet, then recognizing the creative spirit in
all of us is cause for deep reflection on our responsibility to apply our
creative gifts to the challenges before us. We believe that creativity
is within the grasp of all of us—every student, colleague, neighbor,
and friend. This universalist approach is not meant to make people
feel good, but to challenge them. Every time we defer to the Big C
version of creativity, we let ourselves off the hook by employing a
false logic that says if you didn’t write the Magna Carta, Declaration
of Independence, or U.S. Constitution, you can’t improve democracy
in creative ways; if you didn’t demonstrate for women’s suffrage, you
can’t make a creative contribution to women’s rights; if you didn’t
write a symphony or invent the twelve-tone scale, you can’t sing
your child a creative lullaby. We are all responsible for and capable
of innovating to extend and improve on ideas to create solutions.

The Artistic Personality

The popular Myers-Briggs personality test claims the ability to
sort people into sixteen distinct personality types and is used
throughout the business, government, education, and nonprofit
communities to profile potential candidates and employees. Despite
widespread adoption, this theory of personality has never been
tested and proved scientifically (Burnett, 2013), and the scientific
literature on the test challenges the essential elements of any test—
reliability (consistency of results) and validity (testing what we think
we are testing; Eveleth, 2013).
Worse still is the commonly cited left- and right-brain dynamic.
This is the staple of many so-called “brain research” seminars that
are, unfortunately, about neither the brain nor research. But the
story of the left-right brain dichotomy is so pervasive that it holds a
place in the pantheon of folk wisdom. People who are “right brained”
are supposedly impulsive, emotional, and also more creative, and
those who are “left brained” are more rational, logical, and realistic.
Or is it the other way around? The story has been retold so many
times with breathless enthusiasm that it is difficult to keep track. It
doesn’t matter, because the theory does not stand up to scrutiny.
There are several problems with this model, not least of which is
that it has been thoroughly debunked (Iezzi, 2015). While it is true
that some control of speech is localized in the right hemisphere, the
brain is a much more complicated machine than the hemispheric
theory suggests. The left and right portions of our brains don’t
operate in isolation, but instead work together to form our thoughts
and ideas. For instance, when examined in a functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) device, our right brain lights up when
noticing the general shape of an object, whereas the left portion of
our brain is focused on assessing the details of the object. Between
the two, we automatically recognize the difference between an
orange and our neighbor Frank.
As with many myths, the idea contains a kernel of truth. The left
side of our cerebral cortex controls the right side of our body and
vice versa. But that is where science stops and mythology begins.
Those people who favor one side over the other, as in left-
handedness versus right-handedness, are also distinguished by
certain aptitudes, according to the theory. But hand preference is not
an indication of favoring one side of the brain versus the other
(Kosslyn & Miller, 2013). Indeed there have been some very
interesting evolutionary theories that seek to explain the
phenomenon of hand preference, but none of them show any
correlation with hemisphere preference (Faurie & Raymond, 2005).
Another example of analysis linking brain function with
personality is the five-factor model of personality (Digman, 1990),
which measures five attributes: (1) openness to experience, (2)
conscientiousness, (3) extraversion, (4) agreeableness, and (5)
neuroticism. When creative capacity has been tested against these
five factors, only openness to experience showed any correlation to
creativity (Sawyer, 2012). The results of these tests show that the
ability to be creative is not limited to any set of predefined
personality types or characteristics.
Even age should not be considered a limiting factor for the
development of creativity, despite the common assertion that young
children are creative but adolescents and adults have lost their
creative impulses due to poor schooling. While it is true that the
human brain does lose some plasticity once we pass the age of
twenty-five, the benefits of the experience and expertise we earn as
we grow older often counteract these effects. A cross-cultural study
from the University of Arkansas considered 420 literary creators
culled from history of Western, Near Eastern, and Asian literatures,
and while they found that poets started writing at an earlier age
than prose writers, the researchers found no correlations between
imaginative and informative output as the population aged
(Simonton, 1975). For every Galileo and Jack Kerouac, who
produced some of their most startling work at an early age, there
are examples like William Shakespeare, who produced what are
widely acknowledged as some of his greatest works late in his
career; Claude Monet, who picked up his craft late in life and whose
distinctive style was influenced by his diminishing eyesight; and
Elliott Carter, who produced great 21st century music in his nineties
and conducted world premieres after his one-hundredth birthday.
This reality stands in stark contrast to the legion of YouTube
creativity gurus, led by Sir Ken Robinson (2006), whose popular
YouTube video and accompanying books argue that while children
are innately creative, the spark is dimmed or extinguished by our
woeful education systems. Similarly, Ugur Sak and June Maker
(2006) claim that mathematical creativity decreases as students
progress in schooling. But the evidence we will present in the
remainder of this book shows that people can engage in the process
of creativity at any age.
Elements of Creativity
As we noted previously, in contrast to these various myths, we
understand creativity to be the process of experimentation,
evaluation, and follow-through that leads to a significant discovery,
insight, or contribution. The evidence is clear that creativity is a
process, and a single product—the breakthrough scientific paper, the
magnificent sculpture, the soul-inspiring bars of music—is not the
result of a single moment of inspiration, but of processes that
included many considered and discarded ideas (Grant, 2016;
Johnson, 2010). Outlining this process provides the foundation for
understanding not only what creativity is, but how it can be
nurtured. It also provides insight into how creativity is, however
unintentionally, undermined in classrooms, boardrooms, halls of
government, and councils of industry. In particular, creativity is
undermined when educational, business, and governmental
organizations punish errors. While leaders often talk a good game
about how they value mistakes and learn from them, the prevailing
evaluation mechanisms for students and for adults is based upon the
average—that is, the sum of every observation divided by the
number of observations. In this system, we do not value mistakes
and failure, but systematically punish them. Every mistake of
January is remembered and calculated into the final evaluation in
December.

Experimentation
The centrality of process to creativity is as important in the
sciences as in the arts. Experimentation is the initiating element in
this process. Consider Archimedes’s contribution to physics. He is
said to have discovered the nature of mass as he noticed the
displacement of water as he bathed in ancient Greece. The tale goes
that, having successfully reckoned that the volume of an object
could be determined by its displacement of water, he leapt from the
bathtub and ran naked through the town shouting “Eureka!” or “I
have found it!” This tale, enshrined in the eureka moment of
discovery by scientists and artists through the ages, suffers from a
fundamental flaw. Speculation about the private lives of figures in
ancient history is fraught with peril, but of one thing we can be fairly
certain: this wasn’t Archimedes’s first bath. It certainly was not the
first time that he had attempted to estimate the volume of objects—
in this case, the king’s crown. He arrived at this realization after
many failed hypotheses and experiments. The eureka myth gives the
illusion that creativity is about the moment of discovery, rather than
the long process that preceded it.
Emphasizing experimentation means that Thomas Edison’s 9,999
failures were as important as the success that followed. We do not
see the experimental canvases that Leonardo da Vinci rejected and
destroyed. We do not get to wonder at the casts that Auguste Rodin
smashed. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist and embody
important experimental work that influenced the creations we know
today.

