Deep Diving into the Creative – Part 2

Deep Diving into the Creative – Part 2

Last week I responded to an article in The Conversation by Laura D’Olimpio entitled Philosophy for the People: Commencing a Dialogue. In part D’Olimpio wrote about how works of art like literature and films can be used to deepen empathy. I wrote:

“I am also deeply interested in how creative works such as films, works of literature, plays can be used to encourage critical, empathetic and creative responses from those who experience them and, further, how discussion of and reflection on these responses can be used as learning experiences.”

For the rest of Part 1 of this blog please click here.

“Human curiosity is an incredible driving force and we connect with others by telling stories.” (Laura D’Olimpio)

I am right now working on putting together the frameworks for a series of facilitated conversations I hope to offer sometime in the future. These conversations revolve around using extracts from literature as a filter and a prompt to examine aspects of organisational culture and function.

Talking about these things can make many people feel defensive and even judged; this is certainly not my intention but it is something that can readily happen. On the same day that I read D’Olimpio’s piece I also read an opinion piece in The Guardian by George Monbiot called How a corporate cult captures and destroys our best graduates. The title is self-explanatory and I do get where Monbiot is coming from but the many comments seem to reflect that the people who read the piece took it quite personally (many of them appear to work in the corporate culture that Monbiot is describing in damning terms). Some of the commenters are receptive to Monbiot’s angle, but there are plenty who sound defeated and resigned and even more who sound defensive and angry. Monbiot is trying to talk about something systemic, but many of these commenters are hearing a personal judgement levelled at them. I really don’t think this was Monbiot’s intention but I can understand this response; most of us, if we’re honest, would react the same way.

Kittens. That's the ticket. Look at kittens if you feel defensive or upset.
Kittens. That’s the ticket. Look at kittens if you feel defensive or upset.

So here’s the thing: how do you get people to reflect on, analyse critically, address creatively, and engineer change to the systems, cultures and paradigms in which they are embedded day by day. How do you get them to do this without feeling that they need to defend their personal decisions to be working within these parameters? Once people start to feel defensive then the shutters get intellectually and emotionally flung up and reflection and learning (and perhaps shifts in perspective) become impossible to achieve.

“…artworks provide us with a great stimulus for such discussions…” (Laura D’Olimpio)

My theory is that if I take a literary extract into a discussion and ask people to talk to it, and not necessarily about themselves, it will allow people to engage with ideas on an intellectual, imaginative and emotional level while also allowing people to sidestep the need to defend themselves; the artwork is under scrutiny, not them.

It’s hard to get perspective, to surface for air, from the day to day lives we find ourselves immersed in. We all need a framework or some kind of sheltering structure or protective entity to work through. Fortunately these things exist. They’re called artworks.

The Globe Kittens (1902)  by Ernest J. Rowley
The Globe Kittens (1902) by Ernest J. Rowley
Recommended Read: ‘cooperation makes us human’

Recommended Read: ‘cooperation makes us human’

“Automation of procedural work is accelerating” writes Harold Jarche as the opening sentence to his elegant and succinct piece ‘cooperation makes us human’, published 21 April on jarche.com. He then goes on to explicate why he thinks that “Interconnected people have the ability to adapt to a world dominated by machines and algorithms”. In describing the qualities that make humans unique and which cannot be replicated by computers Jarche goes on to write one of the most balanced and even hopeful responses to the increasingly widely circulated idea that technology is radically changing the ways in which we work, how we work and even why we work.

There is plenty of gloomy speculation as to the effects that increasing automation will have on industry and society; among the more alarming is the idea that at some stage many people will be left without work as many jobs will simply cease to exist, having been absorbed into the range of technological activity performed by super-duper robots. My personal view has always been that if, IF, we, as a society, undertake to be adaptable, broad minded, and socially just, and if we can bear to leave behind old fashioned notions of what work ought to mean and how labour ought to define us, then we have nothing to fear from the drastic changes to our society that will be wrought by this onslaught of technology.

“We can never be better computers. People cannot become more efficient than machines.”

Jarche has not written an anti-technology piece by any means, and that is one of the things I like about it. But he goes onto say that “All we can do is be more empathetic, more passionate, more creative. Our social connections reflect and reinforce our humanity. Cooperation is social. Collaboration is a temporary agreement to get something done. Amongst trusted people, collaboration is the easy part. Machines cannot cooperate.”

Cooperation, empathy and creativity cannot be automated. We have nothing to fear.

Image sourced from www.leonardo-sa-vinci-biography.com
Image sourced from http://www.leonardo-sa-vinci-biography.com