 |
 |
Hi Johann This discussion is great, sadly many questions are not being posted on the discussion list it seems...I am only getting answers to unposted questions...anyway to address the subject. i believe that Fairclough has been misrepresented to a degree, critical discourse analysis would propose that the position of a group or individual in relation to a discourse is a key to the definition of a dominant discourse/hegemony...relations of power and power struggles are the means by which discourses and societies shape each other (according to Fairclough). His view of hegemony/leadership therefore would best be interpreted as a critical analysis...those positioned inside the dominant discourse (a hegemony) see their acts as leadership (good for all) and those positioned outside see it as oppression (not good for us) with ranges of agreement/compliance/complicity in between. Once we introduce the concept of rationality we enter a discourse with a long history and many traditional paradigm orientations based in west European culture and history...this immediately places the discourse in a position of dominance in relation to many other groups of people. The proposal of 'a rational' immediately creates a dualism (as most European concepts do) and inherently determines that some are irrational...this whole debate is becoming fairly meaningless in light of the basis of this discourse in abstract systems of knowing (eg. mathematics) that have determined that irrational relations provide a basis for understanding the generative and emergent properties of life (complexity theory and fractal geometry). What is most surprising for those outside this dominant discourse is that these abstract 'irrational' conceptions of being in the world are well known to them as real and rational elements of Indigenous traditions (see African art and fractal geometry, Blackfoot physics, Dreaming ecology etc). What can be learned from the discourse of rationality is that the modern origin of European Rationality (Locke, Coombs etc) is inherently linked with concepts of natural order and social Darwinism which defined women, the poor (not noble of blood) and people of other races as irrational. As a consequence understanding power relations and dominance in a discourse (hegemony) is vital in this context... especially if we take note of Jerome Burner's dictum that social conceptions of order do not die out...they change form, lie dormant but remain as subtle determinants for action that can arise on instigation as powerful forces in a social group. The proposal of a 'rationality' within a design discourse may therefore be interpreted as the enactment of a certain power relation of values for design. Within an industrial/commercial context production values would certainly predominate but I don't believe that this is an issue that negatively impinges on creativity. For example a preconception of usefulness that is applied to creative exploration as a production value (when essentially it is a preproduction constraint) can be a positive influence. Sternberg and Lubart and others who evaluate creativity as a contextual event state that these obstacles are an important element in achieving creativity because constraints are challenges that can spur creative people on. Also divergent thinking plays a key role in many explanations… so limitation, creativity and dissent often go hand in hand whatever the context because this is the nature of the process. The question that arises for me is, does creativity equate to simple problem solving or is it more concerned with exploration & generation and then solution/problem matching. Which begs another question, are we discussing creativity at all? In reality this seems to be a process design issue that essentially must involve the creation of a FIT between creativity and context, as is stated by Johann, but this is also suggests a production methodology that can greatly limit organisational creative responsiveness. Many studies cover this topic and I am currently completing research that will help me to answer this in my own way…but I have not got an answer for this one…and it may not be possible to answer at all. I think the way that we define creativity is determined by the social discourse in which we engage with creative acts and the origin of our cultural orientation to creativity…(& what we use creativity for). Design research methodology will be required to address the creative discourse in a context and accept that these concepts (& definitions) live and grow with the groups and individuals that employ them if it is to generate knowledge. Therefore understanding the dominant discourse/Hegemony in relation to theory/creativity in a context is a vital issue and a key research area for design PhD/s. Notions of inspiration and talent presuppose an origin for creativity that is 'other', outside normal living/being…it may equally be true that creativity is a constant in our living/being and we have devised social structures to limit it in acceptable ways, and we are then surprised when some of it gets through. I believe emergence theories support that the latter is the most probable and therefore believe that creativity commands reverence not definition. Norm [log in to unmask] Norman Sheehan Senior Research Officer Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit University of Queensland Brisbane Old 4072 Australia %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%