Evaluation
The second element of our definition is evaluation. Scientific
insights are achieved through a process of review, criticism,
evaluation, and ultimately, validation. Creative insights, likewise, are
not universally accepted but emerge over time after a process of
public evaluation, deliberation, and debate. For an extreme example,
the 1913 premiere of Igor Stravinsky’s ballet The Rite of Spring in
Paris inspired such spirited debate and evaluation as to its creative
value that it included shoe throwing and fist fights (Pasler, 1986).
Vigorous debate, dissent, and discussion are essential parts of the
creative process. The melee of the Paris premiere of The Rite of
Spring may not be a model of civil discourse, but it does illustrate
the fact that conclusions regarding creative contributions are the
result of a process of evaluation.
Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the global summit on climate
change occurred in the same city in 2015. Amidst the creative
solutions in future meetings in Paris and around the globe will be
debate, dissent, evaluation, and perhaps even some shoe throwing.
In the century to come, society will be best served not by
remembering the proclamations of world leaders, but the
contentious process that just might lead to creative solutions that
will give generations to come a better chance at survival.
The critics of creative breakthroughs are often cast as villains or
buffoons, but we must not be afraid to be critical when we evaluate
new ideas. What if the shoe throwers of Paris led Stravinsky to more
expressive compositions? What if Einstein’s critics, when the general
theory of relativity was posited, were essential to the special theory
of relativity? What if Johann Sebastian Bach’s early critics led him to
be a better composer? Reflect on feedback you have received over
the past year, particularly on creative endeavors, but also on any
attempt at excellence. Which feedback led to your own breakthrough
performances—the superficial and laudatory or the critical and
evaluative?

Follow-Through
The third element of our definition of the creativity process is
follow-through. Creators not only think great thoughts, they act.
James Madison did not just think about democracy; he wrote the
Constitution. Maya Angelou not only reflected on her childhood
experiences, she put pen to paper, gave voice to the voiceless, and
famously announced to the world that she knew why the caged bird
sings. The implications for teaching and learning creativity are clear.
Follow-through demands a level of discipline, organization, and focus
that in popular mythology are the antithesis of the creative genius
who is undisciplined, disorganized, and scatterbrained. That
stereotype may be part of traditional definitions of creativity, but it
does not accord with ours.
Creativity is not merely the idea itself, but the process that leads
to the idea—the continual cycle of evaluation that makes the idea
better and the follow-through that gives the idea endurance over
time. Consider the common practice of brainstorming. It is a good
bet that every reader has at some time been encouraged to
generate creative new ideas through brainstorming focused around
this primary rule: no judgment or evaluation—just get as many
ideas, no matter how improbable they might be—on the wall. This
was a splendid idea in 1946 for advertising executive Alex Faickney
Osborn. Unburdened by evidence, Osborn (1963) dominated the
creative consulting industry with his books and seminars about
brainstorming. Although there were signs of trouble with studies
starting in 1960 that establish this type of brainstorming as
ineffective (Gobble, 2014; Mongeau, 1993; Orme, 2014), the
enthusiasm of Osborn’s disciples remained undiminished.
Well into the 21st century, high-priced consultants with Ivy
League pedigrees continue to suggest that strategic planning and
other group processes begin with brainstorming. But the truth is that
this kind of brainstorming is not only ineffective, it is
counterproductive. This process buries important ideas and wastes
time and energy on ideas that are popular, perhaps even funny, but
are soon forgotten and never implemented. But tell educators,
business leaders, or nonprofit executives that traditional
brainstorming is an ineffective waste of time and resources, and you
might be greeted with hostility or bewilderment. Although follow-
through is an essential element of creativity, activities such as
brainstorming offer a comfortable but futile alternative to follow-
through. As amateur musicians, we would much prefer to think
about the music rather than practice it. As writers we prefer
languorous discussions of ideas to the more difficult challenges of
putting those ideas into prose that readers will find useful. Creativity
without follow-through is Picasso without the canvas, Mozart without
the orchestra, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Nelson Mandela
without societal and governmental structures with which to
implement their ideas. In sum, creativity is not just about thinking or
being, but about doing.

Our Creative Responsibility

 Nearly every professional development session for teachers and
school administrators includes an oration about the importance of
creativity as a 21st century skill, but these educators routinely return
home to face the reality of a system that undermines the creative
efforts of students and themselves. Despite the rhetoric favoring
creativity, the message teachers hear is, “We’ll get to creativity—just
as soon as we raise our test scores.”
Even advocates of creativity undermine their case when they
refer to creativity as a “noncognitive” skill (Gutman & Schoon, 2013).
This wholly inaccurate understanding of creativity sends the
message that creativity is a frill—something that competes with and
is at the other end of the cognition continuum from “real” thinking
and learning.
One reason that creativity myths are so prevalent may be that
they remove the responsibility of being creative from individuals,
teachers, and organizations and lay the onus on nature. People may
feel that if creativity is the exclusive domain of the loner scientist or
the eccentric aesthete, then they have no duty or ability to try to be
creative themselves—believing that they either possess a certain
creative quality from birth or they do not. What we must understand
is that creativity is not a trait. It is a set of behaviors that can be
developed through practice. Creativity is, to some degree, a way of
life. But it is also a responsibility. Creativity is not just the way that
the great geniuses of the past have enriched and given meaning to
our culture, it is an obligation we all have to enrich and give
meaning to our own lives and community. We hope that by exploring
and explaining each of the seven main traits and modes of thought
that support creativity in the following chapters, we can help in some
small measure guide you, your students, and your colleagues to a
more fulfilling and creative life.

CREATIVITY REFLECTIONS
1. Identify at least one thing you thought about creativity that
changed after you read this chapter, and discuss with a partner or
small group. If you have not changed your thinking, consider at
least one or two ways in which your thinking has been challenged
or reinforced. You might want to consult your responses to figure
I.1 (page 8).
2. Identify specific sources of creative inspiration that you find most
helpful. These might be nature, music, silence, visual images, or a
thousand other sources. Just select two or three, and resolve to
make time and space for those sources of creative inspiration this
week.
3. Think of someone you regard as an exceptionally creative person
—either a personal acquaintance, someone you have observed
from afar, or an historical (or even fictional) person. What are
ways that you and your creative exemplar are similar? How are
you different?
4. What are the resources within you—your experiences, deeply
held beliefs, exceptional moments of learning and insight—that
you can use to open the doors to creativity?
5. You have probably witnessed situations in your professional
career when experts disagreed. How did you and your colleagues
deal with divergent and strongly held views? What do your most
promising experiences in sorting out alternative expert views
suggest for how you can analyze divergent views to promote
student creativity?
 CHAPTER 2

CURIOSITY

Complete the sentence, “Science is …” from a student’s point of

view. We would suggest that science is asking questions when you
don’t already know the answers. Too often, students think that
science is all about distinguishing igneous from sedimentary rock,
gases from liquids, or otherwise providing answers that we already
know—or at least are supposed to know. But the spirit of scientific
inquiry is the same one that drives creative endeavors: curiosity.
Curiosity and its cousin, critical thinking, are the gateways to
creativity. How we nurture and encourage curiosity, and how we
often punish it, will provide insights into how we can expand
creativity opportunities for students and teachers. Curiosity is the
motivation behind critical thinking. While curiosity is born of an
emotional quest—the human desire to know more—critical thinking
is the analytical partner, giving us tools to challenge prevailing
patterns of thought that fail to satisfy our curious minds.
Warren Berger (2014) defines a beautiful question as “an
ambitious yet actionable question that can begin to shift the way we
perceive or think about something—and that might serve as a
catalyst to bring about change” (p. 8). Questions of any sort—
beautiful or not—require the virtue of curiosity. Unfortunately, this
virtue is in rare supply. Berger explains:

To encourage or even allow questioning is to concede

power—not something that is done lightly in hierarchical
 companies or in government organizations, or even in
classrooms, where a teacher must be willing to give up
control to allow for more questioning. (p. 6)

In order to create space in any dialogue, whether among

students, educators, administrators, or policymakers, there must first
be room for questions to which the answers are unclear and
unknown. In a medieval pedagogical setting, the apprentice asks
questions and the master provides answers. But in the 21st century,
we must all be apprentices and see answers not from all-knowing
masters, but from our collective wisdom. If we expect a spirit of
genuine inquiry at the highest levels of leadership and policymaking,
this acceptance of the unknown must be modeled in the classroom.
The teacher who responds to a question, “I don’t know; let’s learn
more about this …” is neither uninformed nor incompetent, but a
model for the processes of inquiry on which creativity depends.

