创造力社会学：要素、结构和受众

注：机翻，未校。

The Sociology of Creativity: Elements, Structures, and Audiences

创造力社会学：要素、结构和受众

Frédéric Godart1, Sorah Seong2, and Damon J. Phillips3
Vol. 46:489-510 (Volume publication date July 2020) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054833
First published as a Review in Advance on April 13, 2020
Copyright © 2020 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

ABSTRACT

摘要

This review integrates diverse characterizations of creativity from a sociological perspective with the goal of reinvigorating discussion of the sociology of creativity. We start by exploring relevant works of classical social theory to uncover key assumptions and principles, which are used as a theoretical basis for our proposed definition of creativity: an intentional configuration of cultural and material elements that is unexpected for a given audience. Our argument is enriched by locating creativity vis-à-vis related concepts—such as originality, knowledge, innovation, atypicality, and consecration—and across neighboring disciplines. Underlying the discussion are antecedents (structure, institutions, and context) and consequences (audiences, perception, and evaluation), which are treated separately. We end our review by speculating on ways in which sociologists can take the discussion of creativity forward.
这篇评论从社会学的角度整合了创造力的不同特征，目的是重新激发对创造力社会学的讨论。我们首先探索古典社会理论的相关著作，以揭示关键的假设和原则，这些假设和原则被用作我们提出的创造力定义的理论基础：对特定受众来说出乎意料的文化和物质元素的有意配置。通过将创造力与相关概念（如原创性、知识、创新、非典型性和奉献性）以及相邻学科相提并论来丰富我们的论点。讨论的基础是前因（结构、制度和背景）和后果（受众、感知和评估），它们被单独处理。我们通过推测社会学家可以如何推动对创造力的讨论来结束我们的评论。

Keywords

关键词

atypicality, 非典型性 /
creative industries,
创意产业，
creativity, 创造力
cultural elements, 文化元素，
novelty, 新奇
originality 创意

INTRODUCTION

简介

The study of creativity is pervasive in contemporary sociology. Sociologists have explored individual careers in artistic and cultural fields (e.g., Menger 1999, White 1993, Wohl 2019), the structural determinants of creative achievement (e.g., Cattani et al. 2014, De Vaan et al. 2015, Godart et al. 2014, Phillips 2011, Uzzi & Spiro 2005), and, more broadly, the generation of cultural output in the arts and the creative industries (e.g., Lena 2019, Moeran & Pedersen 2011, Opazo 2018). However, creativity as a sociological field of study encounters several challenges. First, there is intense disagreement about the concept of creativity among sociologists, not only because its conceptual elusiveness calls for historical contextualization (Reckwitz 2017) but also because its normative role as a construct associated with progress has been challenged (Morgan & Nelligan 2018). Second, existing scholarship is often rooted in related concepts such as originality and atypicality, differences between which have impeded the cumulative development of theoretical knowledge and consistent measurement of creativity across disparate studies. Third, flanked by a diverse literature on creativity in neighboring disciplines (namely psychology and economics), the benefits of constructing “a sociology of creativity” have “not been given the attention [they] deserve” (Chan 2011, p. 135, italics in original).
对创造力的研究在当代社会学中无处不在。社会学家探索了艺术和文化领域的个人职业（例如，Menger 1999、White 1993、Wohl 2019）、创意成就的结构决定因素（例如，Cattani 等人，2014 年，De Vaan 等人，2015 年，Godart 等人，2014 年，Phillips 2011 年，Uzzi & Spiro 2005 年），以及更广泛地说，艺术和创意产业中文化产出的产生（例如， Lena 2019，Moeran & Pedersen 2011，Opazo 2018）。然而，创造力作为一个社会学研究领域遇到了几个挑战。首先，社会学家对创造力的概念存在强烈的分歧，不仅因为它概念的难以捉摸性需要历史背景化（Reckwitz 2017），还因为它作为与进步相关的结构的规范性角色受到了挑战（Morgan & Nelligan，2018）。其次，现有的学术研究往往植根于相关概念，如原创性和非典型性，它们之间的差异阻碍了理论知识的累积发展和不同研究中创造力的一致衡量。第三，在邻近学科（即心理学和经济学）关于创造力的各种文献的两侧，构建“创造力社会学”的好处“没有得到应有的关注”（Chan 2011，第 135 页，原文为斜体字）。

Although sociologists are attuned to the significance of creativity as a desired social norm that “aids problem solving, innovation, and aesthetics,” the sociology of creativity “is still forming” (Uzzi & Spiro 2005, p. 447), as reflected by a lack of creativity reviews in top sociology journals, compared with other fields. Two such reviews were published in the Annual Review of Psychology (Hennessey & Amabile 2010, Runco 2004), in which creativity was defined as “the generation of products or ideas that are both novel and appropriate” (Hennessey & Amabile 2010, p. 570). Several creativity reviews have appeared in major management journals (e.g., George 2007), some making references to sociology while reviewing management research on the creative and cultural industries (Peltoniemi 2015) and the receiving side of creativity (i.e., evaluation) (Zhou et al. 2019). As interest in sociological thinking on creativity rises, the timing seems right to cultivate a sociological component to the reviews of creativity research.
尽管社会学家已经认识到创造力作为一种理想的社会规范的重要性，它“有助于解决问题、创新和美学”，但创造力的社会学“仍在形成”（Uzzi & Spiro 2005，第447页），这反映在顶级社会学期刊中缺乏创造力评论，与其他领域相比。在心理学年度评论中发表了两篇这样的评论（Hennessey & Amabile 2010，Runco 2004），其中创造力被定义为“产生既新颖又适当的产品或想法”（Hennessey & Amabile 2010，第570页）。一些创意评论出现在主要的管理期刊上（例如，George 2007），其中一些在评论创意和文化产业的管理研究（Peltoniemi 2015）和创造力的接受方（即评估）（周 et al. 2019）时提到了社会学。随着人们对创造力的社会学思考的兴趣上升，在创造力研究的评论中培养社会学成分的时机似乎是正确的。

The goal of the present review is therefore to establish a coherent view of creativity using a sociological lens spanning time (encompassing classical and contemporary work on creativity) and space (articulating relevant discussions in sociology, psychology, and economics). By identifying and blending key sociological elements of creativity, a blueprint emerges for our proposed definition of creativity as an intentional configuration of cultural and material elements that is unexpected for a given audience. In unpacking this definition theoretically and empirically (using examples), we address the three challenges identified above, thereby bringing semantic consistency to creativity research and clarifying the normative implications of creativity. Ultimately, our review constitutes an invitation to sociologists to pay more attention to creativity and advance toward a sociology of creativity.
因此，本综述的目标是使用跨越时间（包括古典和当代创造力工作）和空间（阐明社会学、心理学和经济学中的相关讨论）的社会学视角来建立一致的创造力观。通过识别和混合创造力的关键社会学元素，我们提出的创造力定义为文化和物质元素的有意配置，这对特定受众来说是意想不到的，从而出现了一个蓝图。在从理论和实证上（使用示例）解读这个定义时，我们解决了上面确定的三个挑战，从而为创造力研究带来了语义一致性，并阐明了创造力的规范性含义。归根结底，我们的评论构成了对社会学家的邀请，让他们更加关注创造力，并朝着创造力社会学的方向发展。

We begin by looking at creativity in the context of classical sociology and social theory to highlight its salience to the discipline. In reviewing contemporary interpretations of selected classical theorists’ treatment of creativity, we uncover the key assumptions and principles underlying much of the classical work on creativity, which we use as the theoretical basis for our definition. The discussion is enriched by comparing creativity with originality, knowledge, innovation, atypicality, and consecration—which we see as the key related sociological concepts—and highlights relevant aspects of creativity research in psychology and economics (the two most relevant neighboring disciplines). Other disciplines such as anthropology and philosophy are touched on as needed. To establish the conceptual boundaries of our definition, we examine two sociological components of creativity—antecedents (structure, institutions, and context) and consequences (audiences, perception, and evaluation)—in the context of contemporary sociology.
我们首先在古典社会学和社会理论的背景下研究创造力，以强调它在学科中的重要性。在回顾对选定的古典理论家对创造力的处理方式的当代解释时，我们揭示了许多经典创造力著作背后的关键假设和原则，我们将其用作我们定义的理论基础。通过将创造力与原创性、知识、创新、非典型性和奉献性（我们认为这是关键的相关社会学概念）进行比较，丰富了讨论，并强调了心理学和经济学（两个最相关的相邻学科）中创造力研究的相关方面。其他学科，如人类学和哲学，根据需要触及。为了建立我们定义的概念界限，我们在当代社会学的背景下研究了创造力的两个社会学组成部分——前因（结构、制度和背景）和后果（受众、感知和评估）。

We used the standard approach of scanning existing articles systematically in bibliometric databases, in this case the Web of Science (Hennessey & Amabile 2010), and various creativity-related keywords 1 to identify relevant articles between 2009 and 2019 (inclusive) in 7 sociology journals 2 and 11 management journals 3 in which sociologists routinely publish. Our search yielded 2,170 articles, including book reviews (which helped identify relevant books).
我们使用了系统地扫描文献计量数据库中现有文章的标准方法，在这种情况下是Web of Science（Hennessey & Amabile 2010），以及各种与创新相关的关键词1来识别2009年至2019年（含）之间的相关文章，这些文章在社会学家经常发表的7种社会学期刊2和11种管理期刊3中。我们的检索产生了 2,170 篇文章，包括书评（有助于确定相关书籍）。

扫描二维码关注公众号，回复： 17506697 查看本文章

As much of the sociological research on creativity is published not by the most impactful generalist journals in the field but in specialized journals (e.g., Poetics), books, and the field of organization and management theory, we conducted targeted searches on an ad hoc basis. Beyond exhaustively reviewing all sociological publications discussing creativity in top generalist sociology journals, we selected publications rooted in other disciplines and related concepts. Only when the work contained a salient discussion of creativity was it deemed relevant for inclusion in our database. We conclude our review with observations on how current understanding of creativity can inform future research in sociology and inspire a more integrative, cross-disciplinary approach.
由于许多关于创造力的社会学研究不是由该领域最具影响力的通才期刊发表的，而是在专业期刊（例如诗学）、书籍以及组织与管理理论领域发表的，因此我们进行了有针对性的搜索。除了详尽地回顾顶级通才社会学期刊中所有讨论创造力的社会学出版物外，我们还选择了植根于其他学科和相关概念的出版物。只有当作品包含对创造力的突出讨论时，它才被认为与纳入我们的数据库相关。我们在回顾的最后观察了当前对创造力的理解如何为未来的社会学研究提供信息，并激发了一种更加综合的跨学科方法。

Our contribution is threefold. First, we highlight the need for an articulated understanding of creativity encompassing the various social settings in which it is central. Second, we shed light on the sociological underpinnings of creativity in an effort to advance understanding of their context-dependent and evolving nature. Finally, we aim to spark interest among scholars in taking a more interdisciplinary approach, be it with conceptual, theoretical, or empirical projects.
我们的贡献是三方面的。首先，我们强调需要对创造力进行清晰的理解，包括以创造力为中心的各种社会环境。其次，我们阐明了创造力的社会学基础，以努力促进对其环境依赖和不断发展的性质的理解。最后，我们的目标是激发学者们对采取更具跨学科性的方法的兴趣，无论是概念、理论还是实证项目。

CREATIVITY IN CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL THEORY

经典社会学和社会理论中的创造力

The Roots of the Sociology of Creativity

创造力社会学的根源

We first look at creativity in the context of classical sociology and social theory, leveraging contemporary interpretations to uncover unspoken assumptions and principles that then serve as a theoretical basis for our sociological definition of creativity. While a consensual definition of the subject is not essential to meaningful research in social science (Klausen 2010), our definitional effort is based on [Durkheim’s 1982 (1895), p. 74] claim that “the sociologist’s first step must…be to define the things [they] treat.”
我们首先在古典社会学和社会理论的背景下看待创造力，利用当代解释来揭示不言而喻的假设和原则，然后作为我们对创造力的社会学定义的理论基础。虽然对主题的共识定义对于社会科学的有意义的研究不是必需的（Klausen 2010），但我们的定义工作是基于涂尔干 [1982 （1895），第 74 页] 的主张，即“社会学家的第一步必须…来定义 [他们] 处理的事物。

Selecting a lineup of classical social theorists is a daunting task. We begin our review by going back to Marx, Durkheim, and Weber—who are conventionally believed to be the chief founders of the discipline (see Giddens 1971)—and social theorists in whose work creativity has played a central role. One could argue that classical social theorists are interested in social stability over change and that this weakens the presence of creativity in their work (Némedi 1998). However, recent research has highlighted the conceptual tenets of creativity in classical social theory even when the term is not explicitly mentioned. Understanding its role in classical social theory has become a significant component of the current effort to establish a sociology of creativity (Reckwitz 2017, Watts Miller 2017).
选择古典社会理论家的阵容是一项艰巨的任务。我们首先回顾马克思、涂尔干和韦伯——他们通常被认为是这门学科的主要创始人（见 Giddens 1971）——以及社会理论家，他们的工作中创造力发挥了核心作用。有人可能会争辩说，古典社会理论家对社会稳定而不是变化感兴趣，这削弱了他们工作中创造力的存在（Némedi 1998）。然而，最近的研究强调了古典社会理论中创造力的概念原则，即使该术语没有明确提及。了解它在古典社会理论中的作用已成为当前建立创造力社会学努力的重要组成部分（Reckwitz 2017，Watts Miller 2017）。

