Domain-distinction arguments of creativity and imagination in cultural-historical activity theory: An analysis

Pages: 1754-1758
Kiran S. (Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

Imagination as a term is used to describe mainly two meanings. The first meaning is, as something that is not accessible to reality or alternative to reality and the second meaning is as the reality building component as emphasised in Cultural-Historical Activity theory. Michael Cole, largely deriving from Vygotskian perspective defines imagination as a process of image making that resolves gaps arising from biological and cultural-historical constraints, and that enables ongoing time-space coordination necessary for thought and action. His concept of imagination (Voobrazhenie) is advancement of Vygotsky’s concept of imagination. But Cole presents evidences, though empirical, for his claim as this is concretely a true achievement which happened only in this century despite the fact that it has been a debated topic throughout the centuries. This work details the domain-distinction argument of creativity and imagination provided based on formulations in the Cultural-Historical Activity theory. The method used is Content analysis. The works of Lev Vygotsky and Michael Cole are consulted to extrapolate conceptions of imagination and creativity. The article elaborates on the concepts of Social Proprioception and Voobrazhenieto substantiate the domain-distinction argument. Imagination and creativity are different developmentally and in adaptability. The findings suggest that Imagination is largely individual- centric process that contributes to creativity whereas creativity is largely a cultural- historical process. The gap filling capacity of imagination helps the individual to form an image whereby he/she acts on the world.