Creating and Consuming: Two Ways of engaging with reality

As good citizens, we contribute to the progress and welfare of our society. In return, society rewards us with opportunity, fulfilment, and remuneration. These rewards correspond to the value offered, hence, are unequally distributed across individuals. For example, an entrepreneur who runs a startup would extract greater returns than an office administrator.

What we contribute is shaped by our background, whereas how we contribute is determined by our agency. As such, individuals with similar backgrounds but varying levels of agency would attract different remunerations. Developing our agency, therefore, is as important as developing our background if we genuinely wish to contribute to societal progress. Education is a critical force in developing agency (Sen 1999). In its true sense, education must move beyond mere accumulation of information to a transformative process that cultivates confidence to question, engage with stakeholders, and participate actively in shaping society (Freire 1970).

Contributions vary considerably, from types to kinds, yet they are broadly guided by two orientations of life. For simplicity, let us call them creation and consumption. The distinction between these two orientations has historical roots. Toffler (1980) argued that the Industrial Revolution separated production from consumption at a societal level, creating classes of producers on one side and consumers on the other. Ritzer and Jurgenson (2010) extended this observation to the context of capitalism. They argued that capitalism classed people as producers and consumers, with real and unequal economic consequences attached to each. Thus, the two orientations presented here draws on the historical backdrop but shifts the lens from the aggregate to individual level. The focus here is not with how societies organise production (analogous to creation) and consumption, rather how individuals orient themselves toward one or the other as a matter of conscious choice. When both orientations are understood, genuine choice becomes possible. However, when they remain unknown, one becomes the default, that is adopted without deliberate intent. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) argue that defaults shape human behaviour, often without conscious deliberation. This is because people tend to follow the path of least resistance unless actively prompted to consider alternatives. Over time, as opportunities pass, defaulting into one orientation reduces degrees of freedom, resulting in outcomes that were not consciously chosen.

It must be emphasised that these orientations have little to do with intelligence or hard work. Rather, they reflect how we apply our agency to shape and create value within existing constraints. Both orientations are essential for the effective functioning of any society. However, they are not equal in terms of the remuneration they attract, nor in the nature of the risks they carry. In a free economy, increasingly powered by artificial intelligence, understanding this distinction is no longer optional. It is essential for making purposeful contributions that lead to genuine fulfilment and satisfaction.

Creation Orientation: Shaping Reality

Creation orientation takes the position that we are not merely consumers, but participants by creating. As human beings, we possess a distinctive creative capacity that goes beyond biological reproduction and extends into social, economic, and cultural domains. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) described creativity as a systemic process through which individuals interact with their cultural and social environments to produce ideas or works that are novel and valuable. At its most basic level, creative attribute is expressed through sustaining and replicating life. At higher levels, it manifests as the capacity to discover, interpret, and reshape reality itself. In this sense, creativity is not merely an artistic trait, but an imperative directed toward leaving the world in a better condition than it was found. "Better" here does not imply a single universal standard, but rather purposeful improvement within specific social, environmental, and economic contexts. This idea is reflected in initiatives such as the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, to which many countries have committed, and which recognise human agency as central to sustainable progress (United Nations, 2015).

Individuals operating from the creation orientation view their environments that include communities, markets, and organisations as systems open to redesign and improvement. They are inclined to ask foundational "why" questions rather than only "how" and "what." Engaging seriously with the "why" may lead to abandoning an existing course of action or pivoting toward a new direction altogether. As a result, creation orientation is inherently exposed to failure. Designing new systems or redefining existing ones requires confronting uncertainty and accepting the possibility of unsuccessful outcomes. It is this willingness to take responsibility for uncertainty that makes this orientation challenging and, at the same time, deeply rewarding. Without individuals prepared to assume such risk, societies struggle to adapt or progress.

A framework that reflects this perspective, particularly in the context of developing new ventures and managing uncertainty, is effectuation. Sarasvathy (2001) contrasts effectuation with conventional causal reasoning, arguing that entrepreneurs do not begin with a fixed goal and search for means to achieve it. Instead, they begin with what they have (existing skills, knowledge, and social connections) and allow goals to emerge through action and collaboration. Through this process, individuals expand their available resources while simultaneously mitigating risk.

Creation orientation performs a distinctive function, not because those who adopt it are better people, but because design-level agency performs an irreplaceable role within society. Simon (1996) defines design as the transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones, a capacity that underlies human problem-solving. The ability to define purpose, frame problems, and shape systems cannot be substituted by consumption alone. It is this function that makes creation foundational to social renewal and long-term viability.

