Carl Rogers, Creativity and the RSA - RSA

Carl Rogers, Creativity and the RSA

Blog 4 Comments

  • Creativity
  • Social brain

When it comes to words, I'm never quite sure whether I'm the hunter or the hunted.

After four years writing a PhD about 'wisdom', I emerged only somewhat the wiser. In my current role I'm often asked to talk or advise people on 'behaviour change', but rarely manage to hide my discomfort with the ambiguity of 'behaviour' and the maddening vagueness of 'change'. Now I find myself leading a two year thought leadership project on 'spirituality' - a concept that does strange things to people's facial expressions. And just when I thought I might finally be emerging into a post-conceptual, keep-it-real adulthood, my employer decided to build a strategic review around a reappraisal of 'creativity'.

Many RSA staff are just getting on with it, content with a common-sense understanding of the term, only slightly troubled by the possibility that the epicentre of their organisation's world view is so contested. For most purposes that's fine, but for me, a seasoned concept wrestler, I'm looking for a bit more of a fight.

It's not that I think we need to define creativity, because an over-reliance on definitions is pseudo-intelligent, a pretence at axiomatic logic that denatures living ideas. As Ambrose Bierce’s celebrated ‘Devil’s Dictionary’ puts it:

“Definition: The vivisection tray upon which a word is splayed; while the gist may be clearly labelled with coloured pins, resuscitation becomes problematic.”[1]

There is something lazy about merely defining a term, sweeping the attendant intellectual rubble under your resolutely practical carpet, and thinking that part of your work is done.

There is something lazy about merely defining a term, sweeping the attendant intellectual rubble under your resolutely practical carpet, and thinking that part of your work is done.

There are things you can do to make words tractable that doesn't involve defining them. By reading, writing, experimenting and talking you can develop a certain intimate familiarity with the concepts that shape your work, which is why my first reaction to creativity taking a central place in RSA's vision and mission was constructively sceptical if not critical - I didn't feel that kind of connection and could barely imagine developing it.

But things change. Over the last few months I have been quietly wrestling with creativity, like Jacob with the Angel, and I didn't want to let go until I could say 'creativity' with a better felt sense of what I was talking about.


So here goes. There is no lack of material out there, and it comes from a variety of disciplines, practices and perspectives, so I'm going to be extremely selective here. My main impression is that pre-internet theories of creativity that are predominantly psychological (for instance Howard Gardner, Sternberg or Csikzsenmihalyi) feel a bit kitschy now, while theories of creativity that over-rely on techno-optimism are a bit unreal, and can leave you feeling a bit alienated.

There is missing humanistic part of the story. Where is the body, where is the soul? Where is the perspective that connects cognition, emotions, people, products, relationships and culture at large.

While looking for precisely this kind of perspective, I struck gold in an extraordinary essay published in 1954 called, modestly, "Towards a Theory of Creativity." by esteemed psychotherapist Carl Rogers. Unfortunately the whole Rogers essay is not freely available online, but I think it's the best single piece of writing I have come across on creativity.

I was delighted to come across this reference because if anybody can find a way to make creativity feel less like a feel-good nebulous buzzword, and more like a profoundly important part of what it means to be human in a way that is relatively timeless, it is Rogers. If you have never heard of him, imagine somebody with acute insight who believes deeply in people and made a global reputation out of listening extremely well.

Here is what he says about creativity in 1954:

"I maintain that there is a desperate social need for the creative behaviour of creative individuals. It is this which justifies the setting forth of a tentative theory of creativity-the nature of the creative act, the conditions under which it occurs, and the manner in which it may constructively be fostered."

The essay is striking because it feels fresh 60 years after it was published. Consider, for instance:

"Any of the serious criticisms of our culture and its trends may best be formulated in terms of a dearth of creativity...In education we tend to turn out conformists, stereotypes, individuals whose education is "completed," rather than freely creative and original thinkers. In our leisure time activities, passive entertainment and regimented group action are overwhelmingly predominant while creative activities are much less in evidence. In the sciences, there is an ample supply of technicians, but the number who can creatively formulate fruitful hypotheses and theories is small indeed. In industry, creation is reserved for the few-the manager, the designer, the head of the research department-while for the many life is devoid of original or creative endeavour."

So Rogers shares the RSA desire to democratise creativity, and he also seems to share the RSA analysis that creativity is not really optional. And if that was true in 1954, it would appear to be even more so now:

"In a time when knowledge, constructive and destructive, is advancing by the most incredible leaps and bounds into a fantastic atomic age, genuinely creative adaptation seems to represent the only possibility that man can keep abreast of the kaleidoscopic change in his world... a generally passive and culture-bound people cannot cope with the multiplying issues and problems. Unless individuals, groups, and nations can imagine, construct, and creatively revise new ways of relating to these complex changes, the lights will go out. Unless man can make new and original adaptations to his environment as rapidly as his science can change the environment, our culture will perish . Not only individual maladjustment and group tensions, but international annihilation will be the price we pay for a lack of creativity."