Marx’s understanding of creativity is rooted in his rejection of Hegel’s idealism (Sayers 2011) and the Western philosophical tradition more broadly—since Plato’s Ion—in which creativity is considered a form of madness or “an activity of the gods in us” (Gaut 2010, p. 1038). For [Marx 1972 (1844)], creativity is fundamentally a cultural phenomenon—as in the arts—that cannot be separated from its material foundations (i.e., the work needed to make it real). The painter’s hand, therefore, is not guided by divine inspiration; it is the time and effort spent practicing that matter. In short, creativity is imagination made concrete and plays out in different ways (Parsons 1983). First, creativity is fundamentally human because, unlike other animals, humans create “an objective world…in accordance with the laws of beauty” [Marx 1972 (1844), p. 76, italics in original]. Second, it is integral to modern capitalism as it constantly innovates and generates wealth, albeit as individuals are impelled to sell their labor to survive, they are alienated from their work, ultimately losing control over what they produce and the connections they form with others and their inner selves. Paradoxically, then, capitalism’s unending demand for creativity risks destroying its foundations.
马克思对创造力的理解植根于他对黑格尔唯心主义（Sayers 2011）和更广泛的西方哲学传统（自柏拉图的离子以来）的拒绝，其中创造力被认为是一种疯狂的形式或“我们内在众神的活动”（Gaut 2010，第 1038 页）。对于马克思 [1972 （1844）] 来说，创造力从根本上说是一种文化现象——就像在艺术中一样——它离不开它的物质基础（即使它成为现实所需的工作）。因此，画家的手不受神圣灵感的引导;而是花在实践上的时间和精力。简而言之，创造力是具体化的想象力，并以不同的方式发挥作用（Parsons 1983）。首先，创造力从根本上说是人类的，因为与其他动物不同，人类创造了“一个客观的世界…根据美的法则“[马克思 1972 （1844），第 76 页，原文为斜体字]。其次，它是现代资本主义不可或缺的一部分，因为它不断创新并创造财富，尽管当个人被迫出售他们的劳动力以求生存时，他们与自己的工作疏远，最终失去了对他们生产的东西以及他们与他人和内在自我形成的联系的控制。那么，自相矛盾的是，资本主义对创造力的无休止的需求有可能摧毁它的基础。

Creativity is a “key concern and problematic built into Durkheim’s sociology from the start” (Watts Miller 2017, p. 17). Like Marx, Durkheim finds creativity in human nature, introducing such concepts as “creative power” (puissance créatrice) and “free creations of the mind” (libres créations de l’esprit) (Watts Miller 2017, p. 19). Durkheimian notions of creativity are most saliently observed in his study of religion. He sees effervescence of religious life as the source of creativity, introducing it as an embodiment of the power of society as well as a manifestation of collective consciousness. The cultural elements that remain after a religious experience thus become a “surplus…seek[ing] to busy itself with supplementary and superfluous works of luxury—that is, with works of art” [Durkheim 1995 (1912), p. 385]. Creativity emerges when individuals engage in a playful combination of these elements.
创造力是“从一开始就融入涂尔干社会学的关键关注点和问题”（Watts Miller 2017，第 17 页）。与马克思一样，涂尔干在人性中发现了创造力，引入了“创造力”（puissance créatrice）和“心灵的自由创造”（libres créations de l’esprit）等概念（瓦茨·米勒 2017 年，第 19 页）。涂尔干的创造力概念在他的宗教研究中得到了最突出的体现。他将宗教生活的活力视为创造力的源泉，将其作为社会力量的体现以及集体意识的体现。因此，宗教体验后留下的文化元素成为“剩余…寻求忙于补充和多余的奢侈品——即艺术作品“[涂尔干 1995 （1912），第 385 页]。当个人以有趣的方式将这些元素组合在一起时，创造力就会出现。

[Weber’s 1986 (1921)] approach to creativity appears to contradict Marx’s theory that modern capitalism is driven by an exceptional ability to innovate. For Weber, capitalism is sustained by bureaucracy; the adoption of increasingly rational and rigid organizational functions can dampen innovation. Yet creativity is not altogether absent from Weber’s bureaucratic capitalism—it appears in the form of a specialized function managed by engineers within the organization, such as the R&D department. Thus, creativity can be an organizational phenomenon—its fate hinges on organizational factors.
韦伯 [1986 （1921）] 的创造力方法似乎与马克思的理论相矛盾，马克思认为现代资本主义是由非凡的创新能力驱动的。对韦伯来说，资本主义是由官僚主义维持的;采用越来越理性和僵化的组织职能会抑制创新。然而，韦伯的官僚资本主义并非完全没有创造力——它以组织内工程师管理的专业职能形式出现，例如研发部门。因此，创造力可以是一种组织现象——它的命运取决于组织因素。

Marx, Durkheim, and Weber offer a first glimpse of what creativity might look like in the context of sociology, that is, a fundamentally human and collective penchant to create something new by combining various elements from both the cultural and material realms. The focus on creation is not surprising given that the word creativity comes from the Latin creāre (to create) (Götz 1981, p. 298). This perspective might be said to resemble the anthropological notion of creativity as constitutive of all human societies (Fuentes 2017), perhaps predating language itself (Asma 2017), but sociologists see creativity as a context-dependent construct with a central role in generating change and innovation in the context of modern capitalism, facilitated by the emergence of new forms of social organization and institutions.
马克思、涂尔干和韦伯让我们第一次看到了创造力在社会学背景下可能是什么样子，也就是说，从根本上说，人类和集体倾向于通过结合文化和物质领域的各种元素来创造新事物。鉴于创造力一词来自拉丁语 creāre（创造）（Götz 1981，第 298 页），因此对创造的关注并不奇怪。这种观点可以说类似于人类学概念，即创造力是所有人类社会的组成部分（Fuentes 2017），可能早于语言本身（Asma 2017），但社会学家将创造力视为一种依赖于环境的结构，在现代资本主义的背景下在产生变革和创新方面发挥着核心作用，这得益于新形式的社会组织和机构的出现。

Other (classical) social theorists from the twentieth century who are considered to have contributed to a sociological understanding of creativity include [Tarde 1903 (1890)], with his exploration of imitation and diffusion. Like Durkheim, Tarde uses several synonyms such as invention, inventivité (inventiveness), and imagination créatrice (creative imagination) to refer to the emergence of new ideas and practices (Glăveanu 2019). Unlike Durkheim, Tarde sees imitation as central to our understanding of society and as the enabler of creativity—albeit the two may seem antithetical. He argues that as individuals of different origin simultaneously imitate one another to make sense of their diversity, new ideas, practices, and products emerge. In short, there is no creativity without imitation. He thus introduces a combinatorial view of creativity (Simonton 2010)—individuals borrow various elements from each other and thus create something unexpected.
其他被认为对创造力的社会学理解做出贡献的 20 世纪（古典）社会理论家包括 Tarde [1903 （1890）]，他对模仿和传播的探索。与涂尔干一样，Tarde 使用了几个同义词，例如 invention、inventivité（发明性）和 imagination créatrice（创造性想象）来指代新想法和实践的出现（Glăveanu 2019）。与涂尔干不同，塔尔德将模仿视为我们理解社会的核心，也是创造力的推动者——尽管两者似乎是对立的。他认为，当不同来源的个体同时相互模仿以理解他们的多样性时，新的想法、实践和产品就会出现。简而言之，没有模仿就没有创造力。因此，他引入了一种创造力的组合观点（Simonton 2010）——个体相互借用各种元素，从而创造出意想不到的东西。

The notion that creativity stems from imitation and connects disparate individuals is central to [Adorno & Horkheimer’s 1997 (1947)] analysis of the culture industry (Kulturindustrie in German) (i.e., popular culture and the mass media), thereby attributing to creativity a role in social domination (see Negus & Pickering 2000). They argue that while modern capitalism has displaced traditional aesthetics, far from generating social fragmentation and cultural dislocation, the optimized, industrialized process of rearranging cultural and material elements gives rise to supply-driven cultural products designed to appeal to a broad audience. Hollywood movies, pop songs, and comic books are easy to understand and create a constant impression of newness that influences consumers’ expectations. Content to be entertained in this way, consumers do not question or challenge their position in the larger context of power relations.
阿多诺和霍克海默[1997 （1947）]对文化工业（德国文化工业）（即流行文化和大众媒体）的分析中的核心概念，从而将创造力归因于社会统治的角色（见Negus & Pickering 2000）。他们认为，虽然现代资本主义已经取代了传统美学，但远非造成社会碎片化和文化错位，而是重新安排文化和物质元素的优化、工业化过程催生了旨在吸引广大观众的供给驱动的文化产品。好莱坞电影、流行歌曲和漫画书很容易理解，并给人一种持续的新鲜感印象，从而影响消费者的期望。内容要以这种方式娱乐，消费者不会质疑或挑战他们在权力关系的更大背景下的地位。

A fundamental shift in the locus of creativity is found in actor-network theory and the sociology of translation, particularly Latour (1987) and Callon (1986), whose approach “decenters the study of creativity from humans” (Bartels & Bencherki 2013, p. 5), conceptualizing it as “a process that takes place continually, rather than as an isolated event” (Bartels & Bencherki 2013, p. 6). Creativity does not directly result from actants—be they human or nonhuman—interacting with one another but has a hybrid constitution. All creative acts and the creative process itself are embedded in, and shaped by, the network dynamics of given cultural and material elements. Scholars of actor-network theory view new scientific ideas as emerging from an intricate set of actants (e.g., scientists, scientific theories, and lab equipment). The idea of creativity as a form of embedded agency is relatedly suggested by Deleuze (1998), who views creativity “as the making of configurations” or “new relations…between elements in order to make up new beings, bodies, concepts, products, or things” (Bartels & Bencherki 2013, p. 1).
在行动者网络理论和翻译社会学中，特别是Latour（1987）和Callon（1986，他们的方法“将创造力的研究从人类转移到中心（Bartels & Bencherki 2013，第5页，将其概念化为“一个持续发生的过程，而不是一个孤立的事件，”（Bartels & Bencherki 2013年，第 6 页）。创造力不是直接来自行为者（无论是人类还是非人类）彼此互动的结果，而是具有混合结构。所有的创作行为和创作过程本身都嵌入在给定的文化和物质元素的网络动态中，并受其影响。行动者网络理论的学者认为，新的科学思想是从一组错综复杂的行动者（例如，科学家、科学理论和实验室设备）中产生的。德勒兹（Deleuze， 1998）也提出了将创造力作为一种嵌入式能动性形式的想法，他将创造力视为“构型的形成”或“新的关系…以构成新的存在、身体、概念、产品或事物“（Bartels & Bencherki 2013，第1页）。

Elias’s (1993) study of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the famous eighteenth-century Austrian composer, puts audiences at the center of the sociology of creativity. In his account of Mozart’s life, several sociological elements of creativity are visible, notably the constraining and enabling power of the social structure in establishing creative genius, be it social class dynamics or audience characteristics. To contextualize the story: Mozart was trained to take up a coveted position with an influential aristocrat at the Salzburg court. Not willing to pander to the tastes of his employer, Mozart sought to assert his creative autonomy by finding favor with a bourgeois audience in Vienna but was thwarted because the bourgeoisie was not powerful enough—yet—to ensure his music was accepted and promoted. However, this same audience would allow the German composer Ludwig van Beethoven—born 14 years after Mozart—to achieve creative autonomy. What Elias’s study illustrates is that audiences, far from being passive, shape the creative process and power dynamics by their evaluations of creativity.
Elias （1993）对 18 世纪著名奥地利作曲家沃尔夫冈·阿马德乌斯·莫扎特（Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart）的研究将观众置于创造力社会学的中心。在他对莫扎特生平的描述中，可以看到创造力的几个社会学因素，特别是社会结构在建立创造天才方面的制约和促成力量，无论是社会阶级动态还是观众特征。为了将故事置于背景中：莫扎特接受了培训，在萨尔茨堡宫廷中与一位有影响力的贵族一起担任令人垂涎的职位。莫扎特不愿迎合雇主的口味，他试图通过在维也纳寻找资产阶级观众的青睐来维护他的创作自主权，但由于资产阶级还不够强大，无法确保他的音乐被接受和推广，因此受挫。然而，同样的观众将使德国作曲家路德维希·范·贝多芬（Ludwig van Beethoven）——比莫扎特晚 14 年出生——获得创作自主权。Elias 的研究表明，观众远非被动的，而是通过他们对创造力的评估来塑造创作过程和权力动态。

The contested and contentious nature of audiences is central to [Bourdieu 1993, 1996 (1992)], who, like other French sociologists, never uses the word creativity but develops an overarching theory of artistic and cultural novelty that can inform the sociology of creativity (Chan 2017). He argues that creative producers compete to accumulate various forms of capital—be it symbolic or economic—by following as well as challenging conventions in their field. In seeking to cater to competing (sometimes irreconcilable) audience expectations, they end up surprising some of them—since unexpectedness depends on concurrent considerations and their knowledge of the field.
观众的争议和争议性是 Bourdieu [1993， 1996 （1992）] 的核心，他和其他法国社会学家一样，从不使用创造力这个词，而是发展了一个艺术和文化新奇性的总体理论，可以为创造力社会学提供信息（Chan 2017）。他认为，创意生产者通过遵循和挑战他们所在领域的惯例来竞争积累各种形式的资本——无论是象征性的还是经济性的。在寻求迎合相互竞争的（有时是不可调和的）观众期望的过程中，他们最终让其中一些人感到惊讶——因为意外取决于并发的考虑和他们对该领域的了解。

A more recent treatment of creativity in social theory involves addressing the issue of structuration, or how individual actions aggregate into the social structure, which either constrains or enables them (Giddens 1984). Accordingly, Joas (1996) introduces a comprehensive theory of social action centered explicitly on the concept of creativity (Kreativität in German). He argues that every action can entail creativity. Even the most routinized practices and thoughts must adapt to the demands of a specific context, often without time for reflection, normative guidance, or both. This links to Bourdieu’s (1984) theory of habitus, according to which individuals’ practices (what they do) and representations (what they think) are shaped by their collective socialization yet enacted in concrete settings, thus allowing for newness (Dalton 2004). Joas’s work establishes creativity as a key concept in social theory.
社会理论中对创造力的最新处理涉及解决结构问题，或者个人行为如何聚合到社会结构中，从而限制或促进它们（Giddens 1984）。因此，Joas （1996）引入了一个明确的以创造力概念为中心的社会行动综合理论（德语为 Kreativität）。他认为，每个行动都可以带来创造力。即使是最常规化的实践和思想也必须适应特定环境的要求，通常没有时间进行反思、规范指导或两者兼而有之。这与 Bourdieu （1984）的习惯理论有关，根据该理论，个人的实践（他们做什么）和表征（他们的想法）是由他们的集体社会化塑造的，但在具体环境中实施，因此允许新事物（Dalton 2004）。Joas 的工作将创造力确立为社会理论中的一个关键概念。

