The Adults' Role in the Myth of Inherent Creativity

This week in our Early Childhood Education class we discussed the reading Child as Totem: Redressing the Myth of Inherent Creativity in Early Childhood by Marissa Mcclure. She discusses the myth of inherent creativity in children, how it is imposed and limited by adults, and how we can move away from the myth of inherent creativity by adjusting our image of the child and seeing them as meaning makers rather than innocent individuals who exist outside the realm of modern adult culture.

Mcclure states that the myth of children's inherent creativity is something that is both created and limited by adults in society, even reaching the realm of education, and is not based on historical accounts of children's experiences in childhood (Mcclure, 2011). As the myth that children are inherently creative grew over time, so did the belief that as children grow up, they lose that inherent creativity. Mcclure believes that this view of inherent creativity being lost over time is created by adults who view children as individuals untainted by the seemingly "corrupt" culture that adults live in, and that once they are exposed to that world, they lose that inherent innocence and creativity that many people believe children are born with (Mcclure, 2011). This part of the myth of inherent creativity seems to prevent adults from viewing children as meaning makers that are intertwined within adult culture. The tools that children use to express themselves were placed in their environment by adults with a goal to encourage creativity, so when children use these tools to try and express their knowledge and make sense of their world, they are simply viewed as children playing in an inherently creative way and are not taken seriously (Mcclure, 2011).

After reflecting on the reading and our material inquiries with crayons we completed this week, I had a lot of realizations about my childhood experiences with adults in the classroom and how they demonstrated their belief in the myth of inherent creativity. In kindergarten I remember my teacher letting us use the tools in the classroom to express ourselves, but in a very controlled manner. We were not allowed to colour with anything other than crayons or pencil crayons, and we were only allowed to colour on white paper or construction paper. We were also not allowed to play with more than one kind of toy at once, so if we were playing with Lego we were not allowed to colour or play house at the same time. Finally, if we used any material for any other purpose other than what it was created for, such as breaking crayons to create something else, we would be punished.

While engaging in my material inquiry with crayons, my group members and I had a sudden realization that we did not really know how to explore and manipulate the crayons in different ways, and we felt uncomfortable doing so. We discussed why this might be, and we realized that this was probably because of the experiences we had with our teachers and their tendencies to control the materials in the classroom. We discussed how now, as adults, we felt restricted by our previous experiences with materials and if we did anything different than what we were supposed to do, we felt like we would be punished for it. We also realized that while we were playing our teachers were only present to control the materials but did not seem take note of our process of creating with the materials. They seemed to only be interested in the final product and commented on our creativity instead of asking us what knowledge or experience we were communicating through our material manipulation. We all agreed that our experiences with adults as young children, their control over the materials in our learning environment and their focus on the creativity of the product instead of the learning process not only demonstrated the myth of inherent creativity but also demonstrated ontological violence. Mcclure discusses how teachers control so much in the classroom including the materials in the room, the way students use them and what is created for what purpose, and students do not have much of a say in how they are able to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding in their own way (Mcclure, 2011).

As mentioned in the article, Reggio Emilia schools and school programs disrupt the myth of inherent creativity by allowing children to use materials in ways that they can control, use materials to become meaning makers and demonstrate their knowledge with what they create on their own terms. The Reggio approach demonstrates how children play and create with a purpose in mind, rather than play and create because they are inherently creative. Documentation of material encounters by educators supports this evidence, and also demonstrates how children navigate the content suggested in the curriculum on their own terms through their unique creative processes (Mcclure, 2011). This child-driven, educator-supported approach to the curriculum demonstrates just how much children's creativity, knowledge and meaning making go hand-in-hand and are not separate entities as suggested by the myth of inherent creativity.

I really enjoyed this reading! I was able to apply it to my own experiences in school when engaging with materials, understand how it has impacted my creativity and meaning-making abilities today, and it challenged me to look at my own beliefs of the myth of inherent creativity. I believe I have engaged in these behaviours in the past when interacting with children, not really realizing just how much they were learning and how much knowledge they were solidifying as a result of their creative process. This allowed me to change my view of my role as an educator to focus more on the process rather than the product and ask children deeper questions to gain a more thorough understanding of the learning they are experiencing throughout their creative processes.

Mcclure, M. (2011). Child as totem: Redressing the myth of inherent creativity in early childhood. Studies in Art Education, 52(2), 127-141.