Originality

Marcel Proust, in A la Recherche du Temps Perdu, speaks of the cliché in the writing of others. He writes of the lack of originality and creativity in their writing, bemoaning the unoriginal expressions and formulaic writing styles. This writing which he decries lacks depth and authenticity, and he argues that true art should be more introspective and rely on emotion, rather than cliché. We’ve heard many such expressions in our lives: Busy as a bee. Light at the end of the tunnel. The calm before the storm. Kudos to those that created these turns of phrase, however, for anyone to seriously involve the phrases in their writing would expose them as thieves, not thinkers. In Proust bringing my awareness to this issue, I became rather neurotic on the topic. I’ve begun to think much on just what creativity and originality really are.

In this essay, I want to explore this phenomenon of the cliché. We will look at the subject of unoriginality, the origin of originality, and finally the meaning of creativity in the context of today. This essay will deal with many large themes. Many of these topics, you will find, have been addressed somewhat superficially. I’ve done this because this essay was written in a train-of-thought manner, and I allowed it to take a form of its own. These topics will be given the attention they deserve in future essays.

Originality of Character

I would like to broach this topic in a roundabout way, away from the literary and into a dimension where this problem of unoriginality is blatant. This dimension exists within us all, and, as the splinter to the log, exists most obviously in others. In the people we meet briefly, in the people we love, there is often an irksome tinge to their character. It is sometimes obvious; it is sometimes not. Were I to become an observer of my self, I would see it and consider myself cliché. This observation is not unique to me, and in fact is something well understood as a symptom of the zeitgeist.

To illuminate with an easy example, consider the female fitness influencer on Instagram or TikTok. I’d wager that we’re all thinking of the same toned body, the same Lululemon tights, the same brand endorsements, the same waistline, and the same “moments of truth” where the influencer reveals the fabrication involved in the industry by showing us a “real” picture. There is no need for me to name names and point fingers, for this girl of whom we’re thinking exists more than once. She exists thousands of times over, in varying forms, however consistent in the tale being told to you, the consumer.

I’m a proponent of fitness and I do believe that there should be ideals for us to pursue. The problem here lies in the similarity between these influencers, following a formula of being to prove that they belong within this subculture. Sticking with the fitness industry, consider those that you know, yourself, perhaps, who participate in the grown trend of Saturday run clubs. It’s a fantastic thing, the consistent and social exercise of these groups. But consider too the personality shift that occurs as a byproduct of participation. Not always, but there’s sometimes a detectible smugness that wasn’t there before.

Often, as the story arc goes, there is a metamorphosis from heavy drinking, clubbing every weekend, bags, indiscriminate sex, into sunrise runs, ice baths, animal-based diets, and Apple Watches. Again, great lifestyle choices, but is it truly their character, or is it a presentation? Adopted behaviours that show membership within this subculture? Here we come to the first limb of this essay’s argument. In the sense of originality, are these consistent behaviours amongst members within a subculture genuine?

Commentary on the adopted behaviours is common, like when we hear: “they started doing [x], and now it’s become, like, their whole personality.”  We see here the malleability of human character. It is not something new, either. One of the greatest that we have seen in a conversion to veganism. It is laudable to forgo animal products for an ethical cause. What isn’t laudable is the judgement and arrogance which accompanies the transition (or perhaps the arrogance was already there, and the veganism has given it an outlet). I’m of the belief that this adoption of common practices within a group is a very normal, subconscious reflex which has accompanied and enabled the survival of our species for millennia.

The Social Reflex

There have always been cultures, sub-cultures, and counter cultures. We’ve had goths, hipsters, nerds, jocks, frat boys, metal-heads, and skaters since forever. Hyperbole aside, in my limited reckoning, I do believe that this is a natural human reflex that has existed forever—in a literal sense. Envision a hunter-gatherer community. Life is tough. Predators and disease and starvation and cold constantly working against the community. Here, teamwork is the ultimate weapon. It’s important that we in the community get along with one another. A bad apple in the bunch would pose a risk to our survival. They may be selfish and steal extra food or warmth for themselves, depriving us and our children. They may build rival factions which threaten the dominant order. Antisocial behaviour like this has no place in a surviving community and will need to be stamped out, and the instigators either killed or banished.

Banishment in such a setting is equivalent to a death sentence. Without the collective efforts of out peers, survival becomes rather difficult for a sole human in the wild. To defend against such an outcome, humans have developed something of a reflex. This is a well-studied branch of psychology that deals with in-group favouritism. Humans are naturally predisposed to favour the group to which they belong, and to view all out-groups as the enemy. The groupings can be as superficial as eye colour (check out the “Blue Eyes-Brown Eyes” experiment by Jane Elliott in 1968). This reflex, while a root cause of dogmatism and mob mentality, is also an essential key to human survival.