Laying Out a Sociological Definition of Creativity

对创造力的社会学定义

The preceding section highlights the linguistic and conceptual diversity surrounding the creativity concept in sociology and the intellectual endeavor that underpins efforts to establish a sociology of creativity. Despite sociologists’ long association with creativity, it has not been fully recognized, probably because the term creativity was not coined until the mid-twentieth century, notably in psychology (as detailed in the section titled The Standard Definition of Creativity in Psychology and How It Relates to Sociology). To remedy this, the key assumptions and principles underlying sociological thinking on creativity are set out below.
上一节强调了社会学中围绕创造力概念的语言和概念多样性，以及支撑建立创造力社会学努力的智力努力。尽管社会学家长期以来一直与创造力联系在一起，但它并没有得到充分的认可，可能是因为创造力这个词直到 20 世纪中叶才被创造出来，特别是在心理学中（详见题为“心理学中创造力的标准定义及其与社会学的关系”一节）。为了解决这个问题，下面列出了社会学对创造力的思考所依据的关键假设和原则。

First, creativity is a configuration of cultural and material elements. It stems from a combination of symbols, ideas, or objects (according to Durkheim and Tarde) that is enabled by work practices (Marx) and configured with the continuous interplay of various constraints and stakeholders (Latour and Callon). The process of combination and configuration is thus a collective endeavor stemming from groups or organizations (Durkheim and Weber) and socialization (Elias). It is the outcome that is potentially creative, not necessarily the producers themselves (Marx, Adorno and Horkheimer, and Latour and Callon). Creativity as a configuration is found not only in the highest forms of art but also in daily activities (Joas).
首先，创造力是文化和物质元素的配置。它源于符号、思想或对象的组合（根据涂尔干和塔尔德），由工作实践（马克思）实现，并配置了各种约束和利益相关者（拉图尔和卡隆）的持续相互作用。因此，组合和配置的过程是源于团体或组织（涂尔干和韦伯）和社会化（埃利亚斯）的集体努力。具有潜在创造性的是结果，而不一定是生产者本身（马克思、阿多诺和霍克海默，以及拉图尔和卡隆）。创造力作为一种配置，不仅存在于最高形式的艺术中，也存在于日常活动中（Joas）。

Second, creativity is intentional in the sense that it is not the result of chance events or pure randomness occurring beyond the reach of social actions. Rather, it relies on human labor (Marx), interactions (Durkheim), and organization (Weber). This is not to imply a total absence of randomness in the creative process. We cannot fully explain—much less predict—why a particular combination of elements (Tarde) is seen as more creative than another, precisely because there is a certain randomness in any process of configuration. Note that intentionality applies to configurations, not unexpectedness: While configurations that can potentially be considered creative are always preceded by intentionality, unexpectedness is often independent of the original intention. Such dynamics are salient in the culture industry, where producers’ noncreative intention—be it making a profit or achieving social domination (Adorno and Horkheimer)—sometimes translates into a cultural offering that surprises consumers and hence garners a shared perception of creativity.
其次，创造力是有意的，因为它不是偶然事件的结果，也不是社会行为无法触及的纯粹随机性的结果。相反，它依赖于人类劳动（马克思）、互动（涂尔干）和组织（韦伯）。这并不意味着创作过程中完全没有随机性。我们无法完全解释——更不用说预测——为什么一个特定的元素组合（Tarde）被认为比另一个更有创意，正是因为任何配置过程都存在一定的随机性。请注意，意向性适用于配置，而不是意外性：虽然可能被视为创意的配置总是在意向性之前，但意外性通常独立于原始意图。这种动态在文化产业中尤为突出，生产者的非创造性意图——无论是盈利还是实现社会统治（阿多诺和霍克海默）——有时会转化为一种让消费者感到惊喜的文化产品，从而获得对创造力的共同认知。

Third, the configuration of elements must be unexpected for a given audience to be deemed creative. Unexpectedness is in the eyes of the audience that consumes and assesses what producers have to offer—each audience member looking through their own interpretive lens (Bourdieu). Since their prior knowledge and expectations will vary significantly, creativity judgments are by nature contentious (Elias). To be deemed unexpected does not come lightly (Bourdieu), as it depends on the audiences’ shared history, conventions, and evolving tastes. Moreover, producers shape the creative process and its outcome by projecting their own creative idiosyncrasies onto the evaluating audience to increase the perceived unexpectedness of a product (Adorno and Horkheimer). Creativity, therefore, is located at the intersection of production and consumption—the two sides of the creative process competing for what should be seen as unexpected, a key feature of modern capitalism (Marx, Weber, and Adorno and Horkheimer).
第三，元素的配置必须是出乎意料的，才能将给定受众视为创意。出乎意料的是，在消费和评估制片人所提供的东西的观众眼中——每个观众都通过自己的解释镜头来看待（布迪厄）。由于他们先前的知识和期望会有很大差异，因此创造力判断本质上是有争议的（Elias）。被认为是出乎意料并不是一件容易的事（布迪厄），因为这取决于观众的共同历史、习俗和不断变化的品味。此外，制片人通过将自己的创意特质投射到评估受众上来塑造创作过程及其结果，以增加产品的感知出乎意料性（Adorno 和 Horkheimer）。因此，创造力位于生产和消费的交叉点——创造性过程的双方争夺本应被视为意想不到的东西，这是现代资本主义的一个关键特征（马克思、韦伯、阿多诺和霍克海默）。

Integrating the above assumptions and principles, we arrive at a definition of creativity as an intentional configuration of material and cultural elements that is unexpected for a given audience. Below, we consider how this definition relates to concepts in contemporary sociology and compare the sociological approach with works in allied disciplines.
综合上述假设和原则，我们得出了创造力的定义，即对特定观众来说是意想不到的物质和文化元素的有意配置。下面，我们考虑这个定义与当代社会学概念的关系，并将社会学方法与相关学科的著作进行比较。

THE MANY CONCEPTUAL FACETS OF CREATIVITY IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY AND OTHER DISCIPLINES

当代社会学和其他学科中关于创造力的许多概念方面

Concepts Related to Creativity in Sociology

社会学中与创造力相关的概念

In recent years, creativity research in sociology has focused on the process of assessing cultural output and the diversity of evaluating audiences—a view that aligns with our definition of creativity. For example, Uzzi & Spiro (2005, p. 447) capture the creativity of Broadway musical artists “in terms of the financial and artistic performance of the musicals they produced,” acknowledging both commercial and critical success as salient evaluation criteria (Becker 1982). In the video games industry, De Vaan et al. (2015) introduce and operationalize the concept of game changers by measuring novelty based on features (inventiveness) and recognition made by industry experts (critical acclaim). This example suggests that sociologists comprise an audience of their own in the chosen empirical setting in which they develop creativity measures by defining and leveraging standardized criteria (such as inventiveness) or combining existing ones.
近年来，社会学中的创造力研究集中在评估文化输出的过程和评估受众的多样性上——这一观点与我们对创造力的定义是一致的。例如，Uzzi & Spiro （2005， p. 447）捕捉了百老汇音乐艺术家的创造力，“就他们制作的音乐剧的财务和艺术表现而言”，承认商业和评论上的成功是突出的评估标准（Becker 1982）。在视频游戏行业，De Vaan 等人（2015 年）通过根据功能（创造性）和行业专家的认可（好评）来衡量新颖性，从而引入并实施游戏规则改变者的概念。这个例子表明，社会学家在选定的实证环境中构成了他们自己的受众，他们通过定义和利用标准化标准（如发明性）或结合现有标准来制定创造力衡量标准。

If sociologists rarely evoke the semantics of creativity, it may be because they tend to resort to related concepts such as originality, knowledge, innovation, atypicality, and consecration to describe and explain phenomena pertaining to creativity. While this list is by no means exhaustive—indeed, we hope it will be fine-tuned by further research—it reflects the relative salience of conceptual development in sociological research. We identify and review these related concepts to derive further insights about creativity.
如果社会学家很少唤起创造力的语义，那可能是因为他们倾向于诉诸相关概念，如原创性、知识、创新、非典型性和奉献性来描述和解释与创造力有关的现象。虽然这份清单绝非详尽无遗——事实上，我们希望它能通过进一步的研究进行微调——但它反映了社会学研究中概念发展的相对显著性。我们识别并回顾这些相关概念，以进一步了解创造力。

Originality is often evoked when describing or defining creativity (Acar et al. 2017). Since its foundational role in Merton’s (1968) early studies of modern science, originality has been redefined and expanded to evaluate scholarship in the social sciences, humanities, and history (Guetzkow et al. 2004)—thereby revealing a degree of interdisciplinary variance in terms of where originality is most valued. Social scientists value originality in method, whereas humanists and historians value originality in approach—reinforcing the notion that creativity is in the eye of the beholder. Although the term is often used synonymously with creativity (Guetzkow et al. 2004), since they both imply elements of surprise, there is a significant difference between the two. While originality has moral undertones—it is associated with a strong work ethic and a certain moral superiority of the focal individual—creativity does not; its locus lies in the output itself (rather than the creator) and thus cannot be subjected to a moral imperative. Indeed, attempts to view it that way have been resisted by sociologists (Osborne 2003).
在描述或定义创造力时，通常会唤起原创性（Acar 等人，2017 年）。自从它在 Merton （1968）的早期现代科学研究中发挥基础性作用以来，原创性已被重新定义和扩展以评估社会科学、人文科学和历史领域的学术研究（Guetzkow 等人，2004 年）——从而揭示了在原创性最受重视的地方存在一定程度的跨学科差异。社会科学家重视方法的原创性，而人文主义者和历史学家重视策略的原创性——强化了创造力在旁观者眼中的观念。尽管该术语经常与创造力同义（Guetzkow 等人，2004 年），但由于它们都暗示着惊喜的元素，因此两者之间存在显着差异。虽然原创性具有道德底味——它与强烈的职业道德和焦点个人的某种道德优越感有关——但创造力却没有;它的地点在于产出本身（而不是创造者），因此不能受到道德要求的约束。事实上，以这种方式看待它的尝试一直受到社会学家的抵制（Osborne 2003）。

A second related concept is knowledge. Recent developments in the sociology of knowledge, notably science and technology studies (Latour 1999) and social network analysis (Burt 2004), shed light on the emergence of what is unexpected from a network structure. Scholars in the science and technology studies tradition focus on the emergence of new ideas or objects from intricate networks involving both humans and nonhumans, while those in the social network analysis tradition focus on the emergence of shared ideas or representations (i.e., knowledge) from a specific configuration of social networks or interpersonal connections. Underlying these research streams and what differentiates knowledge from creativity is the assumption that knowledge is a cumulative process. Here, cumulativity implies improvement: New knowledge makes existing knowledge better, at least within the bounds of normal science (Kuhn 1962). Creativity, in contrast, does not imply improvement. When elements are rearranged in such a way that the outcome surprises audiences, it is said to be creative—whether or not it is better than existing alternatives. For example, the sudden appearance of Elayne as an alternative spelling to Elaine (Lieberson & Bell 1992, p. 518) did not improve the existing repertoire of first names in the United States, but its unexpectedness generated a shared perception of creativity.
第二个相关概念是知识。知识社会学的最新发展，特别是科学和技术研究（Latour 1999）和社交网络分析（Burt 2004），揭示了网络结构中意想不到的东西的出现。科学技术研究传统的学者关注从涉及人类和非人类的错综复杂的网络中出现新的想法或对象，而社交网络分析传统的学者则关注从社交网络或人际关系的特定配置中出现共享的想法或表示（即知识）。这些研究流的基础以及知识与创造力的区别在于知识是一个累积过程的假设。在这里，累积性意味着改进：新知识使现有知识变得更好，至少在正常科学的范围内（Kuhn 1962）。相比之下，创造力并不意味着改进。当元素以使结果让观众感到惊讶的方式重新排列时，无论它是否比现有的替代方案更好，都被称为创造性。例如，Elayne 作为 Elaine 的替代拼写突然出现（Lieberson & Bell 1992，第 518 页）并没有改善美国现有的名字库，但它的意外产生了对创造力的共同认知。

Innovation often appears together with, or in place of, creativity. While in management research, innovation is regarded as the implementation (execution) of creativity (new ideas) (Govindarajan & Trimble 2010), this does not align with the sociological perspective, where creativity is found in the actual creation. Innovation, the tangible counterpart to knowledge, is focused on concrete improvement and seen as antithetical to fashion (Gronow 2009), which is more about unplanned, recurrent changes. For instance, sociologists who study innovation examine changes in organizational or institutional arrangements to explain variances in rates of market innovation (Dahlin 2014), while sociologists who study fashion examine the popularity of cultural elements such as styles (Godart & Galunic 2019) and newborns’ names (Lieberson & Bell 1992). The conceptual tension between innovation and fashion underlines an important facet of the sociology of creativity—i.e., that it attempts to explain the emergence of what is new and improved (innovation) and what is reinterpreted from existing elements (fashion). Note, however, that the fashion industry is a place of stylistic innovation [e.g., haute couture (Aspers & Godart 2013)] and thus should not be conflated with fashion as change.
创新通常与创造力一起出现，或取代创造力。而在管理研究中，创新被视为创造力（新想法）的实施（执行（Govindarajan & Trimble 2010），但这与社会学观点不一致，在社会学观点中，创造力存在于实际创造中。创新是知识的有形对应物，专注于具体的改进，并被视为与时尚相反（Gronow 2009），后者更多地是关于计划外的、反复发生的变化。例如，研究创新的社会学家研究组织或机构安排的变化以解释市场创新率的差异（Dahlin 2014），而研究时尚的社会学家研究文化元素的受欢迎程度，如风格（Godart & Galunic 2019）和新生儿名字（Lieberson & Bell 1992）。创新与时尚之间的概念紧张关系强调了创造力社会学的一个重要方面，即它试图解释什么是新的和改进的出现（创新）以及从现有元素中重新解释的东西（时尚）。然而，请注意，时尚行业是一个风格创新的地方[例如，高级时装（Aspers & Godart 2013）]，因此不应与时尚等同于变化。

A related concept is atypicality or “novel combinations of prior work” (Uzzi et al. 2013, p. 468), which was developed using an algorithmic approach to infer from empirical data the market positioning of cultural products vis-à-vis one another (Askin & Mauskapf 2017, Goldberg et al. 2016). It is sometimes studied interchangeably with inconsistency (Sgourev & Althuizen 2014), which is also used to capture objective differences among products. While research on atypicality recognizes the processual significance of combining elements—as is characteristic of creativity research—it often ignores (or considers separately) the evaluative dimension of participants in favor of second-order observers’ (i.e., scholars) findings (Fuchs 2005).
一个相关的概念是非典型性或“先前工作的新组合”（Uzzi et al. 2013， p. 468），它是使用算法方法开发的，用于从经验数据中推断文化产品的市场定位（Askin & Mauskapf 2017，Goldberg et al. 2016）。它有时会被互换研究，但存在不一致（Sgourev & Althuizen 2014），这也被用来捕捉产品之间的客观差异。虽然对非典型性的研究认识到组合元素的过程意义——这是创造力研究的特点——但它经常忽略（或单独考虑）参与者的评价维度，而支持二阶观察者（即学者）的发现（Fuchs 2005）。

