The purpose of this Master’s Thesis is to conduct a semantic analysis on the basis of the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. The semantics of creativity is a potentially vast area to analyze and therefore I have had to narrow it down to a dense and at the same time, in my point of view, important compilation of text material dealing with creativity. The objective is to uncover the semantics of creativity in recent years with the function of attaining a deeper and more profound comprehension of the semantics concerning creativity. Following that, the ambition is to uncover blind spots and potential problems that can be analyzed on the basis of the semantics of creativity. The assumption is that the communication about creativity in recent years has become increasingly visible. The semantics are focusing on facing problems and meeting challenges - particularly of economic nature - in the globalized world in which we live. The semantics are overwhelmingly positive when it comes to creativity, and it seems unlikely that its many qualities can be questioned. Creativity is looked upon as something that is closely connected to the human life: everyone has a creative potential to some degree, it is impossible for humans not to be creative. But the level of your innate creative potential and how much you are able to actualize your potential varies. Your level of creativity depends on nature and nurture. Creativity is seen as a hard, experimental and time demanding process. On one hand, creativity has to be viewed as something that is useful and generates economic value. If that is not the case, it cannot be seen as creativity. On the other hand, the creative employees sometimes do not worry about making their creativity in to useful products, and sometimes the possibility to work creatively can feel like a reward. Hence, there is a paradox within the semantics: creativity is found worth doing for its own sake and for the sake of usefulness, particularly regarding economy. This is considered to be one of several blind spots that the analysis reveals. Thus, after conducting the semantic analysis, I selected three areas that contained blind spots and potential problems. The three areas were then analyzed and discussed, and they consisted of: 1: a discrepancy within the semantics in order to enhance creativity. 2: a blindness or indifference towards non-creative employees. 3: blindness towards potential ecological problems caused by creativity. In order to accomplish the goal, within the semantics, of enhancing creativity both for the sake of creativity itself and for the sake of creating economic value, I propose more adequate semantics within these areas. That includes forms of communication that can control the blind spots standing in the way of reaching that goal. I suggest that the semantics of creativity should “listen to” and include other forms of semantics relating to the three selected areas. That is to say, first the semantics should deal with its internal blind spots, concerning the first selected area. Then it should deal with blind spots towards other semantics. That could possibly improve the semantics within the three selected areas, in a way that makes it more probable, to deal with its ambitions in clear-sighted ways.
|Educations||MSc in Philosophy, (Graduate Programme) Final Thesis|
|Number of pages||91|