On Progressive, Subtle Change and the iPad

Over the past week, buzz around the iPad has been deafening. First it was the rumors, then it was the reactions -- on the one hand, scathing attacks, and on the other, passionate defenses. (Each accompanied by an avalanche of jokes about the name.)

For some, the din started to seem like too much, especially when pitted against other events -- President Obama's State of the Union address, for example, or the death of lifelong rabble-rouser for equity and justice, Howard Zinn. To people like tech blogger Anil Dash and frog design's Kritina Loring, the conversation about the gadget seemed strangely hollow.

Kristina wrote a piece for GOOD wondering "what if" instead of just announcing a cool new product, Jobs had used his incredible media platform to talk about skyrocketing deficits, disaster in Haiti, or some other topic of global significance? What if he went farther and made a major public resource commitment?

While I agree that our obsession about objects gets vacuous pretty quickly, there was something about her line of argument that nagged at me. That something is the subtlety of change.

Howard Zinn, perhaps best known as the author of A People's History of the United States, knew that change came slowly. Not in fits and bursts, but in the slow progression of sentiment and action. That's why for decades in public life, he never got tired of advocating for those trapped by unjust power systems.

He knew about and embraced -- as virtually all the great community organizers have -- the subtlety of change. What they understood was that the movement was bigger than its individual parts. But the movement also relied on its individual parts to help one another, to carve new lines in the sand, and build new platforms that future activists could stand on, taller than that of their fore-bearers.

During the last presidential campaign, there was a saying going around that went something like this: "Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Barack could run. Barack ran so that our children can fly." That pretty accurately sums up the "platform" view of change. It also reminds us, though, that it's easier to see the relation between these parts in retrospect.

So what does this all have to do with Steve Jobs and the iPad?

When I read Kristina's piece, what nagged me was the fact that I just don't believe it's Steve Jobs' job to lead the techie flock to a broader understanding of global justice. I think that his contribution to the world is twofold. First, he's building tools that provide a platform for millions to better realize their creativity, which for someone like me provides both a more engaged, meaningful day-to-day experience, as well as the opportunity to build tools for others changing the world. Second, he and Apple remain one of the only truly innovative big companies in the world. The boredom of thought in corporate America -- with very notable and specific exceptions -- is overwhelming. Jobs demonstrates that you can be a $50 billion company and still innovate like crazy. I hope that other companies learn that lesson.

Now, though, Jobs and Apple -- like everyone -- also have to consider their negative footprint as well. Environmental quality of products is one example, as openness of platform may be in the future. But the point is that overall influence on change may not be as direct as some would ask for, but instead is something much more subtle. And I think there has to be room in our wider movement for that kind of subtlety.

When my friends and I set out to build the Center for Global Engagement, there was only one core rule: everyone was invited, in some way or another. There was no minimum GPA for changing the world, and no one right way or another to make a difference. Everyone had something to contribute, and our job was to help them figure out what they were best at and what they loved most, and to try and help them figure out how to use that in making the world a better place.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for more of our leaders or our public discourse. We should. I just believe that if we're going to accomplish anything, we have to define the tent so that it includes -- and uses the best in -- everyone.

Photo Credit: GlennFleishman