Talk:Bourgeoisie

Template:Vital article

Stray Thread(s)

18 June 2007: I'm wondering about this line here: "They eventually allied with the kings in uprooting the feudalist system" It makes no sense, the "kings" did not uproot the feudalist system, in fact Louis XVI was opposed to the revolution and capitalist society.

February 6, 2005 I'm confused about why this is a hard word to define...in coming up with a complex definition, the writers of the page contradict themselves:

Example A: "Bourgeois is a classification used in analyzing human societies to describe a class of people who are in the middle class nobility, whose status or power comes from employment, education, and wealth as opposed to aristocratic origin."

- aristocracy IS nobility. There is not a "contrast" between the two, unless perhaps you're trying to make a distinction using nobility in the moral sense. - middle class nobility? There is no such thing. Middle class is *gasp!* MIDDLE. Not upper.

Example B: Despite the many references to bourgeois meaning anything having to do with privilege, which I presume all stem from the original, and in my opinion, incorrect, Marxist context, the article then refers to bourgeoisie as "merchants and traders." In fact, that _is_ the meaning of the word in both French and English. And, as is probably very obvious, merchants and traders are not, socially speaking, classified as members of the aristocracy/nobility/upper class.

It is my understanding, based on personal education and study, that Americans use the word according to its French usage during the French Revolution. I certainly think there should be something about that time frame and the uprising (overthrowing of the nobility -- which was not done by the nobility!). Also, this usage, both French and American English, significantly predates the work of Marx. Certainly Marx's usage was based on something, and I think it stems from, as Mirriam Webster mentions in their dictionary, the idea that the bourgeois were driven by commercial and industrial interests. This makes sense given their livelihood.

"Why the revert?"

Stblbach, why the revert? The change was correct. The entire article is Marxist theory. I have changed it yet again and made another change to try to make it more neutral. Johnwhunt 19:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The bourgeoisie is a derisive term from Marxism

To start an article lead sentence with "derisive term", it means the rest of the article needs to support and expand on the idea that bourgeoisie is a pejorative, political and non-neutral term. That would be original research. The article doesnt do that, instead the article simply reports on what Marx said, as it should. In Marxist theory the term is simply a descriptor for a class of people with the pejorative aspect being one facet of his theory. The article is a description of the use of the term in his theory, and the lead paragraph should be a summary of what is contained in the body of the article. If others have called it "derisive" then we can report on that also, with citations and attribution on who (or what partys) said it. I'll await your reply before changing.Stbalbach 22:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have eliminated the word "derisive" based on your comments above. Johnwhunt 23:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have more problems than that in your changes. Mikkalai 03:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Not only marxism uses this term.
• "aristocracies" is a correct term it the considered historical context. Mikkalai 03:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• What other theories besides Marxism use the term? Johnwhunt 13:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Google is your best friend. But you may start from Columbia Encyclopedia. Mikkalai 21:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When someone asks you for your sources, or asks you to provide the information behind what you state is true, then responses such as "Look it up on Google," or "it is common knowledge" are self-defeating. Content on Wikipedia is not "commonly accepted knowledge," just because you give your word on it. If so, there would be no need for Wikipedia- the knowledge is already commonly known. Please provide sources, and information, when asked to justify your contentions- it is only academically correct, not to mention polite.§

Went to Google and plowed through the first page of links. All references said it was a Marxist theory term. Are there any other economic theories that use the term? (oh, oh, theories derived from Marxism don't count.) Johnwhunt 21:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not a solely marxist theory term. Marxist do put a special meaning into it, but don't "own" it. You say you "plowed" thru first page. The columbia reference is among the very top ones (at least in my google report). Did you read it? If you did and you still insist that it says it is a marxist term, then you have serious problems with comprehension. Many sources do say that in modern political theory the notion is a predominately Marxist one, but the word was in use well before Marx was born. 01:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Columbia Encyclopedia in its entirity:

"(brzhwäz´) (KEY) , originally the name for the inhabitants of walled towns in medieval France; as artisans and craftsmen, the bourgeoisie occupied a socioeconomic position between the peasants and the landlords in the countryside. The term was extended to include the middle class of France and subsequently of other nations. The word bourgeois has also long been used to imply an outlook associated with materialism, narrowness, and lack of culture—these characteristics were early satirized by Molière and have continued to be a subject of literary analysis.

