Montuori:Stephenson Creativity Culture Contact and Diversity

8/13/2019 Montuori:Stephenson Creativity Culture Contact and Diversity

1/21

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [2007-2008 Nanyang Technological University]

On: 7 July 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 782527286]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

World FuturesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713393663

Creativity Culture Contact and DiversityAlfonso Montuoria; Hillary StephensonaaCalifornia Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, California, USA

Online publication date: 06 May 2010

To cite this ArticleMontuori, Alfonso and Stephenson, Hillary(2010) 'Creativity, Culture Contact, and Diversity', WorldFutures, 66: 3, 266 285

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02604021003680503URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02604021003680503

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713393663http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02604021003680503http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02604021003680503http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713393663


2/21

World Futures, 66: 266285, 2010

Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0260-4027 print / 1556-1844 online

DOI: 10.1080/02604021003680503

CREATIVITY, CULTURE CONTACT, AND DIVERSITY

ALFONSOMONTUORICalifornia Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, California, USA

HILLARYSTEPHENSONCalifornia Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, California, USA

Recent trends in the understanding of culture contact, with concepts such as

hybridization, cosmopolitanism, and cultural innovation, open up the possibilityof a new understanding of human interaction. While the social imaginary is rich

with images of conflict resulting from culture contact, images of creativity are

far rarer. We propose the creation of an extensive research project to document

cultural creativity, starting with obvious examples in the arts, and expanding into

all areas of life in order to counteract the present conflictual images and develop

a social imaginary with positive attractor images that can guide to greater

creativity.

KEYWORDS: Attractor image, complexity, creativity, culture, domination, essentialism,

hybridization, identity, interaction, social imaginary.

The great difficulty is thus considering the unity of the many and the multiplicity

of the unity. Those who see the diversity of cultures tend to overlook the unity

of mankind; those who see the unity of mankind tend to dismiss the diversity of

cultures. Edgar Morin

The scope of the discourse of cultural diversity spans the globe and encompasses

much of the twentieth century. Adding additional perspectives requires the exami-

nation of some of the existing dominant frameworks related to cultural diversity. It

also necessitates addressing the way the underlying assumptions and the contexts

out of which these frameworks arose, and how they have shaped the focus and

parameters of cultural diversity theory and research.

THE MELTING POT

In the years following the American Revolution, the image of the United States

as a great melting pot offered a romantic vision of a country where the multiple

cultural identities and practices of the thousands of immigrants that flooded the

Address correspondence to Alfonso Montuori, California Institute of Integral Studies,

San Francisco, CA, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

266

Downloaded

By:[2007-2008NanyangTechnol

ogicalUniversity]At:13:237

July2010


3/21

CREATIVITY, CULTURE CONTACT, AND DIVERSITY 267

United States would melt together to form a new distinct, homogenized, and

unified American identity and culture. The term itself was popularized by the

famous 1908 play by Israel Zangwill (18641926) entitled The Melting Pot,

in which Zangwill, a British-born Jew, portrayed America as Gods crucible,the great melting pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming!

(Wortham 2001, 5). Despite its idyllic image, the melting pot concept was rooted in

a strong fear and distrust of cultural pluralism, a belief in the supremacy of white,

Anglo-Saxon, Protestant American culture, and an investment in the attainment of

cultural homogeneity through processes of coerced assimilation. Although it has

been widely critiqued and discredited in more recent times, it remains part of the

popular American consciousness and vocabulary, and has significantly influenced

the attitudes, assumptions, and practices related to cultural diversity in the United

States.

While in theory the melting pot refers to the blending or fusion of different

cultural groups, in practice it manifested as an effort to promote assimilation and

conformity to White, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon American values, ideals, and culture

through a process called Americanization. As Anne Wortham (2005) explains:

When it became apparent during the decades before World War I that immigrants

were not giving up the ways of their origins as the price of assimilation and

were not mixing together in the great crucible to form the new American, the

melting-pot idea as a natural laissez-faire process was abandoned. At the turn

of the twentieth century, the policy of coerced assimilation, known as Amer-icanization, was inaugurated. Public schools, patriotic societies, chambers of

commerce, womens clubs, public libraries, social settlements, and even indus-

trial plants were enlisted to divest the immigrant of his foreign heritage, suppress

his native language, teach him English, make him a naturalized citizen, and inject

into him a loyalty to American institutions. (7)

The Americanization movement manifested most strongly in the public education

system between 1900 and 1930 and was shaped through the discourse of social

science and educational theorists such as Frances Kellor and E.P. Chubberley, bothof whom advocated for the controlled, intentional indoctrination and assimilation

of immigrants into adopting a distinctly American culture and identity (Kraver

1999). Cultural homogeneity was the goal. The establishment of White, Protestant,

American identity as a cultural norm also meant that successful assimilation to

American culture, and therefore a degree of upward mobility, was open to White

European immigrants in a way it never would be to people of non-European

descent.

The question of the viability of the melting pot concept has been located in a de-

bate between cultural assimilation versus cultural pluralism. The Americanization

campaign taught us that cultural diversity is something to be feared, managed,and controlled, and efforts to put the concept of the melting pot into practice

have left a residue of assumptions about cultural diversity as a source of conflict

and contention that continue to permeate popular U.S. attitudes about cultural

difference.

Downloaded



July2010


4/21

268 ALFONSO MONTUORI AND HILLARY STEPHENSON

POSTCOLONIALISM

As European immigrants to the United States were facing institutionalized Amer-

icanization, peoples of the newly independent third world were grappling with

the legacies of European colonial rule and struggling for independence. Out of

this context arose postcolonial theory or postcolonial studies, in which issues

of culture are examined in a context of resistance and opposition to European

cultural imperialism and the dynamics of dominance and marginalization that

emerged during colonial rule and persisted post-independence. It can be difficult

to define the boundaries of postcolonial studies in that it is rooted in the inde-

pendence struggles of colonized nations of South Asia and Africa, and yet has

been institutionalized within the U.S. academy. Postcolonial studies cross multiple

disciplines and have been at times intertwined with multiculturalism and ethnic

studies in the United States, although the fields are not synonymous (Loombaet al. 2005). Some of the primary concerns of postcolonial scholars have been to

examine the impact of imperialism and colonization on the culture and identity

of the colonized, to assert the voices (or at least issues) of the formerly colonized

into the dominant discourses on culture and politics, and in general to challenge

the dominant epistemologies of European colonial powers as they were forced on

the colonized.

