Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T06:34:49.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Past glories feel good but creative minorities push us forward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2025

James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA james.kaufman@uconn.edu
Todd B. Kashdan*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA todd@toddkashdan.com pem725@gmail.com
Patrick E. McKnight
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA todd@toddkashdan.com pem725@gmail.com
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Historical narratives can satisfy basic individual psychological needs. However, an over-reliance on a group's past can marginalize those who think differently – thus, homogenizing the culture and stifling creativity. By revising narratives to balance the power of collective narratives with the richness of individuality, we foster groups that encourage varied identities.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Sijilmassi et al. offer an evolutionary explanation for historical myths within a group. The more important a story is about the origins and challenges of a particular group, the more this story is endorsed and then shared. As the story spreads, the group becomes bigger and stronger. Foundational myths can, thus, serve as a group-level adaptation. How? Such stories, built around past events, help us make sense of the world. They guide us on what to believe, what to value, what to prioritize, and how to decide among competing options. By adopting shared values and behaving in ways that earn rewards (and avoid punishment), we shape our identities – strengthening bonds with relevant social groups.

But there is another function to these stories: They promote collective action. Narratives of an ingroup's merits and an outgroup's faults can drive individuals toward protests, conflict, even war. To achieve notable collective feats, we need a shared vision, rooted in a common past and projected into a shared future. By celebrating the triumphs of ancestors and the communities that nurtured them, we allow the past to powerfully contribute to the future.

Here, we offer a complementary perspective to the authors' central premise. Like any powerful entity, historical narratives emerge with wide-ranging benefits. Beyond group benefits, historical stories offer individuals a sense of meaning, with rippling effects on psychological and physical well-being. However, there are downsides – marginalizing dissenters and inhibiting creativity.

The psychological benefits of collective narratives

Honoring and sharing historical stories transmits a sense of belonging. Recent research points to how inducing a strong sense of belonging (whether through story or something else) within a social group offers a simple, psychological intervention for enhancing purpose in life (e.g., Lambert et al., Reference Lambert, Stillman, Hicks, Kamble, Baumeister and Fincham2013). It is wonderful that some of the population can feel part of a long-lasting, potent legacy. From what we know about purpose, people connecting with a story feel more empowered, more goal-driven, and show greater perseverance when confronted with obstacles (Kashdan, Goodman, McKnight, Brown, & Rum, Reference Kashdan, Goodman, McKnight, Brown and Rum2024).

Group members whose personal identity aligns with the group's beliefs, values, and standards typically gain the strongest sense of belonging from these historical narratives (e.g., Livingstone & Haslam, Reference Livingstone and Haslam2008). Those who fall outside that identity often lacked power or influence during the narrative formation. Benefits abound for the ingroup members but at some cost to individual members.

Who and what is excluded by collective narratives

Collective narratives, while serving as a powerful binding force within societies (e.g., Bliuc & Chidley, Reference Bliuc and Chidley2022), can inadvertently stifle individuality and creativity – creating a homogenized culture that discourages dissent and alternative perspectives. A reliance on shared stories and histories may lead to the marginalization of outgroups and even ingroup members who dare to think differently (Marques & Paez, Reference Marques and Paez1994), ultimately fostering an environment of exclusion rather than inclusion. Moreover, these narratives can prematurely dictate identities, particularly for youth still in the process of personality development.

An emphasis on the ingroup's positive features, as reflected through stories from the past, feels good. A sense of pride from shared stories serves as a binding moral foundation (e.g., Graham et al., Reference Graham, Haidt, Koleva, Motyl, Iyer, Wojcik and Ditto2013) – associated with being less open to change (Feldman, Reference Feldman2021), lower creative self-beliefs (Kapoor & Kaufman, Reference Kapoor and Kaufman2022), and poorer creative performance (Kapoor, Mahadeshwar, Rezaei, Reiter-Palmon, & Kaufman, Reference Kapoor, Mahadeshwar, Rezaei, Reiter-Palmon and Kaufmanin press). Those who feel good, even psychologically satisfied by what one's ancestors accomplished, might suffer in planning and foresight.

Collective narratives often glorify the heroic feats of the dominant majority culture, leaving those on the fringes overlooked. Research shows that those who feel stronger ties to those binding features of the dominant majority culture are also more likely to be homophobic (Barnett, Öz, & Marsden, Reference Barnett, Öz and Marsden2018), skeptical of racial injustice (Goff, Silver, & Iceland, Reference Goff, Silver and Iceland2022), and biased against immigrants (Lasala Blanco et al., Reference Lasala Blanco, Shapiro and Wilke2021). These results suggest that those who feel the most included are the most exclusionary to the marginalized (for whatever reason). Consequently, these marginalized individuals may not share the same sense of pride or any positive reaction to stories of legendary triumphs.

