This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg], [Rainer M.

Holm-Hadulla]
On: 19 August 2013, At: 07:51
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

The Dialectic of Creativity: A Synthesis of

Neurobiological, Psychological, Cultural and Practical
Aspects of the Creative Process
a
Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla
a
Heidelberg University and Universidad Diego Portales

To cite this article: Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla (2013) The Dialectic of Creativity: A Synthesis of Neurobiological, Psychological,
Cultural and Practical Aspects of the Creative Process, Creativity Research Journal, 25:3, 293-299

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.813792

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 25(3), 293–299, 2013
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2013.813792

The Dialectic of Creativity: A Synthesis of Neurobiological,

Psychological, Cultural and Practical Aspects of
the Creative Process
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg], [Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla] at 07:51 19 August 2013

Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla
Heidelberg University and Universidad Diego Portales

In the beginning of the 21st century, creativity has been highly esteemed not only in the
arts and sciences, but also in economy, politics, and individual welfare. Most theories
and practical applications stem from individual sciences and frequently conclude with
generalizations that cannot be derived from the specific scientific paradigm. It seems
necessary to mark the limitations of individual scientific approaches and to detect where
interdisciplinary perspectives are indispensable. This article is an attempt to investigate
the interdependence and complementarity of neurobiological, psychological, and socio-
cultural, as well as practical, aspects of creativity. It is shown that creativity is often
a dialectical process apparent in psychological, cultural, and even neurobiological
research. The dialectic of order and chaos seems to be a general concept that is con-
ceived differently by the individual sciences and transports different meaning. However,
it is shown that different scientific concepts also contain corresponding and comple-
mentary knowledge which amplifies scientific perspectives through interdisciplinary
interpretation. The dialectics between coherence–incoherence, stabilization–destabiliza-
tion, construction–deconstruction of cognitions, emotions, and actions are shown to
be corresponding and complementary principles. The interdisciplinary interpretation
of the findings of individual sciences leads to practical implications.

Psychological research has found dialectical processes in
the relation of creativity to intelligence and wisdom
(Sternberg, 2001). Goldschmidt (1991) showed that the
dialectics of the creative process brings about gradual
transformation and ends when sufficient coherence has
been achieved. Developmental psychology referred to
the dialectics of the creative process under the perspec-
tive of Piaget (Ayman-Nolley, 1999) and Vygotsky
(Moran & John-Steiner, 2003). George (2007) described
dialectical processes in organizations to achieve stability
and change. Recently, neurosciences have added
interesting studies on the dialectic nature of the creative
process. Neurobiologically, new ideas are correlated
This article has been made possible by a fellowship of the Marsilius
Kolleg, Center for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies at Heidelberg
University.
Correspondence should be sent to Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla,
Gartenstr. 2, Universitaets-Altklinikum, D–691115 Heidelberg,
Germany. E-mail: Rainer.Holm-Hadulla@stw.uni-heidelberg.de
with the emergence of new and coherent neuronal
networks (Kandel, 1998). Neuronal connectivity—
especially between excitations localized and controlled
in the amygdala, hippocampus and prefrontal cortex—
allows coherent feelings, thoughts and actions (Kelso,
1995). There seems to be a constant interplay of top-
down and bottom-up regulation which leads to neuronal
coherence. The destabilization of neuronal coherence,
which is often associated with unpleasant feelings,
reinforces the autopoietic activity of the brain to create
and stabilize new neuronal patterns (Osipov, Kurths, &
Zhou, 2007). From an interdisciplinary perspective the
question arises how these findings and interpretations
can complement psychological creativity research and
cultural knowledge. Cultural studies show that the
destabilization or deconstruction of the usual orders of
cognitions and emotions can lead to new knowledge
and creative figurations (Assmann, 1995). It is assumed
that new and useful coherence emerges in a dialectical
 294 HOLM-HADULLA
process between order and chaos (Goodman, 1978).