Edward Saids seminal workOrientalism (Said 1978) has been credited with

launching colonial discourse, and therefore the postcolonial theories that followed

(Williams and Chrisman 1994). Said examines the representation and misrepre-sentation of the peoples and cultures of the colonized East by Western forces

of imperialism and colonization. Said not only challenged the entrenched and

deprecatory construct of the Orient in Western consciousness, but invited further

exploration into the relationship between culture and imperialism (Williams and

Chrisman 1994).

Indeed, much of what has arisen out of postcolonial discourse in relation

to culture and cultural difference focuses on the process by which colonized

or oppressed peoples re-claim and re-define their cultural or racial identity as

a form of resistance to that oppression. In his widely read Black Skin, White

Masks,Franz Fanon (1967) examines the construction of the colonized Other.Speaking of Black people and alluding to Fanons insight, Hall writes: Not only,

in Saids Orientalist sense, were we constructed as different and other within

the categories of knowledge of the West by those regimes. They had the power

to make us see and experience ourselvesas Other (1990, 394, emphasis in the

original). The process by which colonized or formerly colonized people may come

to consciousness of their internalization of an identity as the Other is one of the

markers of postcolonial discourse.

The focus on the very construction of a cultural identity, and the re-defining of

this identity as an act of resistance to imperialism and oppression, is one aspectthat defines postcolonialisms treatment of issues of cultural diversity. Postcolonial

discourse emphasizes cultural identity as a positioning, an aspect of ourselves that

has been constructed in part through forces of imperialism and colonization and

that therefore marks our position in relation to those forces (Hall 1990). The focus

Downloaded



July2010


5/21


is not so much on issues of cultural pluralism or an acceptance of diversity, but

rather what options or strategies might be available to the colonized in their efforts

to engage with and navigate the dominant or imperial culture (Ashcroft 2001).

MULTICULTURALISM AND IDENTITY POLITICS

Just as postcolonial thought arose out of the liberation struggles of colonized

peoples, multiculturalism arose in conjunction with the politics of the 1960s Civil

Rights era in the United States and was strengthened by the shift toward cul-

tural pluralism, or the embracing and valuing of the co-existence of distinct and

eclectic cultural identities and groups. As marginalized racial and ethnic groups,

women, and gay and lesbian communities gained greater access to and visibility in

educational and workplace institutions, multiculturalism emerged as a proactive

effort to increase inclusivity and equity in the public sphere. In this way, the term

diversity took on a distinct connotation of that which works against discrim-

ination based on ones racial, ethnic, cultural, class, gender, or sexual identity.

Multiculturalism also developed as an academic discourse through the creation of

womens and ethnic studies departments such as Chicano Studies, Black Stud-

ies, and Asian-American Studies that sought to bring the social movements of the

1960s and 1970s into the university classroom.

While not separate from academic discourse, the multiculturalism that arose as

a practice outside the academy is often criticized for being too essentialist in its

treatment of cultural identities, shallow in its tendency to conflate ethnicity, race,and culture, and passive in its avoidance of the issues of power, privilege, and

oppression that shape relationships between racial and ethnic groups. As author

Alicia Rodriguez writes:

There is a stark contrast between the traditional multicultural education schol-

arship based on identity politics that has been translated into elementary and

secondary educational practices in relatively innocuous ways and the more con-

tentious translations of multiculturalism that have been developing in higher

education institutions in the wake of a sort of second wave of identity politics

in the late 1980s and 1990s. The former has perpetuated relatively mainstream,heavily essentialistic constructions of cultural identity in the project to further

diversity, equity, unity, and self-esteem in school settings while the latter theories

of identity have remained at the academy and have not trickled down, so to speak,

to pre-university settings. (2)

These efforts to further diversity, equity, and unity have come in the form of

diversity initiatives in educational and other professional settings. Cultural com-

petence training has emerged and been championed as a necessary aspect of

preparing professionals, in fields ranging from health and human services to ed-

ucation to multinational corporations, to not only tolerate growing diversity inthe workplace, but actively engage in organizational diversity efforts (Kulik and

Roberson 2008).

In their review of corporate diversity training initiatives from 1964 to the

present, Anand and Winters (2008) examine the different phases through which

Downloaded



July2010


6/21


corporate diversity initiatives have passed. Early efforts that focused on compliance

with non-discrimination laws and the assimilation of women and minority groups

(meaning people of color) gave way to trainings focusing on building knowledge

of and sensitivity toward women and different racial groups, as well as developingskills in responding to increased diversity. This shift was due in part to the work

of Roosevelt Thomas, considered to be a pioneer in the diversity training field.

Thomass concept of diversity management emphasized the connection between

business success and the developing of concrete skills and practices to address

diversity issues in the workplace (Thomas in Johnson 2008, 409). Corporate

diversity training during the late 1980s through the late 1990s ranged in style and

content from more intense, confrontational trainings with a social justice focus, to

more watered-down versions (Anand and Winters 2008).

The more contentious multicultural academic discourse referenced by Ro-

driguez as a second wave of identity politics shifts the primary focus of diversity

discourse and practice to the examination of current and historical experiences

of oppression, discrimination, cultural appropriation, and the systemic power re-

lationships between groups. Under this more critical framework of diversity, the

social, economic, and political context of ones ethnic, racial, cultural, and other

social identities is emphasized and theorized. This form of multiculturalism has

revealed itself prominently in feminist discourse and critical race theory (CRT),

primarily through the voices of women of color feminist writers and activists who

emphasized the importance of recognizing what critical race theorist Kimberle

Crenshaw calls the difference that difference makes (as cited in Chen 2007, 1),or the way the intersection of racial, ethnic, and cultural identities in a context of

White supremacy and patriarchy shape the ways women can engage and respond

to diversity with and among each other (Chen 2007; Rodriguez 2000). Authors

such as Trinh T. Minh-ha, Audre Lorde, bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins, and

Gloria Anzaldua have asserted the marginalized voices and experiences of women

of color, but also shed light on the construct of outsider (Hill Collins 1986) and

mestiza (Anzaldua 1987) identities and experiences, marking one of the points

at which postcolonialism and multiculturalism intersect.

If the era of Americanization stressed cultural sameness, the multiculturalismand identity politics that have emerged since the latter half of the twentieth cen-

tury in the United States have located issues of diversity in the deconstruction

of difference. This focus on the role of systemic structures of dominance and

marginalization, as well as the sometimes less contentious embracing of cultural

pluralism through cultural competence and diversity training, continue to largely

define the scope of research and discourse on cultural diversity.

COSMOPOLITANISMAlthough cosmopolitanism as a concept is not new, the recent focus on contem-

porary forces of globalization has brought fresh perspectives to this discourse.