In Marxism

From Columbia Encyclopedia in its entirity (cont.)

Within Karl Marx’s theory of class struggle, the bourgeoisie plays a significant role. By overthrowing the feudal system it is seen as an originally progressive force that later becomes a reactionary force as it tries to prevent the ascendency of the proletariat (wage earners) in order to maintain its own position of predominance. Some writers argue that Marx’s theory fails because he did not foresee the rise of a new, expanded middle class of professionals and managers, which, although they are wage earners, do not fit easily into his definition of the proletariat."

So, let me ask again, what other economic theories not related to Marx use the term as shown in the wiki article?

My problem with the article is that it is not a neutral POV and is almost entirely Marxist political theory. That's alright by me if it is properly designated. Which it is not. So by not being neutral and spouting only Marxist theory, the article becomes propaganda, which is another violation of the wiki rules. Johnwhunt 14:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marxist theory is placed into a separate section, cleary titled "B in MT" I don't see nothing non-neutral. You are free to expand the pre-marxist part. As for your question "what other...", at this point I don't know and don't care. My only point is that you cannot say in the very first sentence of the whole article that it is marxist term and nothing else. Back to your question: again, I don't know about modern theories, but I guess the term was is use during the French Revolution, and I see no reasons why modern theories other than Marxism could not operate with it in non-necessarily marxist sense. Mikkalai 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taken from the article "middle class" in Wikipedia: "For Marxist views on this class, compare bourgeoisie. Note that this is not the same thing asmiddle class." Johnwhunt 17:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So what? In marxism theory "B" is a narrowly defined term: class that owns means of production. It may also be used as a derogatory term, just like the way the medical word imbecile is mostly known for most of laymen. Feel free to cover this aspect as well, possibly in a subsection.

I have to agree that the intro to the article is poorly written and misleading, but assigning the word solely to Marxism would make it even worse.Mikkalai 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me give it a shot and let's go from there. Johnwhunt 20:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The intro is better IMO, but please restore all Marxist text you deleted. It is an explanation of Marxist POV and of encyclopedic value, even if most people do not agree with it. Please read WP:NPOV policy carefully. Also, I am not going to edit this article, but your text about who uprooted whom and about values will most probably be deleted.

Please never do massive changes on complex and controversial subjects. Work piece by piece, so that people have chance to discuss the value of your contributions. Deleting big chunks without explanations is also a wrong approach. Mikkalai 23:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have read the NPOV articles and found nothing to indicate the article as written violates that. I would appreciate your guiding me toward the parts you want me to read, perhaps by posting them here for all to see.

I am not saying the current article violates it. I am saying the previous one did not, despite an exsessive amount of marxism in it. The corresponding section clearly indicates that it describes marxist POV. Mikkalai

I did not reduce the Marxist part of the article because of a dislike of Marxism. I did it because the article is about "Bourgeoisie", not "Marxism". There are significant references to Marxism, Marxist and related theories and writings in the article. The article has five long and two short paraghraphs. Marxism is mentioned in the first (introductory) long paragraph and is the sole subject of two long paragraphs. All of the related topics, the references and the external link are Marxist.

So what? You have no right to cut it away without explanations. And the explanation "it is too much" is inadmissible. Mikkalai 18:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to argue the article is too Marxist than not Marxist enough.

Also, you stated above that the comments concerning "uprooting" and "values" will almost certainly be deleted. Why? They came from Columbia Encyclopedia in the article I posted above. Johnwhunt 18:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK. some details. I am not a historian, and as I said, I am not going to significantly edit the article. Also I am not am educator to teach you. But here are two suspicious phrases.

In the late Middle Ages, they supported nobility in uprooting feudalism.

Why would nobility want to uproot feudalism? Nobility fed off feudalism. Mikkalai 18:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concepts such as personal liberties, religious and civil rights, and the freedom to live and trade all derive from bourgeois philsophies.

Extremely dubious and ungrounded. Mikkalai 18:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But the bourgeoisie were never without their detractors.