The Vice of Confidence

One of the constants that’s drilled into us from childhood onward
is to believe in ourselves. It is an important component to resilience,
and it is easy to understand why we want to instill confidence in our
children. Confidence as a trait often begets confidence. Those who
are more assured of their own ability to succeed are more likely to
take the risks necessary to succeed in the future. Likewise, those
who become insecure, constantly doubting themselves, can develop
habits that either consciously or subconsciously sabotage their
individual efforts. Psychologists call this phenomenon confirmation
bias (Kahneman, 2011).
But is there such a thing as too much confidence? What happens
when we become confident in beliefs that haven’t been tested?
What happens when confidence mutates into closed-mindedness? If
we start believing too much in our own hype and belief systems, not
only do we run the risk of being blinded to further opportunities by
internal orthodoxy but we run the more dangerous risk of not
recognizing when we are wrong. Not that there’s anything wrong
with … well, being wrong! We all know people who are often wrong
but never in doubt. For the rest of us, being wrong about something,
and then going through the process of confronting evidence that
contradicts our claim, and then going through the slow and
sometimes painful process of changing our minds, is an essential
part of being human. It is when we refuse to go through that
process that we enter the realm of delusion.
Pioneering psychiatrist Karl Jaspers (1963) identifies three
indicators of a delusional mindset: (1) certainty of belief and
absolute conviction of rightness, (2) incorrigibility, which is defined
by the unwillingness to be swayed by evidence that’s contrary to
those strongly held beliefs, and (3) beliefs themselves that are
strange and bizarre. Jaspers’s work continues to be widely influential
in the 21st century (Blackwood, Howard, Bentall, & Murray, 2001).
In the context of creative idea generation, it makes sense that one’s
beliefs will and perhaps should be strange and bizarre, but the other
two indicators of delusion are definitely worth examining. Beliefs can
be affirming and comforting on a deep psychological level—
especially beliefs we come to and develop ourselves. This makes us
predisposed to defending them and protecting them from outside
scorn or invalidation. However, if our goal is to develop the best
product or idea, it is essential that we hold our own ideas and
products to the kind of rigorous examination the rest of the world
will. The curious person can celebrate the thrill of discovery, but
relentlessly asks, “What is next? What is better? What could I have
missed?”
Success itself can harden long-established beliefs that don’t
necessarily match every circumstance. Consider the world-altering
Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century. After astonishing
successes against Spain, Italy, Austria, and Prussia, often due to
Napoleon Bonaparte’s strategic brilliance, it made sense for the self-
proclaimed emperor to be justly confident of not only his own
abilities but the tactical principles behind them. So when Napoleon
led an army of more than 450,000 soldiers across the border into
Russia in an effort to break up their coalition with Britain, it made
sense that he would once again outmaneuver his adversaries and
prevail. However, he ended up failing spectacularly during a Moscow
winter that devastated more than 90 percent of his troops and
ruined his reputation (Tufte, 2006).
In some ways, Napoleon’s strategy was effective. His superior
forces and strategic impulses won him hard-fought battles
throughout his invasion of Russia. But instead of capitulating and
beginning the negotiations of defeat like the rest of the forces that
Napoleon vanquished, the Russian army had a lot of space into
which to retreat and began destroying their cities rather than having
them utilized by the French army. Again and again, Napoleon
witnessed the Russians employing the same burn-and-run tactics but
did not change course, seemingly incapable of or unwilling to
recognize the strategy he so firmly believed in could be flawed. Yet
when he finally came to Moscow, Napoleon was astonished that the
Russians had simply abandoned and scorched their capital. Blinded
by his previous successes, Napoleon failed to observe and adapt to
the different circumstances. Napoleon was not necessarily wrong
about his prowess or ability, but he was simply wrong to think his
belief system was universally applicable.
Students elevating confidence over curiosity is similarly
problematic. While some students display an overconfidence that
can do them a great disservice by limiting curious exploration of
questions and critical thinking, in interviews and observations we
conducted as research for this book, we found a marked pattern of
unwillingness to challenge prevailing wisdom, particularly among
girls and women. Overconfidence displayed by men when compared
to their female competitors in the job market has a dramatic effect
when two otherwise equally qualified people are searching for jobs.
This ineffective socialization is hardly an accident.

Mixed Social Cues

 While some students’ curiosity may be stunted by
overconfidence, on the other end of the spectrum are students who
may be stifled by having their curiosity punished. Curiosity requires
asking questions—sometimes awkward ones. Like a three-year-old
repeatedly asking, “Why? Why? Why?” we must be willing to
challenge our parents, friends, and colleagues—not to mention
media sources—when their pat answers are insufficient. Although
educators sincerely wish to encourage creativity and curiosity, these
are often discouraged among half of the human race—females (Sak
& Maker, 2006).
“I thought it wasn’t a very good idea, but I didn’t want to be
impolite,” said Sara, a fifth grader. This was in response to the
invitation to assist one of her classmates in writing her fifth-grade
graduation speech. Sara knew that her friend could do better than
her first draft, but her desire to soothe feelings was much more
powerful than her willingness to criticize a classmate. During the
prior two years, this bright and expressive student did not hesitate
to engage in vigorous classroom discussions about the relative
merits of authors from J. K. Rowling to a fellow student writer. But
now she hesitated to challenge even the most obvious errors in
reasoning by her classmates. In third grade, she wrote two pages of
suggestions to her teachers about how to improve the class, but
something happened to Sara’s willingness to forcefully express
herself between the third and fifth grades. Although the intellectual
skills of students, including their vocabulary, literacy, and
mathematics abilities, surge forward from the primary to
intermediate grades, their social awareness during those years
becomes heightened to the point that they can detect the faint whiff
of hurt feelings from a long distance. While students can define
critical thinking with some precision and practice it in the abstract—
finding flaws in the reasoning of a story problem, for example—they
appear to be much more reluctant to make critical thinking a habit of
mind in the classroom. Teachers and parents play important roles in
socializing children to value interpersonal peace above the conflict
that might result from intellectual challenges. Call it the peace
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
pakolaisesta itsestään ei tavattu jälkeäkään. Etsijät olivat taipuvaiset
siihen mukavaan otaksumaan, että hän oli kuollut, ja viittasivat
vaatteisiin todistuskappaleina.

Chauvinière musersi heidät halveksumisellaan. »Naiset eivät

riisuudu kuollakseen tienoheen, te pässinpäät! Jatkakaa etsintäänne.
Se käy vaikeammaksi sentähden, että hän on vaihtanut pukua.
Mutta jatkakaa sitä. Seuratkaa jokaisen muukalaisen jälkiä, josta
kuulette. Sellaisia ei liiku huomaamattomasti maaseudulla.
Osoittakaa intoanne!»

He palasivat etsintäänsä kohautellen olkapäitään, muristen ja

uskoen toisilleen, että edusmies-kansalainen oli itsepintainen
härkäpää, röyhkeä öykkäri, joka esiintyi ylimyksen elein ja saisi
huonon lopun.

Päiviä lisättiin jo kulutettuihin, kunnes niistä kertyi viikko, jolla

aikaa Chauvinière istui murjotellen Auringon majatalossa, tiuskien
pahatuulisesti kaikille, jotka kävivät hänen puheillaan, eikä
nähtävästi laisinkaan ajatellut niitä kansalliskonventilta saamiaan
tehtäviä, joiden vuoksi hän oli Nivernaisin maakuntaan saapunut.
Kun ylen uskalias Desjardins muistutti sitä hänelle, pauhasi hän
ensin muistuttajalle ja vannoi sitten vahvasti uusien ja vanhojen
jumalien kautta, että Nivernais saisi tuntea hänen läsnäolonsa. Tällä
valalla hän palasi laiminlyötyihin velvollisuuksiinsa, hilliten
hullaantumisensa ja turhan katumisen ja karkoittaen mademoiselle
de Montsorbierin ainakin toistaiseksi mielestään.