Cosmopolitanism as a term itself has multiple meanings. Waldron (in Benhabib

2006) sketches out three distinct aspects of the term:

Downloaded



July2010


7/21


For some, [cosmopolitanism] is about the love of mankind, or about duties

owed to every person in the world, without national or ethnic differentiation. For

others, the word . . . connotes the fluidity and evanescence of culture; it celebrates

the compromising or evaporation of the boundaries between cultures . . . andit anticipates a world of fractured and mingled identities. For still others . . .

cosmopolitanism is about order and norms, not just culture and moral sentiment.

(83)

Emphasizing this love of mankind, Appiahs cosmopolitanism offers us the

chance to become citizens of the cosmos (2006, xiv), bound by a sense of

shared humanity, mutual obligation to one another, and appreciation of human

difference. Cosmopolitanism in this sense invites us, without rejecting connec-

tions rooted in cultural identity and practice or grasping at universalism, to findconnection through, within, and beyond cultural diversity. Appiah makes argu-

ments for embracing the cross-cultural contamination (2006, 111) of beliefs,

ideas, and practices, and asserts the capacity of human beings to find common

ground amid the multiple truths of vastly different cultural practices and ideas.

Theories of cultural hybridization further explore the cultural fluidity empha-

sized in some cosmopolitan discourse. Chan describes hybridization as the process

of adaptation, fusion, and transformation that occurs when different cultural groups

interact. Rather than a linear focus on the degree to which, for example, an im-

migrant group either takes on the cultural norms of the dominant culture or gives

up some of their own, hybridization is the assertion that when different culturesinteract, both cultures, to varying degrees depending on factors of number and

dominance, experience what Chan calls a collision or mutual entanglement of

the self and other (2002, 194) that results in a cultural change in both groups. Chan

discusses hybridization as a process of potential innovation in cultural identity and

expression with opportunity for integration and harmony amid the sometimes dif-

ficult or troubling process inherent in cross-cultural interaction. He does so while

acknowledging that the power relationship inherent in minoritymajority relation-

ships between groups may create an outsider identity for those in the minority in

which this group risks denigration, rejection, or discrimination, thus marking thenegative aspects of hybridization. Still, Chans assertion that cultural difference or

pluralism need not be abandoned in order to make way for a cosmopolitan world

offers a decidedly optimistic view of cultural diversity.

There are some, however, who caution against the celebration of cosmopoli-

tanism as a vision for a more unified, global community without thoroughly taking

into account the political and economic forces of globalization. Cheah (2006) ques-

tions the degree to which cosmopolitanism as an institutionally grounded global

political consciousness is possible given the uneven character of global capital-

ism (491). In other words, to be a citizen of the cosmos, as described by Appiah,

suggests a kind of global solidarity can arise as a result of an increasingly global-ized world. However, Cheah cautions: The world is undoubtedly interconnected

and transnational mobility is clearly on the rise. But this does not inevitably gener-

ate meaningful cosmopolitanisms in the robust sense of pluralized world political

communities (492). The different lifestyles and motivations of the globetrotting

Downloaded



July2010


8/21


businessman and the transnational migrant worker may prove to be barriers to the

creation of a global political consciousness or the development of a shared sense

of global humanity.

Further challenging the relative optimism set forth by theories of cosmopoli-tanism and cultural hybridization, Huntington argues that our age of globalization

will result in conflict, and that the primary source of this conflict in the twenty-first

century will be cultural. Culture, he argues, exists beyond just individual or group

identity but as part of a broader category of group membershipcivilizationand

that the locus of future conflict will be between boundaries of different civiliza-

tions (Huntington 1993). Huntington asserts that regardless of different claims to

heterogeneous individual, regional, or even nation-state membership, civilizations,

which encompass more than these sub-groups, are defined based on shared values

that have developed over centuries. As the world becomes smaller, he argues, the

cultural differences embodied in civilizations will inevitably clash.

Regardless of how optimistic one is about the possibilities of cosmopolitanism,

in relation to issues of cultural diversity it is apparent that the discourse circles

around some of the same issues of conflict or tension. The very need of some

scholars of cosmopolitanism to assert that increases in cross-cultural contact will

bring positive opportunities for global solidarity or the development of a global

consciousness, points to the legacies of contention and conflict that have marked

the lived experience and discourse of cultural diversity for many years.

BEYOND CONFLICT

Reviewing the literature, it is clear that cultural diversity is heavily situated in

contexts of contention and conflict. The focus on such questions as whether

cultural assimilation is necessary or harmful, or the debate over what will be

gained or lost as diverse groups interact point to the heavy focus on diversity in

the context of international contexts of colonization, domination, and oppression.

Without denying these histories or their importance in conversations on cultural

diversity, we can wonder if all the cases of interaction across difference in the social

imagination are those of conflict, assimilation, and oppression, whether it may behard for people to imagine cultural diversity as something other than contentious.

It also may be easy then to overlook the way diversity functions in other contexts

beyond just identity politics or the battle lines of clashing civilizations. Even

those theorists who suggest a more positive or optimistic possibility in cultural

diversity are often situating their arguments in response to dominant assumptions

of conflict. What other lessons about human interaction across difference can

be learned? Perhaps important discoveries about the nature and experience of

cultural diversity await in the unexamined, growing edges of human interaction in

the context of creativity.

The great difficulty is thus considering the unity of the many and the multiplicity

of the unity. Those who see the diversity of cultures tend to overlook the unity

of mankind; those who see the unity of mankind tend to dismiss the diversity of

cultures. Edgar Morin

Downloaded



July2010


9/21


CREATIVITY AND DIVERSITY

The worlds history is not simply the story of one continuous battle between

different cultures, even though our history books have historically done their best

to make it appear that way. In fact, in the age of globalization, of planetary culture

(Thompson 1986, 1987, 1989; Morin and Kern 1999), there is a movement that

does not see culture contact and diversity only in light of wars, appropriation,

and oppression, and under the broader umbrella of domination, but recognizes the

exchanges, hybridizations, and indeed the creativity of culture contact and human

diversity (Hobson 2004; Niederveen Pieterse 2004; Laplantine, de Villanova, and

Vermes 2003; Laplantine and Nous 2001).

