TheModern French wordbourgeois[b] is derived from theOld Frenchborgeis orborjois ('town dweller'), which derived frombourg ('market town'), from theOld Frankishburg ('town'); in other European languages, the etymologic derivations include theMiddle Englishburgeis, theMiddle Dutchburgher, the GermanBürger, theModern Englishburgess, the Spanishburgués, the Portugueseburguês, and the Polishburżuazja, which occasionally is synonymous with theintelligentsia.[10]
Historically, themedieval French wordbourgeois denoted the inhabitants of thebourgs (walled market-towns), thecraftsmen,artisans,merchants, and others, who constituted "the bourgeoisie". They were the socio-economic class between the peasants and the landlords, between theworkers and the owners of themeans of production, thefeudalnobility. As the economicmanagers of the (raw) materials, the goods, and the services, and thus thecapital (money) produced by the feudal economy, the termbourgeoisie evolved to also denote the middle class – the businessmen who accumulated, administered, and controlled the capital that made possible the development of the bourgs into cities.[14][need quotation to verify]
Contemporarily, the termsbourgeoisie andbourgeois (noun) identify theruling class in capitalist societies, as a social stratum, whilebourgeois (adjective or noun modifier) describes theWeltanschauung (worldview) of men and women whose way of thinking is socially and culturally determined by theireconomic materialism andphilistinism, a social identity famously mocked inMolière's comedyLe Bourgeois gentilhomme (1670), which satirizes buying the trappings of a noble-birth identity as the means of climbing the social ladder.[15][16][page needed] The 18th century saw a partial rehabilitation of bourgeois values in genres such as thedrame bourgeois (bourgeois drama) and "bourgeois tragedy".
Emerging in the 1970s, the shortened termbougie becameslang, referring to things or attitudes which are middle class,pretentious andsuburban.[17] In 2016, hip-hop groupMigos produced a song "Bad and Boujee", featuring an intentional misspelling of the word asboujee[17] – a term which has particularly been used byAfrican Americans in reference to African Americans. The term refers to a person of lower or middle class doing pretentious activities orvirtue signalling as an affectation of the upper-class.[18]
The 16th-century German bankerJakob Fugger and his principal accountant, M. Schwarz, registering an entry to a ledger. The background shows a file cabinet indicating the European cities where the Fugger bank conducts business (1517).
The bourgeoisie emerged as a historical and political phenomenon in the 11th century when thebourgs of Central and Western Europe developed into cities dedicated to commerce and crafts. This urban expansion was possible thanks to economic concentration due to the appearance of protective self-organization intoguilds. Guilds arose when individual businessmen (such as craftsmen, artisans and merchants) conflicted with theirrent-seeking feudallandlords who demanded greaterrents than previously agreed.
TheEnglish Civil War (1642–1651), theAmerican War of Independence (1775–1783), andFrench Revolution (1789–1799) were partly motivated by the desire of the bourgeoisie to rid themselves of the feudal and royal encroachments on their personal liberty, commercial prospects, and the ownership ofproperty. In the 19th century, the bourgeoisie propoundedliberalism, and gained political rights, religious rights, andcivil liberties for themselves and the lower social classes; thus the bourgeoisie was a progressive philosophic and political force in Western societies.
After theIndustrial Revolution (1750–1850), by the mid-19th century the great expansion of the bourgeoisie social class caused itsstratification – by business activity and by economic function – into thehaute bourgeoisie (bankers and industrialists) and thepetite bourgeoisie (tradesmen andwhite-collar workers).[7] Moreover, by the end of the 19th century, the capitalists (the original bourgeoisie) had ascended to the upper class, while the developments of technology andtechnical occupations allowed the rise of working-class men and women to the lower strata of the bourgeoisie; yet the social progress was incidental.
According toKarl Marx, the bourgeois during the Middle Ages usually was a self-employed businessman – such as a merchant, banker, or entrepreneur[7] – whose economic role in society was being the financial intermediary to thefeudallandlord and thepeasant who worked thefief, the land of the lord. Yet, by the 18th century, the time of theIndustrial Revolution (1750–1850) and of industrial capitalism, the bourgeoisie had become the economic ruling class who owned themeans of production (capital and land), and who controlled the means of coercion (armed forces and legal system, police forces and prison system).[7][19]
In such a society, the bourgeoisie's ownership of the means of production allowed them to employ and exploit the wage-earning working class (urban and rural), people whose only economic means is labor; and the bourgeois control of the means of coercion suppressed the sociopolitical challenges by the lower classes, and so preserved the economic status quo; workers remained workers, and employers remained employers.[20]
In the 19th century, Marx distinguished two types of bourgeois capitalist:
the functional capitalists, who are business administrators of the means of production;
rentier capitalists whose livelihoods derive either from therent of property or from theinterest-income produced by finance capital, or from both.[21]
In the course of economic relations, the working class and the bourgeoisie continually engage inclass struggle, where the capitalistsexploit the workers, while the workers resist their economic exploitation, which occurs because the worker owns no means of production, and, to earn a living, seeks employment from the bourgeois capitalist; the worker produces goods and services that are property of the employer, who sells them for a price.