Sen, mitä hän vihassaan oli luvannut, hän panikin täytäntöön. Sillä
huhtikuulla värisytti Nivernaisia tämä edusmies, joka, mitä hän
aikaisemmin muutoin lienee ollutkin, ei koskaan ollut julmuuksissaan
esiintynyt hillittömänä, karkeana tai verenhimoisena. Kaupungista
kaupunkiin hän kiiti, tuomarillisen toimensa kauheat
täytäntöönpanovälineet mukanaan, ja toteutti armottomalla
verenvuodatuksella järjen kultaisen aikakauden uusia oppeja.

Nivernaisissa oli kaikkialla vallankumousliike kulkenut hillityssä

muodossa. Senpä vuoksi siellä olikin sitä enemmän työtä moiselle
miehelle moisessa mielentilassa, ja sitä peloittavammalta se työ
näytti sen asukkaista.

Huhtikuun loppupuolella hän kamalassa etenemisessään vihdoin

saapui Poussignotin pieneen vuoristokaupunkiin. Jos uutinen hänen
lähestymisestään oli sitä jo vapisuttanut, niin se tapa, kuinka hän
sinne hyökkäsi, sai asukkaat peloissaan miltei lankeamaan maahan.
Sotilaallinen kunniavartiosto saattoi matkavaunuja, joissa hän nojaili
harmaassa takissaan, töyhtöhatussaan ja virkavyöhikössään.
Vaunujen perässä seurasi rattaat, joilla kuljetettiin tulipunaisia
palkkeja ja hirsiä giljotiinin kokoonpanemiseksi kauppatorille.
Kaamealla kuormalla istui lihava, tylsäilmeinen, hidasliikkeinen mies,
ulkonäöllään värisyttäen niitä, jotka arvasivat hänen virkansa. Hänen
seurassaan oli yhtä lihava, sameasilmäinen, kampaamaton ja
siistimätön nainen rattaita ajamassa.

Poussignotin vallankumouskomitea, joka vuosi sitten oli

Neversistä saapuneiden ohjeiden mukaan asianomaisesti valittu,
mutta jolle ei vielä koskaan ollut sattunut aihetta toimintaan,
kutsuttiin kiireellisesti kokoon pienelle raatihuoneelle kauppatorin
viereen, jolla rakennusmiehet jo puuhailivat mestauslavan
pystyttämisessä. Kauhuissaan jupisten ihmiset odottivat tämän
pelätyn konventista lähetetyn miehen tuloa, kun hän saapuisi
ravistamaan uneliaan ja tähän asti tyytyväisen kaupunkikunnan
hereille penseän vallankumouksellisesta raukeudestaan.
 Hän odotutti heitä täyden tunnin nauttiessaan päivällistä,
välittämättä ajasta, jonka hän täten huolettomasti heidän tähtensä
kulutti. Hän saapui vihdoin, röyhkeänä ja ylimielisenä käytökseltään,
röyhkeänä ja julman ivallisena puheissaan. Hän tapasi täällä
Poussignotissa sellaisen asiaintilan, että se antoi yllin kyllin aihetta
ilkkumiseen, mikä harvoin oli vierasta hänen vaistoilleen. Ranskan
luhistuessa perikatoaan kohti sitä toisesta päästä toiseen järkyttävän
vallankumouksen maanjäristyksen vaikutuksesta, näkyi aivan
Ranskan sydämessä sijaitseva Poussignot nukkuneen ja
uskomattomassa uneliaisuudessa jatkaneen inhoittavan vanhan
järjestelmän aikaista rauhallista ja tasaista tahtia. Se oli niin
uskomatonta, että Chauvinière hämmästymisensä ensimmäisestä
tyrmistyksestä toivuttuaan purskahti sisäiseen nauruun —
nauramaan nukkujaa ja sitä odottavaa heräämistä.

Monet puuhat, jotka kuluneella kuukaudella olivat askarruttaneet

hänen aivojaan, olivat vähitellen himmentäneet mademoiselle de
Montsorbierin muiston ja vaimentaneet hänen suuttumuksensa siitä
tavasta, kuinka tämä oli tehnyt hänet uhrikseen. Samassa määrässä
kuin tytön kuva oli himmentynyt, oli myöskin vähitellen haihtunut tuon
muiston synnyttämä raivoisa mielenlaatu, jota hän oli purkanut
kaikkia ja jokaista vastaan. Onneksi Poussignotille hän oli sinne
ehtiessään alkanut inhota verenvuodatusta ja väsynyt hillittömään
ajojahtiin etsiessään uhreja giljotiinin terälle. Tavallinen filosofinen
mielenlaatu, josta hän salaa ylpeili, oli asteittain palaamassa. Hänen
huumorintajuntansa alkoi jälleen päästä oikeuksiinsa. Poussignot
palautti sen täydellisesti, vaikkei hän sallinut suunniltaan
säikähdytetyn komitean, joka nyt kuunteli hänen intohimoista
sanatulvaansa, nähdä siitä vilaustakaan. Syvällä, värähtävällä,
purevimpaan ivansävyyn korostetulla äänellään hän löylytti tuota
vallankumouskomiteaa, sättien sen jäseniä leväperäisyydestä ja
uhkaillen heitä sillä tuomiolla, jota he niin vastahakoisesti olivat
muille jakaneet, jollei hän vastedes näkisi heidän osoittavan
suurempaa intoa vapauden pyhässä asiassa.

Pudisteltuaan heidät täydellisesti hereilleen heidän

suopeudestaan, pidettyään heille saarnan yhdenvertaisuuden
uudesta evankeliumista, jota hän havaitsi Poussignotin vuorilla
vaillinaisesti ymmärrettävän, ja teroitettuaan heidän mieleensä,
kuinka välttämätöntä oli perinjuurin kitkeä pois kaikki ne, jotka olivat
kerettiläisiä, penseitä tai muutoin vaarallisia kunniakkaan uuden
uskon leviämiselle, hän siirtyi ylimalkaisesta yksityiskohtaiseen.

Hän näkyi jo hankkineen tietoja eräistä asioista Poussignotissa ja

sen ympäristöllä ja otti esille luettelon epäisänmaallisuuden
rikoksesta sen uudessa merkityksessä epäillyistä henkilöistä,
olivatpa nämä sitten rikkoneet uutta järjestelmää vastaan yhdessä tai
useammassa muodossa.

»Tämän luettelon minä aion teille nyt lukea; ja minä kehoitan teitä
vakavasti tarkastamaan henkilöitä, joiden nimet kuulette. Sillä teidän
ei sovi luulla…» Ja tässä hän pysähtyi, puoliksi kääntyäkseen sille
torille avautuvaan ikkunaan, jolle tulipunaiseksi maalattua giljotiinia
parhaillaan pystytettiin. Osoittaakseen sitä heille hän kurotti toisen
käsivartensa ylväästi draamallisin elein. »Teidän ei sovi luulta, että
tuo koje, tuo vapauden ylväs kalpa tuo yhdenvertaisuuden kunniakas
viikate, joka on niittänyt hirmuvaltiasten ja etuoikeutettujen päitä,
pystytetään tuonne ainoastaan pelkäksi kaupunkinne
kaunistukseksi.»

He vapisivat, laisinkaan aavistamatta, että tämä kamala ilveilijä

tyydytti omaa turmeltunutta huumorinvaistoaan omaksi salaiseksi
huvikseen ivatessaan juuri sitä evankeliumia, jota hänet oli lähetetty
saarnaamaan. Oli hetkiä, joina Chauvinière ikäänkuin tunnusteli niitä
epäjaloja syvyyksiä, joihin pelko saattaa ihmiset vaivuttaa.
Useammin kuin kerran hän oli konventissakin hätkähdyttänyt veljiään
juhlallisilla laukauksilla, joissa oli melkein mahdotonta olla
aavistelematta ivaa, mutta siitä ei kuitenkaan kukaan olisi tohtinut
häntä syyttää. Nyt hänellä oli tuollainen hetki. Sisällisesti hänen
kurtistunut sielunsa vääntelehti iloisesta naurusta, kun hän näin sai
luoda kauhukuvilla sielutieteellisesti humoristisen tilanteen.