Consumption Orientation: Within Reality

Consumption orientation starts from a different place. Individuals operating with this orientation function in systems designed by others. They apply their skills, follow established rules, and implement known methods within their work environments. Individuals with this orientation make up a large proportion of most social systems. They include students learning in schools, employees working within organisations, and specialists practising their professions.

Individuals with consumption orientation are not passive, nor inferior on any account. On the contrary, they are the drivers of their social systems. They maintain and operate the organisations on which society depends. People with this orientation work hard to maintain the homeostasis of social systems. Vargo and Lusch (2004) argued that value is never delivered unilaterally but is co-created through interaction between providers and users. Morgan and Hunt (1994) similarly reasoned that sustained commitment and trust between parties are foundational to the long-term functioning of markets and organisations. Together, these perspectives highlight how sustained interaction, cooperation, and trust contribute to the quality and longevity of modern societies.

Personal development within the consumption orientation is dependent on the available infrastructure. When a system enables learning, responsibility, and progression, individuals can grow their capabilities and expand their influence significantly. If such conditions are absent, individuals’ agency remains constrained, limiting their opportunities for advancement. Thus, growth of individuals is shaped less by effort alone and more by the boundaries imposed by the system itself.

Design Agency: Why It Matters Most

Value is the unit of all economic exchanges. Take any given value-deriving process. it starts with a design that outlines the steps to follow. In that sense, design sits at the foundation of agency, because it sets the direction for what must follow. Simon (1996) observes that the capacity to design is what distinguishes the professions and defines purposeful human endeavours. In the past, design remained in the background, protected by patents and copyrights; hence its significance was less visible compared to the process itself. This has become increasingly apparent in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), as this technology is heavily design reliant. AI can generate insights at the click of a few buttons, but to make them useful, AI must be framed with assumptions and rules before generating the insights. This framing is a key aspect of designing, usually depicted diagrammatically, and now increasingly using words with prompt engineering (Liu et al., 2023).

In an AI-powered world, production and implementation are becoming easier and cheaper. Digital technologies are rapidly automating tasks that once required years of human training (Brynjolfsson and McAfee 2014). They are currently reshaping labour markets in ways that reward those who can work with technology rather than those who simply work alongside it. As a result, execution is no longer the main bottleneck. This raises the concern that AI would reduce the need for human agency. That however is not true as AI is poised to amplifies human agency. Those with design-level agency will be able to leverage AI powerfully, while those who remain only consumers of digital systems risk becoming dependent on platforms they do not understand or control.

The Problem of Defaulting

One of the most important and at the same time uncomfortable realisations is that consumption orientation is the default for most individuals. It requires very little deliberation or conscious action. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) purported that default settings, whether in institutions, systems, or everyday environments, profoundly shape outcomes precisely because most people do not actively opt out of them. People move through life following rules without awareness of their orientation or its alternative. In contrast, creation orientation requires awareness, effort, and risk. Without knowing that an alternative way of engaging with the world exists, most people remain in consumption mode.

The problem of defaulting matters because it contributes to social divides and more so now, digital divides. Van Dijk (2020) argues that digital inequality is not simply a matter of access to technology, but reflects deeper divides in skills, usage patterns, and the capacity to benefit meaningfully from digital tools. In modern societies, especially democratic ones, governments are working hard to reduce structural inequities by improving access to education, technology, and digital platforms. AI and digital tools have further lowered the cost of participation. Yet access alone is not enough. When individuals lack awareness of the alternative orientation, they may unknowingly settle into roles that are less advantageous to them in the long run. This is not because they are incapable, but because design-level participation was never presented as a possibility.

It must be noted that not all have the same ability to handle risk. Factors such as poverty, time constraints, and lack of safety nets are genuine barriers that shape what is realistically available to each person. Sen (1999) emphasises that real freedom requires not only formal rights but the substantive conditions such as health, education, security to allow people act on those rights. Modern democracies endeavour to give everyone the same start, but structural conditions do not entirely determine outcomes.

The deepest divide, therefore, is not purely economic or digital. Rather, it is an epistemological divide between those who understand that systems can be shaped, and those who never realise they have the option to engage with reality as designers rather than only as users.

Concluding Thoughts

Creation and consumption orientation are two different ways humans relate to reality. Creation enables the designing and introduction of innovations. Consumption applies and uses what exists. While both are necessary, creation orientation occupies a distinct functional role in absorbing risk, setting direction, and making progress possible.

In a world shaped by AI and digital platforms, where production is increasingly automated, design as a form of agency matters more than ever. Failing to understand this does not simply preserve the status quo rather deepens divides. Rather than asking if everyone should adopt a creation orientation, the real question is whether people recognise their capacity to shape their own destiny.

References

References

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins.

Liu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2023). Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3560815

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302

Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital "prosumer". Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378020

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.,

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. William Morrow.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.