Freedom and creativity in society: Hayek and Postrel's perspectives

Creative Powers

It is a fact that the society in which we live will never be truly free in all areas of life. Indeed, it has been suggested by some that total freedom would result in anarchy, and that rules are necessary in order to ensure a civilized society. On the other hand, too little freedom would hardly be conducive to creativity in any sense of the word. It would therefore be useful to what degree freedom within society, in terms of the law, culture, education, politics, and other influences, relates to individual and collective creativity in the same society.

Freedom in Society

Freedom is a very wide concept, and difficult to define. It means different things to different individuals and different societies. If Hayek's position were accepted as true, a definition of the "truly free" society would be needed in justification of the statement. For Hayek then, this freedom entails the artistic right to pursue new goals that are not accepted as general goals for society. Freedom means that the minority of individuals pursuing these goals should be allowed to do so. Evolution occurs when these new goals become embedded in the social consciousness to become the goals of the majority. If this could be seen as a natural process rather than a threat, true freedom is manifest. The main characteristic of a free society then is for Hayek that its goals should be open.

Hayek uses the artistic paradigms of "good" and "beautiful" to illustrate this point, emphasizing that relativism is at the center of all changeable opinions. Thus, what is good and beautiful changes from generation to generation and from person to person. The truly free society allows this and recognizes that human beings will naturally differ regarding their relativist opinions. This is for Hayek a natural part of human evolution, meaning that those paradigms worthy of remaining endure while others are lost more quickly. Thus not only human beings, but also their paradigms and opinions change according to the specific needs of a specific generation at a specific time. This is part of what ensures perpetuity and should not be resisted.

Basically this view of social freedom relates to artistic paradigms, although it could be applied to other areas of society as well. Economic, religious and other evolution and freedom all relate to the minority endorsement of a new idea or goal that later becomes the idea or goal of the majority.

Virginia Postrel on the other hand holds that all the above paradigms of society, including art, economics and the business world in general, are bound by the apparent obsessive Western need to predict the future. According to her work, computer-generated predictions of the newest trend in fashion or other markets binds creativity in these fields and stifle most possible direction in favor of possibly false predictions. A society so reliant on prediction is therefore not free according to the above definition, and furthermore not optimally creative. The reason for this is that predictions are mainly done by machines, without considering the human factor within the variety of data gathered. Humanity and creativity are thus stifled by fact, machine and the social need to predict and to believe at all cost such predictions. This is not conducive to Hayek's paradigm of evolution.

Postrel further distinguishes between stasism and dynamism, where the former relates to the above tendency to believe prediction at all cost, and the latter refers to the human element of surprise, which is conducive to learning and to evolution. She holds that a tendency to believe without further investigation in the "perfect" prediction model is not conducive to maximum creativity. Instead, dynamism acknowledges that it is possible not to know everything, and therefore the paradigm of learning and thus evolution enters society. According to Postrel then, maximum creativity is only possible if the element of prediction is at its minimum level.

It appears then that, while a perfectly free society is also perfectly creative, this is hardly the case in reality. Indeed, whereas Western society tends to be ruled by its belief that current technical systems and models are perfectly adequate for its purposes, other societies entail the same paradigm with regard to religion and philosophy. Thus, whereas freedom entails the willingness to explore and to learn, a lack of freedom relates to an unwillingness to give up existing systems of knowledge in favor of the new. This is regardless of whether the new knowledge is superior to the old or not; the new is rejected simply as a matter of principle. This attitude stifles optimal creativity and creates a society of little more than drones intent on retaining the status quo. The reason for this is that society is reluctant to leave its comfort zone and explore new possibilities. This is also mostly why the most creative people, and those pioneering new ideas, are in the minority.

The Nature of Creativity

I am in agreement with Hayek, that freedom is needed within society to ensure optimized creativity. Freedom has been discussed at length above. The phenomenon of creativity can also benefit from some consideration.

It has been seen above that creativity is profoundly influenced by social matters such as politics, culture, economics and even issues such as morality. Most deeply, creativity is connected with the issue of freedom. When society is optimally free, creativity flourishes. The reason for this is that creativity is the driving force behind the new ideas required by evolution. Creativity might then also be equated, as it has been by some, with evolution. It is a dynamic force that drives society to become better and more than it had been previously.

Creativity occurs in all areas of life. Above several of these areas have been considered. The software industry saw evolutions that drove the information revolution. The result is that millions are now connected with millions of others around the world for the purposes of communication and business. The result is the already discussed economic boom that seems to have benefited not only those directly involved, but also society as a whole. It has become a wealth creating industry, doing more to alleviate poverty and suffering than many other institutions, including even charity organizations and churches.

Creativity can also occur of course in the area of economics. Here, revolutionary ideas, closely connected to industries where the most wealth is created, may serve to bring about a society where the margins between rich and poor grow thinner rather than wider. In this area freedom or the lack thereof may be seen to play the biggest role. Economic creativity is closely interlinked with a political sense of freedom. The problem is that politicians tend to make promises relating to economics without consulting the most creative of economists. Instead, assumptions are based upon models that are far outdated, and thus there is no willingness to accept new input that might contribute concretely to the evolution of society. Here the phenomenon of new ideas sparked by a minority of people becomes problematic. Those in political power thus detract from the freedom of creative economists, thus slowing down the very evolution that might ensure survival.

In terms of morality, religious institutions such as churches and charities often detract from the freedom of creative individuals. Moral outrage, as seen above, has sparked a debate that consumes valuable creative energy. Petty moral issues are based upon paradigms of a distant past and tradition, without considering how moral evolution might contribute to the betterment of society. This lack of freedom, like political oppression, furthermore detracts from optimal creative opportunities.

If all these phenomena could work together to find solutions for the problems in society, perhaps social evolution would have been easier, and the world would experience fewer problems. It appears however that the human heart is innately unwilling to be free. Freedom means optimal creativity, but also risk and the need to expend energy. This is something that the majority of human beings are unwilling to do. Many of these unwilling persons are unfortunately in positions of considerable power, such as in management or political areas. These people are thus unwilling to disturb the status quo that keeps them in their positions of power, and thus seek to oppress those who pursue new and creative ideas. Ultimately, while this might be a personal victory for the oppressors involved, it is a loss for social evolution, betterment and creativity. These are issues that politicians verbally promote, but seldom follow up with action. This is furthermore a manifestation of politicians and other leaders being unwilling to let creativity take its course and evolve accordingly.

Perhaps the aspect of creativity and its potential power for the evolution of society is creativity within art itself. Hayek mentions perceptions of the beautiful and the good, the two aspects that have since ancient times been associated with art. The phenomena of economics and politics have begun to take such a prominent position in society, that the creative and evolutionary power of art have taken a somewhat background position. Yet art is the most powerful commentating force on the society in which we live.

Once again, the degree of freedom enjoyed within society will influence the art emanating from it. Oppressive societies for example would not allow a certain kind of novel or film for its revolutionary or even merely evolutionary content. On the other hand, societies that are very open and free would once again allow for a greater degree of creativity as well.

It is tragic perhaps that most human beings appear so reluctant to change according to what proves to be the best paradigm. This is what evolution ultimately is: creating solutions that are ultimately beneficial for society as a whole. Revolutionary artists, economists, and business people should thus be given the opportunity to display their full creativity as circumstances allow.

This creativity should be supplemented with support from governments and top management officials in order to achieve the mental, creative and economic evolution that I believe is the next human step forward. These creative people should be given the full freedom within society that they deserve. They also deserve the recognition that their ideas are not dangers, but rather on the contrary beneficial for society and for the world. Only if working in unison can creativity and freedom compliment each other perfectly.