Oh, PSYCHE!

Love has inspired countless works of art, from immortal plays such as Romeo and Juliet, to architectural masterpieces such as the Taj Mahal, to classic pop songs, like Queen’s “Love of My Life”. This raises the obvious question: why is love such a stimulating emotion? Why does the act of falling in love – or at least thinking about love – lead to such a spur of creative productivity?

I am sure that in response to this article, there can be many arguments or questions asked about love and creativity. However, because I can say a million things about this topic, I’ll focus on how it fits in with how I’d like to impact the world —- children.

This article focused mainly on love between couples, but I’ll take the general idea that love invokes a global processing perspective that leads to creative thinking. It would make sense, then, that creativity is enhanced because the thinker is now able to think outside the proverbial box and stop looking within the confines of the said box.

Does this apply to children? Do they show this kind of relationship, and can it be triggered by related thoughts on love? In the article, it mentions that those who think of love perform global processing, and those who think about sex perform local processing. Could we take the same basic idea (obviously without talking about s-e-x) and test it on children?

I’d be more interested on whether children who were primed with words or sentences related to love, against children who were primed with non-related sentences, would fare better on child-appropriate analytical thinking problems or not. For example, maybe children can hear a series of words like warm, caring, loving instead of words like tractor, pencil, shampoo —- would that group perform better than the another consistently through trials? Would it make a difference at all? Could we then take the “control” group of children that were read non-related words, prime them with the love-related words, and will they do better compared to their previous data? Basically, can this study be replicated on children? Has it?

Also, does it make a difference —- or rather —- does creativity vary depending on the background from which a child comes from, regardless of whether they are primed with love/non-love words? I’d like to question the article on whether the subjects were in a “loving” or “normal” relationship, whether their past relationships were taken into account, how many relationships, etc … but that might get out of hand. It may be the same problem with children too —- whether a child comes from a loving family or a broken family certainly can make a world of difference.

The reason why I find it relevant is because my interests deal with creativity, but mainly with children. If you have been one of the unfortunate few who I have been able to spout my ideals in creating a program in which children are allowed to expressed themselves through art, through any medium which they choose, and be able to unlock the creative potential within them to breed successful, confident human beings —- you know what I’m talking about (probably because I made you sit there and listen).

In the time it took me to earn my associates degree, quietly lagging and avoiding the transfer to a four-year institution, I mainly babysat as a means for gas money, tuition/books, and etc. With every new family that I met and cared for, I entered the household with the mindset that this was an opportunity to expand and develop my knowledge of children. (Not to mention, it looked good stated on my resume…) I can say with confidence that there was always something positive that I learned from each family, as anyone does with new experiences. I was able to cover a good range of families —- same sex parents with twins, single mother with four children, successful family with young adorable boys and another baby on the way, single mother with three children of different fathers, young girl with parents who didn’t have time for her (and that’s not usually because they were working), children with loving parents, etc.

In that time that I was able to care for these families, I’ve noticed that the children in the families who were encouraging, loving, caring, attentive, etc (with respect to the children) were the ones who were generally happier, intelligent, creative, self sufficient, autonomic, etc. I do want to stress the fact that I am not saying they WERE more of any of these things; the trend seemed to follow that these children from more caring households were consistently showing these traits.

And it makes sense, doesn’t it? A child who is encouraged to perform activities that engages his/her mind and abilities is more likely to be able to utilize them in different situations. Not only that, the child will feel a great sense of pride and accomplishment if the fruits of their activities are praised rather than ignored.

I babysat one young girl, who I was told before I even met the her, that she wanted to be an artist. Her mother was telling me that it was great that her daughter possessed creative abilities but she had felt that an artist would not be a good career, and she clearly did not hide her disdain but instead just sort of resigned to the thought. While babysitting the young girl, it was difficult to engage her in any creative tasks because she always felt that I was doing it “better” than her, and when trying to engage her in producing artworks, she simply asked “Why? They’re just going to get thrown away.” Through a little prying, I find that her mother usually threw away all her artworks and she saw it as wasted effort to even perform, even though she seemed to really enjoy it. It was not much of coincedence, then, that she was very insecure. It was difficult to engage her attention long enough in any activity, and when it came to homework … the girl would just not perform.

So, I would imagine that children who are roundly nurtured will grow to be more apt individuals. I’ve been a fly on the wall in both families who care more than anything and those who care the minimal amount, and I’ve definitely seen the effects. This leads me to believe that what would give me the most enjoyment out of life is being able to help develop and nurture that fragile creativity seated in every single child; they’re all different and they need to be treated as such. This is the service that I could do; this is what I want to do.

I encounter a world of wonder just even contemplating this idea —- I’m sure it’s not original. I’ve called it “art therapy” but really, it’s what children need after the state government (at least here in California) is slowly stripping away all extracurricular activities. I suppose it will be the sort of therapy that is required after we subject child after child to slashed budgets that won’t even allow them to work with construction paper!

The beauty in it is that it is so broad —- there are options. The children need to be provided those options. It is truly a ‘get what you give’ situation that won’t be a one hit wonder. You give the children something they like —- painting, drawing, sewing, knitting, crafting, beading, instruments, pencils, pens —- ANYTHING! They will create. This is what is so intriguing about language as well; we are able to conjure up novel sentences at any moment, with any desire, with little difficulty! Essentially, it’s through language that children can express what is going on their mind as well, and that needs to be developed alongside creativity.

Sometimes it feels like I have big dreams, but really, I think it’s what we should be doing.

Besides, how else do we expect our children to excel in a world that stresses freedom of expression, individuality, or individual achievements yet we so easily and systematically train them to conform to the norm that falls so short of their true potential? I mean, all we need is a little love …