Consecration, rooted in the dynamics of evaluation, measures the success of cultural producers in terms of institutional recognition [Bourdieu 1996 (1992)], be it movie awards (Cattani et al. 2014) or The Booker Prize for Fiction in anglophone literature (Childress et al. 2017). While creativity derives from the merits of the focal outcome, consecration involves other evaluative factors, such as the legitimacy of producers and the market power of their sponsors. Naturally, consecration research highlights the role of institutions in creativity dynamics and contextualizes creativity within a population rather than an individual (Accominotti 2018). While creativity does not have to be recognized through consecration, it is often subjected to the influence of the consecrating institution.
奉献植根于评估的动力，根据机构认可来衡量文化生产者的成功 [Bourdieu 1996 （1992）]，无论是电影奖（Cattani et al. 2014）还是英语文学小说布克奖（Childress et al. 2017）。创造力来自焦点结果的优点，而奉献则涉及其他评估因素，例如生产者的合法性及其赞助商的市场力量。自然，奉献研究强调了机构在创造力动态中的作用，并将创造力置于群体而不是个人的背景中（Accominotti 2018）。虽然创造力不必通过奉献来得到认可，但它经常受到奉献机构的影响。

To summarize, reviewing creativity in relation to related constructs helps us define what creativity is and is not. While originality has moral overtones (e.g., a strong work ethic), creativity is concerned with the output rather than the producer. While knowledge implies cumulative improvement, something creative is not necessarily better than existing alternatives. Creativity encompasses multiple types of change (from innovation to fashion) rather than just one. Whereas atypicality is used to find objective ways of capturing novelty, creativity is inherently contested and involves multiple audiences. Creativity may be linked to consecration, albeit it does not require institutional validation. We see the study of creativity as a bridge between the disparate literatures surrounding these concepts in sociology. Indeed, for example, some scholars have already begun leveraging a sociological understanding of creativity to explain the connection between scientific innovation and cultural evolution (Kilduff et al. 2011).
总而言之，回顾与相关结构相关的创造力有助于我们定义什么是创造力，什么不是创造力。虽然原创性带有道德色彩（例如，强烈的职业道德），但创造力与产出有关，而不是生产者。虽然知识意味着累积的改进，但创造性的东西不一定比现有的替代方案更好。创造力包括多种类型的变化（从创新到时尚），而不仅仅是一种。非典型性被用来寻找捕捉新奇事物的客观方式，而创造力本质上是有争议的，并且涉及多个受众。创造力可能与奉献有关，尽管它不需要制度验证。我们将创造力研究视为社会学中围绕这些概念的不同文献之间的桥梁。事实上，例如，一些学者已经开始利用对创造力的社会学理解来解释科学创新与文化进化之间的联系（Kilduff 等人，2011 年）。

The Standard Definition of Creativity in Psychology and How It Relates to Sociology

Creativity research exists in several disciplines, notably psychology (and the micro organizational behavior tradition in management research), where it constitutes a subdiscipline in its own right. Its roots date back to Guilford’s (1950) presidential address to the American Psychological Association. Although coined in the second half of the nineteenth century, the term creativity gained wider currency only after World War II. Its growing importance in psychology was followed by increasing usage in English, French (créativité), and German (Kreativität) (Nelson 2015). Its continued salience in psychology is reflected in several longstanding scientific journals dedicated to the topic: The Journal of Creative Behavior (first issued in 1967; 2018 impact factor: 1.262), Creativity Research Journal (first issued in 1988; 2018 impact factor: 1.130), and Creativity and Innovation Management (first issued in 1992; 2018 impact factor: 2.015).
创造力研究存在于多个学科中，特别是心理学（以及管理研究中的微观组织行为学传统），它本身就是一个子学科。它的根源可以追溯到吉尔福德（1950）对美国心理学会的总统演讲。尽管创造力一词是在 19 世纪下半叶创造的，但直到第二次世界大战后才得到更广泛的应用。它在心理学中的重要性日益增加，随后在英语、法语（créativité）和德语（Kreativität）中的使用越来越多（Nelson 2015）。它在心理学中的持续重要性反映在几本致力于该主题的长期科学期刊中：The Journal of Creative Behavior（1967 年首次发行;2018 年影响因子：1.262）、Creativity Research Journal（1988 年首次发行;2018 年影响因子：1.130）和 Creativity and Innovation Management（1992 年首次发布;2018 年影响因子：2.015）。

Although this often remains implicit, in the psychology literature, creativity is essentially conceived as an individual ability (Ganzaroli & Fiscato 2011, p. 267), even when it is captured and measured through products and ideas and when the social context is taken into account. To date, creativity research has been categorized as “the personality approach, the cognitive approach, and the sociocultural approach” (Sawyer 2012, p. 4). The latter concerns the influence of social factors on individuals’ creative endeavors and falls within the realm of social psychologists and hence is most relevant to sociologists’ consideration of the topic.
尽管这通常是隐含的，但在心理学文献中，创造力基本上被认为是一种个人能力（Ganzaroli & Fiscato 2011，第267页），即使它是通过产品和想法来捕捉和衡量的，当社会环境被考虑时。迄今为止，创造力研究被归类为“人格方法、认知方法和社会文化方法”（Sawyer 2012，第 4 页）。后者涉及社会因素对个人创造性努力的影响，属于社会心理学家的范畴，因此与社会学家对该主题的考虑最相关。

Social psychologists and management scholars largely converge on the notion of creativity as seen in the generation of a product or idea that experts consider “novel and appropriate, useful, correct or valuable” (Amabile 1996, p. 35)—often shortened to “novel and useful” or “novel and appropriate” (Sternberg & Lubart 1999). This standard definition (Runco & Jaeger 2012) assumes that creativity is in the eye of the beholder (Csikszentmihályi 1996). It continues a long tradition of definitional work in social psychology starting with Stein (1953, p. 311), for whom “the creative work is a novel work that is accepted as tenable or useful or satisfying by a group at some point in time”—one that includes social elements that are compatible with the sociological view of creativity but is rooted in psychology in that it assumes that external audiences with relevant knowledge (i.e., experts) are best placed to evaluate what is creative (or not). It has been formalized in a systematic, expert-based evaluation approach known as the consensual assessment technique (John & Sharon 2009).
社会心理学家和管理学者在很大程度上都集中在创造力的概念上，即产生专家认为“新颖且适当、有用、正确或有价值”（Amabile 1996，第 35 页）——通常缩写为“新颖且有用”或“新颖且适当”（Sternberg & Lubart 1999）。这个标准定义（Runco & Jaeger 2012）假设创造力在旁观者的眼中（Csikszentmihályi 1996）。它延续了从斯坦因（1953 年，第 311 页）开始的社会心理学定义工作的悠久传统，对他来说，“创造性工作是一部新颖的作品，在某个时间点被一个群体接受为站得住脚、有用或令人满意”——它包括与社会学创造力观相容但植根于心理学的社会元素，因为它假设具有相关知识的外部受众（即专家）最适合评估什么是有创意的（或没有创意的）。它已经以一种系统的、基于专家的评估方法正式化，被称为共识评估技术（John & Sharon 2009）。

The study of creativity in (social) psychology is characterized by precise empirical distinctions. Participants are asked about their understanding of creativity; novelty and usefulness are measured separately (Hildreth & Anderson 2016) with varying weights (Diedrich et al. 2015). Other scholars have added elements such as surprise (or nonobviousness) (Boden 2004), flair (Gaut 2010), and aesthetics. One study expands the dimensions of creativity to four: novelty, utility, aesthetics, and authenticity (Kharkhurin 2014). This underscores the main definitional challenge for creativity in psychology—it is a lexical concept (Evans 2010) composed of multiple components, each needing to be defined separately. Since it is not clear which ones should be considered or how they should be weighted, the definition remains ambiguous, contested, and evolutive (Acar et al. 2017). Dubbed “a notoriously slippery term” (Koppman 2016, p. 292), creativity means different things to different scholars, particularly in interdisciplinary settings such as management departments. Such fundamental disagreement over its conceptual and empirical underpinnings is bound to impede scientific progress and change over time.
（社会）心理学中对创造力的研究的特点是精确的实证区分。参与者被问及他们对创造力的理解;新颖性和有用性是分开衡量的（Hildreth & Anderson 2016），权重各不相同（Diedrich et al. 2015）。其他学者添加了诸如惊喜（或非显而易见性）（Boden 2004）、天赋（Gaut 2010）和美学等元素。一项研究将创造力的维度扩展到四个维度：新颖性、实用性、美学和真实性（Kharkhurin 2014）。这强调了心理学中创造力的主要定义挑战——它是一个词汇概念（Evans 2010），由多个组成部分组成，每个组成部分都需要单独定义。由于不清楚应该考虑哪些或应该如何加权，因此定义仍然模棱两可、有争议且不断发展（Acar 等人，2017 年）。被称为“一个臭名昭著的滑稽术语”（Koppman 2016，第 292 页），创造力对不同的学者意味着不同的东西，尤其是在管理部门等跨学科环境中。这种对其概念和经验基础的根本分歧必然会阻碍科学进步和随着时间的推移而改变。

Sociologists rarely invoke the standard definition of creativity as championed by social psychologists and management scholars. 4 Clearly the sociology of creativity differs from its psychological counterpart in many ways. While for psychologists, the bearers of creativity (Klausen 2010) are individuals who can improve on their creativity—for example, by embracing multicultural experiences (Leung et al. 2008), a specific curiosity mindset (Hagtvedt et al. 2019), or mind-body dissonance where mental states collide with physical experience (Huang & Galinsky 2011)—for sociologists, creativity is a configuration of elements. If psychologists use products to evaluate creativity in their work, it is ultimately because products are easier to assess than individuals (Klausen 2010). They emphasize the importance of both novelty and usefulness for an individual to be deemed creative. In contrast, sociologists are more eclectic: For them, novelty is a prerequisite of creativity, but usefulness may or may not be considered. While psychologists seem to rely on expert evaluations for the sake of objectivity, sociologists recognize audience diversity and the political nature of evaluation. As indicated with respect to atypicality, objectivity for sociologists is found in second-order observers’ algorithmic treatment of data. The notion that creative evaluation is essentially contestable and contested is largely absent from psychology.
社会学家很少援引社会心理学家和管理学者所倡导的创造力的标准定义。4 显然，创造力社会学在许多方面都与它的心理学对应物不同。而对于心理学家来说，创造力的承载者（Klausen 2010）是可以提高创造力的人——例如，通过接受多元文化体验（Leung et al. 2008）、特定的好奇心态（Hagtvedt et al. 2019），或者心理状态与身体体验碰撞的身心不协调（Huang & Galinsky 2011）——对于社会学家来说，创造力是一种元素的配置。如果心理学家使用产品来评估他们工作中的创造力，那最终是因为产品比个人更容易评估（Klausen 2010）。他们强调新颖性和有用性对于个人被认为是创造性的重要性。相比之下，社会学家则更加不拘一格：对他们来说，新奇是创造力的先决条件，但有用性可能会也可能不会被考虑。虽然心理学家似乎为了客观性而依赖专家评估，但社会学家认识到受众的多样性和评估的政治性质。正如关于非典型性所表明的那样，社会学家的客观性体现在二阶观察者对数据的算法处理中。创造性评估本质上是有争议的和有争议的，这种概念在心理学中基本上是不存在的。

The Economics of Creativity and Its Impact on Sociology

创造力经济学及其对社会学的影响

Economists have a wealth of knowledge relevant to the study of creativity—albeit they rarely use the term—on firm or industry-level outcomes and processes such as innovation (Arora et al. 2004) and on microdrivers such as the creative process and creative act (Weitzman 1998), building on a combinatorial view. They acknowledge creativity’s importance for endogenous economic growth (Aghion & Howitt 1992), often with reference to creative destruction (Schumpeter 1942), notwithstanding the latter’s critical view. More recently, economists have looked at the factors that explain the emergence of inventors (i.e., patent holders) (Bell et al. 2018) and scientific innovators (Azoulay et al. 2011).
经济学家拥有丰富的知识，这些知识与创造力研究有关——尽管他们很少使用这个术语——关于公司或行业层面的结果和过程，如创新（Arora et al. 2004）和微观驱动因素，如创造性过程和创造性行为（Weitzman 1998），建立在组合观点的基础上。他们承认创造力对内生经济增长的重要性（Aghion & Howitt 1992），经常提到创造性破坏（Schumpeter 1942），尽管后者持批评观点。最近，经济学家研究了解释发明家（即专利持有人）（Bell 等人，2018 年）和科学创新者（Azoulay 等人，2011 年）出现的因素。

Economists’ studies of creativity have influenced sociologists—for example, Caves (2000), who focuses on contract theory (see also Ceulemans et al. 2011) to analyze the key principles that drive the creative industries (i.e., various formal agreements that bind agents within a context of high uncertainty). Galenson (2011) looks at the influence of career stages on artists’ productivity, whom he categorizes as experimental innovators (over a lifetime) or conceptual innovators (who achieve a breakthrough early on), observing a fall in the average age of their creativity peak between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Revisiting Galenson’s theory from a sociological point of view, Accominotti (2009) explains this variance as a function of the relative importance of artistic movements.
经济学家对创造力的研究影响了社会学家——例如，Caves （2000）专注于合同理论（另见 Ceulemans 等人，2011 年），以分析推动创意产业的关键原则（即在高度不确定性的背景下约束主体的各种正式协议）。Galenson （2011）着眼于职业阶段对艺术家生产力的影响，他将艺术家归类为实验创新者（一生）或概念创新者（早期取得突破），观察到他们的创造力高峰的平均年龄在 19 世纪和 20 世纪之间下降。从社会学的角度重新审视 Galenson 的理论，Accominotti （2009）将这种差异解释为艺术运动相对重要性的函数。