This corresponds to psychological findings that creative
persons transform cognitive and emotional incoherence
into coherent forms (Andreasen, 2005; Runco, 2007). It
is to be shown, that the interdisciplinary interpretation
of psychological, neurobiological and cultural findings
will enhance our understanding of creativity and lead
to practical consequences. Focusing on the creative pro-
cess in everyday creativity, which is often a precondition
for extraordinary creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) the
criteria of novelty and usefulness (Runco & Albert, 2010)
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg], [Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla] at 07:51 19 August 2013
may be sufficient to serve as a preliminary definition.
INTERDISCIPLINARY METHOD
As a first step to an interdisciplinary mediation, essential
findings on the creative process of neurobiology, psy-
chology and cultural studies are presented. Subse-
quently, the limitations of the individual scientific
approaches are marked and corresponding and comp-
lementary findings of other scientific disciplines are out-
lined. For this purpose, descriptions of phenomena and
guiding principles such as the dialectics of stabilization
and destabilization, coherence and incoherence, con-
struction and deconstruction, order and chaos are neces-
sary. These descriptions are relevant in all sciences, but
of different significance based on different theoretical,
methodological and interpretive requirements. In inter-
disciplinary mediation of the findings and descriptions
of the individual sciences, there is a risk of improper
use of terms because in every science these terms
have different meanings. Still, it is to be shown that
the interdisciplinary and hermeneutic reflection of parti-
cular scientific findings could lead to new ideas, usable
concepts and practical consequences (Gadamer, 1976).
NEUROBIOLOGY OF THE CREATIVE
PROCESS
In this paragraph, I show that new and useful forms are
achieved through the autopoietic activity of the brain
that oscillates between coherence and incoherence.
Furthermore, I demonstrate that the neuronal interplay of
coherence and incoherence corresponds to psychological
findings. In an evolutionary interaction between organ-
ism and environment, the brain has developed over the
last hundred thousand years as an organ that establishes
and maintains the organismic order. It enables coherent
perceptions and interpretations of events as well as
meaningful action. It supports a dynamic balance
between information maintenance and flexible adjust-
ment. Neuronal coherence, also described as intra- and
subcortical connectivity, is made possible by temporally
coordinated patterns of excitation (Osipov et al., 2007).
The temporal coordination of neuronal activity between
different brain areas, measured for example with the
magnetoencephalography, is of central importance for
the formation of ideas that can be recalled as well as
for the perception of emotions and goal-directed actions
(Meyer-Lindenberg, 2010). The emergence of cortical
connectivity—for example between the hippocampus
and prefrontal cortex—makes it possible to create coher-
ent representations. For the understanding of creativity, it
is interesting to see how the brain integrates the apparent
chaos of disordered emotions and perceptions into
coherent representations. There seems to exist a delicate
interplay between stabilization and destabilization of
coherence in cortical networks. The lack of sufficient
coherent neural networks and weakness of neural connec-
tivity seem to be associated with mental disorders (Bassett
& Bullmore, 2009). In schizophrenia, for instance, it has
been shown that no circumscribed brain lesion is critical,
but rather a distributed impairment involving many
cortical areas and their connectivity (Uhlhaas & Singer,
2010). The latter authors speak of a disconnection
syndrome as an expression of a disturbed coherence. This
conception corresponds with the classical phenomeno-
logical view that mental incoherence is a characteristic
trait and state in schizophrenic psychosis (Bleuler,
1911=1950; Kraepelin, 1899=1990). In posttraumatic
stress disorder and some depressive disorders, neural sys-
tems associated with emotions are disconnected from
neural systems associated with cognitions. The thera-
peutic success in these conditions is accompanied by an
increase in cognitive-emotional connectivity (Etkin et al.,
2005). This is consistent with the results achieved by
very different psychological methods used by cognitive-
behavioral psychotherapy (e.g., Beck, 1976; Ellis, 1980)
or psychodynamic psychotherapy (e.g., Gabbard,
2010). These psychotherapeutic approaches have in
common—among other factors—that they support
cognitive and emotional coherence (Holm-Hadulla &
Hofmann, 2012).
Brain activity, in general, is characterized by a con-
stant interplay between synchronization and desynchro-
nization of neural activity that appears to be subject to
a principle of coherence (Singer, 1990). Intellectual
results and new mental representations arise when
different information receives a new and coherent form.