»Ette saa erehtyä minun sanoillani tarkoittavan, että moinen koje

olisi joutava koristus millekään kaupungille, vaikka hyveellinen ta-,
tasavaltalaisuus, jota emme niin yleisenä voine odottaa, pakottaisikin
sen toimettomuuteen. Sillä, kysykää itseltänne, ystäväni, veljeni,
mitä arvottoman kuninkaan, kurjan tyrannin tai hänen hirmuvaltansa
viheliäisen kätyrin muistopatsasta, mitä tuhisevan pyhimyksen tai
lahoavan marttyyriksi mainitun henkilön kuvaa voisi koskaan verrata
tuohon ihmisen vapautuksen symbooliin — merkkiin hänen
vapautuksestaan niistä kahleista, joilla kuninkaat ja papit
kammitsoivat hänen sielunsa ja ruumiinsa. Tuolla se kohoaa, veljeni,
kaamean juhlallisessa arvokkuudessaan, tuo järjen voiton
vertauskuva. Ja mitä kunniakkaampaa muistomerkkiä saattaisi
kaupunki toivoa itselleen pystyttävänsäkään? Tuo mestauslava,
veljeni, on pyhä alttari, jolla teidän hurskas velvollisuutenne on
uhrata aristokraattien saastainen veri ainoan ja jakamattoman
tasavallan karttuvaksi kunniaksi!»

Hänen hehkuvien silmiensä edessä he lyöttäytyivät kokoon kuin

säikähtynyt lammaslauma. Hän tarkkasi heitä tyynesti.

»Te olette vaiti, ystäväni. Minä käsitän sen. Te otatte osaa minun
omaan syvään liikutukseeni. Teidän suuri kiitollisuutenne tekee teidät
sanattomiksi. Se on erittäin hyvä. Se on minulle merkkinä siitä, että
te horjumatta täytätte sen viran ylevät velvollisuudet, johon teillä on
ollut kunnia tulla valituiksi kansan äänellä, siis myöskin jumalten
äänellä.» Hän kohotti listaa, jota hän koko tämän johdannon ajan oli
pitänyt kädessään, ja hänen äänensä aleni tyynesti ylväästä
haltioitumisen säveleestä. »Siirtykäämme nyt käytännöllisiin,
täsmällisiin asioihin. Sallikaa minun lukea teille nämä nimet ja
mainita rikokset, joista asianomaisia epäillään.»

Hänen luettelossaan oli henkilöitä, joita hän syytti

ystävällisyydestä despootteja kohtaan, toisia, jotka olivat niin läheisiä
sukulaisia maasta karanneille, että heidän oma isänmaallisuutensa
näytti epäilyttävältä, kunnes se oli täydellisesti koeteltu; toisten taas
hän tiesi olevan liitossa vastavallankumouksellisten kanssa muissa
osissa Ranskaa, joidenkuiden arveltiin olevan kirjevaihdossa
Ranskan vihollisten kanssa maanrajojen ulkopuolella, ja olipa
niitäkin, jotka hän mainitsi vallankumousoikeuden tuomiolle kypsiksi
pelkän syntyperänsä perusteella.

Mainitessaan luettelonsa kolmannen nimen — erään Raoul

Amédée Corbigny de Corbalin — hän sai kuulla ensimmäisen
vastaväitteen.

»Mistä sitä miestä syytetään?»

Tämän äkillisen kysymyksen tekijä oli Doucier, hevoslääkäri,

vaikutusvaltainen mies paikallisessa jakobiinien yhdistyksessä ja
vallankumouskomitean esimies — intohimoinen, mutta yksinomaan
teoreettinen tasavaltalainen, joka oli rehellinen, peloton ja väittelyssä
voimakas ja olisi voinut edustaa omaa nivernaisilaisryhmäänsä
kansalliskonventissa, jos olisi niin tahtonut. Hän oli ensimmäinen,
jonka saattoi odottaa karistavan päältänsä kauhun lumouksen, kun
Chauvinière oli tyrmistyttänyt komiteaa, ja ravistautuvan vapaaksi
sanojen verkosta, kun edusmies oli heidät siihen pyydystänyt ja piti
heitä kuin vangittuina.

Konventin lähettiläs hämmästyi moisesta keskeytyksestä. Hän

vastasi kärsimättömästi: »Häntä syytetään epäisänmaallisuudesta.»

»Mutta missä muodossa?» tiukkasi Doucier.

»Muodossako?» Chauvinière rypisti hänelle kulmiaan. Kysymys oli

hankala. Hän kohautti olkapäitään. »Siinä muodossa, että hänellä on
vastavallankumouksellisia mielipiteitä.» Se oli paras vastaus, minkä
hän saattoi keksiä, ja sen täytyi toki riittää.

Mutta nyt osoittautui, että Doucierillä oli hämmennyttävä halu

kuulla yksityiskohtia. Hän rohkaistui omista kysymyksistään samassa
määrässä, kuin huomasi niiden hämmennyttävän suurta pariisilaista.

»Millä tavoin väitetään kansalaisen Corbalin ne mielipiteensä

ilmaisseen?»

»Ilmaisseen!» Chauvinièren sointuva ääni oli melkein kimeä.

»Tuhat tulimmaista! Otatteko te itsellenne vastuun hänen
puolustamisestaan?»

»Kun kuulen täsmällisesti, mistä häntä syytetään, saattanen sitä

välttämättömyyttä harkita.»

»Mutta johan minä teille sanoin… Hyväinen aika!»

»Ette ihan, kansalainen edusmies. Ette ihan. Ja Poussignotin

komitea vaatii täsmällisiä syytöksiä, ei epämääräisiä arveluja, jotka
se omien tietojensa nojalla huomaa perättömiksi.»
 Hyväksyvä murina läsnäolevien joukosta ilmaisi Chauvinièrelle,
että esimiehensä esimerkin tartuttamina komitean jäsenet olivat
kyllin toipuneet hänen kaunopuheisuutensa lumouksesta ollakseen
kapinoivassa mielentilassa.

»Väitättekö minun valehtelevan?» kysyi hän heiltä jäätävästi.

»Oi, kansalainen edusmies, kukapa sellaista olisi sanonut! Te

olette vain ehkä saanut vääriä tietoja. Kun ette ole voinut tehdä
luetteloanne mieskohtaisen tuntemuksenne perusteella, käsitämme,
että teidän on täytynyt käyttää apua ja neuvonantajia. Ja käsitämme
tavatessamme listallanne yleisesti kunnioitetun ja kaikkien
vilpittömäksi tasavaltalaiseksi tunteman miehen nimen…»

Chauvinière keskeytti hurjasti. »Vilpittömäksi tasavaltalaiseksi!

Mitä sitten vielä? Mitä pötyä te tohditte minulle tyrkyttääkään? Teidän
olisi parasta varoa omia päitänne, rakkaat ystävät, jollette ole
oppineet velvollisuuksianne paremmin kuin että näette vilpittömän
tasavaltalaisen ruttopaiseisessa entisessä ylimyksessä.»

Mutta Doucier tiesi liian paljon hyväksyäkseen tämän

johtopäätöksen.