Besides describing thesocial class who owns themeans of production, the Marxist use of the term "bourgeois" also describes theconsumerist style of life derived from the ownership ofcapital andreal property. Marx acknowledged the bourgeois industriousness that created wealth, but criticised the moral hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie when they ignored the alleged origins of their wealth: the exploitation of the proletariat, the urban and rural workers. Further sense denotations of "bourgeois" describe ideological concepts such as "bourgeois freedom", which is thought to be opposed to substantive forms of freedom; "bourgeois independence"; "bourgeois personal individuality"; the "bourgeois family"; et cetera, all derived from owning capital and property (seeThe Communist Manifesto, 1848).
In English, the termbourgeoisie is often used to denote the middle classes. In fact, the French term encompasses both the upper and middle economic classes,[22] a misunderstanding which has occurred in other languages as well. The bourgeoisie in France and many French-speaking countries consists of five evolving social layers:petite bourgeoisie,moyenne bourgeoisie,grande bourgeoisie,haute bourgeoisie andancienne bourgeoisie.
Thepetite bourgeoisie is the equivalent of the modern-day middle class, or refers to "a social class between the middle class and the lower class: the lower middle class".[23]
Nazism rejected theMarxist concept ofproletarian internationalism andclass struggle, and supported the "class struggle between nations", and sought to resolve internal class struggle in the nation while it identified Germany as aproletariat nation fighting againstplutocratic nations.[24] TheNazi Party had many working-class supporters and members, and a strong appeal to themiddle class. The financial collapse of thewhite collar middle-class of the 1920s figures much in their strong support of Nazism.[25] In the poor country that was theWeimar Republic of the early 1930s, the Nazi Party realised their social policies with food and shelter for the unemployed and the homeless—who were later recruited into the BrownshirtSturmabteilung (SA – Storm Detachments).[25]
Adolf Hitler was impressed by thepopulistantisemitism and the anti-liberal bourgeois agitation ofKarl Lueger, who as the mayor of Vienna during Hitler's time in the city, used a rabble-rousing style of oratory that appealed to the wider masses.[26] When asked whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", Hitler claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for anyclass, and he also indicated that it favored neither theleft nor theright, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism."[27]
Hitler distrusted capitalism for being unreliable due to itsegotism, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of theVolk.[28] Hitler told a party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day is the creation of the Jews."[28] Hitler said toBenito Mussolini that capitalism had "run its course".[28] Hitler also said that the business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them."[29] Hitler was personally disgusted with the ruling bourgeois elites of Germany during the period of the Weimar Republic, whom he referred to as "cowardly shits".[30]
Because of their ascribed cultural excellence as a social class, theItalian fascist régime (1922–45) of Prime MinisterBenito Mussolini regarded the bourgeoisie as an obstacle tomodernism.[31] Nonetheless, the Fascist state ideologically exploited the Italian bourgeoisie and their materialistic, middle-class spirit, for the more efficient cultural manipulation of the upper (aristocratic) and the lower (working) classes of Italy.
In 1938, Prime Minister Mussolini gave a speech wherein he established a clear ideological distinction between capitalism (the social function of the bourgeoisie) and the bourgeoisie (as a social class), whom he dehumanized by reducing them into high-level abstractions: a moral category and a state of mind.[31] Culturally and philosophically, Mussolini isolated the bourgeoisie from Italian society by portraying them as social parasites upon the fascist Italian state and "The People"; as a social class who drained the human potential of Italian society, in general, and of the working class, in particular; as exploiters who victimized the Italian nation with an approach to life characterized byhedonism andmaterialism.[31] Nevertheless, despite the sloganThe Fascist Man Disdains the "Comfortable" Life, which epitomized the anti-bourgeois principle, in its final years of power, for mutual benefit and profit, the Mussolini fascist régime transcended ideology to merge the political and financial interests of Prime Minister Benito Mussolini with the political and financial interests of the bourgeoisie, the Catholic social circles who constituted theruling class of Italy.