Connecting insights from economics and sociology to understand creativity, Menger’s (2014) theory of action integrates the economist’s focus on intention and the future with the sociologist’s grasp of the past (Fabiani 2016). For Menger, the creative industries are a winner-take-all or superstar environment (Rosen 1981) where small differences in talent can lead to huge differences in success and acclaim—as in the case of Beethoven, whose outstanding achievements cannot be solely explained by social factors: It was “difference in talent” (Menger 2014, p. 143) that marked not only his career but the history of music.
Menger （2014）的行动理论将经济学和社会学的见解与社会学家对过去的把握相结合，将经济学和社会学对未来的关注相结合（Fabiani 2016）。对门格尔来说，创意产业是一个赢家通吃或超级明星的环境（Rosen 1981），人才的微小差异会导致成功和赞誉的巨大差异——就像贝多芬一样，他的杰出成就不能仅仅用社会因素来解释：正是“天赋差异”（Menger 2014，第 143 页）不仅标志着他的职业生涯，而且标志着音乐史。

ANTECEDENTS OF CREATIVITY: STRUCTURE, INSTITUTIONS, AND CONTEXT

创造力的前因：结构、制度和环境

Understanding the antecedents to creativity often involves analyzing factors that enhance an individual’s creative output. For psychologists, individuals are the bearers of creativity. Applying the five-factor model (or big five personality traits), psychologists have found that people who are “more open to new experiences, less conventional and less conscientious, more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile and impulsive” are more creative (Feist 1998, p. 290). Embedding this in the organizational setting, Amabile (2013, p. 135) posits that “creativity should be highest when an intrinsically motivated person with high domain expertise and high skill in creative thinking works in an environment high in support for creativity.” Taking a radical departure from a focus on individuals, sociologists have contextualized the psychological understanding of creativity. As summarized by Reckwitz (2017, p. 147), “creativity [has become] the center of a whole psychological program for the conduct of life and the performance of everyday practice.” From this point of view, the search for individual antecedents to creativity is fundamentally normative, a dispositif (Foucault & Gordon 1980) to maintain the existing power structure that strives to convince creative workers to trade job security and protection for an elusive creative accomplishment of the self (McRobbie 2018, Reckwitz 2017).
了解创造力的前因通常涉及分析提高个人创意产出的因素。对于心理学家来说，个人是创造力的承载者。应用五因素模型（或大五人格特质），心理学家发现，“对新体验更开放、不那么传统、更不认真、更自信、更自我接纳、有动力、雄心勃勃、占主导地位、敌对和冲动”的人更有创造力（Feist 1998，第 290 页）。将此嵌入组织环境中，Amabile （2013， p. 135）假设“当一个具有高领域专业知识和高创造性思维技能的内在动机的人在高度支持创造力的环境中工作时，创造力应该是最高的。社会学家与关注个人的理念截然不同，他们将对创造力的心理学理解置于背景中。正如 Reckwitz （2017， p. 147）所总结的那样，“创造力 [已成为] 生活行为和日常实践执行的整个心理程序的中心。从这个角度来看，寻找创造力的个体前因从根本上说是规范性的，是一种处置（Foucault & Gordon 1980）以维持现有的权力结构，这种权力结构努力说服创意工作者用工作保障和保护来换取难以捉摸的自我创造性成就（McRobbie 2018， Reckwitz 2017）。

The sociological antecedents to creativity highlight structural, institutional, and contextual factors. First, there is the notion that creativity derives from network structure (Burt 2004, Fleming et al. 2007, Perry-Smith 2006, Reagans & Zuckerman 2001) and hence is an outcome of relations (Collins 1998). No act of creation happens in isolation (Giuffre 2009)—it is the result of ideas and material exchange flowing through connections in a given field (Basov 2018). Beyond cultural and material resources, networks give access to legitimacy, status (Godart & Mears 2009), and diverse cultural knowledge (Jang 2017). The optimal position for creativity is debated between the periphery, the core, and somewhere in between—an intermediary position on the semiperiphery that gives access to both fresh ideas and legitimacy (Cattani & Ferriani 2008). This network perspective advances understanding of how change in the social structure leads to the emergence of creative ideas, as in the Cubist movement, which emerged from a structural change to a more open society in early twentieth-century Paris (Sgourev 2013). For sociologists, then, what appears to be individual creativity is in fact the outcome of underlying collective mechanisms (Accominotti 2018) and broader dynamics such as the rate of change in a given field (Teodoridis et al. 2019) or the collapse of a major player that opens up space for renewed creativity (Cattani et al. 2018).
创造力的社会学前因突出了结构、制度和背景因素。首先，有一种观念认为创造力源于网络结构（Burt 2004， Fleming et al. 2007， Perry-Smith 2006， Reagans & Zuckerman 2001），因此是关系的结果（Collins 1998）。没有一个创造行为是孤立发生的（Giuffre 2009）——它是思想和材料交换通过特定领域的联系流动的结果（Basov 2018）。除了文化和物质资源之外，网络还提供了合法性、地位（Godart & Mears 2009）和多样化的文化知识（Jang 2017）。创造力的最佳位置在边缘、核心和介于两者之间的某个地方进行辩论——半边缘的中间位置，既可以获得新鲜的想法，也可以获得合法性（Cattani & Ferriani 2008）。这种网络视角促进了对社会结构变化如何导致创意出现的理解，就像立体主义运动一样，它从 20 世纪初巴黎的结构性变化中脱颖而出，成为一个更加开放的社会（Sgourev 2013）。因此，对于社会学家来说，看似个人创造力的东西实际上是潜在的集体机制（Accominotti 2018）和更广泛的动态的结果，例如特定领域的变化率（Teodoridis 等人，2019 年）或主要参与者的崩溃为新的创造力打开了空间（Cattani 等人，2018 年）。

Every social system can be expected to distribute creativity rewards and recognition by various institutions (e.g., educational or award-granting organizations); what matters sociologically is how creativity is actually produced (Lena 2019). Moreover, it is because creative producers are willing to accept uncertainty and entry barriers are low that there are so many participants in cultural markets (Menger 2014). Small differences in talent, or even luck, can drive creativity. Indeed, creativity can just happen to individuals who are not necessarily seeking to be creative (Sgourev 2016).
可以预期每个社会系统都会分配各种机构（例如，教育或奖励组织）的创造力奖励和认可;从社会学上讲，重要的是创造力实际上是如何产生的（Lena 2019）。此外，正是因为创意生产者愿意接受不确定性和进入门槛低，所以文化市场有如此多的参与者（Menger 2014）。天赋的微小差异，甚至运气的差异，都可以推动创造力。事实上，创造力可能只发生在不一定寻求创造力的人身上（Sgourev 2016）。

Despite fundamental differences in approach, sociologists can also benefit from tracing developments in social psychology (Corte et al. 2019). Simonton (1988), in his change configuration theory, roots creativity in a combination of elements, which themselves are a function of individual and contextual factors. When a set of elements and their combined actions are positively valued by a given audience, the consequential configuration of elements is retained as creative objects or ideas (Stumpf 1995). While Simonton (1988) does not explicitly invoke social structure, his reasoning is consistent with the idea that social factors affect not only the elements available to the creating entity (be it an individual or organization) but also the way that it configures those elements. In turn, the evaluation of a creative object is influenced by the social context (Simonton 1999). Seeking greater integration across the social sciences, Simonton (2004) later links the history, philosophy, psychology, and sociology of creativity in a single framework. History focuses on chance, philosophy on logic, psychology on genius, and sociology on the Zeitgeist. He places Zeitgeist at the core of the sociology of creativity: Given a certain context, certain innovations are inevitable or constrained. Indeed, much of his work in this vein is an attempt to understand how far the sociological context has a deterministic influence on creativity through the elements available to the creating entity and the criteria by which configurations are evaluated.
尽管方法存在根本差异，但社会学家也可以从追踪社会心理学的发展中受益（Corte 等人，2019 年）。Simonton （1988）在他的 change configuration theory 中，将创造力植根于元素的组合，这些元素本身就是个人和背景因素的函数。当一组元素及其组合行为被给定的受众积极评价时，元素的相应配置被保留为创造性对象或想法（Stumpf 1995）。虽然 Simonton （1988）没有明确地援引社会结构，但他的推理与社会因素不仅影响创造实体（无论是个人还是组织）可用的元素的想法是一致的，而且影响它配置这些元素的方式。反过来，对创意对象的评价会受到社会环境的影响（Simonton 1999）。为了寻求跨社会科学的更大整合，Simonton （2004）后来将创造力的历史、哲学、心理学和社会学联系在一个框架中。历史关注机会，哲学关注逻辑，心理学关注天才，社会学关注时代精神。他将时代精神置于创造力社会学的核心：在特定背景下，某些创新是不可避免的或受到限制的。事实上，他在这方面的大部分工作都是试图通过创造实体可用的元素和评估配置的标准来理解社会学背景对创造力的决定性影响有多大。

Central to the sociological determinants of creativity are structure, institutions, and context, underlining the idea that most creative endeavors cannot be attributed to individuals in isolation (Burns et al. 2015). Management scholars may invoke group or organizational creativity, yet they often aggregate individual-level theories on creativity (Audia & Goncalo 2007) or examine it through the lens of group decision making within organizations (Harvey & Kou 2013). They also limit the investigation to group creativity within organizations (Elsbach & Kramer 2003, Hargadon & Bechky 2006). A sociology of creativity broadens these perspectives by suggesting field-level analyses.
创造力的社会学决定因素的核心是结构、制度和背景，这强调了大多数创造性努力不能孤立地归因于个人的观点（Burns 等人，2015 年）。管理学者可能会援引群体或组织的创造力，但他们经常汇总个人层面的创造力理论（Audia & Goncalo 2007）或通过组织内部的群体决策视角来审视它（Harvey & Kou 2013）。他们还将调查范围限制在组织内部的群体创造力上（Elsbach & Kramer 2003年，Hargadon & Bechky 2006年）。创造力社会学通过提出田野层面的分析来拓宽这些视角。

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CREATIVITY: AUDIENCES, PERCEPTION, AND EVALUATION

创造力的结果：受众、感知和评价

The argument that creativity is about what is retained from the creative producer’s initial pool of probabilistic element-combinations based on the potential to surprise relevant audiences (Simonton 1999) highlights the perceptual nature of creativity. It implies that creativity is not an inherent property of ideas, processes, and products but the embodiment of an iterative relationship between the creator and their broader context. Insofar as variations in selective retention persist across engaged actors, being creative and the outcome of being considered creative are continuously negotiated.
创造力是关于创意生产者基于让相关观众感到惊喜的潜力，从最初的概率元素组合池中保留什么（Simonton 1999）的论点强调了创造力的感知本质。它意味着创造力不是思想、过程和产品的固有属性，而是创作者与其更广泛背景之间迭代关系的体现。只要参与的参与者在选择性保留方面仍然存在差异，那么创造性和被认为是创造性的结果是不断协商的。

The notion of relevant audiences has gained attention among psychology and management scholars, with a focus on the role of internal observers such as supervisors (e.g., Jia et al. 2014) and peers (e.g., Amabile et al. 2005), the underlying assumption being that the creative system (of the individual or organization) evaluates its own outcome based on a shared understanding of its identity, beliefs, and preferences. While usefully directing attention to how competing variations are tested against relevant criteria (Kaufman 2004), it stops short of considering external observers in the broader social structure (George 2007, Leung & Sharkey 2014) as part of the relevant audience. With technology enabling more people to engage in the novelty-generation process (Beck et al. 1994), evaluating audiences and creativity criteria have become incredibly diverse and distributed, rendering irrelevant the discussion of appropriate observers achieving agreement. The sociology of creativity, with its built-in connections to structural, institutional, and contextual antecedents, thus provides a useful analytical framework for studying the emergence of creativity across numerous interfaces between creator and audience.
相关受众的概念已经引起了心理学和管理学者的关注，重点关注内部观察者的作用，如监督者（例如，Jia 等人，2014 年）和同行（例如，Amabile 等人，2005 年），基本假设是（个人或组织的）创造性系统根据对其身份的共同理解来评估自己的结果，信仰和偏好。虽然有效地将注意力引导到如何根据相关标准测试竞争性变异（Kaufman 2004），但它没有将更广泛的社会结构中的外部观察者视为相关受众的一部分（George 2007， Leung & Sharkey 2014）。随着技术使更多的人能够参与新奇的产生过程（Beck et al. 1994），评估受众和创造力标准已经变得非常多样化和分散，这使得适当的观察者达成共识的讨论变得无关紧要。因此，创造力社会学及其与结构、制度和背景前因的内在联系，为研究创造力在创作者和观众之间众多界面中的出现提供了一个有用的分析框架。

In sociology, external audiences and their subjective evaluations are crucial to the study of cultural fields (Bourdieu 1993). The role of gatekeepers (Hirsch 1972)—critics, analysts, or editors—in cultural production is considered by scholars of the creative industries (Seong & Godart 2018, Smits 2016) to have a significant influence on the interpretive dynamics of the evolution of the field. As mediators, gatekeepers are well placed to theorize (Strang & Macy 2001) or set tastes around a particular process or outcome (Bourdieu 1984, Hirsch 1972), thereby influencing how other actors respond to, and work with, the trending axes of demand and preferences in a given field (Abrahamson & Eisenman 2008). Since power dynamics and expectations are by nature ambiguous, attention allocated by external audiences across competing configurations is bound to vary. Critics and peers, each embodying a distinctive selection system (Wijnberg & Gemser 2000), allocate symbolic legitimacy differentially across the field’s core and peripheral players (Cattani et al. 2014). Similarly, critics (insiders) and the public (outsiders) confer attention on different cultural elements (Hsu 2006), all of which suggest that the sociology of creativity can usefully inform sociocognitive mechanisms of innovation and their diffusion (Rossman 2012).
在社会学中，外部观众及其主观评价对于文化领域的研究至关重要（Bourdieu 1993）。创意产业的学者认为，守门人（Hirsch 1972）——批评家、分析师或编辑——在文化生产中的作用（Seong & Godart 2018，Smits 2016）对该领域演变的解释动力有重大影响。作为调解者，守门人可以很好地进行理论化（Strang & Macy 2001）或围绕特定过程或结果设定口味（Bourdieu 1984，Hirsch 1972），从而影响其他行为者如何回应和处理特定领域的需求和偏好趋势轴（Abrahamson & Eisenman 2008）。由于权力动态和期望本质上是模棱两可的，因此外部受众在竞争配置中分配的注意力必然会有所不同。评论家和同行，每个人都体现了一个独特的选择系统（Wijnberg & Gemser 2000），在领域的核心和边缘参与者之间分配象征性的合法性差异（Cattani等人。 2014）。同样，批评家（局内人）和公众（局外人）将注意力集中在不同的文化元素上（Hsu 2006），所有这些都表明创造力社会学可以有效地为创新及其传播的社会认知机制提供信息（Rossman 2012）。

