Strong Imagination: Madness, Creativity and Human Nature by Daniel Nettle. Oxford University Press, £16.99, pp 235. ISBN 019 850706 2. Rating: ★★★
What are brains for? Why does madness exist? Why is human culture obsessed with creativity? These striking questions punctuate this thought provoking book, as it explores the relation between madness and creativity.
The first half elegantly surveys affective illness and schizophrenia, with a fresh explanation of the biological, psychological, and social aspects of causation, and a helpful précis of the history of psychiatry (including the mistakes of the “antipsychiatry” movement). It rounds off with a convincing exploration of the current genetic understanding of major mental illness, including Nettle's proposal that the personality trait of “psychoticism” be considered an inherent dimension of human personality, serving to heighten creativity. He divides psychoticism into two axes, “thymotypy,” enhancing mood, and “schizotypy,” enhancing divergence of thought. If an individual's genetic loading is pathological, cognitive enhancement is at risk of overdrive and the creative advantage of psychoticism becomes expressed as psychosis.
In the second half of the book, Nettle considers the whole purpose of creativity. Steering us into evolutionary psychology, he explains Geoffrey Miller's “sexual selection theory.” This states that creativity, in itself useless for survival, is a demonstration that one can survive and do frivolous things. It is the human equivalent of the peacock's resplendent tail and advertises that the possessor of such genes (predominantly male) will dominate complex social organisations, inherent in human societies of all cultures.
Nettle's conclusion (the genetic-creativity argument) is that the human trait of psychoticism is the foundation of this creative element. Because of limited genetic loading, individuals displaying psychoticism are more creative than their psychotic relatives. Madness is not conducive to creativity, because it involves disorganisation and self-destructiveness. It is the price paid by humanity for immense creativity in rare individuals. In consequence, the author counsels vigorous treatment for psychosis and prophylaxis for those at risk of it. For those with artistic pretensions, he advises on how to stay sane while nurturing creative flow.
This fascinating, lucid book is surprisingly short, in view of the breadth and depth of information covered. I accept that dissection of psychosis points the way to increased understanding of human creativity, but what about other psychopathologies, such as autistic spectrum disorder or obsessive states? Such disorders, though non-psychotic, fundamentally influence the subject's world view. Has anyone explored their contribution to creativity? If they do not contribute, and if Nettle, and Miller, are right, why are these traits still present in the human population?