In 1954, the threat of annihilation was mostly about the cold war, but there are similar existential threats today, including forms of ecological collapse that were barely imaginable 60 years ago.

The creative process

Rogers even ventures a definition of creativity, but only after a great deal of discussion:

"My definition, then, of the creative process is that it is the emergence in action of a novel relational product, growing out of the uniqueness of the individual on the one hand, and the materials, events, people, or circumstances of his life on the other."

What makes the essay so valuable is that Rogers takes care to present creativity as a fundamental human attribute, and clarifies what is required for creativity to be socially valuable rather than merely something instrumental or profit-driven.

"The mainspring of creativity appears to be the same tendency which we discover so deeply as the curative force in psychotherapy-man's tendency to actualize himself, to become his potentialities. By this I mean the directional trend which is evident in all organic and human life-the urge to expand, extend, develop, mature-the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism, to the extent that such activation enhances the organism or the self."

I love that line: "The urge to expand, extend, develop, mature-the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism." I can hardly think of a better description of what the desire to create feels like on the inside. Creativity is about unfolding and flourishing, not just problem solving and impressing. It's about building, as Roberto Unger puts it, 'a larger life'.

I love that line: "The urge to expand, extend, develop, mature-the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism." I can hardly think of a better description of what the desire to create feels like on the inside.

Moreover, the Rogers article of faith in the creativity of the many, not the few, is the a key premise of the RSA worldview: "(Creativity) exists in every individual, and awaits only the proper conditions to be released and expressed. It is this tendency which is the primary motivation for creativity as the organism forms new relationships to the environment in its endeavour most fully to be itself."

Three key determinants of socially constructive creativity:

But why is it socially valuable? This is a big question: for what reason do we place faith in creativity when it appears, prima facie, to be as likely to be used for selfish destructive ends as generous or generative ones?

Rogers is discerning here, saying that we cannot easily judge whether creativity is constructive because novelty is often inherently subversive at first, and tends to prove its value, or not, over time. So it's not about immediate public approval, because we don't always know creative value when we first see it. Indeed, you might say we are built not to.

Nor can we judge it by the intentions of the creator, because something initially created for good reasons can easily be used to destructive effect and vice versa, as is well known from work on, for instance, splitting the atom. My favourite example of an unexpected benefit is the telephone which initially appeared to further isolate people who were deaf, but later lead to the internet, which of course is hugely beneficial for the same group of people.

Most of the time, we just don't know. So what can we put our faith in?

"We must face the fact that the individual creates primarily because it is satisfying to him, because this behaviour is felt to be self-actualising, and we get nowhere trying to differentiate 'good' and 'bad' purposes in the creative process."

So it is a normative commitment, an article of faith. We say: there is something about the creative process properly understood that is more likely to do good than harm. Rogers goes on to suggest three key determinants of creativity properly understood.

1. Openness to experience

This idea is really about getting beyond defensive reactions and lazy assumptions, but it requires a certain amount of emotional and intellectual stability.

"Certain experiences are prevented from coming into awareness except in distorted fashion. In a person who is open to experience each stimulus is freely relayed through the nervous system, without being distorted by any process of defensiveness....It means the ability to receive much conflicting information without forcing closure on the situation....The more the individual has available to himself a sensitive awareness of all phases of his experience, the more sure we can be that his creativity will be personally and socially constructive."

We can cultivate this kind of openness through education and training, but we are only likely to do so when we deeply appreciate its importance.

2. An internal locus of evaluation

This determinant is fascinating for me personally because it sounds a lot like Kegan's '4th stage' of adult development that was a key premise both of the seminal piece for the Social Brain Centre, Transforming Behaviour Change, and of the RSA's Big Society Report.

Rogers puts it as follows:

"Perhaps the most fundamental condition of creativity is that the source or locus of evaluative judgment is internal. The value of his product is, for the creative person, established not by the praise and criticism of others, but by himself. Have I created something satisfying to me?... If to the person it has the "feel" of being "me in action," of being an actualization of potentialities in himself which heretofore have not existed and are now emerging into existence, then it is satisfying and creative, and no outside evaluation can change that fundamental fact."

Rogers couldn't didn't make this connection to theories of adult development in 1954, mostly because Piagetian models were still thought to apply almost exclusively to childhood. But it is very clear that Rogers thinks there is a 'hidden curriculum' for socially constructive creativity that appears to be developmental in nature. Indeed, by placing 'an internal locus of evaluation' as critical to creativity, he unwittingly poses a question to schools working with creativity, because this kind of stage of development generally occurs well into adulthood.