These new forms are not static structures, but are rather
in process of formation, dissolution, and reformation
(Schacter, 1999). Raichle and Snyder (2007) have shown
that the function of a cortical-default mode and its
reciprocal interaction with subordinated neural systems
leads to organized coherent large-scale networks. The
emergence of spatio-temporal order enables self-referential
processing, autobiographical recollection, mind-wandering,
and creative thinking (Carhart & Friston, 2010).

Functional connectivity enables the creation of novel and
useful emotions, cognitions, and actions.
To gain stability and flexible adjustment, the neural
networks are constantly recalibrated. This occurs
especially during phases which Andreasen (2005) called
random episodic silent thinking. She regarded these
phases of an undisturbed default mode of brain activity
(Raichle & Snyder, 2007) of particular relevance for
creative thinking. In these phases, traces of memory
are reorganized and newly learned material inserted into
the corresponding fields of association. This is done by
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg], [Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla] at 07:51 19 August 2013
continually changing patterns of activity in search of
the most likely or plausible coherence models, up to
the moment when the search turns into a result. It can
be shown that these states, which can be identified in
psychological terminology as the illumination phase of
the creative process, are associated with a particular
well-being known, e.g., as flow (Csikszentmihalyi,
1996). Its biological correlate is to be found in the
activation of reward systems. Puzzling, however, is
why the states of cognitive consistency and emotional
satisfaction are short and often are replaced by new
problem-solving processes that are associated with dis-
satisfaction. This dissatisfaction associated with the
destabilization of coherence resembles the unease during
the incubation phase described psychologically
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) and the demand to strive for
new coherent forms.
As on the cognitive level, the dynamic between
coherence and incoherence, stability and instability also
plays a major role on the emotional and interactional
level. This is consistent with findings originating from
the psychological research of salutogenetic factors which
keep people healthy. It has been shown that the sense of
coherence (Antonovsky, 1997) is an essential factor of
mental health. However, neurobiologically it seems
that some degree of incoherence favors cognitive and
emotional activity (Singer, 1990). This would, in turn,
correspond to psychological and phenomenological
studies showing that a certain degree of emotional
destabilization, anxiety and depressed mood may
enhance creative activities (Holm-Hadulla, Roussel, &
Hofmann, 2010). Also in an evolutionary perspective,
the interplay of stabilizing and destabilizing cognitions
and emotions, and social environment seems to play
an important role in the creative development (Akiskal
& Akiskal, 2007; Runco, 2007).
From the neurobiological contributions the following
definition of the creative process can be derived: The
creative process consists of a new formation of neural
networks giving stored information a novel and useful
pattern. This process occurs in a dialectic interplay
between stabilization and destabilization, coherence
and incoherence of temporally synchronized or desyn-
chronized neural networks. Practically, one can conclude
THE DIALECTIC OF CREATIVITY 295
that for the autopoietic and creative activity of the
brain, time, and space without external stimulation
must be given to create new and useful forms of learned
information and skills.
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE CREATIVE PROCESS
Corresponding and complementary to neurobiological
findings the dialectical dynamics between coherence
and incoherence is also to be found in psycho-
logical creativity research. Psychologically, the creative
process depends on the following basic requirements:
talent, knowledge, motivation, personality, environment
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Runco, 2007).
In terms of talents, general intelligence and specific
forms like linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical,
bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal and intraperso-
nal intelligence seem to be prerequisites of creativity
(Gardner, 1994). However, so-called crystalline intelli-
gence only becomes fruitful when it is complemented
by fluid intelligence (Cattell, 1971). In this concept,
the interplay of convergent and divergent thinking reso-
nates (Guilford, 1950). Convergent thinking is defined
as focused, concentrated, and goal-directed, whereas
divergent thinking is less focused, associative, and
directionless. There is psychological evidence that
the forms of thinking that are associated with emotions
interact in a process of tightening and loosening
(Fiedler, 2004). This fits with the neurobiological
concept of the dynamics of stabilization and destabili-
zation of neural networks. Psychologically this dynamic
process of the interplay of coherence, incoherence and
novel coherence can be ascribed to everyday creativity,
as well as to extraordinary creativity (Weisberg,
2006). However, for methodological reasons (Andrea-
sen, 2005), a neurobiological and psychological differ-
entiation of the cognitive and emotional processes
between ordinarily and extraordinarily creative people
seems impossible.