Detractors from what? Bourgeois were normal people. Some good, some bad, some generous, some greedy. Moliere was making fun of them, but others were making fun off puffy aristocrats and arrogant church. All this "trait" section must be presented as a point of view of certain categories of people rather than indisputable facts. Mikkalai 18:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bourgeoisie

In Marxist theory the class that in contrast to the ptoletariat or wage earning is primatily concerned with property values.

OMG

You guys have really bought into this stuff, haven't you? Toe the line, and the next thing you know, you are shocked, suffering in a Koryma prison and wondering what the fuck happened.

Some Problems

There are some odd style choices throughout the article. There are lots and lots of parentheticals for publishing dates of books mentioned, lifespans of people mentioned, and unnecessary clarifications. Also a lot of semi colons which aren't used right and long oddly structured sentences with too many clauses and commas that don't quite parse.

The lead describes a 5 part classification of the Bourgeoisie, but given that this is expanded on later in the article and only relevant to French speakers it seems unnecessary to give it so much space in the lead. It's also redundant to say that the bourgeoisie is separated into groups and then also say that collectively these groups are the bourgeoisie.

"The bourgeoisie in its original sense is intimately linked to the existence of cities, recognized as such by their urban charters (e.g., municipal charters, town privileges, German town law), so there was no bourgeoisie apart from the citizenry of the cities. Rural peasants came under a different legal system."

This doesn't really make sense without more historical context. Since there isn't any historical context in the body of the article I suggest removing it.

Joseph Schumpeter doesn't come up again in the article, and it's not clear that his particular analysis of the bourgeoisie is relevant enough to be in the lead.

The etymology section gives the translation of to 'walled city', but only explains the relevance later and gives a second definition. This should all be done in one sentence. It's not necessary to use three separate clauses to describe the 18th century ancien regime, or to note that it was before the french revolution. Clarifying that the third estate is the one that deposed King Louis XVI is also unnecessary. 'Usually is' should be changed to 'is usually'. There are three different definitions given, and it's not clear whether they're all describing different usages or the same usage in different ways. "Since the 19th century the term bourgeoisie [is synonymous with] the ruling upper class of a society" seems identical to "contemporarily, the terms "bourgeoisie" and "bourgeois" (noun) identify the ruling class in capitalist societies, as a social stratum."

Why use the german word for worldview in an english article and then, in parentheses, translate it back to english?

It's not necessary to describe what play mocked the worldview of the bourgeois within the etymology

The examples of pretentious activities and virtue signaling seem unnecessary here. Also it's a bit of a misrepresentation of the article which provides multiple possible definitions and doesn't endorse any one.

Structurally it seems odd to have just the first part of the history of the bourgeoisie, and then just the second half from the Marxist point of view.

'Denotations' is an unusual word, it has a slightly technical linguistic meaning, but it seems like it's supposed to be 'Definitions' here.

Given the importance of the term to marxism / communism it seems more convenient to have just one section of "in marxism" with the history, definition, and analysis.

To say that the English use of the word is such and such, but that in fact the French use is so and so implies that the French usage is somehow more correct, as does "a misunderstanding which has occurred in other languages"

it's confusing to have a definition of petit bourgeoisie right under a link to an article which gives a very different definition. Also odd to say that it's the equivalent of the modern day middle class, but then also that it refers to a class between the middle and lower class. Why 'modern day', are these terms not in use anymore?

It seems like an odd value statement to say that moyenne bourgeoisie don't have the 'aura' of those established at a hgiher level.

Similarly for "They hold only honourable professions and have experienced many illustrious marriages in their family's history. They have rich cultural and historical heritages, and their financial means are more than secure."

it's not clear whether 'ancienne bourgeoisie' really belongs here. It was added independently of the other 4, and is a neologism which might be particular to this one guy's work.

I'm pretty sure that parenthetical about the translation of the middle classes wasn't part of the original quote

I don't think the sections on nazism or italian fascism belong here. They're not giving some definition of bourgeoisie unique to fascist politics, just describing how fascists viewed the bourgeoisie. But even then a lot of it isn't relevant.