»Nuo kaksi seikkaa eivät ole yhteen sovittamattomia. Voisitte

sanoa samaa Mirabeaun markiisista, jota ilman ehkei olisi mitään
vallankumousta tullutkaan. Jos sallitte meidän opastaa itseänne
paikallisten asiain tuntemisessa, kansalainen, niin otatte vastaan
vakuutuksemme, että teidät ovat vieneet harhaan — vieläpä vieneet
tahallaan harhaan — neuvonantajat, joiden tarkoitukset kenties ovat
vastavallankumouksellisia. Minä vakuutan teille, kansalainen, että
mitä vakavimpia seurauksia saattaisi johtua aiheettomasta
hyökkäyksestä Corbigny de Corbalia vastaan. Poussignotissa
tuntevat kaikki hänen periaatteittensa vankan ja käytännöllisen
tasavaltalaisuuden; kaikki tuntevat hänen elämänsä
korskeilemattoman vaatimattomuuden, ja kaikki rakastavat häntä.
Hän ei ole mies, jota käy kevytmielisesti syyttäminen. Teidän itsenne
tähden, kansalainen edusmies, ja meidän tähtemme, menettelisitte
viisaasti varatessanne itsellenne täysin yksityiskohtaiset tiedot
Corbalin epäisänmaallisuudesta, ennenkuin vaaditte meiltä hänen
vangitsemistaan ja tuomitsemistaan.»

Vaikkei tämä todistelu riittänyt horjuttamaan Chauvinièrea

päämäärästään, oli se sentään riittävä pakottamaan hänet
sovitteluihin.

Hän ilmoitti käyvänsä Corbalin luona saadakseen mieskohtaisen

käsityksen entisen varakreivin todellisista mielipiteistä.

Senjälkeen hän jatkoi luetteloaan, se koski muuten etupäässä

vallankumouksen perustuslain mukaisesta valasta kieltäytyneitä
pappeja tai sellaisia, jotka sen vannottuaan kuitenkin kieltäytyivät
hyväksymästä jumalanpalvelukselle määrättyjä uusia muotoja tai
niitä laiminlöivät, ja vielä toisia, jotka mukaantuen kaikkiin
määräyksiin kuitenkin tekivät vilpittömyytensä epäiltäväksi
itsepintaisella naimattomuudellaan. Ja kun Doucier rohkeni
käsityksenään huomauttaa, että se oli liian heikko epäluulon aihe,
yltyi Chauvinière hänelle tavanmukaiseen kaameaan huumoriin
koomillisen filosofiansa poluilla.

»Naimattomuus», julisti edusmies, »on herjaus luontoa vastaan, ja

ken herjaa luontoa, loukkaa luonnonlakeihin perustuvaa
tasavaltalaisuutta».
 Ja sitten hän syttyen omasta pontevuudestaan palasi
aikaisempaan karkeuteensa ja soimauksiinsa. Hän syytti heitä
penseydestä kansakunnan etujen valvomisessa ja varoitti heitä
asettamasta esteitä hänen pyhän velvollisuutensa uralle hänen
yrittäessään juurittaa pois tasavaltalaisen Ranskan pyhältä
maaperältä viimeisenkin epäkansallisuuden siemenen, joka imi
vapauden ylevän puun kaipaamaa ravintoa — järjenjumalattaren
käden istuttaman ja isänmaanystävien verellä hedelmöitetyn puun.
Hän päätti puheensa mahtipontisella kehoituksella jokseenkin siihen
suuntaan, etteivät he pakottaisi häntä Pariisin toimeenpanevalle
vallalle selostamaan havainneensa Poussignotin
vallankumouskomitean olevan velton, uneliaan ja
vastavallankumouksellisten tunteiden saastuttama.

Sitten hän, huomattuaan esiintymisellään ja ja ylen kiivaalla

puhetavallaan voittaneensa takaisin paljon vastikään hetkeksi
menettämäänsä alaa, poistui äkkiä ja teatraalisesti.

Kuinka aiheellinen heidän varoituksensa Corbigny de Corbalista

oli ja kuinka paljon häntä kunnioitettiin ja rakastettiin, siitä hän
tiedustellessaan pian sai yllin kyllin vakuuttavia todistuksia
kaupungissa. Tämä ärsytti häntä, ehkä liian paljon. Sellainen
asiaintila tällaiseen aikaan osoitti hänelle, kuinka sikeästi Poussignot
halusi nukkua, kuinka sukoileva tämä Nivernaisin maakunnan pieni
kaupunki rohkeni mieleltään olla. Kaiken ikänsä Chauvinière oli
vihannut mielistelyä. Kun hän älykkäänä miehenä ei tuntenut
tyytyväisyyttä itseensä, inhosi hän tyytyväisyydentunnetta
havaitessaan sitä muissa ja yritti musertaa sen, missä ikinä sitä
tapasi. Hän musertaisi sen täällä Poussignotissa sen
luottavimmassa ilmenemismuodossa, nimittäin entisen varakreivi
Corbalin persoonassa. Jos isänmaallisuus tähän asti tulkittuna oli
niin laaja käsite, että Corbal saattoi mukavasti ja turvassa viihtyä sen
puitteissa, niin sitten Chauvinièren oli keksittävä, kuinka voisi
supistaa isänmaallisuuden niin ahtaaksi, että Corbal ei sen piiriin
mahtuisi. Mutta kun hän ei halunnut lietsoa jalkojensa alla kyteviä
vastavallankumouksellisia hiiliä ilmiliekkiin, ryhtyi hän varovaisesti
työhönsä. Ja hän aloitti tutkimuksensa käymällä Corbalin luona.
KUUDES LUKU

Corbalin sukulinna oli vankka, vaatimattoman näköinen rakennus

viinitarhojen keskellä mäenrinteen puolivälissä kaupungin
yläpuolella, kohoten harmaana ja hiukan ränsistyneenä neliömäisen
pihan sivustoilla pyöreine luisukattoisine kulmatorneineen.

Sisällä kansalainen edustaja tapasi samaa vankkaa

vaatimattomuutta haalistuneiden koristusten tehostamana, jotka jo
aikaa sitten olisi pitänyt uudistaa, ja kuluneine huonekaluineen, joista
suuri osa jo aikoja olisi pitänyt panna pesään. Että tämä
vaatimattomuus esiintyi Corbalin elämäntavoissakin, selvisi
Chauvinièrelle, kun hän saatettuna laajaan kiviseen keittiöön tapasi
siellä isännän aterialla huonekuntansa kanssa, jota hän aivan
yksinkertaisesti nimitti »perheekseen». Nämä olivat hänen
vanhanpuoleinen isännöitsijänsä Fougereot, viimemainitun vaimo ja
heidän kaksi tukevaa poikaansa sekä lihava hauskannäköinen nuori
nainen, jolla oli kaunissointuinen nimi Filomène ja joka oli vastuussa
köyhtyneen aatelismiehen kotoisesta mukavuudesta. Corbal itse,
kolmikymmenvuotias mies, soveltui ympäristönsä puitteisiin kuin sitä
varten luotu. Puvultaan hän oli melkein kuin talonpoika,
arvokkuudeltaan ja ryhdiltään herrasmies, kun taas hänen puheensa
ja kasvonsa, korkea otsansa ja tummat, kaihoisat silmänsä
muistuttivat oppineesta ja runoilijasta.

Syntyneenä köyhtyneelle tilalle hän oli alistunut osaansa turhitta

tuskitteluitta. Hän ei ollut koskaan käynyt hovissa eikä missään
toimessa palvellut kuningastaan, mutta varhaisesta nuoruudesta asti
hän oli antaunut noin puolentoistasadan hehtaarin suuruisten
tilustensa viljelemiseen, ohjaten töitä ja tarpeen tullen itsekin auttaen
kylvämisessä ja elonkorjuussa, viininsä ja öljynsä pusertamisessa ja
oman viljansa puimisessa kuin halpa-arvoisin arentimies.