Summing up, one can assert that talents may be
realized creatively by acting in a dynamic balance of
convergent and divergent cognitions and emotions. This
process can also be described by the dialectics of con-
struction and deconstruction: stable knowledge and
common forms are destabilized to create new and useful
knowledge and forms.
The motivation and decision to be creative takes
place in the dynamic interaction between stable, but
no longer useful enough, solutions and the instability
that precludes new results (Sternberg, 2007). Amabile
(1996), Csikszentmihalyi (1996), and McCrae (2007)
added to talent and motivation as prerequisites of
creativity different personality traits which seem to
be in dialectical interplay: resilience and flexibility,
 296 HOLM-HADULLA
concentration and openness to new experiences, con-
formism and non-conformism, stability and tolerance
of ambiguity. In respect to the practical support of
people in creative processes, the dialectics between these
factors seems to be an important guideline. Also, the
differences in the interaction of the psychological factors
in different domains (cf. Runco & Richards, 1997) and
cultures (Lubart, 1999) are to be taken into account.
In addition to the complex interweaving of talent,
knowledge, motivation, and personality traits, environ-
mental conditions play an important role in the creative
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg], [Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla] at 07:51 19 August 2013
process. Similarly to the neurobiological point of view,
the psychological perspective also emphasizes the
balance of disciplinary structures and free play areas
(Runco, 2007; Sternberg, 2001). This begins in early
childhood and continues throughout life. Interested
guiding is a term for a supportive function of caregivers
that reinforces the talents and motivations of children
in an emotionally assertive, but also intellectually com-
petent way. This guidance should strengthen the resili-
ence to tolerate the dynamics of stability and fragility,
and work with the interplay of coherence and inco-
herence, satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the creative
process. The balance between convergent learning and
divergent playing seems to be a continuous requirement.
In this respect, suitable environmental conditions are
necessary to give a stable framework for the autopoietic
search for the novel and more useful.
The dynamic of stabilization and destabilization is
shaped differently in special phases of the creative
process. The following five phases of the creative
process—preparation, incubation, illumination, realiza-
tion, and verification—seem of heuristic value at the
present but may be revised in the future (Lubart,
2001). In the preparation phase, some people have
difficulty acquiring coherent knowledge and stable skills
with patience and tolerating that they have not yet
found time, space, and forms for the creative destabili-
zation and transformation of existing coherence. The
second phase of the creative process, called the incu-
bation phase, can lead to similar difficulties. This phase
is characterized by the fact that the task is set aside and
left to autopoietic and often unconscious processing.
Like the preparation phase, the incubation phase may
produce distress: After acquiring knowledge and skills
driven by complex motivations, the individual may sense
preforms of creative achievements. He or she must now
endure a certain degree of destabilization and incoher-
ence. There is a frequent tendency to reduce the tension
by pulling back into the usual orders or by manipulating
the creative tension with alcohol and drugs. Therefore,
during the incubation phase, a capacity to let roam
intuitions without tangible result as well as the patience
to find the creative balance of purposeful activity and
undirected autopoietic processes are needed.
The metaphoric term illumination phase refers to
ancient myths and religious ideas as well as philosophi-
cal concepts in which creative inspiration is made poss-
ible by divine enlightenment. Psychologically, creative
illumination rarely occurs as a sudden inspiration, but
is usually a complex phenomenon which develops
gradually. To capture the new cognitive, emotional
and practical order, again the dialectic between stability
and destabilization, convergent disciplined concen-
tration and divergent associative awareness comes into
play. In the fourth phase, called the realization phase,
the novel and useful forms are elaborated. Besides pas-
sion, curiosity, and originality (Csikszentmihalyi,
1996), stability and convergent resilience (Antonovsky,
1987) are required to endure the often slow progress of
work and the disappointing experience that with the
blessed illumination still nothing is won. Although the
incubation phase may cause uncertainty through its lack
of precise order and form, the realization phase requires
one to renounce new ideas and to form convergently the
new order seen in the illumination phase. It seems of
practical importance to recognize the hazards of the
individual phases of the creative process in order to
effectively deal with them.