The question of what makes cultural or creative goods successful is central to sociology. Since defining success as it relates to creativity inherently involves multiple, oft-conflicting viewpoints, scholars measure creativity in numerous ways. This seeming fragmentation of the field serves to validate the concept’s versatility as a driver of competitive success and economic growth, as seen in the so-called creative class (Florida 2002). While scholars focus on creativity as a dependent variable that can be explained by individual (e.g., personality and skills) or contextual mechanisms (e.g., social structure, organizational culture, and incentives), creativity is a versatile predictor of many underexplored phenomena of our time, such as performance variance in the context of a distributed attention economy. Such a perspective is also useful to explore its adverse effects on collectives such as workers and social groups (Khessina et al. 2018), notably the precarious conditions in which many creative workers live and work (McRobbie 2018) and the deployment of artistic careers trying to strike a balance between “love and money” (Gerber 2017, p. 8).
是什么使文化或创意产品成功是社会学的核心问题。由于定义与创造力相关的成功本身涉及多种经常相互冲突的观点，因此学者们以多种方式衡量创造力。这种看似碎片化的领域验证了这个概念作为竞争成功和经济增长驱动力的多功能性，正如所谓的创意阶层所见（Florida 2002）。虽然学者们将创造力视为一个可以通过个人（例如，个性和技能）或情境机制（例如，社会结构、组织文化和激励措施）来解释的因变量，但创造力是我们这个时代许多未被充分探索的现象的多功能预测指标，例如分布式注意力经济背景下的绩效差异。这种观点也有助于探索其对工人和社会群体等集体的不利影响（Khessina 等人，2018 年），特别是许多创意工作者生活和工作的不稳定条件（McRobbie 2018 年）以及试图在“爱与金钱”之间取得平衡的艺术事业的部署（Gerber 2017，第 8 页）。

DISCUSSION

讨论

Some Implications of the Proposed Sociological Definition of Creativity

提出的创造性社会学定义的一些含义

The above review of creativity research spanning time and space has enabled us to identify specific sociological elements of creativity and to arrive at a definition of creativity as an intentional configuration of cultural and material elements that is unexpected for a given audience. This can be applied at multiple levels—the individual, group, or organization as a whole—since they all engage in the configuration of elements to be interpreted and assessed by others (i.e., audiences). Albeit each level of analysis brings its own challenges, such as the inefficiency associated with exchanging ideas in groups (Paulus & Yang 2000) or adding newcomers to teams (Perretti & Negro 2007), none seems to invalidate our definition. The theoretical and empirical constituents of our definition are unpacked below, using examples.
上述对跨越时间和空间的创造力研究的回顾使我们能够识别创造力的特定社会学元素，并得出创造力的定义，即文化和物质元素的有意配置，这对特定的受众来说是意想不到的。这可以应用于多个层面——个人、团体或整个组织——因为他们都参与了要由其他人（即受众）解释和评估的元素的配置。尽管每个分析层次都有其自身的挑战，例如与团队交流思想相关的低效率（Paulus & Yang 2000）或增加新人到团队中（Perretti & Negro 2007），但似乎都没有否定我们的定义。下面使用示例解开我们定义的理论和实证组成部分。

First, in sociology, creativity unfolds in the outcome, not the actor. The so-called bearers of creativity are specific configurations of cultural and material elements rather than the individuals who combine them. While individuals are conventionally seen as the source of creativity (Reckwitz 2017), it may be that the link between causality and creativity needs to be reconsidered (see Crosby 2009) and that the perceived creativity of configurations provides a certain stability against which individual creators are accorded creativity. For example, in the context of new venture creation, entrepreneurs allow new ideas and goals to emerge organically by combining the elements available to them, such as new technology, product features, and consumer feedback. They experiment with ongoing iterations of the original element-combinations until the new product offering achieves the most coveted product-market fit—typically acclaimed in the form of increased sales or positive product or service reviews when the new product has enough variability to surprise the target consumers.
首先，在社会学中，创造力在结果中展开，而不是在行动者中展开。所谓的创造力承载者是文化和物质元素的特定配置，而不是将它们组合在一起的个人。虽然个人通常被视为创造力的源泉（Reckwitz 2017），但可能需要重新考虑因果关系和创造力之间的联系（参见 Crosby 2009），并且配置的感知创造力提供了一定的稳定性，个体创作者被赋予了创造力。例如，在创建新企业的背景下，企业家通过结合他们可用的元素（例如新技术、产品功能和消费者反馈）来有机地出现新的想法和目标。他们尝试对原始元素组合进行持续迭代，直到新产品达到最令人垂涎的产品市场契合度——当新产品具有足够的可变性来让目标消费者感到惊讶时，通常以增加销售额或积极的产品或服务评论的形式受到好评。

Second, creativity in sociology is inherently collective. Every creative act is embedded in larger structures, institutions, and contexts that enable or constrain creative configurations (Weber 2005). Intentionality is thus a central tenet of creativity: It distinguishes it from randomness, albeit the latter plays a part in the creative act (e.g., its inspiration or implementation). In fashion, for instance, the creative process unfolds in a sequence of activities, from comparing stylistic evolutions across multiple cities to attending fairs, negotiating with suppliers, and making design iterations if a competitors’ stylistic choices are discovered. Not all individual fashion designers or design teams follow the same creative process. Some are design-driven (haute couture), others market-driven (prêt-à-porter) (Cillo & Verona 2008), but all share the intention to create a fashion collection that is commercially viable. Some collections achieve unexpectedness—indeed, it has become a key advantage for survival—but in many cases, unexpectedness is born of a business intention, not a creative one. Whether creativity is found in painstaking labor or on the spur of the moment, it is always the result of intentionality, but not necessarily the intention to be creative.
其次，社会学的创造力本质上是集体的。每一个创造性的行为都嵌入在更大的结构、机构和环境中，这些结构、机构和背景支持或限制了创造性的配置（Weber 2005）。因此，意向性是创造力的一个中心原则：它将其与随机性区分开来，尽管后者在创造性行为中发挥着作用（例如，它的灵感或实施）。例如，在时尚领域，创作过程在一系列活动中展开，从比较多个城市的风格演变到参加展会、与供应商谈判，以及在发现竞争对手的风格选择时进行设计迭代。并非所有的个人时装设计师或设计团队都遵循相同的创作过程。有些是设计驱动的（高级时装），有些是市场驱动的（成衣）（Cillo & Verona 2008），但都致力于创造一个商业上可行的时尚系列。一些系列实现了意想不到的效果——事实上，它已成为生存的关键优势——但在许多情况下，意想不到是出于商业意图，而不是创造性。无论创造力是在艰苦的劳动中发现的，还是在一时冲动下发现的，它总是有意识的结果，但不一定是有创造力的意图。

Finally, creativity emerges from the unexpected, surprising the relevant audience. For example, creativity in jazz stems from the arrangement of notes, phrases, intonation, rhythm, audience reactions, and what the musician is playing or hearing and results in an unexpected musical expression or experience. Live jazz incorporates audience reactions as the configuration happens in real time. Musicians either purposefully or accidentally provide something unexpected. Indeed, the jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk developed a style that is largely defined by the way it surprises audiences (Abbott 2005).
最后，创意从意想不到的地方出现，让相关观众感到惊讶。例如，爵士乐的创造力源于音符、短语、语调、节奏、观众反应以及音乐家正在演奏或听到的内容的安排，并产生意想不到的音乐表达或体验。现场爵士乐会实时结合观众的反应。音乐家有意或无意地提供了一些意想不到的东西。事实上，爵士钢琴家和作曲家塞隆尼斯·蒙克（Thelonious Monk）发展了一种风格，这种风格在很大程度上取决于它给观众带来惊喜的方式（Abbott 2005）。

In our view, a sociology of creativity complements the current preeminence of psychology in understanding creativity and could generate fruitful interdisciplinary research. First, the evaluative criterion of usefulness or appropriateness is excluded from our definition, as for sociologists, creative output does not have to be useful to any given audience (e.g., Cubism in its nascent phase). Indeed, something may be judged creative long after it has entered a consideration set for evaluation (e.g., Mozart’s musical canon). Furthermore, although creativity encompasses novelty, not everything that is novel is creative. The launch of a research project in a science lab or incremental innovation within a corporation (e.g., smartphones with bigger screens or higher resolution) may contain elements of newness but are not necessarily unexpected in the eyes of the audience. Creativity comes in many different forms and styles, and researchers have much to gain from comparing multiple creative logics, such as art versus science.
在我们看来，创造力社会学补充了心理学在理解创造力方面的卓越地位，并可能产生富有成效的跨学科研究。首先，有用性或适当性的评价标准被排除在我们的定义之外，因为对于社会学家来说，创造性的产出不必对任何给定的受众都有用（例如，处于起步阶段的立体主义）。事实上，某样东西在进入评估考虑集很久之后（例如，莫扎特的音乐经典）可能会被判断为创造性。此外，尽管创造力包含新奇事物，但并非所有新颖事物都是创造性的。在科学实验室启动研究项目或公司内部的增量创新（例如，具有更大屏幕或更高分辨率的智能手机）可能包含新颖性元素，但在观众眼中不一定出乎意料。创造力有许多不同的形式和风格，研究人员可以通过比较多种创意逻辑（例如艺术与科学）而受益匪浅。

Second, the psychology of creativity is typically divided into four stages—preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification—but this has been challenged (Lubart 2001, p. 295), as these fail to locate creative endeavors in a social, material, and cultural context. Despite the importance of context or field (Amabile 1996, Csikszentmihályi 1990), psychologists do not go beyond making it an independent variable in the creativity equation, whereas sociologists locate creativity in real-world contexts, asking questions such as how experimental restaurants such as El Bulli manage change (Opazo 2018), how creative producers such as Los Angeles stand-up comics uphold creativity norms (Reilly 2018), how organizations such as Burning Man self-organize (Chen 2009), and how fashion houses react to each other’s choices in reaching creative decisions (Godart & Mears 2009).
其次，创造力心理学通常分为四个阶段——准备、孵化、启迪和验证——但这受到了挑战（Lubart 2001，第 295 页），因为这些阶段未能在社会、物质和文化背景下定位创造性努力。尽管环境或领域很重要（Amabile 1996，Csikszentmihályi 1990），但心理学家并没有超越将其作为创造力方程式中的自变量，而社会学家将创造力置于现实世界的环境中，提出诸如 El Bulli 等实验餐厅如何管理变化（Opazo 2018）、洛杉矶单口喜剧等创意制作人如何维护创造力规范（Reilly 2018）等问题，像火人节这样的组织是如何自我组织的（Chen 2009），以及时装公司如何在做出创意决策时对彼此的选择做出反应（Godart & Mears 2009）。

It also helps shed light on the fundamentally contested nature of creativity and its link to power and domination (Bourdieu 1993), especially when the appropriate or useful dimension is evoked. Although a useful paradox emerges from binding novelty and usefulness, both empirically and theoretically (Miron-Spektor & Erez 2017), from a sociological point of view, useless or nonuseful creations cannot simply be excluded from research. Sociologists need to make intellectual room for creative output that may not fit these descriptions.
它还有助于阐明创造力的根本争议性质及其与权力和统治的联系（Bourdieu 1993），尤其是当唤起适当或有用的维度时。尽管从经验和理论上，新颖性和有用性结合中出现了一个有用的悖论（Miron-Spektor & Erez 2017），但从社会学的角度来看，无用或无用的创造不能简单地从研究中排除。社会学家需要为可能不符合这些描述的创造性输出腾出知识空间。

While some attempt has been made to blend various conceptions of creativity, such as in Ford’s (1996) integrative theory of individual creativity and in Simonton’s (1999) work, it often ends up limiting the sociological perspective to narrow issues—for example, characterizing the sociological contribution to the study of creativity as “describing factors that constrain creative acts and facilitate conformity within collectives” (Ford 1996, p. 1116). The sociology of creativity cannot a priori be limited to a specific mechanism or domain.
虽然已经尝试将各种创造力的概念融合在一起，例如在 Ford （1996）的个人创造力综合理论和 Simonton（1999）的工作中，但它往往最终将社会学视角限制在狭隘的问题上——例如，将社会学对创造力研究的贡献描述为“描述限制创造性行为和促进集体内部一致性的因素”（Ford 1996，第 1116 页）。创造力社会学不能先验地局限于特定的机制或领域。

Finally, in terms of research domain, although sociological research on creativity has to a large extent been conducted in the arts and creative industries, it is clearly not limited to this field. The creative industries and creativity can be separated into distinct conceptual categories. The creative industries offer a useful empirical setting to advance research on culture and change (Jones et al. 2015). The creativity of a given industry is a matter of degree or the focus of analysis. Even the stalest of industries has certain creative components, more so during dynamic periods. The creative industries are, first and foremost, dedicated to the generation of an economic surplus. As Jones & Maoret (2018, p. 1) explain, they “seek to generate and capture economic value from individuals’ creative input and cultural expression.” This highlights two important facts: (a) that there is an exploitative dimension to creativity in the creative industries and (b) that creativity in its purest form can be found in these industries, and thus sociologists would benefit from studying them more systematically, comparing and contrasting them, while not losing sight of their political and contested nature.
最后，就研究领域而言，尽管关于创造力的社会学研究在很大程度上是在艺术和创意产业中进行的，但显然不仅限于这个领域。创意产业和创意可以分为不同的概念类别。创意产业为推进文化和变革研究提供了有用的实证环境（Jones 等人，2015 年）。特定行业的创造力是一个程度或分析重点的问题。即使是最陈旧的行业也有一定的创造性成分，在动态时期更是如此。创意产业首先致力于创造经济盈余。正如琼斯和莫雷特（2018 年，第 1 页）解释的那样，他们“寻求从个人的创造性输入和文化表达中产生和捕获经济价值”。这凸显了两个重要事实：（a）创意产业中的创造力存在剥削性的一面，以及（b）在这些行业中可以找到最纯粹形式的创造力，因此社会学家将受益于更系统地研究它们，比较和对比它们，同时不忽视它们的政治和争议性质。