Kun kuningasvalta kukistui vuonna 1792 syksyn lehtien karistessa,

moittivat hänen säätynsä miehet häntä siitä, että hän kuului niihin,
jotka eivät olleet tehneet mitään sen tukemiseksi, mikä olikin totta.
Sillä kun feodalijärjestelmä poti kuolinkamppailuaan ja joukko
lähiseudun aatelismiehiä saapui vaatimaan häntä täyttämään
velvollisuutensa, niinkuin he sen käsittivät, kehoittaen häntä
liittymään kuninkaansa lippujen alle, oli monsieur Corbigny de Corbal
lyhyesti esittänyt valtiollisen vakaumuksensa näillä sanoilla:

»Hyvät herrat, kuningas ei ole missään muussa vaarassa kuin

ehkä siinä, jonka te hänelle luonette. Vastustamalla kansakunnan
oikeutettuja vaatimuksia te syöksytte perikatoon. Panemalla
yhtäläisyysmerkin valtaistuimen ja teidän oman vastustuksenne
välille te tuhoatte sekä valtaistuimen että itsenne.»

Kun tätä vastausta laajalti kerrottiin, lisääntyi se kunnioitus ja

suosio, jota hän maaseudulla nautti. Luonto ei ollut turhaan antanut
hänelle noita silmiä, jotka oli tehnyt kaihoisiksi se, mitä hän havaitsi
asiain ytimessä katseensa sinne tunkeutuessa.
 Hän nousi nyt ottamaan vastaan vierastaan arvokkaan
kunnioittavasti, missä ei ollut jälkeäkään hänen huonekuntansa
muissa jäsenissä havaittavaa levottomuutta. Hän oli kookas ja
sirorakenteinen, ja hänen itsehillintänsä ja kohteliaisuutensa olivat
sellaiset, että ne pakottivat vastakohteliaisuuteen jokaisen, joka ei
ollut toivottoman raaka. Chauvinière ei kuulunut näihin, ja senvuoksi
hän melkein omaksi hämmästyksekseen tunsi entisen aatelismiehen
herttaisen henkilöllisyyden lumousta.

»Tulonne on minulle yllätys, kansalainen», virkkoi Corbal. »Näin

koruttomasti minä en haluaisi ottaa vastaan hallituksen edustajaa.»

»Minä edustan sellaista hallitusta, kansalainen, joka ei välitä

juhlallisuudesta», vastasi Chauvinière, mutta paljoa vähemmän
mielevästi ja pontevasti kuin tavallista.

»Minkään hallituksen ei koskaan tulisi ihan niin menetellä.»

Corbalin erikoisen herttainen hymy vaimensi kaiken närkästyksen,
jonka hänen eroava mielipiteensä muuten olisi voinut herättää.
»Hallitukset ovat asetetut hallitsemaan; menestyksellisesti
hallitakseen niiden tulee herättää kunnioitusta, ja juhlallisuus on
kunnioituksen luonnollinen ilmaisu. Ihmiset eivät alennu
kunnioittamalla sitä, mikä itsessään vaatii kunnioitusta. Päinvastoin
se korottaa heidän arvoaan.»

Chauvinière kohotti väkisinkin kulmakarvojaan. Salliko tuo entinen

aatelimies, kummeksui hän, itselleen jotakin sellaista peitettyä ivaa,
jota edustaja itse niin vapaasti käytteli ja josta hän salaa niin suuresti
nautti?

»Filosofi!» virkkoi hän, melkein hiukan irvistäen.

 »Se on liian suuri sana minua kuvaillaksenne, kansalainen. Minä
olen elänyt kauan yksinäni; ja siksi olen ikävystymistä
karkoittaakseni opiskellut melkoisen paljon. Mutta minä pidän teitä
seisomassa. Ettekö tahdo ottaa osaa ateriaamme?» Hän pani tuolin
esille. »Te havaitsette pöytämme tasavaltalaisen vaatimattomaksi.»

»Juuri niinkuin olla pitääkin», sanoi Chauvinière, joka inhosi

tasavaltalaista vaatimattomuutta ja päivittäin kiitti Jumalaa
vallankumouksesta, joka oli tuonut elämän mehevät herkkupalat
hänen helposti saatavikseen. Hän istuutui. Filomène tarjosi hänelle
leipää ja savustettua liikkiötä, jotka hän havaitsi laadultaan
oivallisiksi, ja Corbal itse kaatoi hänelle viiniä, joka ei juuri jättänyt
toivomisen varaa. Ei tämä »vaatimaton ateria» sittenkään ollut ihan
mahdottoman tasavaltalainen.

Corbal palasi tuolilleen. »Minulle, kansalainen edusmies, minun

matalalle majalleni tuottaa suurta kunniaa teidänlaisenne
mainehikkaan konventinjäsenen vierailu.»

Taaskin välähti Chauvinièren mielessä aavistus, että hänestä

tehtiin pilaa. Hänen läpitunkevat silmänsä tähystelivät aatelismiestä.
»Ettekä te ole laisinkaan utelias tietämään sen syytä?»

Corbal hymyili täysin levollisena. »Te olette minun vieraani,

kansalainen. Minun ei tule kiusata teitä kysymyksillä. Te sanotte
minulle milloin itse suvaitsette, millä tavoin minulla on kunnia teitä
palvella.»

»Te olette ihastuttavan kärsivällinen», ylisti häntä Chauvinière ja

kohdisti huomionsa liikkiöön.
 Senjälkeen Corbal ja hänen omituinen vieraansa rupattelivat
huolettomasti niitä näitä, muiden kuunnellessa levottoman
äänettöminä. Vihdoin, kun ateria oli päättynyt, nojasi Chauvinière
taaksepäin tuolissaan, heitti toisen kauriinnahkaisella saappaalla
verhotun säärensä tuolin käsinojan yli ja pisti pitkän kätensä
kolmivärisen virkavyöhikkönsä alle miehenä, joka tutunomaisesta
ottaa mukavan asennon.

»Te elelette täällä Corbalissa varsin hauskasti, kansalainen.

Ihmettelen, ettette ole tuonut tänne emäntää.»

Se oli jouten lausuttu huomautus, aiottu vain uuden puheenaiheen

keksimiseksi. Filomène seisoi sillä hetkellä Corbalin tuolin takana
suoraan Chauvinièreä vastapäätä. Hänen silmäluomiensa äkillinen
värähdys, hänen reheville, siroille kasvoilleen sävähtänyt
tuskanvärve, jonka hän heti hillitsi, ei jäänyt edusmiehen valppailta
silmiltä huomaamatta; se lienee vihjaissut tälle sen pirullisen tuuman,
jolla tuo vaikeasti tavoitettava aatelisherra oli ehkä hyvinkin
nolattavissa.

Monsieur Corbigny de Corbal nauroi, mutta se oli naurua, jossa

Chauvinière kuuli pikemmin kaihomielisyyttä kuin hilpeyttä.

»Mitäpä tässä? Olen ehkä odottanut liian kauan. Varhaisemman

elämäni aikana kosin liian hartaasti tiluksiani. Nykyisin…» Hän
kohautti olkapäitään. »Nykyisin ei kai olisi helppo löytää…» Hän
keskeytti äkkiä puheensa, niinkuin se keskeytetään, kun ollaan
lausumaisillaan jotakin varomatonta.

Mutta varomattomuus oli jo tehty; Chauvinièren ei ollut vaikea

täydentää ylimyksen lausetta. Tämä oli aikonut sanoa, ettei ollut
helppo löytää hänen säätyistään naista aristokraateista
puhdistetusta Ranskasta.

»Löytää mitä, kansalainen», kannusti demokraatti maireasti.

»Oh, enhän tarkoittanut mitään, kansalainen.» Corbal oli hiukan

hämillään. »Se ei merkitse mitään. Ja olisi helppo keksiä hauskempi
puheenaihe kuin minä itse.»

»Te erehdytte kummassakin suhteessa. Se asia merkitsee hyvin

paljon. Ja juuri teistä puhumaan minä olen tänne tullutkin.»