The last phase of the creative process, the verification
phase, is decisive whether the result of the creative pro-
cess is only of individual importance in the sense of
everyday creativity or is accepted by the wider com-
munity as extraordinarily novel and useful. The proper-
ties of the creative product now acquire a special
significance (Klausen, 2010). Psychological categories
can no longer grasp what is new, appropriate, useful
and unusual about a scientific idea, a poem, a picture,
or a song. Of practical importance is the fact that cre-
ative people often consider their product with destruc-
tive doubts and thus prevent new creative processes.
The phases of the creative process are in permanent
feedback. The reactions of others in the verification
phase, for instance, shape the motivation to new pre-
parations, the resilience in the incubation and illumi-
nation phase and the productive realization of other
works.
At each stage of the creative process, we can recog-
nize the dialectic between coherence and incoherence,
stability and instability. In the preparatory phase, the
patient acquisition of knowledge and skills dominates.
Nevertheless, divergent and associative thinking and
feeling are not meaningless, if only for psycho-physical
regeneration (Andreasen, 2005). The incubation period
is characterized by indefinite and incoherent forms while
in the illumination phase, a new order and coherence
suddenly occurs which may once again be destabilized
by different ideas and emotions in the realization phase.
Also, the verification phase is a mix of stabilizing recog-
nition and destabilizing (self-) criticism that can be both

an incentive and an obstacle to engaging in further
creative processes. Thus, the creative synthesis achieved
in the dialectic process does not exclude antithesis. On
the contrary, actively conceiving multiple opposites
and antitheses can enhance the creative process and lead
to better results (Rothenberg, 1996). Also in respect to
opposing and even chaotic emotions one could hypothe-
size that eminent creative persons can stand incoherence
better than the average. On the other hand it seems, as
Rorty (2000) summarized from epistemological and
practical perspectives that, just like in their brain and
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg], [Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla] at 07:51 19 August 2013
mind, also in their everyday life human beings can
tolerate incoherence only for a finite period of time.
Neurobiologically and psychologically it is undisputed
that environmental conditions modulate information
processing and recombination. However, although
developmental and social psychology can explore fac-
tors that are conducive to creativity, they are limited
in the exploration of complex cultural influences. Thus,
to include the complex cultural conditions of creative
processes, it is necessary to refer to cultural studies. This
is also important because cultural narratives shape the
interpretation and practical application of scientific
results (Assmann, 1995; Gadamer, 1976).
CULTURAL ASPECTS OF THE CREATIVE
PROCESS
In this paragraph, I show how the dialectic between
coherence and incoherence in the creative process
appears in cultural studies. Starting with the analysis
of myths of creation we can detect that a dialectic
between chaos and cosmos, which means shaped order,
is dominant (see Klibansky, Panofsky, & Saxl, 1964). In
Greek mythology, the gods are driven by constructive
and destructive forces; e.g., Kronos, in Latin called
Saturnus, is an incarnation of constructive creativity
but also of destructiveness. Following this concept,
human beings are blessed with and condemned to per-
manent creative activity to maintain the order against
the forces of chaos. Similar concepts of creativity can
be found in the traditional myths of India and China
where divine and human creativity is connected with a
permanent struggle between constructive and destruc-
tive forces (cf. Holm-Hadulla, 2011). The implicit
description of psychological and social relationships by
Greek myths of creation had a strong influence on
Greek philosophy, which has continued to be relevant
for Western thinking until today (Gadamer, 1976).
