Epidiascope

My friend Volty recently started blogging with a focus towards intellectual development. His post on Sir Ken Robinson’s claim that creativity is as important as literacy in education encouraged me to consider my own responses.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines literate as “Acquainted with letters or literature; educated, instructed, learned.”

I do not take well to being told how to behave. I never have. I take even less well to being told how to think. How did this affect my schooling?

I will repeat what others have said, and assert that I’ve managed to prevent my schooling from getting in the way of my education. I’ve been supported in this attitude by friends, family, and even teachers for as long as I can remember.

Did I go to a “struggle to pass the state-mandated standardized test” public school? No. Did my schooling kill my creativity, or discourage my natural curiosity? Most profoundly, no. The dichotomy is certainly revelant — private schools can be assumed to have more resources devoted to tasks other than passing standardized tests in core subjects. Does my outcome represent my innate personality, or a difference in educational method from the one that Robinson is criticizing? I tend to lean towards the former.

I can only speak to the schools I have attended. In these, literacy was clearly held as a higher priority than creativity. There were creative classes, and creative activities within academically focused classes, but the primary goal was academic, not creative, proficiency.

In retrospect, I feel that this was appropriate. I disagree with Robinson’s (most likely intentionally) inflammatory claim that creativity must be the equal of literacy in education.

On the contrary, literacy is absolutely fundamental to true creativity. It provides the foundation for meaningful contributions. Without a firm grasp of the existing subject matter, how can one hope to make a new contribution to a creative field? Academic knowledge should not constrain a creative individual to follow an existing path. Instead, it shows possible paths which may optionally be followed for a while, before diverging into uncharted territory. Without the palette, there can be no masterpiece.

Literacy allows creativity without the painful steps of rediscovering that which could be taught by instruction. There is nothing shameful or innately wrong about organized instruction in a topic which allows creativity. In fact, the example Robinson himself cites — the dance school — is precisely this.

Perhaps it does boil down to talking about different kinds of education after all. In my experience, school has always been about learning how to ask questions, thinking of things that are “wrong” or unconventional, and generally exploring the topic at hand through whatever means available. I have yet to experience a topic which truly consisted of little but rote memorization, and if confronted with such, would most likely argue that it had no place in “education.” Whether this is a matter of personal character, or just going to the right schools, I cannot say. I can say that the education system he seems to presuppose is not one in which I would willingly participate.

I should stop before I again begin to diverge into unrestrained metaphor. Next time, I hope to consider intellectualism. Should everyone be explicitly trained in this discipline? Is everyone capable of it? How does “natural temperament” play a role?

As a footnote, I do really appreciate the written transcripts which accompany each TED Talk Video. They make the content far more accessible for review.