»Te haluatte imarrella minua, kansalainen.»

Chauvinièren viimeinenkin epäilys siitä, että tuo mies rohkeni

salaisesti hänelle nauraa, häipyi nyt. Mutta hän ei ollut siitä
välittävillään. Hän oli ajatellut jotakin muuta. Lause, jolla hän oli
soimannut Poussignotin vallankumouskomiteaa, muistui äkkiä hänen
mieleensä ja hän laukaisi sen isännälleen.

»Aviottomuus on herjaus luontoa vastaan; ja ken herjaa luontoa, ei

ole hyvä tasavaltalainen, koska tasavaltalainen järjestelmä perustuu
luonnonlakeihin. Siksipä sanonkin, että asia merkitsee hyvin paljon.»

He eivät ottaneet näitä sanoja vakavalta kannalta. Vanha

Fougereot johti naurua, johon hänen poikansa yhtyivät. Corbalkin
hymyili, kun taas Fougereotin vaimo viekkaasti kysäisi edusmieheltä,
oliko tämä itse naimisissa.

»Minä en ole. Mutta minun suhteeni on syitä…» Hän korosti

sanojaan merkitsevästi, haluten heidän ymmärtävän, että hän oli
täysin vakavissaan. Mutta he nauroivat entistä sydämellisemmin.
 »Entä ne syyt sitten?» kysyi omenanaamainen rouva leikkiä
laskien.

»Syytkö?» Hän vilkaisi kysyjään. »Minä olen vihkiytynyt

velvollisuuksilleni. Ne eivät jätä tilaa hellemmille siteille.»

He alkoivat käsittää, ettei hän puhunut leikkiä, ja Corbal riensi

vaihtamaan puheenaihetta. Että Chauvinière sen salli, johtui siitä,
että hän tarvitsi aikaa miettiäkseen sitä pirullisen häijyä tuumaa, joka
oli hänen päähänsä pälkähtänyt.

Hän mietti sitä yhä, kun hän lopetettuaan vierailun, joka muina
aikoina olisi näyttänyt omituisen aiheettomalta, verkalleen asteli
mäkeä alaspäin Poussignotiin; ja hän hymyili tiukkahuulista häijyn
tyydytyksen hymyä aikeelle, joka oli hänenlaisensa sielutieteilijän ja
huumorintajuisen filosofin arvoinen.

»Aviottomuus on herjaus luontoa vastaan.» Tätä uutta

evankeliumia hänen oli saarnattava, ja jos hän vähääkään tunsi
aatteen voimaa, olipa se kuinka järjetön tahansa,
vallankumouksellisessa Ranskassa — varsinkin kun sitä joku
arvovaltainen mies julisti, — niin ei ollut epäilystäkään sen
menestyksestä.

Välittömät seuraukset osoittivat hänen olevan oikeassa. Tämän

uuden lähetystoimensa hän aloitti seuraavana päivänä. Poussignotin
jakobiiniyhdistyksessä, jonka kourallinen huimapäitä oli perustanut,
mutta joka sitten oli toiminut perin raukeasti, hän puhujalavalta julisti
käskynveroisesta kutsusta saapuneelle väkijoukolle uutta
evankeliumiaan käyttämällä hurjana vyöryvää retoriikkaa ja kauniilta
kuulostavaa lörpötystä, joilla hän oli oppinut hallitsemaan typerän,
harkitsemattoman rahvaan intohimoja ja herättämään siinä liikutusta.
 Tapahtumat uhkasivat tyhjentää Ranskan ihmisistä. Sillä
esipuheella hän aloitti. Aristokraattien häijy sukukunta, jonka
Ranskan pelastajat olivat tuhonneet tai jota he parhaillaan tuhosivat,
oli korvattava vapaiden, valistuneella aikakaudella syntyneiden
ihmisten rodulla, jotta tämä Ranska — tämä jalo, vapahdettu
vapauden valtakunta — kohoaisi mahtavana ja kunniakkaana
maailman kansojen keskuuteen. Ja korvattavat olivat ne mainiot
isänmaanystävätkin, jotka niin auliisti uhrasivat henkensä
kotimaansa rajoilla puolustaessaan sitä hirmuvallan inhottavien,
ostettujen kätyrien hyökkäystä vastaan. Tämän laiminlyöminen oli
pyhimmän velvollisuuden laiminlyömistä, mikä kansakunnalla oli
oikeus lapsiltaan vaatia. Siten saatettaisiin tasavalta väkiluvun
hupenemisella lopullisen tuhon vaaraan.

Kaikki tämä kudottuna ylen hehkuvaksi kuvakieleksi, esitettynä

lauseilla, jotka kalskahtelivat sitä komeammilta mitä ontompia ne
olivat, yllytti vähitellen hänen ryysyläiskuulijakuntansa innokkaisiin
kättentaputuksiin.

Kun hän oli saanut kuulijansa mukaantuvaisiksi, takoi hän heitä

nyt tuolla mestarilauseellaan:

»Aviottomuus on herjaus luontoa vastaan!»

Tätä aihettaan hän yhä laajensi, selittäen ylitä hyvin sen siveellistä
ja yhteiskunnallista kuin kansallistakin puolta, kunnes hän vihdoin,
huomattuaan täydellisesti pyydystäneensä kuulijansa tämän
sanahelinänsä paulaan, rohkeasti pyysi heiltä isänmaallisuuden ja
vilpittömyyden todisteena, että jokainen mies, joka viidenkolmatta
vuoden ikään tultuaan pysyi naimattomana, julistettaisiin
henkipatoksi.
 Senjälkeen hän lähti kovin arvokkaana sanatulvansa päihdyttämän
väkijoukon suosionosoitusten kajahdellessa.

Kuten Chauvinière, joka näistä asioista teki itselleen älyllisiä leluja,

tiesi paremmin kuin kukaan muu, oli rahvaan mielipuolinen
viiripäisyys sellainen, että mitä eriskummaisempi joku oppi oli, sitä
varmemmin se yleisesti hyväksyttiin. Sitäpaitsi kävi nyt pelko käsi
kädessä typeryyden kanssa. Giljotini alkoi vihdoinkin toimia
Poussignotissa, ja useiden uppiniskaisten pappien ja joidenkuiden
muidenkin henkilöiden päät leikattiin irti. Väestölle selvisi, ettei
kansalainen edusmies Chauvinière ollut sellainen mies, jonka
kanssa oli turvallista leikitellä. Hänen vanavedessään oli terrori
vihdoin tunkeutunut tähän rauhalliseen nivernaisilaiseen
kaupunkikuntaan. Ja niin kuumeisella kiireellä koetettiin antaa
todisteita kansalaiskunnosta, että Poussignotissa seuraavina päivinä
aivan päistikkaa rynnättiin avioliittoon. Ja Chauvinière tiesi
kokemuksistaan rahvaan sielullisen puolen alalla, ettei hänen
tarvinnut vaivautua jatkamaan saarnailuaan jakobiiniyhdistyksen
huoneistossa pitämänsä puheen jälkeen. Hänen mieletöntä
evankeliumiaan julistivat hänen puolestaan pesemättömät puhujat
kadunkulmissa, henkilöt, jotka vielä kuukausi sitten eivät olisi
rohjenneet nostaa päätänsä Poussignotissa.

Kymmenessä päivässä oli liike noussut sellaiseen vauhtiin, että

jakobiiniyhdistyksessä tositeossa esitettiin ja yksimielisesti
hyväksyttiin kansalaisedusmiehen ehdotus, että kaksikymmentäviisi
ikävuotta saavuttanut mies jäädessään maan tarpeista piittaamatta
naimattomaksi sillä menettelyllään osoitti epäisänmaallisuutta ja oli
siitä rikoksesta rangaistava, julistettava henkipatoksi ja lähetettävä
giljotiinille.