The leading concept is that there exists a fundamental
conflict between order and chaos, stability and insta-
bility which leads to creative activities. This dialectic
concept of creativity was most influentially formulated
by Heraclitus, who emphasizes that the world is kept
THE DIALECTIC OF CREATIVITY 297
in motion by opposing forces which coalesce into new
forms in order to divide again in an endless flow. Plato
(1997) wrote, particularly in the Politeia, his most exten-
sive work, that education and culture should serve the
goal of transforming the chaos of ideas and affects into
coherent forms. Also, he asserted that the community
is threatened permanently by destructive forces leading
to chaos which require constant creatively ordering
activities. One can find a struggle between constructively
ordering and destructively disorganizing forces in
Aristotle’s works as well. In a dialectic process, chaotic
energy and matter realizes its potential in creatively
ordered achievements (cf. Holm-Hadulla, 2011).
During the Renaissance, eminent artists, scientists,
and politicians were regarded as particularly inspired
because they gave unordered chaos an ordered structure
(see Klibansky et al., 1964). Creative potentials flourish
in a struggle with destructive powers, which are effective
also inside the creative individual. Creative activity
brings forth exceptional achievements, but can also
destabilize and lead to melancholy and despair (Ficino,
1499=1980). In Shakespeare, as well, the Greek tradition
of the creative dialectic between order and chaos, con-
struction and deconstruction, stable forms and liquid
inspirations, resonates:
Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,=Such
shaping fantasies that apprehend=More than cool rea-
son ever comprehends.= . . . And as imagination bodies
forth=The forms of things unknown, the poets pen=
Turns them to shapes, and gives the airy nothing=
A local habitation and a name. (Shakespeare, 1951,
A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act V,1; pp. 217-218)
A golden age of artistic and philosophical concepts of
creativity was the aesthetics of genius in the 18th and
early 19th centuries. Elaborating on ideas of antiquity
and the Renaissance, a concept has evolved that finds
the destiny of human beings in creative activities (see,
e.g., Hutcheson, 1725). Even everyday and practical
human development is portrayed in the classical aesthet-
ics of geniality (e.g., Schiller, 1795=2000) as a creative
task. Especially Hegel (1807=1977) showed how indivi-
dual, social, and political potentials are realized in
conflicts of contradictory forces and interests. In the
struggle for recognition, the elaboration of conflicting
interests leads to creative development, and social and
political order. Hegel did not reduce dialectics to an
intellectual operation of thesis, antithesis and synthesis
but conceives it as a way to shape human existence.
Recognition becomes a central term in human’s strife
for new and usable forms. Hegel’s concept is consistent
with modern developmental psychology showing the
fundamental significance of human’s need to be seen
and responded (e.g., Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist, & Target,
 298 HOLM-HADULLA
2005). Even the most introverted creator needs some
kind of recognition, at least by himself or herself.
A special elaboration of the psychological aspects
of the classical concepts of individual and social self-
realization can be found in Goethe who became one of
the most influential statesman and scientist. In about 50
volumes of an autobiographical nature, he described
the close interweaving of emotional destabilization and
cognitive disorder with creative achievements. His
cultural, scientific, and psychological (self-) reflections
lead to the complex idea of a permanent dying and
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg], [Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla] at 07:51 19 August 2013
becoming in the creative and self-therapeutic process
(Holm-Hadulla & Hofmann, 2012). Similar ideas are to
be found in the 20th century. Dewey (1934), for example,
emphasized the importance of everyday creative activity
to oppose destructive individual and social forces.
The dialectic of the creative process seems to be
a central cultural idea, a kind of leitmotif, which may
be rediscovered in neurobiological notions of the
dynamics between fixed structures and flexible adjust-
ment, coherence and incoherence, stabilization and
destabilization, as well as in psychological concepts
about the interplay of convergent and divergent
thinking, tightening and loosening, focused work and
associative intuition. Cultural studies denote these
dialectical processes with terms like construction and
deconstruction, perpetuation and liquefaction, and so
on. From a cultural perspective, Goodman (1978)
described the creative process as a dialectical interplay
between composition and decomposition, supplementa-
tion and deletion, formation and deformation, ordering
and dissolving.