That doesn't mean that younger people cannot be creative of course (they are, for instance, typically more 'open to experience' than adults) but there is an interesting tension here that might inform educational and cultural interventions designed to foster 'the power to create'. Really, we need to think about this. If the guarantor that creativity is socially valuable rather than merely entertaining in some way is a form of development that occurs after school, what follows for how schools 'teach' or 'facilitate' creativity. I am sure there are good answers, but don't know what they are yet.

3. The ability to toy with elements and concepts

This is a more routine and familiar feature of creativity, but Rogers believes it is also a habit of mind and action that we can place our trust in and it clearly connects to the openness to experience. A simple example of this kind of 'toying', to get beyond functional fixedness is a group of friends on a picnic who find they forgot to bring a knife for the cheese - somebody reached into their wallet, and used a credit card as a knife.

"It is from this spontaneous toying and exploration that there arises the hunch, the creative way of seeing of life in a new and significant way."

It is not immediately clear what follows. Rogers himself suggests his theory is testable in various ways and suggests some experiments for testing his theory, but that's for another day. For now, I hope those who have doubts about the humanistic and spiritual value of creativity, can see a bit more of themselves in the creative process. I know I can.


Join the discussion


Please login to post a comment or reply

Don't have an account? Click here to register.

  • I hear you, but isn't there an idea out there that pioneers influence prospectors who influence settlers...and in any case, isn't it hard for RSA to be anything other than pioneers?

    On the evidence- I'll need to look closely and get back to you.

  • Hi Jonathan,

    I saw it in the main book about adult personality development by the leading ‘Big 5’ personality researchers, McCrae and Costa.

    I was pretty surprised myself!

    I googled the topic and found this article on the topic, for example, 'Heritability of the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Their Facets: A Twin Study':

    Another big challenge I didn’t mention is that that our current framing of our egalitarian call for ‘the Power to Create’ by the very language we are utilising will be off-putting to the more traditional, Sustenance-Driven people (perhaps a third of the UK). They want to hear about getting back to basics etc, rather than calls to creativity.

    We’re using a creativity message written in ‘Pioneer’ language in the belief it will appeal to everyone. It won’t.

    We need to vary our messages if we want wide appeal for mass creativity IMHO.

    Though if we’re happy to mostly resonate with fellow ‘Pioneers’ then we don’t need to do this.


    PS Big 5 gets more intriguing when you know that the Openness dimension (alone) apparently correlates with Kegan/Loevinger stages!

  • Thanks Matthew, very curious to see evidence for claim that 'openness to experience' is 'genetic' - sounds like nonsense at first blush, but open(!) to learning more.

  • Hi Jonathan,

    Great stuff – what an interesting read!

    Though isn’t ‘Openness to Experience’ a fairly stable personality trait – with a significant genetic component? (That’s what key researchers in this area, like Macrae and Costa say). Liberals tend to have high ‘Openness to Experience’, I think.

    If we base our call for creativity on that foundation, it’s
    feels like it could be rather exclusionary and narrow? What are we offering to those who – like many – have (inherited?) a low Openness to Experience?

    When you say younger people are typically more ‘open to
    experience’ than adults – is that based on findings from research into ‘Openness to Experience’?

    Neuroticism reduces post-18, Conscientiousness rises
    post-18, as far as I remember – but I don’t remember anything about Openness to Experience reducing post-18. Have you seen something?

    I wonder whether you’ve made a presumption that openness declines and that you might just be expressing the ‘Western cultural model’ of creativity.

    Leading creativity researcher R Keith Sawyer writes: “In the Western cultural model, schools are thought to squash creativity”.

    Sawyer argues that the reality is that schools play a vital role in
    helping children to begin to master the domain knowledge that is the foundation for a creative contribution. (Though they could teach that knowledge in ways that would prepare students to be more creative in using that knowledge).

    (I highly recommend Sawyer’s book Explaining Creativity, if you want to know the state of the art in creativity research (he quotes from the 1954 Rogers article a number of times); though I might prefer Nick Udall’s book 'Riding the Creative Rollercoaster' as a guide to what creativity *practice* might look like. Or the one Nick Seneca Jankel FRSA is publishing next week: 'Switched On: How to Ignite Your Creative Spirit with the New Science of Breakthrough'. It should be really good.

    Sawyer believes creativity research has gone through three phases, the first focused on personalities, the next took a cognitive approach. More recently has been the sociocultural approach.

    He very much heeds a call from Sternberg, Csikzentmihalyi and others for a more interdisciplinary approach.

    It’s also important to know that Openness to Experience correlates significantly with adult development stage (even when you control for intelligence).

