Re-form

by John Q on June 3, 2004

Robert Samelson argues that we should stop using the word ‘reform’. I’ve grappled with this question for a long term, having been generally critical of the neoliberal policies generally referred to as “microeconomic reform”. I’ve tried all sorts of devices, such as the use of scare quotes and phrases like “so-called reform”, before concluding that the best thing is just to use the word in ways that make it obvious that I am not attaching positive connotations to it.

Over the fold is an old post on the subject, from my blog (I needed to repost to fix broken links).

As Raymond Williams points out in his excellent little book Keywords, from which I got the idea for this series, reform originally meant ‘restore the original form’ of something. In particular the Reformation was supposed to sweep away the abuses of the Papacy and restore the church to its original purity. As this example indicates, the worldview associated with this usage was one of decline rather than progress. The best one could hope for was to get back to things as they were in the good old days. This view was dominant in Western thinking from Plato to the 17th century.

From the 18th century onwards, reform underwent something of a reversal, since it now typically implied forming something new. But since the associated worldview was now one of progress, the assumption remained that reform entailed change for the better.

From the 18th century to the 1970s, the term reform was typically used to describe policies favored by the moderate left, in opposition to advocates of revolutionary change on one side and of conservatism and reaction on the other. From the 1970s to the end of the 20th century, though, the direction of policy change was reversed, with the rise of neoliberalism. However, the term reform continued to be used, even when the policies it described consisted of the dismantling of earlier reforms.

As a result, critics of neoliberal policies have frequently resorted to the use of “scare quotes”, as in my recent reference to ‘workplace reform’, or to similar alerts like “so-called”. While the automatic assumption prevails that the term reform applies only to desirable changes, such devices are necessary.

Where it’s feasible though, the best approach is to define reform as “any program of systematic change in policies or institutions” and make it clear that there is no implication of approval or disapproval.

{ 5 comments }

1

Matthew 06.03.04 at 10:02 am

Sure, but ‘reform’ will still be a feel-good word for the media. It’s used in all news reports on India for example, to replace “selling all profitable public companies and services to investors”, and will remain a misleading euphemism.

2

Giles 06.03.04 at 7:21 pm

As far as I can see the word reform only has “positive” connotations to people who are inherently attached to the idea of change as a good thing. Personally when I see the phrase “workplace reform” I tend to think work councils, race and sex vetting and the like.

3

Donald Johnson 06.03.04 at 7:41 pm

This is one of my pet peeves (among many others) about the New York Times. “Economic reform” means “free market policies”, which are good by definition. One odd thing about this is that it’s only good for foreign countries–fortunately, the NYT seems to recognize that the free market isn’t infallible here in the US.

4

nihil obstet 06.03.04 at 9:48 pm

Using “reform” and “improve” instead of “change” is a power play to preempt discussion of the merits of policies or actions. It’s virtually universal now. sigh.

5

Brett Bellmore 06.04.04 at 2:41 am

I think it’s simplest to just retire the word in favor of “change”. Though being able to refer to some of the more stupid changes (Such as McCain/Feingold) as “deforms” is handy. ;)

Comments on this entry are closed.