I was just thinking about reform as it applies to politics and democracy. I’ll point out now that I’m not sure how this thought applies to early modern democracies (i.e. Republics where voting was granted to only those with a certain level of wealth, meaning that suffrage wasn’t universal: it was granted with property ownership). I make the distinction because I’m not familiar with reform movements prior to universal suffrage.
I suspect that the idea I am about to express may be something unique to the masses having the vote, but this may not be the case and I may just believe that because I perceive the general public as more susceptible to these movements; whether my assumption is correct or not is not really related to my main point, but if one is inclined to, they should go research that notion.
I’m fascinated by words, maybe beyond fascinated: I like how they look on a ‘page’ and how they form a coherent picture when they combine. But, more to the point, I love how they take shape in my mind and how they feel, coming out of my mouth (this may have contributed to my need to share my words with everyone).
I guess you could say that is why I write.
Even more than this basic emotional response, I am also driven by a rational deconsruction of the words that I present and those that are presented to me. Mostly, I favour the efficiency of words, meaning that my preference is to use the smallest most common word that represents the concept I am thinking of. This began when I turned against the idea that a larger vocabulary suggests more knowledge: to be more precise it was in opposition to those who think that big words and/or words that went unused by the ‘commoners’ show that the person knows what they’re talking about.