    Interestingly, there are findings about how the shift from an
    external to an internal ‘Locus of Control’ correlates with adult development stages. Unsurprising really… (And an internal locus of control correlates with Dweck’s growth mindset, some say).

    One problem the RSA will need to grapple with is that the
    autonomous, self-authoring creativity we are advocating is – in a sense – the barrier, the hurdle we need to overcome, if we want to reach Kegan’s ‘Self-transforming’ mind, that is creative enough to develop solutions for ‘wicked’ issues that the self-authoring mind is too limited to be able to.

    Self-authoring is just a stepping stone. If we make it the end-goal, we’ll have limited/damaged any call for creativity immensely IMHO.

    Here’s what I said on Matthew Taylor’s blog about this:


    Hi Matthew,

    I love the sweeping empowerment and challenging ideas behind the Power to Create – and the talk of leaders who ‘lead by doing’, catalysing ‘civic effects’ through the vision,
    conversations and collaborations that they foster.

    It makes for a fabulous focus for the RSA and its Fellowship.

    Unsurprisingly, there are still some potentially important details for us all to work out, that I notice….

    There is your anti-elitist call for creativity for all, eg ‘the creative person is the bloke on a council estate who gets kids to play football on a Saturday morning’, that you mentioned in the Q+A.

    But then there’s also a seemingly somewhat narrower – more elitist? – definition of creativity as requiring characteristics of self-expression, autonomy, self-authorship etc.

    Surely the bloke playing football wouldn’t need to have these strong values of self-expression, autonomy, self-authorship etc? (If so, do we need to make these characteristics a requirement of the Power to Create?)

    This is arguably a Little-c versus Big-C creativity issue – to use a distinction that creativity researchers often make…

    In your ‘Twenty-first century enlightenment’ pamphlet you pointed out that these self-authoring characteristics might only currently apply to 20% of the population: “In a 2002
    overview of survey evidence for the OECD, Kegan concluded than only one in five people across the world have achieved the competencies necessary for what he termed a ‘modernist’ or self-authoring order of consciousness.”

    So this offers us a huge challenge: shifting this kind of self-authoring (‘modernist’) autonomy from 20% to 100%!

    When few are certain how to make any impact on this (though I gave some evidence from controlled trials in Beyond the Big Society, an RSA report on ‘active citizenship’ – – and people like Prof Ellie Drago-Severson are doing pioneering work in enabling this self-authoring in

    It will need an awful lot of transformational learning, of ‘adaptive’ rather than the usual ‘technical’ responses to challenges. Actually, even Prof Kegan’s 20% figure is
    a guess by him: we could really do with having some nationally representative statistics on levels of self-authorship in the UK, and globally. (OECD once called for such figures at a household level, but I don’t think they progressed it).

    And I almost hesitate to mention it, but Prof Kegan made it very clear in his lecture at the RSA last year – – that this self-expressive autonomous
    self-authorship (aka creativity) isn’t sufficient for the task of dealing effectively with the world’s complex ‘wicked issues’.

    ‘Wicked’ issues require something more than the self-authoring mind, which he calls the ‘Self-transforming’ mind. Something that characterises 4-5 million (mostly
    older) people in the UK. (Plenty of RSA Fellows, no doubt!).

    So, we might need to aim even higher than we imagined, it seems!

    There are plenty of other tricky issues, that we’ve not looked at yet. For example, many people link creativity to the ‘Openness to Experience’ personality trait. Openness to
    Experience apparently has a very high heritability, one of the highest of all the ‘Big 5’ traits (Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism etc).


    Cities seem to be particularly attractive to people who are high on Openness to Experience: which perhaps explains why a disproportionate number of eminent people, including
    Big-C creators, are first- or second-generation immigrants. Though the effect is far from uniform: Prof Rentfrow’s research finds high Openness to Experience in San Francisco and Austin – but not St Louis and Memphis, for example.

    Anyway, as you say, a lot of “focused ideas and action” will be required of us all, to realise ‘thePower to Create’!

    Matthew Mezey
    (RSA Online Community Manager)

Related articles

  • Blog: Ode to an Ash; or, the Pleasure of Creating

    Nathalie Spencer

    Spending time in nature and creating things by hand are both deeply satisfying. One man’s mission of getting as many uses as possible from a single tree illustrates this point, and provides an interesting take on the RSA’s vision of a world in which people have the ‘power to create’.

  • The Inner Power to Create

    Jonathan Rowson

    Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.

  • Can you have too much creativity?

    Jonathan Rowson

    Adam Lent's rallying cry for creativity met with strong tacit approval from the echo-chamber, and rightly so. What's not to like? Creativity is a feel-good concept, tapping into to the value of human freedom, with pleasant undertones of productivity, individuality, and style.