When it comes to the concrete social and political
conditions of the creative process ethical aspects should
also be considered. In 1942, the Austrian American
economist Schumpeter introduced the concept of
creative destruction into the economic and political
discourse on creativity. It was well-suited as an apology
for unrestrained markets. At the end of the 20th century,
creativity became a kind of magical phenomenon which
should improve individuals and society. Florida (2002)
spoke of the creative class that will guide policies,
economy, and culture. This view became very popular
until the financial crisis of 2007 dampened the optimism
of economic creativity and showed the dangerous side of
short-lived innovations. In the scientific developments of
the 20th century, one can also see this danger. One of the
greatest advances in modern physics, the discovery of
nuclear fission, led to the creation of nuclear weapons,
which unfolded an unbelievable potential for destruc-
tion. The ecological development of the early 21st
century is another example of the double face of human
creativity. Furthermore, the media has brought free
access to international knowledge with the innovation
of the Internet, but also a variety of creative productions
that contribute significantly to violence and (self-)
destruction. The individual technologies and sciences,
by themselves, cannot justify the reasonable application
of their innovative results and products (Gadamer,
1976). A discourse ethic seems to be necessary to reason-
ably apply creative achievements in a global world of
conflicting interests (Habermas, 2011). In this respect,
cultural differences in the configuration of the dialectics
between order and chaos come into play. In Western
cultures, for example the uniqueness and individuality
of the creative act is emphasized, whereas in Eastern
cultures collective and repetitive aspects of creative
processes stand in the foreground. The first verb of the
Bible, creavit, denotes an individual and unique act that
gives the chaos structured form and the classical Chinese
term zaohua refers to a collective and continuous pro-
cess of transformation of the already found to control
chaos and destructiveness (Ledderose, 2000).
CONCLUSION
Neurobiological and psychological research and cultural
studies show that creativity is often a dialectical process
between construction and deconstruction, order and
chaos. Interdisciplinary reflection benefits creativity
studies because it complements specific findings of the
individual sciences and leads to practical consequences.
For example, the investigation of the autopoietic
activity of the brain suggest that time and space without
external stimulation must be given to store information
and to process chaotic emotions and cognitions crea-
tively. This is consistent with psychological findings
and cultural studies that show that creative incubation
and illumination need knowledge and skills on the one
hand and on the other undisturbed realms for free
association and playing. Practically, the insight into
the dialectic of coherence and incoherence, stabilization
and destabilization, satisfaction and frustration in the
creative process may inspire to look for synthesis and
flow but may also help to accept a certain amount of
chaos and stress while creatively shaping ones reality.
REFERENCES
Akiskal, H. S., & Akiskal, K. K. (2007). In search of Aristotle:
temperament, human nature, melancholia, creativity and eminence.
Journal of Affective Disorders, 100, 1–6.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to ‘‘The Social
Psychology of Creativity’’. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Andreasen, N. (2005). The creating brain. New York, NY: Dana.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people
manage stress and stay well. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Assmann, J. (1995). Collective memory and cultural identity. In New
German critique (pp. 125–133). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ayman-Nolley, S. (1999). A Piagetian perspective on the dialectic
process of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 267–275.
Bassett, D. S., & Bullmore, T. E. (2009). Human brain networks
in health and disease. Current Opinion Neurology, 22, 340–347.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders.
New York, NY: International University Press.
Bleuler, E. (1950). Dementia praecox or the group of schizophrenias.
(Die Dementia praecox oder die Gruppe der Schizophrenien).
Oxford, England: International Universities Press. (Original work
published 1911)
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action.
Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.
Carhart-Harris, R. L., & Friston, K. J. (2010). The default-mode,
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg], [Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla] at 07:51 19 August 2013
ego-functions and free-energy: a neurobiological account of
Freudian ideas. Brain, 133, 1265–1283.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York., NY: Harper Collins.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Minton, Balch.
Ellis, A. (1980). Rational emotive psychotherapy and cognitive
behavior therapy: Similarities and differences. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 4, 325–340.
Etkin, A., Pittenger, C., Polan, H. J., & Kandel, E. R. (2005). Toward
a neurobiology of psychotherapy: Basic science and clinical applications.
Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 17, 145–158.
Ficino, M. (1980). The book of life (De vita triplici). Dallas, TX:
Spring Publication.
Fiedler, K. (2004). Tools, toys, truisms, and theories: some thoughts
on the creative cycle of theory formation. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 8(2), 123–131.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E., & Target, M. (2005). Affect
regulation, mentalization, and the development of self. New York,
NY: Other Press.
Gabbard, G. (2010). Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. Arlington,
TX: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Gadamer, H. G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Gardner, H. (1994). Changing minds: The art and science of changing
our own and other peoples mind. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity
Research Journal, 4, 123–143.
Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of
Management Annals, 1(1), 439–477.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9),
444–454.
Habermas, J. (2011). The discourse theory of law and democracy.
Stanford, CT: Stanford University Press.
Hegel, G. F. W. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Holm-Hadulla, R. M. (2011). Kreativität zwischen Schöpfung und
Zerstörung [Creativity between construction and destruction].
Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Holm-Hadulla, R. M., & Hofmann, F. H. (2012). Counselling,
psychotherapy and creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling
and Psychotherapy, 3, 130–136.
Holm-Hadulla, R. M., Roussel, M., & Hofmann, F. H. (2010).
Depression and creativity—The case of the German poet, scientist
and statesman J. W. v. Goethe. Journal of Affective Disorders,
127, 43–49.
Hutcheson, F. (1725). Inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty
and virtue. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
THE DIALECTIC OF CREATIVITY 299
Kandel, E. R. (1998). A new intellectual framework for psychiatry.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 457–469.
Kant, I. (1951). Critique of judgment. New York, NY; Hafner Publishing.
Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns. The self-organisation of brain
and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Klausen, S. H. (2010). The notion of creativity revisited: A philo-
sophical perspective on creativity research. Creativity Research
Journal, 22, 347–360.
Klibansky, R., Panofsky, E., & Saxl, F. (1964). Saturn and melancholy:
Studies in the history of national philosophy, religion and art.
London: Thomas Nelson & Sons.
Kraepelin, E. (1990). Psychiatry. A textbook for students and physicians
(6th ed.). Canton, MA: Watson International.
Ledderose, L. (2000). Ten thousand things: Module and mass production
in Chinese art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. S. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present
and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 295–308.
McCrae, R. R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as an universal marker of
openness to experience. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 5–11.
Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2010). From maps to mechanisms through
neuroimaging of schizophrenia. Nature, 468, 194–202.
Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making. In K.
R. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman,
J. Nakamura, et al. Creativity and development (pp. 61–90). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Osipov, G. V., Kurths, J., & Zhou, C. (2007). Synchronization
in oscillatory networks. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Plato (1997). Collected works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Raichle, M. E., & Snyder, A. Z. (2007). A default mode of brain func-
tion: A brief history of an evolving idea. Neuroimage, 37, 1083–1090.
Rorty, R. (2000). Universality and truth. In R. B. Brandom (Ed.),
Rorty and his critics (pp. 1–30). Lynchburg, VA: Blackwell.
Rothenberg, A. (1996). The Janusian process in scientific creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 9, 207–231.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, devel-
opment, and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (2010). Creativity research: A historical
view. In J. C. Kaufmann & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of
creativity (pp. 16–31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Runco, M. A., & Richards, R. (1997). Eminent and everyday creativity.
Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory. Insights from
psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist,
54, 182–203.
Schiller, F. (2012). On the aesthetic education of man. Dover,
DE: Dover Publications.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Socialism, capitalism and democracy.
New York, NY: Harper and Bros.
Shakespeare, W. (1951). Complete works. London, England: Harper
Collins.
Singer, W. (1990). Search for coherence: A basic principle of cortical
self-organisation. Concepts in Neuroscience, 1, 1–26.
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its
dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist,
56(4), 360–362.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). A systems model of leadership: WICS. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 34–42.
Uhlhaas, P. J., & Singer, W. (2010). Abnormal neural oscillations
and synchrony in schizophrenia. Nature, 11, 100–113.
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem
solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.