Developing Research Around the Sociology of Creativity

We see several opportunities for building a sociological research agenda around creativity. First, the pervasive issue of sustainable development is of growing importance to scholars across disciplines. Sustainability and environmental issues have a long history in sociology (Pellow & Nyseth Brehm 2013); hence, a sociology of creativity could shed light on recent developments in the field, notably studies that connect the economy to nature and society (Kaup 2015). From an environmental point of view, creativity puts an emphasis on making something in pursuit of new product development and economic growth (Schumpeter 1939), which may ultimately lead to planned obsolescence, an ethical issue that has become critical to reflections on economic development and climate change (Joseph 2009). A relevant question is how creativity and sustainability could be combined, since they both seem desirable yet perhaps antithetical. Such a reflection also addresses trends in the sociology of consumption, notably around sustainable consumption and consumer activism (Warde 2015).
我们看到了围绕创造力建立社会学研究议程的几个机会。首先，可持续发展这一普遍存在的问题对跨学科的学者来说越来越重要。可持续性和环境问题在社会学中有着悠久的历史（Pellow & Nyseth Brehm 2013年）;因此，创造力社会学可以阐明该领域的最新发展，特别是将经济与自然和社会联系起来的研究（Kaup 2015）。从环境的角度来看，创造力强调为追求新产品开发和经济增长而制作一些东西（熊彼特 1939），这最终可能导致计划过时，这是一个道德问题，已成为对经济发展和气候变化的反思的关键（约瑟夫 2009）。一个相关的问题是如何将创造力和可持续性结合起来，因为它们似乎都是可取的，但也许是对立的。这样的反思还解决了消费社会学的趋势，特别是围绕可持续消费和消费者激进主义的趋势（Warde 2015）。

Second, and relatedly, while creativity is usually perceived as a positive force for both individuals and societies, it may also generate inequality. Study of the causes and consequences of inequality is central to sociology (Neckerman & Torche 2007), but locating creativity in such contexts has only recently started to attract attention (Long 2010). Scholars of economic geography have long recognized the role played by creativity and the creative industries in generating income inequality (Storper & Scott 2009) and have studied strategies individuals use to avoid being displaced, such as staying at the periphery (Grabher 2018). Sociologists could build on the knowledge accumulated in allied disciplines on this topic, with creativity as the common ground.
其次，与此相关，虽然创造力通常被视为个人和社会的积极力量，但它也可能产生不平等。研究不平等的原因和后果是社会学的核心（Neckerman & Torche 2007），但在这样的背景下寻找创造力直到最近才开始引起人们的注意（Long 2010）。经济地理学的学者早已认识到创造力和创意产业在产生收入不平等中的作用（Storper & Scott 2009），并研究了个人用来避免流离失所的策略，例如留在边缘（Grabher 2018）。社会学家可以以创造力为共同基础，在相关学科中积累的关于这个主题的知识的基础上再接再厉。

Third, the relationship between the sociology of culture and a sociology of creativity needs to be further explored. Culture and creativity are often used interchangeably—as in the case of the creative industries and cultural industries (or markets). Although creativity can be found beyond cultural settings, recent developments in the sociology of culture provide tools for the sociological approach to creativity that cannot be found in other disciplines. These include the notion of field-level social structures and networks (Pachucki & Breiger 2010), institutional logics (Friedland & Mohr 2004), and populations of cultural elements (Godart & Galunic 2019). All of these equip sociologists not only with ways to understand the constraints on creativity (Ford 1996) but also with procedures to conceptualize creative strategies in situ (Swidler 2001, Weber 2005). Given the prominence of the creative industries in the study of creativity in sociology, connecting culture and creativity should prompt associations with economic sociology and build on the study of the culture of markets (Wherry 2012)—namely, how cultural systems embedded in economic activity shape and define the creative process.
第三，文化社会学和创造力社会学之间的关系需要进一步探索。文化和创意经常互换使用——就像创意产业和文化产业（或市场）一样。尽管创造力可以在文化背景之外找到，但文化社会学的最新发展为创造力的社会学方法提供了在其他学科中找不到的工具。这些包括田野层面的社会结构和网络的概念（Pachucki & Breiger 2010），制度逻辑（Friedland & Mohr 2004）和文化元素的人口（Godart & Galunic 2019）。所有这些都使社会学家不仅掌握了理解创造力限制的方法（Ford 1996），而且还掌握了就地概念化创造性策略的程序（Swidler 2001， Weber 2005）。鉴于创意产业在社会学创造力研究中的重要性，将文化和创造力联系起来应该促进与经济社会学的联系，并建立在对市场文化的研究之上（Wherry 2012）——即嵌入经济活动的文化系统如何塑造和定义创意过程。

Finally, the question of how technological developments impact creativity is increasingly unavoidable for sociologists. With the rise of technology, the changing locus, process, and nature of creativity (Pedersen et al. 2019, Powell & Snellman 2004) demand a more holistic, structural view of creativity (i.e., a sociology of creativity rather than treating creativity as an absolute). Given the existence of a rich literature on artificial intelligence (AI) and creativity (Boden 1998), what would be the most productive use of sociological knowledge to study this topic? One suggestion is to explore AI’s possible applications across the sociological landscape of creativity—for instance, identifying optimal configurations of elements and predicting or managing potential arenas of unexpectedness. In this sense, it is worth speculating on the question of intentionality when creativity is systematically carried out by first- or second-order AI systems.
最后，技术发展如何影响创造力的问题对社会学家来说越来越不可避免。随着技术的兴起，创造力的地点、过程和性质的变化（Pedersen et al. 2019， Powell & Snellman 2004）需要对创造力有一个更全面、结构性的看法（即，创造力的社会学，而不是将创造力视为绝对的）。鉴于存在关于人工智能（AI）和创造力的丰富文献（Boden 1998），如何最有效地利用社会学知识来研究这个主题？一个建议是探索人工智能在创造力的社会学景观中的可能应用，例如，确定元素的最佳配置以及预测或管理潜在的意外领域。从这个意义上说，当创造力由一阶或二阶人工智能系统系统地执行时，值得推测意向性问题。

CONCLUSION

结论

In this article, we have reviewed both classical and contemporary sociological research on creativity as well as relevant findings from allied disciplines. Our contribution has three dimensions. First, we have underscored the need for an integrated understanding of creativity that encompasses the social settings in which creativity is essential. This includes the so-called creative industries, such as fashion, film, music, and video games, to which creativity and cultural cues are central (Caves 2000), and indeed any context in which social actors rely on the generation of creative output, such as high-tech firms (Phillips 2001). Although the sociology of creativity and the sociology of creative industries are intertwined, the former should not be limited to the latter. Second, given the importance of creativity in careers and market dynamics, we have shed light on the sociological underpinnings of creativity in an effort to advance understanding of their increasingly contingent nature (Leschziner 2015, Mears 2011). Finally, since the sociology of creativity is intricately tied to neighboring subfields such as the sociology of innovation, of culture, and of knowledge—to name but a few—our review aims to spark interest among scholars in taking a more integrative approach, be it conceptual, theoretical, or empirical projects.
在本文中，我们回顾了关于创造力的古典和当代社会学研究，以及相关学科的相关发现。我们的贡献有三个维度。首先，我们强调了对创造力的综合理解的必要性，其中包括创造力至关重要的社会环境。这包括所谓的创意产业，如时尚、电影、音乐和电子游戏，其中创造力和文化线索是核心（Caves 2000），以及社会行为者依赖创意产出产生的任何环境，如高科技公司（Phillips 2001）。尽管创意社会学和创意产业社会学交织在一起，但前者不应局限于后者。其次，鉴于创造力在职业和市场动态中的重要性，我们阐明了创造力的社会学基础，以努力促进对其日益偶然的性质的理解（Leschziner 2015，Mears 2011）。最后，由于创造力社会学与邻近的子领域错综复杂地联系在一起，例如创新社会学、文化社会学和知识社会学——仅举几例——我们的综述旨在激发学者们对采取更综合的方法的兴趣，无论是概念、理论还是实证项目。

disclosure statement

披露声明

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
作者不知道任何可能被认为影响本综述客观性的从属关系、会员资格、资金或财务控股。

acknowledgments

致谢

The authors received valuable feedback from Poornika Ananth, Noah Askin, Peter Bearman, Michaël Bikard, Janet Chan, Daphne Demetry, Spencer Harrison, Li Huang, Nadir Kernoua, Eva-Maria Kirchberger, Sharon Koppman, Jennifer Lena, Ming Leung, John Levi Martin, Pierre-Michel Menger, Ella Miron-Spektor, Daniel Sands, Stefano Tasselli, Eric Uhlmann, Filippo Wezel, and Wenxin Xie. They also thank Karen Cook and Anne Abramson for their help throughout the publication process and Hazel Hamelin for her copyediting work.
作者收到了来自 Poornika Ananth、Noah Askin、Peter Bearman、Michaël Bikard、Janet Chan、Daphne Demetry、Spencer Harrison、Li Huang、Nadir Kernoua、Eva-Maria Kirchberger、Sharon Koppman、Jennifer Lena、Ming Leung、John Levi Martin、Pierre-Michel Menger、Ella Miron-Spektor、Daniel Sands、Stefano Tasselli、Eric Uhlmann、Filippo Wezel 和 Wenxin Xie 的宝贵反馈。他们还感谢 Karen Cook 和 Anne Abramson 在整个出版过程中的帮助，以及 Hazel Hamelin 的文字编辑工作。

literature cited

参考文献

1.Abbott JS. 2005. Review of the week: Thelonious Monk/John Coltrane. The Harvard Crimson Oct. 7. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/10/7/review-of-the-week-thelonious-monkjohn/

2.Abrahamson E, Eisenman M. 2008. Employee-management techniques: transient fads or trending fashions. Adm. Sci. Q. 53:719–44

3.Acar S, Burnett C, Cabra JF 2017. Ingredients of creativity: originality and more. Creativity Res. J. 29:133–44

4.Accominotti F. 2009. Creativity from interaction: artistic movements and the creativity careers of modern painters. Poetics 37:267–94

5.Accominotti F. 2018. Consecration as a population-level phenomenon. Am. Behav. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218800144

[Crossref]

[Web of Science]

6.Adorno TW, Horkheimer M. 1997. 1947. Dialectic of Enlightenment London: Verso

7.Aghion P, Howitt P. 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60:323–51

8.Amabile TM. 1996. Creativity in Context Boulder, CO: Westview

9.Amabile TM. 2013. Componential theory of creativity. Encyclopedia of Management Theory EH Kessler 134–39 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

10.Amabile TM, Barsade SG, Mueller JS, Staw BM 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Adm. Sci. Q. 50:367–403

11.Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A 2004. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

12.Askin N, Mauskapf M. 2017. What makes popular culture popular? Product features and optimal differentiation in music. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:910–44

13.Asma ST. 2017. The Evolution of Imagination Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

14.Aspers P, Godart FC. 2013. Sociology of fashion: order and change. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 39:171–92

15.Audia PG, Goncalo JA. 2007. Past success and creativity over time: a study of investors in the hard disk drive industry. Manag. Sci. 53:1–15

16.Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G 2011. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND J. Econ. 42:527–54

17.Bartels G, Bencherki N. 2013. Actor-network-theory and creativity research. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship EG Carayannis New York: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1[Crossref]

18.Basov N. 2018. Socio-material network analysis: a mixed method study of five European artistic collectives. Soc. Netw. 54:179–95

19.Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order Cambridge, UK: Polity

20.Becker HS. 1982. Art Worlds Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

21.Bell A, Chetty R, Jaravel X, Petkova N, Van Reenen J 2018. Who becomes an inventor in America? The importance of exposure to innovation. Q. J. Econ. 134:647–713

22.Boden MA. 1998. Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 103:347–56

23.Boden MA. 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms New York: Routledge

24.Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

25.Bourdieu P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature Cambridge, UK: Polity

26.Bourdieu P. 1996. 1992. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field Cambridge, UK: Polity

27.Burns TR, Corte U, Machado N 2015. The sociology of creativity: PART II: applications: the socio-cultural contexts and conditions of the production of novelty. Hum. Syst. Manag. 34:263–86

28.Burt R. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Sociol. 110:349–99

29.Callon M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? J Law 196–233 London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

30.Cattani G, Ferriani S. 2008. A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organ. Sci. 19:824–44

31.Cattani G, Ferriani S, Allison PD 2014. Insiders, outsiders, and the struggle for consecration in cultural fields: a core-periphery perspective. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:258–81

32.Cattani G, Sands D, Porac J, Greenberg J 2018. Competitive sensemaking in value creation and capture. Strategy Sci 3:632–57

33.Caves RE. 2000. Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

34.Ceulemans C, Ginsburgh V, Legros P 2011. Rock and roll bands, (in)complete contracts, and creativity. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:217–21

35.Chan J. 2011. Towards a sociology of creativity. Creativity and Innovation in Business and Beyond: Social Science Perspectives and Policy Implications L Mann, J Chan 135–53 New York: Routledge

36.Chan J. 2017. Creativity and culture: a sociological perspective. The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research VP Glăveanu 639–60 London: Springer Nature

37.Chen KK. 2009. Enabling Creative Chaos: The Organization Behind the Burning Man Event Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

38.Childress C, Rawlings CM, Moeran B 2017. Publishers, authors, and texts: the process of cultural consecration in prize evaluation. Poetics 60:48–61

39.Cillo P, Verona G. 2008. Search styles in style searching: exploring innovation strategies in fashion firms. Long Range Plann 41:650–71

40.Collins R. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

41.Corte U, Parker JN, Fine GA 2019. The microsociology of creativity and creative work. Soc. Psychol. Q. 82:333–39

42.Crosby DA. 2009. Causality, time, and creativity: the essential role of novelty. Pluralist 4:46–59

43.Csikszentmihályi M. 1990. The domain of creativity. Theories of Creativity MA Runco, RS Albert 190–212 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

44.Csikszentmihályi M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention New York: HarperCollins

45.Dahlin EC. 2014. The sociology of innovation: organizational, environmental, and relative perspectives. Sociol. Compass 8:671–87

46.Dalton B. 2004. Creativity, habit, and the social products of creative action: revising Joas, incorporating Bourdieu. Sociol. Theory 22:603–22

47.De Vaan M, Stark D, Vedres B 2015. Game changer: the topology of creativity. Am. J. Sociol. 120:1144–94

48.Deleuze G. 1998. Qu’est-ce que l’acte de création. Trafic 27:133–42

49.Diedrich J, Benedek M, Jauk E, Neubauer AC 2015. Are creative ideas novel and useful. Psychol. Aesthet. Creativity Arts 9:35–40

