I’ve always been cool to the term “disruption,” especially how it has recently been used to address changing the way government works.
“Disruption” has a ring that’s unappreciative and dismissive of hard-working public servants. It paints a picture of bureaucrats unwilling to think different. Its hint of arrogance that “we know better and will do it with or without you” has always bothered me.
Fortunately, we now have a more productive, collaborative alternative.
Below is an excerpt of what best summarizes why the latter is more appropriate with respect to civics, and how those leading the “government disruption” charge should re-evaluate the semantics behind it.
“Disruption is like an earthquake. Disruption has no purpose. It has no values. It has no organizing principle. It has no direction, and it has no leadership … This is not what we want to bring into the world.
“What we want to bring into this world is revolution. Revolution has values. Revolution has purpose. Revolution has direction. Revolution has leaders.
“Revolution looks at the intersection ahead and pushes people to do the right thing, and it doesn’t always have to be loud. It doesn’t always have to be violent. It’s just as powerful in its stillness.
“We don’t want disruption where we just move things around from point A to point B. We want a direction. We want a purpose, and we want to combine forces and we want to cooperate to get there.
“What I challenge you do to today is pick a movement. Pick a revolution and join it … Pick something that you believe in. Pick something you want to make an impact in and then question everything and be a founder and be an entrepreneur inside those organizations and inside that movement.”