Our fundamental premise in this article is that the discourse of diversity

and culture contact would benefit from focusing on the creativity and the in-

novations that have emerged as different groups have interacted. If the onlyway culture contact and diversity are framed is in terms of domination, and in

terms of the identity of individual cultures, then its surely very unlikely that

we will have models of creative interaction to draw on in order to conceptual-

ize the possibility of interactions that do not involve either domination or sub-

mission. We therefore begin by sketching out the role of three key dimensions

underpinning the present discourse and point toward the need for conceptual

changes and the creation of a social imaginary (in media as disparate as history

books and movies) that provides attractor images of creative interaction among

cultures.By attractor images we mean images (in the broad sense of the word, not

restricted to the visual sense) that orient a cultures thinking and feeling about a

topic. When asked about what comes to mind with the word creativity, in the

United States the responses have historically been individual geniusesPicasso,

Einstein, and so on. These attractor images of creativity largely define the

discourse with its focus on the lone genius, the characteristics of the individual

genius, and so on (Montuori and Purser 1995). Until recently, the concept of group

creativity was considered an oxymoron in the United States (Montuori and Purser

1999). Part of the problem was that, despite their existence in the culture, in the

form of musical and theater groups, R&D labs, citizens groups, and so on, therewere no images of group creativity. The individualist focus of the United States,

and the media in particular, promoted the notion of the lone creative individual. An

increasing awareness of the activities of creative groups, with stories about creative

collaborations, software teams, and so on, is now making inroads in the culture so

that the notion of creative groups is not so foreign (Sawyer 2006; Amabile 1996,

1998; Alter 2003).

In this article we have argued that the emphasis on conflict and identity in the

discourse on diversity acts as such an attractor image. When asked about diversity,

the response is predominantly (although not exclusively, of course) to focus onthe history conflict, the importance of avoiding conflict, and of recognizing and

respecting individual groups. But the images of creative interactions between

groups are few and far between. They simply do not exist with anything like the

depth and pervasiveness of images of conflict.

Downloaded



July2010


10/21


In the same way that images are now emerging of creative groups, couples,

collaborations, and so on, through industry and the arts, we are proposing en-

riching the social imaginary with a plurality of ways of conceiving of diversity,

also a source of incredible creativity, and the historical evidence to draw on isconsiderable. The history of exchanges, contaminations, explorations, influences,

and so on is remarkable. A few examples below, in no particular order, will give

an idea of the range and richness of the stories.

In the popular mind we associate the potato with Ireland and Germany, and

classic dishes such as pizza and spaghetti with tomato sauce with Italy, but we

have to remember the journey of the potato and the tomato to Northern Europe

and the Mediterranean after 1492, and the remarkable role of global trade in the

development of cuisines by providing them with the vegetables and other essentials

that we now think of as central to their identity. Chili peppers were not introduced

to Chinese cuisine until the sixteenth century, and Indian cuisine was also chili-

free until that time. After Columbus there was a veritable transformation in the

worlds cuisines, and these exchanges alone are enormously complex, intricate,

and fascinating (Sokolov 1993).

In the history of music, the birth of jazz alone offers an immensely rich oppor-

tunity, with its hybridization of European and African instruments and traditions.

The harmonic complexity of European music and the rhythmic complexity of

African music, on American soil, led to the development of a new and unique

musical tradition that, among other things, restored the value of improvisation to

music in the West after it had been eliminated around 1800 with the emergence ofthe genius composer and copyright (Goehr 1992). The ongoing hybridizations

in world music provide an endless resource of examples.

Political theories have traveled the globe and both capitalism and communism,

which originated in Europe, have undergone transformations in Asia, where they

have been adapted to local cultures to a greater or lesser extent. The same remark-

able transformations and hybridizations can be traced in Buddhism, for instance,

as it traveled from India to Tibet, China, South-East Asia and Japan, and eventu-

ally to California. In each of these regions new interpretations, approaches, and

traditions were formed.In the United States and Europe, the popularity of complementary forms of

medicine, and in particular Chinese Medicine, is growing rapidly. Integrated heal-

ing approaches are becoming increasingly popular, echoing Deng Xiao-Pings

famous dictum that it does not matter what color a cat is as long as it catches mice.

Another extremely rich resource is the story of multicultural cities and regions

that have been the source of creativity where widely diverse groups have co-existed

peacefully and creatively, such as Andalusia before the expulsion of the Arabs

from Spain and the Mediterranean as a whole, which owes its cultural fertility to

the extensive exchanges between diverse peoples on three continents. All these

enormously important and creative exchanges require much greater attention andemphasis.

Polak (1973) has argued that without an image of the future, a culture is adrift.

At this point, we do not have images of the future that depict a desirable future

where cultures interact creatively. If anything, the attractor images presented

Downloaded



July2010


11/21


by Huntington and others point exactly the other way. The creation of attractor

images through documentaries, movies, novels, and scholarly research that revisit

our past, framed now as a history of conflicts, as a history that also recognizes the

ability of the human spirit to create together with others, often in the most direcircumstances, and thereby to create a new future of creative collaboration, lies at

the heart of our proposal.

CHANS TYPES OF CULTURE CONTACT

Chan discusses five possible processes in culture contact: essentializing, alter-

nating, converting, hybridizing, and innovating (Chan 2002, 2005). This catego-

rization provides an interesting and useful entry point to differentiate different

understandings of, and approaches to, culture contact and diversity, and articulatetheir underlying assumptions.

Essentializing assumes cultures are fundamentally closed systems (Wilden

1980; Morin 2008). The closed systems contain essences that define the nature

of any culture, nation, or ethnicity. Essentialism is a core underlying assumption

of the first three forms of culture contact Chan outlines.

Alternatingoccurs when there is shifting between identities. For instance, an

immigrant passing in a dominant culture context assumes one identity, and then

reverts to the identity of origin at home.

Conversion means assimilation into a dominant culture (e.g., into the melting

pot) and giving up ones original identity.Hybridizingis the first process that goes beyond the closed system, essentialist

model. Chan calls it a mutual entanglement and it suggests that both systems are

open systems. This is popularly seen in fusion cuisine, fashion, world music,

and so forth. The relationship goes beyond either/or. At a very basic level, this

might involve adapting the cuisine of the homeland to the conditions of the new

culture: different produce, different possibilities, and the evolution of different

tastes. Italian-American food, while retaining some of the same ingredients and

dishes from Italy, has changed considerably over the years, and is now based on an

aesthetic that is arguably very different from what one might find in Italy today, inthe same way that the values and political and religious views of Italian Americans

have been shown to be different from those of Italians in Italy (Barron and Young

1970).

As Chan points out, on an existential level hybridizing is common in the

everyday practices of immigrants. Chan movingly addresses the issues confronting

migrant persons and the complexity of their lives and identities (Chan 2002, 2005).

He points out the emergent ethnicity of many migrants today in the context of

hybridization, and the existential stress it can involve. Central to that stress are

fundamental issues of identity: personal identity and national identity, issues of

belonging, of betrayal, change, history, and geography. It is not uncommon forsome migrants, particularly first-generation migrants, to feel like they are neither

fish nor fowl, having left their culture of origin behind, but never fully accepted

in their new culture. One key factor here is that in the traditional essentialist view,

what is valorized is unity, not diversity. In other words, one is eitherfully A or

Downloaded



July2010


12/21


fullyB. Being bothA and Bboth American and Chinesedoes not amount to

more in this view, but less. One is diminished by interaction.