50.Durkheim É. 1982. 1895. The Rules of Sociological Method New York: Free Press

51.Durkheim É. 1995. 1912. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life New York: Free Press

52.Elias N. 1993. Mozart: Portrait of a Genius Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

53.Elsbach KD, Kramer RM. 2003. Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Acad. Manag. J. 46:283–301

54.Evans V. 2010. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

55.Fabiani J-L. 2016. From the arts to action theory: the sociological work of Pierre-Michel Menger. Ann. Hist. Sci. Soc. 71:951–78

56.Feist GJ. 1998. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2:290–309

57.Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Adm. Sci. Q. 52:443–75

58.Florida RL. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life New York: Basic Books

59.Ford CM. 1996. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21:1112–42

60.Foucault M, Gordon C. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977 New York: Pantheon Books

61.Friedland R, Mohr JW. 2004. The cultural turn in American sociology. Matters of Culture: Cultural Sociology in Practice R Friedland, J Mohr 1–70 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

62.Fuchs S. 2005. Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

63.Fuentes A. 2017. The Creative Spark: How Imagination Made Humans Exceptional New York: Penguin Random House

64.Galenson DW. 2011. Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

65.Ganzaroli A, Fiscato G. 2011. Looking for the missing link between creativity and governance in Open Source Communities: some implications from GNOME and KDE case study. Managing Networks of Creativity F Belussi, U Staber 264–80 New York: Routledge

66.Gaut B. 2010. The philosophy of creativity. Philos. Compass 5:1034–46

67.George JM. 2007. Creativity in organizations. Acad. Manag. Ann. 1:439–77

68.Gerber A. 2017. The Work of Art: Value in Creative Careers Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

69.Giddens A. 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

70.Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration Cambridge, UK: Polity

71.Giuffre K. 2009. Collective Creativity: Art and Society in the South Pacific Abingdon, UK: Routledge

72.Glăveanu VP. 2019. Imitation and creativity: Gabriel Tarde and James Mark Baldwin. The Creativity Reader VP Glăveanu 173–89 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

73.Godart FC, Galunic C. 2019. Explaining the popularity of cultural elements: networks, culture, and the structural embeddedness of high fashion trends. Organ. Sci. 30:151–68

74.Godart FC, Mears A. 2009. How do cultural producers make creative decisions? Lessons from the catwalk. Soc. Forces 88:671–92

75.Godart FC, Shipilov AV, Claes K 2014. Making the most of the revolving door: the impact of outward personnel mobility networks on organizational creativity. Organ. Sci. 25:377–400

76.Goldberg A, Hannan MT, Kovács B 2016. What does it mean to span cultural boundaries? Variety and atypicality in cultural consumption. Am. Sociol. Rev. 81:215–41

77.Götz IL. 1981. On defining creativity. J. Aesthet. Art Crit. 39:297–301

78.Govindarajan V, Trimble C. 2010. The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge Boston: Harvard Bus. Sch.

79.Grabher G. 2018. Marginality as strategy: leveraging peripherality for creativity. Environ. Plann. A: Econ. Space 50:1785–94

80.Gronow J. 2009. Fads, fashions and ‘real’ innovations: novelties and social change. Time, Consumption and Everyday Life E Shove, F Trentmann, R Wilk 129–42 Oxford, UK: Berg

81.Guetzkow J, Lamont M, Mallard G 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:190–212

82.Guilford JP. 1950. Creativity. Am. Psychol. 5:444–54

83.Hagtvedt LP, Dossinger K, Harrison SH, Huang L 2019. Curiosity made the cat more creative: specific curiosity as a driver of creativity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 150:1–13

84.Hargadon AB, Bechky BA. 2006. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: a field study of problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. 17:484–500

85.Harvey S, Kou C-Y. 2013. Collective engagement in creative tasks: the role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Adm. Sci. Q. 58:346–86

86.Hennessey BA, Amabile TM. 2010. Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psych. 61:569–98

87.Hildreth JA, Anderson C. 2016. Failure at the top: how power undermines collaborative performance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 110:261–86

88.Hirsch PM. 1972. Processing fads and fashions: an organization set analysis of culture industry systems. Am. J. Sociol. 77:639–59

89.Hsu G. 2006. Jacks of all trades and masters of none: audiences’ reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Adm. Sci. Q. 51:420–50

90.Huang L, Galinsky AD. 2011. Mind–body dissonance: conflict between the senses expands the mind’s horizons. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2:351–59

91.Jang S. 2017. Cultural brokerage and creative performance in multicultural teams. Organ. Sci. 28:993–1009

92.Jia L, Shaw JD, Tsui AS, Park T-Y 2014. A social–structural perspective on employee–organization relationships and team creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 57:869–91

93.Joas H. 1996. The Creativity of Action Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

94.John B, Sharon SM. 2009. Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment technique. Handbook of Research on Assessment Technologies, Methods, and Applications in Higher Education SS Christopher 65–77 Hershey, PA: IGI Global

95.Jones C, Lorenzen M, Sapsed J 2015. Creative industries: a typology of change. The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries C Jones, M Lorenzen, J Sapsed 3–32 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

96.Jones C, Maoret M. 2018. Frontiers of creative industries: exploring structural and categorical dynamics. Frontiers of Creative Industries: Exploring Structural and Categorical Dynamics C Jones, M Maoret 1–16 Bingley, UK: Emerald

97.Joseph G. 2009. Creative destruction and destructive creations: environmental ethics and planned obsolescence. J. Bus. Ethics 89:19–28

98.Kaufman J. 2004. Endogenous explanation in the sociology of culture. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:335–57

99.Kaup BZ. 2015. Markets, nature, and society: embedding economic & environmental sociology. Sociol. Theory 33:280–96

100.Kharkhurin AV. 2014. Creativity.4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity. Creativity Res. J. 26:338–52

101.Khessina OM, Goncalo JA, Krause V 2018. It’s time to sober up: the direct costs, side effects and long-term consequences of creativity and innovation. Res. Organ. Behav. 38:107–35

102.Kilduff M, Mehra A, Dunn MB 2011. From blue sky research to problem solving: a philosophy of science theory of new knowledge production. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36:297–317

103.Klausen SH. 2010. The notion of creativity revisited: a philosophical perspective on creativity research. Creativity Res. J. 22:347–60

104.Koppman S. 2016. Different like me: why cultural omnivores get creative jobs. Adm. Sci. Q. 61:291–331

105.Kuhn TS. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

106.Latour B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

107.Latour B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

108.Lena JC. 2019. Entitled: Discriminating Tastes and the Expansion of the Arts Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

109.Leschziner V. 2015. At the Chef’s Table: Culinary Creativity in Elite Restaurants Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

110.Leung AK-Y, Maddux WW, Galinsky AD, Chiu C-Y 2008. Multicultural experience enhances creativity: the when and how. Am. Psychol. 63:169–81

111.Leung MD, Sharkey AJ. 2014. Out of sight, out of mind? Evidence of perceptual factors in the multiple-category discount. Organ. Sci. 25:171–84

112.Lieberson S, Bell EO. 1992. Children’s first names: an empirical study of social taste. Am. J. Sociol. 98:511–54

113.Long J. 2010. Weird City: Sense of Place and Creative Resistance in Austin, Texas Austin: Univ. Texas Press

114.Lubart TI. 2001. Models of the creative process: past, present and future. Creativity Res. J. 13:295–308

115.Marx K. 1972. 1844. Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. The Marx-Engels Reader RC Tucker 66–125 New York: W. W. Norton Co.

116.McRobbie A. 2018. Be Creative: Making a Living in the New Culture Industries Cambridge, UK: Wiley

117.Mears A. 2011. Pricing Beauty: The Making of a Fashion Model Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

118.Menger P-M. 1999. Artistic labor markets and careers. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:541–74

119.Menger P-M. 2014. The Economics of Creativity: Art and Achievement Under Uncertainty Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

120.Merton RK. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159:56–63

121.Miron-Spektor E, Erez M. 2017. Looking at creativity through a paradox lens: deeper understanding and new insights. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox WK Smith, MW Lewis, P Jarzabkowski, A Langley 434–51 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

122.Moeran B, Pedersen JS 2011. Negotiating Values in the Creative Industries: Fairs, Festivals and Competitive Events Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

123.Morgan G, Nelligan P. 2018. The Creativity Hoax: Precarious Work and the Gig Economy London: Anthem

124.Neckerman KM, Torche F. 2007. Inequality: causes and consequences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 33:335–57

125.Negus K, Pickering M. 2000. Creativity and cultural production. Int. J. Cult. Policy 6:259–82

126.Nelson C. 2015. Discourses of creativity. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity RH Jones 170–87 Abingdon, UK: Routledge

127.Némedi D. 1998. Change, innovation and creation: Durkheim’s ambivalence. On Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of Religious Life NJ Allen, WSF Pickering, W Watts Miller 162–75 Abingdon, UK: Routledge

128.Opazo MP. 2018. Appetite for Innovation: Creativity and Change at elBulli New York: Columbia Univ. Press

129.Osborne T. 2003. Against ‘creativity’: a philistine rant. Econ. Soc. 32:507–25

130.Pachucki MA, Breiger RL. 2010. Cultural holes: beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 36:205–24

131.Parsons HL. 1983. The concept of creativity in Marx. Dialectics and Humanism PN Russo 31–45 Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner

132.Paulus PB, Yang H-C. 2000. Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity in organizations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82:76–87

133.Pedersen J, Slavich B, Khaire M 2019. Technology and Creativity: Production, Mediation and Evaluation in the Digital Age Cham, Switz.: Palgrave Macmillan

134.Pellow DN, Nyseth Brehm H 2013. An environmental sociology for the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 39:229–50

135.Peltoniemi M. 2015. Cultural industries: product–market characteristics, management challenges and industry dynamics. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 17:41–68

136.Perretti F, Negro G. 2007. Mixing genres and matching people: a study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood. J. Organ. Behav. 28:563–86

137.Perry-Smith JE. 2006. Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 49:85–101

138.Phillips DJ. 2001. The promotion paradox: organizational mortality and employee promotion chances in Silicon Valley law firms, 1946–1996. Am. J. Sociol. 106:1058–98

139.Phillips DJ. 2011. Jazz and the disconnected: city structural disconnectedness and the emergence of a jazz canon, 1897–1933. Am. J. Sociol. 117:420–83

140.Powell WW, Snellman K. 2004. The knowledge economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:199–220

141.Reagans R, Zuckerman EW. 2001. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ. Sci. 12:502–17

142.Reckwitz A. 2017. The Invention of Creativity: Modern Society and the Culture of the New Cambridge, UK: Polity

143.Reilly P. 2018. No laughter among thieves: authenticity and the enforcement of community norms in stand-up comedy. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83:933–58

144.Rosen S. 1981. The economics of superstars. Am. Econ. Rev. 71:845–58

145.Rossman G. 2012. Climbing the Charts: What Radio Airplay Tells Us About the Diffusion of Innovation Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

146.Runco MA. 2004. Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psych. 55:657–87

147.Runco MA, Jaeger GJ. 2012. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Res. J. 24:92–96

148.Sawyer RK. 2012. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

149.Sayers S. 2011. Creative activity and alienation in Hegel and Marx. Marx and Alienation: Essays on Hegelian Themes S Sayers 14–31 London: Palgrave Macmillan UK

150.Schumpeter JA. 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process New York: McGraw-Hill

151.Schumpeter JA. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy New York/London: Harper Brother

152.Seong S, Godart FC. 2018. Influencing the influencers: diversification, semantic strategies, and creativity evaluations. Acad. Manag. J. 61:966–93

153.Sgourev SV. 2013. How Paris gave rise to Cubism (and Picasso): ambiguity and fragmentation in radical innovation. Organ. Sci. 24:1601–17

Sgourev SV. 2016. Dangerous liaisons: bridging micro and macro levels in creativity research. Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking GE Corazza, S Agnoli 103–16 Singapore: Springer

155.Sgourev SV, Althuizen N. 2014. “Notable” or “not able”: When are acts of inconsistency rewarded?. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:282–302

156.Simonton DK. 1988. Scientific Genius: A Psychology of Science New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

157.Simonton DK. 1999. Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity New York: Oxford Univ. Press

158.Simonton DK. 2004. Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

159.Simonton DK. 2010. Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Phys. Life Rev. 7:156–79

160.Smits R. 2016. Gatekeeping and networking arrangements: Dutch distributors in the film distribution business. Poetics 58:29–42

161.Stein MI. 1953. Creativity and culture. J. Psychol. 36:311–22

162.Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI. 1999. The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. Handbook of Creativity RJ Sternberg 3–15 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

163.Storper M, Scott AJ. 2009. Rethinking human capital, creativity and urban growth. J. Econ. Geogr. 9:147–67

164.Strang D, Macy MW. 2001. In search of excellence: fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation. Am. J. Sociol. 107:147–82

165.Stumpf H. 1995. Scientific creativity: a short overview. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 7:225–41

166.Swidler A. 2001. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

167.Tarde G. 1903. 1890. The Laws of Imitation New York: Henry Holt Co.

168.Teodoridis F, Bikard M, Vakili K 2019. Creativity at the knowledge frontier: the impact of specialization in fast- and slow-paced domains. Adm. Sci. Q. 64:894–927

169.Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342:468–72

170.Uzzi B, Spiro J. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. Am. J. Sociol. 111:447–504

171.Warde A. 2015. The sociology of consumption: its recent development. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41:117–34

172.Watts Miller W. 2017. Creativity: a key Durkheimian concern and problematic. Rev. Eur. Sci. Soc. 55:17–40

173.Weber K. 2005. A toolkit for analyzing corporate cultural toolkits. Poetics 33:227–52

174.Weber M. 1986. 1921. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

175.Weitzman ML. 1998. Recombinant growth. Q. J. Econ. 113:331–60

176.Wherry FF. 2012. The Culture of Markets Cambridge, UK: Polity

177.White HC. 1993. Careers and Creativity: Social Forces in the Arts Boulder, CO: Westview

178.Wijnberg NM, Gemser G. 2000. Adding value to innovation: Impressionism and the transformation of the selection system in visual arts. Organ. Sci. 11:323–29

179.Wohl H. 2019. Creative visions: presenting aesthetic trajectories in artistic careers. Poetics 76:101358

180.Zhou J, Wang XM, Bavato D, Tasselli S, Wu J 2019. Understanding the receiving side of creativity: a multidisciplinary review and implications for management research. J. Manag. 45:2570–95

via:

The Sociology of Creativity: Elements, Structures, and Audiences | Annual Reviews

https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054833