Philosophically, as amaterialist creature, the bourgeois man was stereotyped as irreligious; thus, to establish anexistential distinction between the supernatural faith of theRoman Catholic Church and the materialist faith of temporal religion; inThe Autarchy of Culture: Intellectuals and Fascism in the 1930s, the priest Giuseppe Marino said that:
Christianity is essentially anti-bourgeois. ... A Christian, a true Christian, and thus a Catholic, is the opposite of a bourgeois.[32]
Culturally, the bourgeois man may be considered effeminate, infantile, or acting in a pretentious manner; describing hisphilistinism inBonifica antiborghese (1939), Roberto Paravese comments on the:
Middle class, middle man, incapable of great virtue or great vice: and there would be nothing wrong with that, if only he would be willing to remain as such; but, when his child-like or feminine tendency to camouflage pushes him to dream of grandeur, honours, and thus riches, which he cannot achieve honestly with his own "second-rate" powers, then the average man compensates with cunning, schemes, and mischief; he kicks out ethics, and becomes a bourgeois.The bourgeois is the average man who does not accept to remain such, and who, lacking the strength sufficient for the conquest of essential values—those of the spirit—opts for material ones, for appearances.[33]
The economic security,financial freedom, and social mobility of the bourgeoisie threatened the philosophic integrity of Italian fascism, theideological monolith that was the régime of Prime Minister Benito Mussolini. Any assumption oflegitimate political power (government and rule) by the bourgeoisie represented a fascist loss oftotalitarian state power for social control through political unity—one people, one nation, and one leader. Sociologically, to the fascist man, to become a bourgeois was a character flaw inherent to the masculine mystique; therefore, the ideology of Italian fascism scornfully defined the bourgeois man as "spiritually castrated".[33]
Karl Marx said that the culture of a society is dominated by themores of the ruling-class, wherein their superimposedvalue system is abided by each social class (the upper, the middle, the lower) regardless of the socio-economic results it yields to them. In that sense, contemporary societies are bourgeois to the degree that they practice themores of the small-business "shop culture" of early modern France; which the writerÉmile Zola (1840–1902)naturalistically presented, analyzed, and ridiculed in the twenty-two-novel series (1871–1893) aboutLes Rougon-Macquart family; the thematic thrust is the necessity for social progress, by subordinating the economic sphere to the social sphere of life.[34]
Clothing worn by ladies belonging to the bourgeoisie ofŻywiec, Poland, 19th century (collection of the Żywiec City Museum)
The critical analyses of the bourgeois mentality by the German intellectualWalter Benjamin (1892–1940) indicated that the shop culture of thepetite bourgeoisie established the sitting room as the center of personal and family life; as such, the English bourgeois culture is, he alleges, a sitting-room culture ofprestige throughconspicuous consumption. Thematerial culture of the bourgeoisie concentrated on mass-producedluxury goods of high quality; between generations, the only variance was the materials with which the goods were manufactured.
In the early part of the 19th century, the bourgeois house contained a home that first was stocked and decorated with hand-paintedporcelain, machine-printed cotton fabrics, machine-printedwallpaper, and Sheffield steel (crucible andstainless). Theutility of these things was inherent in their practical functions. By the latter part of the 19th century, the bourgeois house contained a home that had been remodeled by conspicuous consumption. Here, Benjamin argues, the goods were bought to display wealth (discretionary income), rather than for their practical utility. The bourgeoisie had transposed the wares of the shop window to the sitting room, where the clutter of display signaled bourgeois success[35] (seeCulture and Anarchy, 1869).
Two spatial constructs manifest the bourgeois mentality: (i) the shop-window display, and (ii) the sitting room. In English, the term "sitting-room culture" is synonymous for "bourgeois mentality", a "philistine" cultural perspective from theVictorian Era (1837–1901), especially characterized by the repression of emotion and of sexual desire; and by the construction of a regulated social-space where "propriety" is the key personality trait desired in men and women.[35]
Nonetheless, from such a psychologically constrictedworldview, regarding the rearing of children, contemporary sociologists claim to have identified "progressive" middle-class values, such as respect for non-conformity, self-direction,autonomy,gender equality, and the encouragement of innovation; as in the Victorian Era, the transposition to the US of the bourgeois system of social values has been identified as a requisite for employment success in the professions.[36][37]
Bourgeois values are dependent onrationalism, which began with the economic sphere and moves into every sphere of life which is formulated by Max Weber.[38] The beginning of rationalism is commonly called theAge of Reason. Much like the Marxist critics of that period, Weber was concerned with the growing ability of large corporations and nations to increase their power and reach throughout the world.