While essentialist views seem to have dominated the discourse, it is becoming

increasingly clear that human beings are all, in the words U.S. President Obamaused to describe himself, mutts. Claims of ethnic or racial purity are deeply

problematic, with no factual basis. The same applies to claims of owning or be-

longing to a land. They are ultimately based on the use of an arbitrary cut-off point

in time and space beyond which one cannot look (Bocchi and Ceruti 1997, 2002).

Beyond that point (and likely before it, although not in the nationalistic histories)

there are inevitable migrations, interactions, contaminations, hybridizations. And

while we respect the importance of individual cultures and attachment to land,

what is more problematic are claims of purity, and the claims to homogeneity,

with their all-too-frequent concomitant ethnic cleansing. If we view identity not

as given but as created in a historical process, then any culture can trace its roots

further and further back, and its origins to the birth of humanity in Africa.

Chan also raises the potential of a fifth possibility, Innovating. At this point,

Chan suggests that Innovating is the most speculative form of cultural contact.

Innovating involves, among other things, hybridity, cosmopolitanism, metissage,

and creativity. Chan addresses the difficulties and complexities of such a perspec-

tive. Innovating is, in our view, most compatible with a focus on the centrality

of creativity and interaction. We explore some of the specific areas where fur-

ther research might assist in the development of this innovation, and steps toward

educating for this view of culture contact.Humanitys history is full of cultural contacts that have led to cultural inno-

vations (Appiah 2006; Bateson 1994; Berry and Epstein 1999; Chambers 1994;

Collins 1998; Florida 2002; Hobson 2004; Thompson 1986). Examples range from

the Renaissance to the birth of jazz to the development of new hybrid forms of

spiritual and religious practices such as those found in new religious movements.

The story of Buddhism is an example in its journey from India to China to Japan

and then California. As Edward Said (1993) has written,

the history of all cultures is the history of cultural borrowings. Cultures are

not impermeable. Culture is never just a matter of ownership, of borrowing and

lending with absolute debtors and creditors, but rather of appropriations, common

experiences, and interdependencies of all kinds. (261)

The history of the world is in this view already a history of cultural creativity.

But the dominant view of cultures is precisely, as Said suggests, that they are

these impermeable essences. This closed system essentialist view blinds us to the

creative role of interactions, because in an essentialist view the interactions either

threaten the essence or appear as opportunities to expand the essential featuresof a culture. This has led to a focus on the achievements of individual cultures,

and the appropriation of what were in most cases relational achievements that

emerged out of interactions between cultures by individual cultures in the name

of one single culture.

Downloaded



July2010


13/21


Developing a broader understanding of cultural interaction requires a minimum

of three shifts in our fundamental assumptions: going beyond a view of human

interaction based exclusively on domination; acknowledging the fundamental role

of creativity in life; learning to think in a non-essentialist way that accounts forhuman complexity.

CHALLENGING THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS OF

ESSENTIALISM, INTERACTION, AND DOMINATION

We need a kind of thinking that relinks that which is disjointed and compart-

mentalized, that respects diversity as it recognizes unity, and that tries to discern

interdependencies. We need a radical thinking (which gets to the root of problems),

a multidimensional thinking, and an organizational or systemic thinking (Morinand Kern 1999).

Essentialism is closed system thinking (Wilden 1980). The essence is a

characteristic of a thing independent of interactions and context (Morin 2008).

Thinking that views individuals and cultures as open systems recognizes the con-

stitutive role of interactions and context. Closed systems are fundamentally static

and equilibrium oriented. Open systems, because of the perturbations caused by the

interactions, experience disequilibrium, and ongoing processes of re-organization.

With an essentialist, closed system perspective it is simply not possible to

conceive of transformative change and innovation. In the essentialist view, iden-

tity is static and given. A closed system has no significant interaction with its

environment. Relationships and interactions are not constitutive and constructive

in a closed system view. Interaction can only be viewed from the perspective of

domination. In the twenty-first century, these assumptions may appear somewhat

shocking. but we must not forget their strong historical roots, as demonstrated in

the following passage:

The Laws of God operate not through a few thousand years, but through eternity,

and we cannot always perceive the why or wherefore of what passes in our

brief day. Nations and races, like individuals, have each a special destiny: someare born to rule, and others to be ruled. And such has ever been the history of

mankind. No two distinctly-marked races can dwell together on equal terms.

(Nott and Gliddon 1855)

In this classic of scientific racism we see a basic set of assumptions that is in

the work of scholars like Huntington. Creativity and innovation are not in the

realm of imagination because any deviation from the pre-established identity can

only be in the form of pollution. Not innovation, but dominationexpanding the

right essenceis the only possible outcome, as Nott and Gliddon made so clear

in their articulation of their position. Along with domination, racist rhetoric isfull of the language of degeneration, pollution, and so on. Likewise, Aristotelian

essentialism precluded any form of evolution, because forms where fixed and

given. In an Aristotelian/Aquinian perspective, one could similarly speak of a fall,

but not of evolution (Bocchi and Ceruti 2002).

Downloaded



July2010


14/21


A new way of thinking is needed, a way of thinking that recognizes the in-

herent complexity of life seen as an ongoing, relational, creative process. From a

complexity perspective, identity, whether individual or cultural, is not one homo-

geneous whole but a unitas multiplex, a unity in diversity (Morin 2008). We arenot one thing, but a plurality of complex interactions. These interactions occur

within any given system, and between the system and its environment. Morin has

articulated the need for complex thought in an effort to counteract the prevalence

of reductive and disjunctive thought that cannot account for relational, processual,

interactive complexity.

Reduction and disjunction, two characteristics of Morins simple thought, in

the context of identity means reduction to a clear and distinct identity, free of all

other influencesthe myth of purity (Bocchi and Ceruti 1997)and one that

can be separated from the other through a logic of either/or. In moments of

crisis this becomes the logic of us against them, you are either for us or against us

(Montuori 2005).

It is not until we get to Hybridizing and particularly Innovating in Chans

categorization that we move from the essentialism of cultural and personal identity

as closed systems that are static and unchanging to an open systems view that is

more processual and relational. In this view, any identity, and any culture, involves

a process of construction and creation (Wagner 1981). Creativity and innovation

are not occasional events, in this view, but the very nature of life itself (Bocchi and

Ceruti 2002; Ceruti 2008). Innovating might then involve a more conscious process

of identity construction, a creative dialogue between tradition and change. Thisprocess can be found most explicitly in the arts, where creativity is the essential

frame of the activity, but it is also increasingly being found in the emergence of

tribes, groups with shared interests that gather either physically or in cyberspace

and craft their own identities through common interests and rituals, ranging from

tattooing to video games to social justice or events such as Burning Man (Godin

2009).

