A post by Margherita Arcangeli
Sometimes it is a good time to take stock: at the end of the year, when some anniversary is coming up, but also after a long summer break.
I have been recently prompted to reflect on what has been done on imagination over the last few years: an impressive amount of work! Trying to summarise what scholars have recently written about the imagination may seem like trying to empty the sea with a spoon: an impossible and vain task. So I started to look for a useful compass to navigate the growing literature, and a powerful analogy advanced by Anna Abraham in the concluding note to The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination gave me a hint. She points out that imagination bears striking similarities with water:
“Imagination can manifest in wildly different forms from the tangible to the intangible. Its workings range from calm and predictable to volatile and unpredictable. It is a fundamental part of our physiological make-up, permeating our very being, and it is essential to our mental life. It is nourishing and constructive yet can also be overwhelming and destructive. It is quiet. It is dogged. It shapes. It wields. It fits. It flows. It pushes against fault lines. It breaks away. It lacks definition, yet it is formidable.” (Abraham 2020: 814)
I realized that comparing imagination to water can help us see different attitudes scholars have taken, and may take, towards it. At least three categories can be recognised: 1) imagination chemists, 2) imagination engineers, and 3) “imaginographers”.
Read More