What is greatness?

And did Steve Jobs

really fit the bill?

Disappointingly, even the Scottish Review (11 October) prefixed Steve Jobs' name with the word 'great'. This is our objection to most of the press coverage of his death – does he deserve to be thought of as one of the 'great men of history'?
     According to Tolstoy, the significance of great individuals is imaginary and Herbert Spencer believed that attributing historical events to the decisions of individuals was a hopelessly primitive, childish, and unscientific position. He believed that 'great men' were merely products of their social environment.
     We are surprised by the obsequious coverage of Steve Job's death. He was highly rewarded for ideas that wouldn't have been his alone. Even Ellen McArthur, who circumnavigated the globe alone, has never claimed that it was her achievement; she always refers to the success of the team around her.
     Steve Jobs worked with many other talented people and the ideas and inventions of previous generations (as pointed out by John Cameron). His company were ruthless with their monopoly of the marketplace, probably hindering other wonderful ideas. His skill was in self-promotion – many of his products had an 'I' in them, appropriately. Many were overpriced yet he acquired a loyalty beyond their significance – again a great 'marketing' success – selling 'status objects'.
     Catherine Czerkawska quotes him on a talk to young people: 'Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life...', yet surely we should all participate in the life of others and praise those who generously sacrifice their own needs and 'inner voice' in order to support those who have not fared so well in the social environment. An idea not usually embraced in the business environment or encouraged in 'motivational' talks by its leaders.
     He seems to personify the 'cult of personality'. Many problems in today's society have come about by encouraging people to focus on the self and not look at the bigger picture. There should be a better balance between 'I' and 'us'. John Cameron's final synopsis summed it up nicely:...his place (is) in the pantheon of capitalist gods.

Hazel Buchan Cameron and Dmytro Morykit

One week on from the death of Steve Jobs and I am still left bewildered by the amount of praise heaped upon this one individual and by the diversity of those providing it. 
     Death is always a sad time, felt most acutely by family and friends. However, it seems that as a society it is becoming more commonplace to mourn for someone whom we have never met, so much so that we hear a great plethora of tributes. And it's not only the extent but also the level of tribute that, to me, often seems misplaced. 
     In Steve Jobs' case it's the genius who will be remembered with Einstein or the man who touched people's lives the world over. Even in SR (11 October) Catherine Czerkawska sets him up as some mercurial figure. There is no denying he helped to make great gadgets. But did he really have such a positive global influence? Perhaps his greatest legacy was convincing people to buy something that they actually didn't need. His great skill in developing the must have toy.
     In fact, it could be argued that he did more for consumerism and the drive for material wealth than anything else. Did he help to advance technology? Undoubtedly yes. Did he change the world for the better to merit such adulation? No. A sad day but no sadder than the loss of any other life.

Zander Sneddon