Beyond theintellectual realms ofpolitical economy, history, andpolitical science that discuss, describe, and analyze thebourgeoisie as a social class, the colloquial usage of thesociological termsbourgeois andbourgeoise describe the socialstereotypes of theold money and of thenouveau riche, who is a politically timid conformist satisfied with a wealthy,consumerist style of life characterized byconspicuous consumption and the continual striving forprestige.[39][40] This being the case, the cultures of the world describe thephilistinism of the middle-class personality, produced by the excessively rich life of the bourgeoisie, is examined and analyzed in comedic and dramatic plays, novels, and films (seeAuthenticity).
The 17th-century French playwright Molière (1622–73) catalogued the social-climbing essence of the bourgeoisie inLe Bourgeois gentilhomme (1670).
The term bourgeoisie has been used as a pejorative and a term of abuse since the 19th century, particularly by intellectuals and artists.[41]
Le Bourgeois gentilhomme (The Would-be Gentleman, 1670) byMolière (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin), is a comedy-ballet thatsatirises Monsieur Jourdain, the prototypicalnouveau riche man who buys his way up the social-class scale, to realise his aspirations of becoming a gentleman, to which end he studies dancing, fencing, and philosophy, the trappings and accomplishments of a gentleman, to be able to pose as a man ofnoble birth, someone who, in 17th-century France, was a man to the manner born; Jourdain's self-transformation also requires managing the private life of his daughter, so that her marriage can also assist his social ascent.[16][page needed][42]
Thomas Mann (1875–1955) portrayed the moral, intellectual, and physical decadence of the German upper bourgeoisie in the novelBuddenbrooks (1926).
Buddenbrooks (1901), byThomas Mann (1875–1955), chronicles themoral, intellectual, andphysical decay of a rich family through its declines, material and spiritual, in the course of four generations, beginning with thepatriarch Johann Buddenbrook Sr. and his son, Johann Buddenbrook Jr., who are typically successful German businessmen; each is a reasonable man of solid character.
Yet, in the children of Buddenbrook Jr., the materially comfortable style of life provided by the dedication to solid, middle-classvalues elicits decadence: The fickle daughter, Toni, lacks and does not seek a purpose in life; son Christian is honestly decadent, and lives the life of a ne'er-do-well; and the businessman son, Thomas, who assumes command of the Buddenbrook family fortune, occasionally falters from middle-class solidity by being interested in art and philosophy, the impracticallife of the mind, which, to the bourgeoisie, is the epitome of social, moral, and material decadence.[43][44][45]
Babbitt (1922), bySinclair Lewis (1885–1951), satirizes the American bourgeois George Follansbee Babbitt, a middle-agedrealtor,booster, and joiner in the Midwestern city of Zenith, who – despite being unimaginative, self-important, and hopelessly conformist and middle-class – is aware that there must be more to life than money and theconsumption of the best things that money can buy. Nevertheless, he fearsbeing excluded from the mainstream of society more than he does living for himself, bybeing true to himself – his heart-felt flirtations with independence (dabbling inliberal politics and a love affair with a pretty widow) come to naught because he is existentially afraid.
Yet, George F. Babbitt sublimates his desire for self-respect, and encourages his son to rebel against the conformity that results from bourgeois prosperity, by recommending that he be true to himself:
Don't be scared of the family. No, nor all of Zenith. Nor of yourself, the way I've been.[46]
Many of the satirical films by the Spanish film directorLuis Buñuel (1900–1983) examine the mental and moral effects of the bourgeois mentality, its culture, and the stylish way of life it provides for its practitioners.
The Spanish cinéastLuis Buñuel (1900–83) depicted the tortuous mentality and self-destructive hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie.
L'Âge d'or (The Golden Age, 1930) illustrates the madness and self-destructive hypocrisy of bourgeois society.
Belle de Jour (Beauty of the day, 1967) tells the story of a bourgeois wife who is bored with her marriage and decides to prostitute herself.
^Marino, Giuseppe Carlo (1983).L'autarchia della cultura. Intellettuali e fascismo negli anni trenta [The Autarchy of Culture: Intellectuals and Fascism in the 1930s] (in Italian). Rome:Editori Riuniti.
^abParavese, Roberto (1939) "Bonifica antiborghese", in Edgardo Sulis (ed.),Processo alla borghesia, Roma: Edizioni Roma, pp. 51–70.
^Sven Beckert "Propertied of Different Kind: Bourgeoisie and Lower Middle Class in the Nineteenth-Century United States" inThe Middling Sorts: Explorations in the History of the American Middle Class (2001) Burton J. Bledstein and Robert D. Johnston, Eds. (2001)
.jpg)
