Meliorism

Meliorism (pronounced meel-yuh-riz-uhm or mee-lee-uh-riz-uhm)

(1) A doctrine which holds the world tends to become better or may be made better by human effort.

(2) The theory that there is in nature a tendency to increasingly better development.

1850s: From the Middle English melioracioun (improvement, act or process of making or becoming better), from the Late Latin meliorationem (nominative melioratio) (a bettering, improvement), a noun of action from the past-participle stem of meliorare (to improve), the construct the Classical Latin melior (better) + ism.  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  Although contested, the coining of meliorism is often attributed to author George Eliot (pen name of Mary Ann Evans, 1819–1880).

The transitive verb emerged in the 1550s in the sense of “to make better, to improve" as a back-formation from the noun melioration or from the Late Latin melioratus, the past participle of meliorare (improve), from the Classical Latin melior (better) and was used as a comparative of bonus “good” but the context of use indicates the original meaning was “stronger” (the link being the primitive Indo-European root mel- (strong; great).  The intransitive verb in the sense of “to grow better; be improved” dates from the 1650s.  The adjective & verb meliorated, the verb meliorating and the adjective meliorative are rare but the verb ameliorate (to make better, or improve, something perceived to be in a negative condition) and its many derivatives are in common use.  In Scottish law, meliorations were “improvements made by a tenant upon rented land”, a concept widely used in common law for various purposes, usually when calculating financial off-sets.  Meliorism & meliorist are nouns, melioristic is an adjective and melioristically is an adverb; the noun plural is meliorisms but meliorists is in more frequent use.

The source of the mel element was a primitive Indo-European root meaning “strong; great” and is familiar in forms such as ameliorate & amelioration.  What etymologists call “Proto Indo-European” (PIE) is a set of words and fragmentary elements which are hypothetical constructs derived by linguistic reconstruction from documented Indo-European languages, a process which can be understood as a kind of abstracted back-formation.  The PIE mel was constructed with reference to the Ancient Greek mala (very, very much) and the Classical Latin multus (much, many) & melior (better).  It can be contrasted with the prefix mal- which was from the Old French mal- (bad; badly) from the Latin adverb male, from malus (bad, wicked).  In English the prefix was applied to create literally dozens of words variously with some denotation of the negative including (1) bad, badly (malinfluence), (1) unhealthy; harmful (malware), (3) unpleasant (malodorous) (4) incorrect (malformed), (5) incomplete (maldescent) & (6) deficiently (malnourished).  Having the homophonic elements mel & mal co-exist in English while operating an antonyms is one of the many obstacles for those learning English and the avoidance of such things was one of the parameters adopted during the development of Esperanto, a Lingvo Internacia (international language) intended to function as an “international auxiliary language”.  Despite that, Esperanto is not without inconsistencies.

In metaphysics, meliorism holds that people (and thus the world in general) tend towards improvement and are at least always capable of becoming better.  It’s manifestation as a political doctrine is essentially the idea of “the improvement of society by regulated practical means” but that is so lacking in what Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & 2013) delighted in calling “programmatic specificity” that it could have been claimed by anyone from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) to Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017).  The philosophers tended to be specific and the classic exponent of the melioristic view (which these days would be called a paradigm) was the French writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) who believed in the goodness of man with an earnest sincerity which was extraordinary given the way he’d been persecuted.

Exécution de Robespierre et de ses complices conspirateurs contre la liberté et l'égalité (Execution of Robespierre and his conspirators against freedom and equality, 28 July 1794), Bibliothèque nationale de France (National Library of France, Paris).  The Terror was one legacy of the way the writings of Rousseau were used and illustrated the recurrent problem of philosophy: It matters less what the philosopher meant and more what his readers decided he meant.

Right to the end Rousseau thought it was only the evils of society which corrupted "basically good" mankind although that society was composed of the same mankind was a puzzle he never quite resolved.  Still, Rousseau had the good sense to drop dead before the French Revolution (1789), the events of which might have challenged even his faith and more than one historian has observed it was his spirit which “loomed over the worst excesses of the revolution”.  The English empiricist philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) laid out some of the groundwork of the Enlightenment and Rousseau acknowledged the debt but Locke’s view was that while all had the capacity for improvement, that shouldn’t be conflated with any sort of inherent goodness, self-interest a more likely motivation.  All of that which Locke held dear (liberation from the tyranny of religion, scepticism toward authority, productive property aimed at material increase, the rights to freedom of movement & association and a strong system of government which protects all rights associated with individual liberty) he thought would lead to progress but for him that was largely material: prosperity and life-spans will rise but we will remain selfish, blinkered creatures.

One historian recently brought controversy to meliorism.  In his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011), Canadian-American cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker (b 1954) argued that over time just about all the things which scar civilized life (war, violent death, pogroms) have declined and because this trend-line has continued to assume a downward path despite the hardware and other mechanisms of killing becoming more effective, available and distributed, it must be that the “better angels of our nature” have increasingly prevailed over whatever it is in human nature which compels or at least inclines us towards violence.  Reflecting on the terrible twentieth century, the thesis seemed counterintuitive but Pinker’s book sold well although it was criticized by those who took issue with the statistical methods used and the rather (geographically and chronologically) selective use of data grabs.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

A more pragmatic (and perhaps the original) use of the word was that of British author George Eliot (pen name of Mary Ann Evans, 1819–1880) who, in a letter written in 1877 to the psychologist James Sully (1842–1923), explained she was neither optimist nor pessimist but a meliorist, which she thought an intermediate outlook between the two “…cheered by the hope and by the belief in gradual improvement of the mass” and the view “…each individual must find the better part of happiness in helping another.”  “I don't know that I ever heard anybody use the word "meliorist" except myself.  But I begin to think that there is no good invention or discovery that has not been made by more than one person. The only good reason for referring to the "source" would be, that you found it useful for the doctrine of meliorism to cite one unfashionable confessor of it in the face of the fashionable extremes”.