FROM DOMINATION TO CREATIVITY

We have seen how the discourse of diversity and culture contact in the United

States has focused largely on conflict, because of the exclusionary nature of the

essentialist, closed system view. The assumption that interactions are inevitably

conflictual is based on a dynamic of domination (Eisler 1987). A majority group

might seek to create a homogeneous melting pot, and eliminate differences. This

is the process Chan identifies as converting, which negates one dominant culture

in favor of another (Chan 2002, 2005). When the differences are visible because

of such characteristics as skin color (racial differences) it might seek to keep

the minority group at a safe distance (segregation, apartheid). The critique ofthe dominant majority, of the colonial heritage and its history of oppression, and the

diversity trainings that, as Anand and Winters (2008) point out, can occasionally

degenerate into attacks on the majority, mostly operate with the assumption of the

inevitability of the paradigm of domination. Whether in the attempt to dominate

Downloaded



July2010


15/21


or the effort to remove the domination of a dominant group, domination is still the

central paradigm.

Central to the domination paradigm is the view that interaction, whether in

the form of culture contact or diversity, will inevitably lead to one culture todominating the other. The interaction of different cultural groups inevitably leads

to insurmountable differences, which can escalate to violent conflict. This is a

combination of beliefs about the nature of human nature, of identity, and of

human interaction (Montuori 1989; Bernstein 2005; Eisler 1987). Underlying the

focus on conflict and contentiousness there are assumptions of static identity, and

essentialist purity. Once the boundaries are so tightly drawn between self and other,

Chan shows this essentializing leads to exaggerations, stereotypes, and prejudice

(Chan 2002, 2005). It can also lead to a clash of cultures view, in which the

coexistence of cultures is rejected in favor of an ongoing conflictual clash that

will, or should, lead to the ultimate domination of one culture (Bocchi and Ceruti

1997; Huntington 1998).

In a hybridized planetary culture, identity is not a given. It is not an essence

that is intrinsic to our nature. It is acquired during a historical process of interaction,

contingencies, encounters, interpretations, rejections, conflicts, and constructions

(Appiah 2006). Identity is the result of an ongoing creative process that occurs

within certain constraints (Bocchi and Ceruti 2002; Ceruti 2008).

The challenges facing the outsiders, the marginals, the migrants, those

individuals who do not belong to the majority culture are then transformed into

challenges of creativity rather than being viewed as ultimately arising out of adeficit, a lack that arises precisely because they are a minority. And indeed

as Chan points out, outsiders and marginals are often associated with greater

creativity (Stonequist 1961; Benet-Martnez and Haritatos 2005; Benet-Martnez,

Lee, and Leu 2006). They stand outside the often homogenized conformity of the

majority, and bring a plurality of perspectives to bear on their life. What is given

in one country is not given or just the way things are in another country. The

outsider, the migrant, therefore sees her or his world from at least two perspectives

(Montuori and Fahim 2004). As Chan suggests, this can lead to alternating, an

oscillation between two ways of being. Alternating can involve compartmental-izing ones identity, being one person in culture A and another in (sub-)culture

B. But alternation also offers the possibility for bisociation, identified as a central

component of creativity. Bisociation involves seeing a situation from two mutu-

ally exclusive perspectives, and bringing them together to form something new

(Koestler 1990). This is the creativity of hybridization. The outsider can develop

the creativity to bring together aspects of both cultures and create something new.

Viewing creativity as central to the nature of life itself is parallel to taking

what might be called a planetary view. This view extends time and space. As

Ceruti points out, in the West the discoveries of deep space and deep time (in

cosmology and paleontology and evolutionary theory) led to a challenge againstessentialism in science, and the preformationist view that held all living creatures

had been designed by God, and history, interaction, and contingency played no

constructive role. Science has increasingly begun to outline the creative role of

time through ongoing interactions, and that this web of interactions covers the

Downloaded



July2010


16/21


entire planet (Ceruti 2008). Ultimately there is one place we can truly say we

all belong to, what Edgar Morin calls Homeland Earth (Morin and Kern 1999).

In his work on education, Morin has also started that it is imperative that in this

planetary era we situate everything in a planetary context (Morin 2001). Indeed atthis critical moment in humanitys history our education must valorize creativity

and diversity. And yet, what we have seen is that neither creativity nor diversity

are valorizedon the contrary, most educational institutions suppress creativity,

and are still mired in a conflictual view of culture contact and diversity (Aronowitz

2001; Abbs 2003; Montuori 2006).

EXPANDING THE SOCIAL IMAGINARY

In the mid-1980s, the research literature on creativity in the United States includedhardly any research on creative groups. Likewise, the notion of a creative group

was difficult to find in the social imaginary. People found it difficult to think of

a creative group. A band like the Beatles was typically thought of as the result

of one individuals songwriting, not the interaction of four, and very plausibly

five, individuals (including producer/arranger George Martin). Group creativity

was considered an oxymoron, because creativity was known to be something that

happens exclusively inside one persons head (Montuori and Purser 1999).

Twenty-five years later, popular business magazines extol the virtues of hot

groups, and there is a burgeoning research literature on creative groups (Sawyer

2006) as well as an increased emphasis on teams, whether in business or sports orentertainment. Now it is obvious that 25 years ago there were in fact also creative

groups. The main difference is that the creative groups were not part of the social

imaginary. Creative groups were not on peoples radar screen, as we might say

colloquially. This meant most people did not see groups as a locus for creativity,

and there was no research on the subject.

In the same way that more relational forms of creativity were once not in the

social imaginary, the U.S. social imaginary is struggling to see the creativity that

is generated by diversity and culture contact. As we saw in the review of diversity

in the United States, it is clear that although there are movements in the directionof highlighting the positive potential of diversity, an explicit link with creativity is

still tenuous in the research literature, let alone in the social imaginary. It is much

easier at this stage in history for any individual to enumerate the often horrific

clashes, ethnic cleansings, holocausts, and everyday examples of racism rather

than examples of cultural creativity and collaboration simply because the latter,

while central to humanitys history, have not received the same amount of attention.

We can find endless volumes on racism and prejudice and the holocaust, but we

are hard pressed to find scholarly research that celebrates the creativity of culture

contact and diversity. Examples can be found in discussions of world music, for

instance, but even then, the lens through which they are seen often privileges issuesof appropriation and exploitation rather than exploring the dynamics of creativity.

