Abstract
Creativity studies seem to be a stronghold for individual-based psychological theories. The reasons for this are numerous and complex and, among them, we can identify certain limited or counter-productive ways of conceptualising the social. In this reply to comments I address both the status of the social in creativity studies and the dichotomies that follow from adopting an external view of society and culture. Among them, the separation between creative potential and achievement is particularly problematic, as it constructs a reified, static, and individual notion of potential, reflected in the measurement of divergent thinking. I propose, towards the end, a perspectival model of creativity that radically socialises divergent thinking by placing the social at the core rather than the periphery of creative production. Finally, I suggest that including time into our theory and research holds the key to overcoming many of the false dichotomies that underline creativity studies, at least in psychology. A thoroughly social perspective on creativity might seem like a daring or foolish endeavour but it is, in my view, also the most promising.