Objectively, it is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad.’ It is a mechanism, and the positive or negative ramifications are dependent on the context. In an ideal context, if enemy villages beset our own, then our reflex will act as a tool to identify support our friends and eliminate our enemies. However, we no longer live in villages beset by rivals. We live in nations, states, cities, towns, neighbourhoods. We don’t have to kill to survive (on the personal level, at least). This social reflex can create in us a temperamental charge which has us cast aside reason to hate based on the group with which we identify. Look no further than politics — Republicans vs. Democrats, Liberal vs. Labor —to see how easily this ‘social’ reflex can create hate for our fellow humans. You will find that often there are particular stereotypical groups that will vote for one party or another, with similar mannerisms and similar values.

Another symptom of this reflex within our current context is that we fear individuality. It is a daunting prospect. We’re told again and again to “just be ourselves.” This advice, while good, does not consider the complexity of the human spirit. In puberty we figure this out easily. It’s the topic of many a movie, tv show, book, song, poem. This is the impulse to fit in with our cohort. We see manifestations of our reflex to fit in in the cliques which arise in a school setting. To be blunt, and rather obtuse, frankly, there are jocks, nerds, Mean Girls, theatre kids, Freaks and Geeks, kids who “don’t belong to any group,” and dropouts. To categorise everyone in so black-and-white a manner does an injustice to the complexity of the human spirit, however, these cliques undeniably exist in some form or another across the Western world.

Within these sub-cultures, across school districts, across cities, across nations, there are defining characteristics which pervade each group. We’ve all been within one of these groups. We liked being part of these groups. Odds are that the characters and values of the group members gelled with our own. What we may not have noticed, however, are the mannerisms and characteristics which we took on in order to prove belonging to this group. As an exercise for you, the reader, the next time you are out and about, look at a group of friends — any group, from any demographic — and pay attention to what they are wearing. It’s likely that even the fashion trends of these groups are similar. From t-shirts, shorts, and flip-flops on —probably most— Australian dudes, to athleisure, straight blonde hair, and Stanley cups for girls on the Gold Coast. These are stereotypical outfits common to certain groups, inspired by trends within the demographic.

Another trope is jeans and joggers worn by Engineering students (although, I’d argue that in the case of Engineering, this wardrobe choice arises out of practicality and simplicity rather than any in-group pressures). You will often see gym bros wearing a scanty singlet, exercise shorts, and runners. University students of the Fine Arts will sport berets, long scarves, vintage jackets, and Doc Martens. The beret is an interesting example. It is not common to our time and place in history. It is a conscious wardrobe choice to prove one’s belonging to the arts, as a symbol to demonstrate “culture” and “creativity.” These wardrobe choices, conscious or not, are an effort to fit in with a particular group. Unfortunately, in the digital age, the boundaries of these sub-cultures are becoming nebulous.

Digitisation of Social Practices.

The internet serves as a strange platform in which humans can express and interact with only a portion of the self. In the real world, were I to scream obscenities at a stranger on the bus, I’d likely be met with a knuckle sandwich. On the internet, I can type absolute venom at whomever I wish with no consequence. In life, if I were a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan and espoused their values, I’d be alienated from many of my rather tolerant family and friends. On the internet, I could participate in discourses on 4chan on exactly which ethnic groups are lesser and find rallying support from the digital sub-culture, yet, because my pointy white hood is all 1s and 0s, the people who know me in the real world will be none the wiser.

We know already that people are susceptible to ideas, especially if engagement with those ideas proves suitability to a desirable in-group. I won’t politicise this essay, but when you’ve finished reading, take the time to read the comments beneath any post by any representative of any political candidate on any social media application. What you will find are words of the utmost grace and love for the candidate which posted the post, and/or calls for violence and of hate for the opposition, and anybody who dares support the opposition. You will see the kinds of words that would start a fight if spoken face-to-face. The reality here is that most of these people would say no such thing if they were in a face-to-face scenario. Yet on the internet, they participate within their digital in-groups, and admonish the out-groups, in a manner much more extreme than they normally would. They perpetually identify more wholly with their online groups, and these habits and beliefs permeate the real person, and they adopt these characteristics.

I mentioned that I would be hard-pressed to join the Klan. Were I given the opportunity, I’d refuse —on principal, of course, as our values don’t align— but also because it’s not a particularly attractive in-group for me and would serve as a social detriment. Yet maybe, if I was an impressionable adolescent desperate to fit in, soft exposure to the ideas of racial superiority could find their way into my Instagram feed. Perhaps in the form of humorous memes. And maybe, because I find them funny, I seek out forums on the internet where these topics are discussed with a little more fervour. Then maybe, over time, I begin to really agree with these ideas and they start to permeate my belief system, shaping who I am. Maybe these Klan guys aren’t all that bad?

I could have had a bit more angst in my youth and found groups that sympathised with my pain and catalysed potential outlets. Perhaps these anonymous, untraceable strangers could have helped me realise that the only way to satisfy my discontent with the world was to buy a gun and use it, or to take Lupron, or to fly east and join ISIS, or to vomit after every meal, or to believe the world is flat.