Same for the section on Italy. While it's more substantive than the nazi section, it just doesn't seem like the concept of the bourgeoisie is uniquely relevant enough to fascism to deserve these sections. Almost any political regime or ideology will have something to say about class politics.

'Cultural hegemony' section is confusing. It starts with a description of Marx's view of how the culture of a society is controlled by its ruling class, and says that "in that sense" the bourgeoisness of a society is based on how much it practices small business shop culture of early modern france. It's not explained what small business shop culture means or why it's the definitive marker of bourgeoisie society, it just gives a very academic description of a 22 novel series about that culture.

Walter Benjamin is critically deconstructing bourgeoisie culture. It would be fair to have a description of his views sure, but his aim is pretty explicitly to present a negative interpretation so leaning on it so heavily in this section doesn't provide a neutral point of view. Also it's a bit abstract to explain bourgeoisie culture by referring to the "spatial constructs which manifest the bourgeois mentality." At the least I would suggest renaming this 'Criticism of Bourgeois Culture'

Also there's a kind of circular definition. English bourgeoisie culture is a sitting room culture, and a sitting room culture is synonymous with bourgeois mentality. so bourgeoisie culture is bourgeoisie mentality?

The last paragraph in the culture section is also strange. Who is Max Weber? He hasn't been mentioned before. What spheres of life did he formulate? Why does it mention his concerns about large corporations? The bit about how Bourgeoisie values are dependent on rationalism isn't expanded on at all, it seems like it's just a way to get to talking about Max Weber.

The satire and criticism section starts out:

"Beyond the intellectual realms of political economy, history, and political science that discuss, describe, and analyse the bourgeoisie as a social class, the colloquial usage of the sociological terms bourgeois and bourgeoise describe the social stereotypes of the old money and of the nouveau riche, who is a politically timid conformist satisfied with a wealthy, consumerist style of life characterised by conspicuous consumption and the continual striving for prestige.[30][31] This being the case, the cultures of the world describe the philistinism of the middle-class personality, produced by the excessively rich life of the bourgeoisie, is examined and analysed in comedic and dramatic plays, novels, and films. (See: Authenticity.)"

Why name 3 fields of study and use 3 verbs to describe their approach to the bourgeoisie as a social class just to say that you're talking about something else? It could start at 'The colloquial' and lose no information. Same with 'sociological'. If you're already specifying that you're using a term colloquially, why add the clarification about which sense you're not using it in? And why clarify that you're talking about both forms of the word bourgeois.

Surely all stereotypes are social stereotypes.

So does it describe old money or nouveau riche? Or both? Or is "Old money" one stereotype and "nouveau rich who are politically timid conformists satisfied with wealthy consumerist styles of life characterized by continual striving for prestige" the second stereotype, both of which are described by the colloquial usage of the sociological terms bourgeois and bourgeoisie (Which, in this sense, needless to say, are employed beyond the intellectual realms of political economy, history, and political science that discuss, describe, and analyse the bourgeoisie as a social class)

Note also that all of this is a definition of 'bourgeoisie'. If it's the same definition as the previous ones given it's redundant, and if it's a new definition it should have been much earlier.

"This being the case, the cultures of the world describe the philistinism of the middle-class personality, produced by the excessively rich life of the bourgeoisie, is examined and analysed in comedic and dramatic plays, novels, and films."

The case so far is that the term bourgeoisie describes a stereotype. So given that a stereotype exists, cultures of the world describe that stereotype thusly. Why have that whole description of the stereotype only to add on these extra descriptors of philistinism and excessively rich?

The thing about using it as a term of abuse is odd. Why is it in the part about art criticism? even if it's a popular insult among artists.

In general these plot synopses are too long and too detailed. Do I need to know the exact manner in which George F. Babbit is sublimating his desire for self respect? Is it important not only to hear about his flirtations with independence, but that they are heart-felt? And that when they come to naught it is not just because he is afraid but because he is existentially afraid?

Also 'satirizes' is used wrong. Presumably Monsieur Jourdain is a satire of the bourgeoisie, the character himself isn't satirized.

A lot of this stuff is worth cutting. It would make the article shorter, but without much loss of content.

50.125.255.55 (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

History

Who were the bourgeoise 196.188.181.75 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)