Bourgeois Values

Post Reply New Topic

The words bourgeois and bourgeoisie are more often thrown around in reference to a social class of the 19th century, especially in Europe and especially in France, but a value system not unlike the bourgeoisie's may still exist today in the United States. In the late Middle Ages, the burghers or the bourgeoisie were the urban class of merchants, artisans, and professionals that grew as trade increased and a centralized bureaucracy in the monarchy began to develop. In Marxist thought, the bourgeoisie eventually supplanted the aristocracy to become the dominant social class, and they are the capitalist class. Sociologically, though, certain attributes stand out as common to the bourgeoisie, especially when contrasted with the bohemians and proletariat. Victorian England would also be an example of bourgeois culture.

The stereotypical bourgeois personality actually has much in common with what is today called the obsessive-compulsive personality or anankastic personality (Freud called it the anal-retentive character). Their personality and values would be:

• Respectability and conventionalism: They are sociologically in part descended from courtesans who and bureaucrats who had to remain in the good graces of a more powerful lord, king, or magistrate; their power did not come from inherited privilege but from wealth, capital, and reputation (image). In other words, they are bland and materialistic. They ascribed to conservative social values.
• Industriousness: They tended to prefer safe, respectable investment of capital and hard, diligent work. They are the people of the Protestant work ethic.
• Conspicuous consumption: They preferred to flaunt their wealth to establish social status. Their overarching concern was the acquisition of money and the display thereof.

Freud's work is as outdated as the concept of the "worker's struggle", which I feel may be included in posts that follow this one.

Though that isn't to say that either didn't contribute to history.

Freud and Marx both went beyond the bounds of what they could really justifiably argue, and taken as a whole each of their respective body is rubbish... but they also came up with some interesting and possibly useful ideas. Marx's interpretation of history through class conflict can be a good description for many situations.

As a limited scope and short term description of some of what goes on class struggle has its uses. When the idea is promoted to a Metaphysical Principle as Hegellians often do it becomes nonsense. You are quite right.

ruveyn

And some of the more clever ones produced industry and technology that makes us all healthier, wealthier and more comfortable. The real OCD Capitalists did stuff like laying down the trans-Atlantic telegraph cable, the fore runner of today's internet. Most of our material progress is the result of neurotic behavior on the part of capitalists.

ruveyn

I think you are incorrectly equating "capitalists" with the "bourgeoisie."

I subscribe to the view that innovation is the lifeblood of economic growth, because it allows for producers to create more with finite resources. From that perspective, innovation is essential to capitalism.

So, I agree, the great innovators were most certainly capitalists. But I do not agree that they were bourgeois--even in the Marxist sense.

The inherent conservativism of the bourgeoisie tends to act against their interests as owners of capital. I suggest that they relied primarily on the innovations of members of the professional and academic classes, which they then exploited for their own profit.

A fine distinction, perhaps, but one which I think is important to note.

The bourgeoisie were a 19th century French thing.

They were the small middle-class of merchants and public servants which came between the aristocrats and the peasants.

The term is meaningless in today's world.

From Merriam Webster:

Definition of BOURGEOIS
1
: of, relating to, or characteristic of the townsman or of the social middle class
2
: marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity
3
: dominated by commercial and industrial interests : capitalistic

Still a used and useful term.

In our society "class" is almost meaningless.

What is the difference between "working class" and "middle class" if a car mechanic makes more money than a bank manager?

What if some vulgar car salesman is the richest man in town because he owns several car dealerships?

Does that make him "upper class"?

Research it. You'll find out.

I think we would be foolish to believe that class no longer exists.

The distinctions between classes have lost the caste-like rigidity that they once held. It is now possible for a person of skill to acquire wealth (and therefore influence and power). But that does not mean that class no longer exists, but rather than the barriers have become more porous. However, I believe that I am also seeing the gap becoming increasingly wider, as wealth, power and influence concentrate in an ever shrinking number of hands.

I suggest that there is a strong correlation between class mobility and government spending on public education. Universal education is one of those public goods that benefit us all, but are not in any person's direct commercial interest to provide. But it must always fight for resources with health, security and infrastructure (other public goods in the same category). If we truly want to see class barriers becoming diffuse, I believe that the foundation lies in properly funding public schools.

There is still a very clear distinction between "have" and "have-not" in our societies. People's influence, their access to power and their capacity to maximize their opportunities are still very much grounded in their socio-economic position.

I suggest you try living in a ghetto for several months and move (back?) to the 'burbs before saying "class" doesn't exist just because it isn't some bullet proof, black and white concept (which almost no category is).

+1

Plus, I'd like to point out that bourgeois values inform the most 'important' aspects of our society. The way most people make a living and the sort of behaviour they're supposed to display. The world of work demands people who always have a positive attitude and are always team players. The demand is for people who are ultimate social people, who aren't eccentric or difficult in any way whatsoever. There are skilled jobs where these qualities don't matter as much, but even there the work patterns set up are according to the bourgeois standards of diligence.

The behaviour demanded of people in their private lives is different. Bourgeois values mean being heterosexual, getting married, being monogamous, having kids, ideally being a homeowner and not taking illegal substances. This isn't so widely enforced as the workplace code, but the social expectation is always there. Even if you reject these values, you see advertisements that uphold them, with their idealised images of family life. When I was a child, I thought all Americans lived in giant white houses because that's what I saw on television. I thought the typical person from my own country lived in the Home Counties in a big house and that I was atypical for being poorer. No matter how much I deviate from this ideal, the ideal will always be in my mind. A tiny part of me wants to live like the characters from the sitcom, My Family; it has been culturally conditioned.

The reason why poorer people seem to reject bourgeois values so much in modern times is that they've become increasingly unattainable. The widening gap between rich and poor is partly why we have less nuclear families, less home ownership, less work ethic and greater abuse of the more damaging drugs amongst the poor. They sort of glory in it, and those who are the most bourgeois are voyeuristic about it. People watch Shameless, either because they live in a place like that and want affirmation, or because they're being bourgeois voyeurs. The poor are fetishised as a source of hedonism and escape from bourgeois values. I guess in the USA, a similar thing happens with black people. Hence the whole stereotype of the black pimp, which is all over gangsta rap listened to by frat boys.