If the social imaginary provides us only with conflictual images of cultural

diversity, then we will be hard pressed to conceive of alternatives to conflict.

Diversity training, and more broadly, education for a pluralistic, diverse society,

Downloaded



July2010


17/21


will focus on conflict avoidance and resolution, or the celebration of individual

groups, such as Black History Month (Anand and Winters 2008). A clarification is

in order before we proceed. We are not suggesting prejudice, racism, stereotyping,

and so on should not be addressed, and the focus of education should only be oncreative or positive, generative interactions. That would be equally detrimental,

and lead to little more than happy talk. We also do not mean to downplay or

reject the importance of highlighting histories of oppression, appropriation, and

exploitation. We do want to point out that this is not the whole picture, and that

without examples of creative interaction it will be much harder to envision what

we could move towardrather than away from. The futurist Polak has made an

important case for guiding images of the future, and it is in part to this strain of

research that we refer (Polak 1973).

We are also not proposing that individual cultures and minorities should not

celebrate their histories and achievements. Our proposal would be complementary

to existing approaches. It would focus on the development of images that show

creative alternatives to racism and prejudice, and on the nature of interactions

between different cultural groups, celebrating interaction and creativity. One way

of doing this would be to collect the enormous and rich variety of what we might

call positive attractor images of creative diversity and culture contact. This

research can then inform the lives of citizens by showing them that they can draw

on their own creativity, and on collaborative creativity to overcome problems,

create new solutions, and create a world worthy of our aspirations. It is only

when there is a constant exposure to examples of creative diversity, rather thanan exclusive focus on prejudice, stereotyping, racism, and so on, that creative

diversity will become more accepted.

The historical complexity of personal and cultural identity can be shown to be

a history of interactions, encounters, contaminations, exchanges, conflict, and also

creativity. Images of essence, of purity can be challenged by historical accounts that

focus on interaction rather than essence, that view cultural encounters, interactions,

and exchanges and changes not as a deficit or weakness away from an essential

ideal but as a positive, as an ongoing creative process.

Images of creative culture contact and diversity abound in the arts, but alsoreligion and spirituality, philosophy, science, and history. The time has come

to explore the dynamics of planetary creativity. Where are the collections of

examples of cultural creativity and diversity? What are the conditions that allow

for this creativity to emerge? How can we illuminate this creativity to propose

alternatives to conflictual images of domination, and open up possibilities for new

ways of relating? How can we make individuals and communities aware of the

potential for creativity in their own lives? A whole world of research opens up as

we look at our predicament through the lens of creativity.

CONCLUSION

In this article we have reviewed the discourse of culture contact and diversity

and found it underpinned by a frame of domination. Starting with Chans five

types of culture contact we explored a variety of positions and perspectives on

Downloaded



July2010


18/21


diversity. We critiqued essentialist perspectives that saw culture contact as an

event involving two fundamentally closed systems for whom interaction can only

involve a choice of domination or submission, and offered a perspective that is

more relational, complex, and that focuses on the creative nature of interactions inculture contact. We proposed the importance of valorizing creative exchanges and

interactions, outlined key conceptual obstacles to understanding the possibility of

creative interaction, focusing in particular on essentialism and domination, and

stressed the importance of seeding the social imaginary with images and stories of

humanitys history of creative interactions, and an articulation of possible creative

futures.

We saw that Polak argued for the importance of images of the future. Morin

(Morin and Kern 1999) has argued that we are experiencing a crisis of the

future, lacking, in other words, compelling images of a desirable future. Morins

central argument is that in a world becoming increasingly complexwith complex

understood broadly here as more interconnected, interdependent, diverse, and

adaptivea kind of thinking is needed that accounts for this complexity. We

saw that in the United States images of creativity have tended to be reductive

and disjunctive, focusing on eccentric lone geniuses and an either youve got it

or you havent approach, at the expense of more complex, nuanced, relational

frames, such as the ones emerging now (Montuori and Purser 1999; Barron 1995;

Bateson 2001). The emergence in the social imaginary of group and specifically

relational creativity has helped shift the understanding of creativity, and is now

being addressed in such popular books as Malcolm Gladwells Outliers (2009),Godins Tribes (2009), and Surowieckis The Wisdom of Tribes (2005), among

others. The incredible boom in social networking has also perhaps inevitably led

to a greater appreciation of interconnectedness, and again popular works such as

BarabasisLinked(2003), and CaprasThe Web of Life (1996), present theoretical

foundations for this shift in works of scientific popularization.

The development of more complex ways of representing the worlds diversity,

interrelations, and interdependence is a powerful artistic, theoretical, and practical

challenge. Movies such asBabel and Crashhave attempted to capture this com-

plexity, and it is clear that these are just emerging efforts. An enormous creativetask lies ahead of those who choose to view the world in a more complex way,

valorizing creativity, collaboration, and complexity. It is a challenge that is truly

transdisciplinary, drawing on the arts, the sciences, the social sciences, and the

humanities, and must begin with a process of collection, documentation, and pop-

ularization of the innumerable examples of hybridity and cultural creativity that

have made such a remarkable contribution to the human journey, and our emerging

planetary culture.

REFERENCES

Abbs, P. 2003. Against the flow. Education the arts and postmodern culture. New York:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Alter, N. 2003.Linnovation ordinaire [Ordinary innovation]. Paris: PUF.

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Downloaded



July2010


19/21


. 1998. How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review (Sept.Oct.): 179189.

Anand, R., and M. F. Winters. 2008. A retrospective view of corporate diversity train-

ing from 1964- the present. Academy of Management Learning & Education 7(3):

356372.Anzaldua, G. 1987.Borderlands/La Frontera: The new mestiza(San Francisco, CA, Aunt

Lute Book Company).

Appiah, K. A. 2006.Cosmopolitanism. Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: Norton.

Aronowitz, S. 2001. The knowledge factory: Dismantling the corporate university and

creating true higher learning. Boston: Beacon.

Ashcroft, B. 2001.Post-colonial transformation. NY: Routledge.

Barabasi, A. 2003. Linked. How everything is connected to everything else and what it

means for business, science, and everyday life. New York: Plume.

Barron, F. 1995.No rootless flower: Towards an ecology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hamp-

ton Press.

Barron, F., and H. B. Young. 1970. Rome and Boston: A tale of two cities and their

difference on the creativity and personal philosophy of Southern Italian immigrants.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology1(2): 91114.

Bateson, M. C. 1994. Peripheral visions. Learning along the way. New York: Harper

Collins.

. 2001.Composing a life. New York: Grove Press.

