Torrance Journal for Applied Creativity

commonplace creativity’s [present and
potential] role in human health and
well-being. Per a homeostasis-derived
model, she avows that, “[b]eing appropriately
creative can restore the balance
and can help to restore self-esteem and
life satisfaction and consequently health,
paralleling the health-normalizing
benefits of appropriate nutrition and
exercise” (Schmid, 2005b, p. 48). This
extends her earlier claim that, “[o]nce
creativity is demystified [emphasis added],
[people] understand that there is a
deep human need for creativity and that
it has strong connections with health
and well-being through self-esteem”
(Schmid, 2005a, p. 4).
Maintaining that “…[l]ittle
argument can be made against the
proposition that creativity is essential
[emphasis added] to health and well-being”
(Schmid, 2005a, p. 16), Schmid
interweaves her main premise: “[a]
n emerging area of creativity research,
termed ‘everyday creativity research’,
views creativity as a survival capacity
[emphasis added] which allows all
humans to adapt to changing environments”
(Schmid, 2005a, p. 10). Later,
defining “survival” as to “continue to
live or exist,” she remarks, “[s]urvival
is the primary drive of humans and of
animals. Survival is dependent upon the
capacity to be creative (or adaptive) [emphasis
added] through occupations and
activities” (Schmid, 2005b, p. 30).
Ne plus ultra to Schmid’s
perspective is that “to be in balance
[emphasis added] is essential to human
health….[yet]….humans are not necessarily
conscious [emphasis added] of
their health and survival needs” (2005b,
p. 41). She also points out that, “the
mundane view of the word everyday
has brought a stigma of unimportance
to everyday creative activity. These
views and beliefs have been obstacles
that, over a long time, have inhibited
many people from being creative and
from enjoying the benefits to health
and well-being that derive from creative
activity, especially in everyday activities”
(2005b, p. 46). This creativeness
downturn is made poignant by her
remark that “[t]he humanists have
observed that a creative person is one
who is fulfilled, is self-actualized and is
functioning freely and fully” (2005b, p.
43). Intertwined within the discourse is
awareness that governments and health
agencies view the “health determinants
of our society as ‘multi-causal’. Disease,
disability and, ultimately, death are seen
to be the result of human biology, lifestyle
and environment, including social
factors” (Schmid, 2005b, p. 48).
Seeing that “layers of sociocultural
values and knowledge have
minimized creativity in our everyday
thinking,” Schmid (2005b) suggests
that “[t]he choice as to whether to use
the creative capacity has been sidelined
by the lack of the practical necessity and
survival pressure to use it [emphasis
added]. It has also been sidelined by
the sociocultural values that suggest
that it is not important enough to be
the subject of conscious effort [emphasis
added]” (p. 48). It is, therefore, by
means of restored purposeful awareness
of survival-based creativity that a multicultural
and ethical dietary paradigm is
proposed. Applying appetite’s pleasures
assiduously with cognitive flexibility and
persistence (Nijstad et al., 2010) is the
suggested medium.
Creativity for Health’s Sake—
Can It Induce Ethical Eating Habits?
I have endeavored—largely
by means of Therese Schmid’s (2005a;
2005b) clever discourse—to stress how
creativity’s unique proficiencies (e.g.,
having ideas and putting them into
practical application) gain humanity
sufficient dexterity in “living or continuing
to live” (versus “living only towards
ultimate physical demise”). Creativity’s
health impact is best expressed in
everyday activity, and there is no more
central an occupation than eating. Its
“[i]nner experiences include the sensations
of hunger and appetite, anticipatory
excitement and arousal, sensory
response to the organoleptic [sensory
organ relevant] qualities of food…
[and] intimate emotional contact with
the self” (Satter, 2007, p. S144). And
its associated engagements of planting,
growing, harvesting, buying, planning,
cooking, table décor, good conversation,
and so on stimulate divergent sensorial
inputs (e.g., visual, olfactory, kinesthetic,
gustatory, auditory) and tap creativity’s
core. What is more, geographical/
regional ethnic “flavored” cuisines—
unique, intriguing, and inspiring comestibles—build
community cohesion,
make prudent use of indigenous crops,
and inspire travelers from afar (Richards
& Wilson, 2006). Even multicultural
gatherings and the foods themselves—
particularly when interspersed with
elements of culture (see Leung, & Chiu,
2011)—stir creativity’s knack!
But where falls the import of
a plant-based diet rich in high-nutrient
vegetables, fruits, and fibre-dense whole
grains? Animal-based foods threaten
culinary traditions, social justice norms,
and care for nature—though consumers
seem marginally aware of food-related
values, attitudes, and practices beyond
health concern (de Boer & Aiking,
2010). Preventive health agencies
advocate plant-based nutrients. And
physician Philip Tuso [and colleagues]
(2013) opines that “[h]ealthy eating
may be best achieved with a plant-based
diet…a regimen that encourages whole,
plant-based foods & discourages meats,
dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined
& processed foods” (Tuso, Ismail,
Ha, & Bartolotto, 2013). Facts about
these antioxidant-laden nourishments
are a decade old (see Joseph, Nadeau, &
Underwood, 2002); yet lack of mastery
[e.g., knowledge; comfort] remains a
notable barrier to healthful eating (Joyce
et al., 2012; Satter, 2007; Tucker et al.,
2011).
Whole-hearted human engagement
with plant-based eatables would
profit world harmony (i.e., animal-based
proteins undermine Earth’s ecological
macrosystem; see de Boer & Aiking,
2010; also Joyce et al., 2012). It would
be a gain for creatures whose lives are
thereby retained without constraint (i.e.,
the burden and suffering from egg-laying
for cooped up hens, milk production
for stanchioned cows, and the veal
market for male calves). Erasing meat’s
centrality grants broader influence to
147