Through Multiple Lenses: Implicit Theories of Creativity Among Indian Children and Adults*

This constructivist qualitative enquiry reveals a multiplicity of implicit theories of creativity extant in Indian culture with generic and domain specific usage of indigenous terms. Creativity was dominantly construed as a faculty of the nature of ‘pratibha’, in keeping with Indian philosophical thought, and with reference to the self, with participants invoking the holistic self, cognitive self, experiential/emotional self and physical self to describe creativity. The sense of creativity in these seemingly disparate, self‐based construals, the uncovering of which is the unique contribution of this study, derived from the person's experience of a sense of agency, rather than merely the production of novelty per se. This emphasis on process; novelty being central for some but epiphenomenal for others; the varied meanings of ‘newness’; experiencing creativity as self‐expression, self‐extension, self‐fulfillment and self‐actualization; and equating creativity with the act of learning reflect distinctive elements of implicit theories that have emerged in this study.     

The Global Reach of Human Rights

We live in a world in which the idea of human rights is persistently invoked. However, despite the tremendous appeal of the idea of human rights, it is also seen by many as lacking in foundation. I have argued, particularly in my book The Idea of Justice, that human rights are best seen as articulations of commitments in social ethics, comparable to — but very different from — accepting utilitarian reasoning. Like other ethical tenets, human rights can, of course, be disputed, but the claim is that they will survive open and informed scrutiny. This view contrasts with seeing human rights in primarily legal terms, either as consequences of humane legislation, or as precursors of legal rights, or as pointing towards what should ideally be legal rights. Human rights may well be reflected in legislation, may inspire legislation, and may even serve, in many circumstances, as ideals that demand legislative attention. However, these are ‘further facts’— not the defining characteristics of human rights.