< Back to previous page

Project

Appropriation, Transformation and Use of Creativity in Postwar Primary Education in Belgium

In the last couple of decades, creativity has become an omnipresent concept. It is praised as the motor of the (creative) economy, and also as one the central concepts in education. Since creativity is a relatively “new” concept  - it only entered the general discourse after World War II – this is rather curious. This begs the question how creativity has become such an important concept. In order to answer this question, we need to look at the historical conditions that made it possible for creativity to become such an important concept in education. As such, this is a historical and critical problematization of the present and a genealogy of creativity as an educational concept.

Creativity - as an independent concept named as such – entered the educational discourse in Belgium during the 1950s and 1960s. Initially, it built upon other notions like expression and imagination, taken from progressive education. The concept really took off during the latter half of the 1960s. In the educational journals, especially those explicitly aimed at teachers, creativity became one of the most popular concepts, and was lauded in exalted terminology. It was seen as the solution to almost everything, and entire special issues and study days were devoted to creativity. Creativity is seen as both “new” and “appropriate”, with an emphasis on the latter. It was opposed to anarchy, partly to make it more readily acceptable for teachers. The implementation in the classroom, however, was problematic. Educationalists complained about the reluctance of teachers towards creativity, and there was no official recognition of the concept in the curriculum. Creativity, as an educational concept, remained largely confined to the educational discourse, and failed to make much of an impact in the classroom practice. Only as a didactic tool, meant to help control pupils or guide them towards self-control, did it make (small) inroads in the daily routine of teachers. This problematical implementation of creativity was reflected in the educational press, which showed a diminished interest in the concept during the latter half of the 1970s. This can be explained by the overblown expectations that had been put on creativity, which meant that it could only disappoint, and by the reluctance of teachers towards reform. This is reflected in the relative absence of creativity in the educational discourse of the 1980s, during which it was described as “a hype”.

Creativity makes a comeback in the educational discourse during the 1990s, but with an explicit reference to entrepreneurship. The explicit link between creativity and entrepreneurship comes back in the growing importance of the creative economy, and the recurring calls for more integration between the economy and education. Being creative and flexible are seen as prime requisites of the entrepreneurial self. In the neoliberal governmental regime that governs through freedom, creativity is linked explicitly with self-control and responsibilisation. The importance of freedom, autonomy and self-control in progressive education made the implementation of creativity in reference to entrepreneurship easier, and helps to explain the appropriation of creativity by neoliberal discourse.

Date:4 May 2010 →  26 Aug 2019
Keywords:creativity, governmentality
Disciplines:General pedagogical and educational sciences, Specialist studies in education
Project type:PhD project