Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Springboard for Creativity and Wisdom

There is an interesting statement attributed to Isaac Newton: "If I have been able to see farther than others, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants" (Peter, 1977, p. 458). Newton may have been considered a genius; however, this statement indicates that his insights were dependent on the knowledge of others, especially those who contributed tremendously to the advancement of ideas. It can be argued that no substantial progress is possible in any scholarly discipline without a good understanding of the works of others from the past. What it means to have an "understanding" or even a "good understanding" is certainly not without controversy and is clearly related to one's epistemology or research paradigm (e.g., Noddings, 2007; Pring, 2004; see also Paul & Moores, 2012). Nevertheless, standing on the shoulders of giants can be related to debates on broad areas such as individual ingenuity versus social forces and the cultivation of habits of mind shaped by critical thinking. Of course, there are other constructs—including a balanced, thorough review of the literature for scholarly manuscripts.

Individual Ingenuity Versus Social Forces

If individual ingenuity and social forces are set up as immutable polar opposites, it is possible to see the tension between "the individual" and "society" in the apparent dichotomy between research motivated by predominant cognitive theories and research influenced by predominant socio-cultural models. In essence, this perceived division cannot really be construed as dichotomous because most cognitive theorists acknowledge the contribution of social forces, and most sociocultural theorists include cognitive variables in their models. Standing on the shoulders of giants should prevent generational myopia or enclosure within a particular theoretical silo. Rather, this stance specifically acknowledges the varying contributions of others from the past as well as the ingenuity of the individual, who is aware of these contributions and who pushes knowledge further.

Two New York Times op-ed pieces, one by David Brooks (2008), the other by Viet Thanh Nguyen (2018), provide additional insights into this untenable dichotomy of individual versus society. In 2008, Times columnist Brooks reviewed a book by Malcolm Gladwell (Outliers: The Story of Success) and argued that Gladwell seemed to believe that social forces—or circumstances and arrangements—play a more significant role in the development and success—and even the failures or problems—of individuals. In Brooks's view, Gladwell was bowing down to the overwhelming power of social and cultural factors—a stance that could be characterized as a form of social determinism. As Brooks observed, according to Gladwell these forces determine who we are, what we can be, how we act, even how we think; individuals cannot rise above their culture or even escape from its clutches—or, perhaps, from the tyranny of cultural consensus.

Obviously, I favor the contributions of the individual, especially individual creativity and imagination (Paul, 2014). I suspect that Ayn Rand (1967/1990) is spinning in her grave as well if the emphasis has shifted predominantly away from the individual. In any case, Brooks captured the gist of my thinking when he stated that the major theme of Outliers

slights the centrality of individual character and individual creativity. And it doesn't fully explain the genuine greatness of humanity's outliers. As the classical philosophers understood, examples of individual greatness inspire achievement more reliably than any other form of education. If Gladwell can reduce William Shakespeare to a mere product of social forces, I'll buy 25 more copies of Outliers and give them away in Times Square.

Like Brooks, I acknowledge the influence of social capital. It is not possible to state that one is standing on the shoulders of giants separate from the culture in which one resides. This also calls into question the meaning of the construct genius—the topic of another opinion piece in the New York Times, published this past April by Viet Thanh Nguyen. In this essay, Nguyen, a scholarly writer, rejects the genius label. That is, he does not want to be called a genius—albeit he received what has often been...