Benet-Martnez, V., and J. Haritatos. 2005. Bicultural identity integration (BII): Com-

ponents and psychosocial antecendents. Journal of Personality 73(4): 1015

1050.

Benet-Martnez, V., F. Lee, and J. Leu. 2006. Biculturalism and cognitive complexity:

Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37(4):386407.

Benhabib, S. 2006.Another cosmopolitanism. NY: Oxford University Press.

Bernstein, R. 2005.The abuse of evil: Politics and religion after 9/11. Malden, MA: Polity

Press.

Berry, E. E., and M. N. Epstein. 1999. Transcultural experiments. Russian and American

modes of creative communication. New York: St. Martins Press.

Bocchi, G., and M. Ceruti. 1997. Solidarity or barbarism: A Europe of diversity against

ethnic cleansing. New York: Peter Lang.

. 2002.The narrative universe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Capra, F. 1996.The web of life. New York: Anchor.Ceruti, M. 2008.Evolution without foundations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Chambers, I. 1994.Migrancy, culture, identity. New York: Routledge.

Chan, K.B. 2002.Both sides now: culture contact, hybridization, and cosmopolitanism

in Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen (eds) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Chan, K. B. 2005.Chinese Identities, Ethnicity and Cosmopolitanism. London: Routledge.

. 2002. Both sides, now: Culture contact, hybridization, and cosmopolitanism. In

Conceiving cosmopolitanism, ed. R. Cohen and C. Vertovec. Oxford: Oxford Univer-

sity Press. pp. 191208.

Cheah, P. 2006. Cosmopolitanism. Theory, culture, & society. 23(23), 486496.

Chen, C. 2007. The difference that differences make: Asian feminism and the politics of

difference.Asian Journal of Womens Studies, 13(3), 736, 146. Retrieved June 29,

2008, from GenderWatch (GW) database. (Document ID: 1361829051).

Collins, R. 1998. The sociology of philosophies: A global history of intellectual change .

Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard.

Downloaded



July2010


20/21


Eisler, R. 1987.The chalice and the blade. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Fanon, F. 1967.Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove Press.

Florida, Richard. 2002.The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.

Gladwell, M. 2009.Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown and Company.Godin, S. 2009.Tribes. We need you to lead us. New York: Portfolio.

Goehr, L. 1992. The imaginary museum of musical works. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Hall, S. 1990. Cultural identity and Diaspora. In P. Williams and L. Chrisman (Eds.)

Colonial discourse and post-colonial theory: A reader. pp. 392403. NY: Columbia

University Press.

Hill Collins, P. 1986. Learning from the outsider within: the sociological significance of

Black feminist thought.Social Problems, 33, S14S32.

Hobson, J. M. 2004. The Eastern origins of Western civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Huntington, S. 1998. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Huntington, S.P. 1993. The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 2249.

Johnson, C.D. 2008. Its more than the five to dos: Insights on diversity education and

training from Roosevelt Thomas, a pioneer and thought leader in the field. Academy

of Management Learning & Education7(3), 406417.

Koestler, A. 1990.The act of creation. New York: Penguin Books.

Kraver, J. R. 1999. Restocking the melting pot: Americanization as cultural imperialism.

Race, gender & class, 6(4), 61. Retrieved July 23, 2008. From Genderwatch (GW)

database. (Document ID: 494621551)

Kulik, C. and Roberson, L. 2008. Common goals and golden opportunities: Evaluations ofdiversity education in academic and organizational settings. Academy of Management

Learning and Education7(3), 309331.

Laplantine, F., R. de Villanova, and G. Vermes, eds. 2003. Le metissage interculturel.

Cr eativit e dans le relations inegalitaires. [Cultural metissage. Creativity in unequal

relations.]Paris: LHarmattan.

Laplantine, F., and A. Nous. 2001. M etissages. Paris: Pauvert.

Loomba, A., Kaul, S., Bunzl, M., Burton, A., Esty, J. 2005. Postcolonial studies and beyond.

Durham: Duke University Press.

Montuori, A. 1989.Evolutionary competence: Creating the future. Amsterdam: Gieben.

. 2005. How to make enemies and influence people. Anatomy of totalitarian thinking.Futures37: 1838.

. 2006. The quest for a new education: From oppositional identities to creative

inquiry.ReVision28(3): 420.

Montuori, A., and U. Fahim. 2004. Cross-cultural encounter as an opportunity for personal

growth.Journal of Humanistic Psychology 44(2): 243265.

Montuori, A., and R. Purser. 1995. Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Towards a con-

textual view of creativity.Journal of Humanistic Psychology 35(3): 69112.

Montuori, A., and R. E. Purser, eds. 1999.Social creativity, ed. M. Runco. Vol. 1. Cresskill,

NJ: Hampton Press.

Morin, E. 2001.Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO.

. 2008.On complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Morin, E., and B. Kern. 1999. Homeland Earth: A manifesto for the new millennium.

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Niederveen Pieterse, J. 2004. Globalization and culture. Global melange. Lanham, MD:

Rowan & Littlefield.

Downloaded



July2010


21/21


Nott, J. C., and G. R. Gliddon. 1855.Types of mankind. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo.

Polak, F. 1973.The image of the future. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Com-

pany.

Rodriguez, A. P. 2000. Adjusting the multicultural lens.Race, gender & class, 7(3), 150. Re-trieved June 21, 2008, from GenderWatch (GW) database. (Document ID: 494620361)

Said, E. 1978.Orientalism. NY: Vintage Books.

. 1993.Culture and Imperialism. London: Chatto & Windus.

Sawyer, J. E. 2006.Explaining creativity. The science of human innovation. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Sokolov, R. 1993. Why we eat what we eat: How Columbus changed the way the world

eats. New York: Touchstone.

Stonequist, E. V. 1961. The marginal man: A study in personality and culture contact. New

York: Russell & Russell.

Surowiecki, J. 2005.The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor.

Thompson, W. I. 1986. Pacific shift. San Francisco: Sierra Club.

. 1989. Imaginary landscape. Making worlds of myth and science. New York: St.

Martins Press.

. ed. 1987.Gaia: A way of knowing. Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfarne Press.

Wagner, R. 1981.The invention of culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilden, A. 1980. System and structure. Essays in communication and exchange. London:

Routledge & Kegan.

Williams, P. and Chrisman, L. 1994. Colonial discourse and post-colonial theory: A reader.

NY: Columbia University Press.

Wortham, A. 2001. The melting pot. The world & I, 16(9), 261281. Retrieved July 23,

2008. From Research Library database. (Document ID: 78408336)

Downloaded



July2010

Montuori:Stephenson Creativity Culture Contact and Diversity

Documents

Transcript of Montuori:Stephenson Creativity Culture Contact and Diversity