Given the grand and nebulous nature of the internet, it is beyond reckoning just how many cultures, and sub-cultures, and counter cultures, and sub-sub-cultures exist and influence the population. This is a world in which our simple ape brains can’t keep up, and it’s only getting more complicated. I, myself, ape-brained as I am, cannot predict the eventual conclusion of this trend, though I am confident that some serious recourse will be needed if we want to avoid catastrophe.

This tangent has taken us a little off-topic but has served to illustrate just how impressionable we people are, and just how radically our behaviour and character can be influenced by outside forces. I’ve used some extreme examples to elucidate the potency of this social reflex of ours. Again, it is a natural mechanism, and the morality of it depends upon the context. This reflex is a part of our being, an ancient component of our biology. As ancient as the concept of creativity.

Synne Original and the Creation of Creation

Let us begin with the origin of origin. Originally, the first reference of ‘original’ is in reference to synne original, the “innate depravity of man’s soul,” denoting Adam and the fall.

The concept of originality has been a companion to humankind since our conception within Eden. In creation myths of old, there is a consistent binary of the concepts of order and chaos. This concept has risen in popularity as of late, and you have likely heard these terms mentioned. Chaos is something we can picture as the unexplored. The unknown. That over which we have no control and no understanding. This has historically been represented as the feminine half of the equation. Order, on the other hand, is that which is known. That which is understood and which we can predict. That over which we have control. Order has been represented as the masculine. The greatest act of creation, the conception of new life, the coming together of the feminine and masculine, is a motif which holds true for every act of creation (and no, I’m not saying women are chaotic and men are orderly. I promise).

And the earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light (Genesis 1:2-3, KJV)

Here, we see that chaos exists in the nothingness before all, and God speaks, his words order, and He has created light. This is the first act of creation. The origin of all. Here, in this first act, we find a formula to creation. There is chaos, and, using order, the formless void of potential is given form, and thereafter something meaningful has been created. This formula which created the earth from the void, and which created man from the ground, is a formula that today is still used in original creation. This act of creativity, the ability to impregnate of chaos with order, is what defines true creation and originality.

In the beginning, originality was easy. In Eden, Adam is the first to do much. He is the first to give names unto animals, and the first to know rules, and the first to break them. This choice of Adam’s to eat the fruit, while some critics call it a bad move, I say was completely to be expected. Harking back to our discussion on in-group pressures, there is no chance that Adam would have alienated himself from the only woman in existence by refusing to eat the fruit. Succumbing to peer pressure, too, was an original act. Even after Adam and Eve were ejaculated from Eden, they continued in acts of creativity. The world, newly rung from chaos, was ripe for discovery. Absolutely everything was new, from tilling the land to the tribulations of raising boys. From the unknown of everything, early humans had to make sense of it all. It was an act of creativity to knock two rocks together and create the spark which begot fire. It was an act of creativity to take the meat of an animal and place it upon the flames, cook it, and be the first to eat a roast. It was an act of creativity to conceive the idea of a wheel. This trend of giving form to formless potential is the domain of the truly creative.

The conception of the steam engine by Thomas Newcomen. This was an act on the frontier of human endeavour. This was act of true creation. Edison’s lightbulb, Bell’s telephone, the Wright brothers’ airplane, all acts which pushed humans further, which broke new ground. We ride on the shoulders of our ancestors, those creatives who grasped at the void and pulled back something new. Innovations continue today, such as the advent of Artificial Intelligence and the new digital capabilities being handed down to us, for better or worse. And still there is chaos aplenty in the universe. On a grand scale, the great creatives are the ones breaking ground in a way which impacts the whole of our race.

Yet on a minor scale, too, we can find true creativity. It is in the very nature of chaos to be ubiquitous and unending. In every life, in every profession, there is opportunity to follow the formula and create. Music is a clear example of this. From the boundless potential of notes and sounds, a musician gives them order, pattern, rhythm. This very act creates. The test of a true musician is the emotional response that their creation creates in others. Yet after the conception of particular rhythms and sounds, this music which is known belongs to order. Somebody can pluck a guitar and sing the blues, but unless they are reaching into the void and tempering something new, there is no act of creativity. A painter can replicate the works of Dalí, yet exist entirely within order. True creativity is difficult.

“Creative”

A good composer does not imitate; he steals.

-Igor Stravinsky

On the other hand, a “creative” can disregard order and work entirely in chaos. Think of the abstract expressionists that throw paint on a canvas and call it their creation. Or the statement art which relies on shock value. This art is missing half the equation. It is not creative.

You are creative. Whether you know it or not. It is a part of your being. Ever since Adam and Eve and their act of rebellion, the synne original exists within each of us. The “creatives” that have hijacked the concept of creativity have alienated the average Joe from believing that they can be this thing called creative.

So, where in your life do you teeter the line between order and chaos? Where do you create. This is not a domain exclusive to the arts. A teacher can be creative in the lessons they teach. A programmer can be creative in the code that they write. A police officer can be creative in the way they manage conflict.

Consider your character, and how you have changed to fit in with your demographic. Or how you have consciously rebelled against this. Be original and beware cliché.

Thanks.