The subsequent costs of these feelings of exclusion impact the entire group, not just the marginalized. Those who can identify with the majority culture and history have the luxury of not needing to take risks and innovate. Yet those without the privilege of a most-favored status must stay flexible and open. They cannot be intolerant of ambiguity or need too much structure or closure. To survive lower-resourced environments, they need to be curious and use their imagination (Kaufman & Glăveanu, Reference Kaufman and Glăveanu2022). In a world where many minority groups may show deficits in measures of achievement developed by the dominant culture, creative ability is consistently an equalizer in most high stakes assessment situations (Luria, O'Brien, & Kaufman, Reference Luria, O'Brien and Kaufman2016); creative self-beliefs may be a specific strength in underrepresented groups (Kaufman, Reference Kaufman2010). Ethnic and cultural minority diversity in group composition has been shown to enhance overall creativity and innovation (Hundschell, Razinskas, Backmann, & Hoegl, Reference Hundschell, Razinskas, Backmann and Hoegl2022). When people in a group disagree (Nemeth, Reference Nemeth1986), ideas converge only if both parties are part of the majority. When the dissent comes from minority voices (and is persistent), however, more discussion and thought takes place (Kashdan, Reference Kashdan2022). As a result, a diverse group that is willing to put in the effort will see its creativity notably increase (Van Dyne & Saavedra, Reference Van Dyne and Saavedra1996). In contrast, a homogenous group that is too focused on the past may leave its most glorious accomplishments in the rear view mirror.

Mastering the art of storytelling

Sijilmassi et al. left out important positive and negative consequences of shared historical myths. Additionally, there is much to be said about how stories can be intentionally revised to maximize benefits and minimize harm. Better storytelling, we argue, comes with greater responsiveness to individual differences. Innovation in groups often springs from someone questioning unhealthy societal norms that require change. Healthy, enduring groups capitalize on complementary strengths for shared aims; the risk-takers hunt for growth opportunities while the cautious watch for threats. Telling and sharing stories from varied perspectives allow more people to see themselves as part of the larger group, fostering both individuality and unity.

The cost of collective narratives can range from minimal to immense: The potential for innovation is curtailed, diversity of thought is suppressed, and the richness of individual experiences is overlooked. As we navigate our shared future, it is crucial to recognize the value of individual and underrepresented narratives within the collective, fostering a society that encourages the exploration of varied identities.

Financial support

The present research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest

None.

References

Barnett, M. D., Öz, H. C. M., & Marsden, A. D. III. (2018). Economic and social political ideology and homophobia: The mediating role of binding and individualizing moral foundations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 11831194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bliuc, A.-M., & Chidley, A. (2022). From cooperation to conflict: The role of collective narratives in shaping group behaviour. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16, e12670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, G. (2021). Personal values and moral foundations: Examining relations and joint prediction of moral variables. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12, 676686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goff, K., Silver, E., & Iceland, J. (2022). The resonance of repression: Moral intuitions, skepticism toward racial injustice, and public support for Trump's “law and order” response to the 2020 racial justice protests. Socius, 8, 23780231221110277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundschell, A., Razinskas, S., Backmann, J., & Hoegl, M. (2022). The effects of diversity on creativity: A literature review and synthesis. Applied Psychology, 71, 15981634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). Unbound: The relationship between creativity, moral foundations, and dark personality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 56, 182193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapoor, H., Mahadeshwar, H., Rezaei, S., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (in press). The ties that bind: Low morals, high deception, and dark creativity. Creativity Research Journal.Google Scholar
Kashdan, T. B. (2022). The art of insubordination: How to dissent and defy effectively. Avery/Penguin.Google Scholar
Kashdan, T. B., Goodman, F. R., McKnight, P. E., Brown, B., & Rum, R. (2024). Purpose in life: A resolution on the definition, conceptual model, and optimal measurement. American Psychologist, 79, 838853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Using creativity to reduce ethnic bias in college admissions. Review of General Psychology, 14(3), 189203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2022). Making the CASE for shadow creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 16, 4457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, N. M., Stillman, T. F., Hicks, J. A., Kamble, S., Baumeister, R. F., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). To belong is to matter: Sense of belonging enhances meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 14181427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lasala Blanco, M. N., Shapiro, R. Y., & Wilke, J. (2021). The nature of partisan conflict in public opinion: Asymmetric or symmetric?. American Politics Research, 49, 4658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingstone, A., & Haslam, S. A. (2008). The importance of social identity content in a setting of chronic social conflict: Understanding intergroup relations in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luria, S. R., O'Brien, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity in gifted identification: Increasing accuracy and diversity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377, 4452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The “black sheep effect”: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 3768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of field of study and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 2332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyne, L., & Saavedra, R. (1996). A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects on divergent thinking, conflict and originality in work-groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 151167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar