In Defense of "Bourgeois"

A few months ago, I wrote to a friend of mine and argued that the term "bourgeois" needed to be salvaged for positive use. Here is a modified copy of that original message.

Basically, it appears that there are two ways to grapple with what is bourgeois, both of which are covered by a standard dictionary definition (in my case, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary [10 ed.]). Method 1 leans towards the empirical. If one wants to find a member of the middle class, then he/she needs to decide what income constitutes "middle class" (arbitrary as that may be) and determine how many members of a particular country/region fit that bracket.

Method 2 leans towards subjective judgment. For whatever reason, many Americans (even those who are bourgeois) believe that being "marked by a concern for material interests and respectability" is petty and that to be "dominated by commercial and industrial interests" is shallow. As we know, the use of "bourgeois" as a derogatory epithet stems mainly from the Left — something with which I am familiar from past experience.

As I am now a libertarian, I have re-examined the term "bourgeois" and have come to the following conclusions:

1. Both historically and currently, the bourgeoisie help to further capitalism. The aristocracy never had an interest in fomenting free markets, and peasants did not have the purchasing power to foment technological and logistical innovation. Thus, the middle classes, with their productive capacities and desire for material improvement/comfort, were (and remain) the main engines for capitalist development.



2. It is true that a concern for "respectability" would not be regarded favorably by many libertarians, since such concerns could lead to attitudes that discourage innovation and, well, liberty. However, as with many concepts, the meaning of "respectability" can be broadened and diversified. It is possible that the embrace of innovation (e.g., new technologies) could be considered a sign of a
   new middle-class mentality.



3. Who defines "bourgeois" anyway? While some in the U.S. would say that Whole Foods is pretentious, those from other cultures would consider a basic, run-of-the-mill supermarket to be bourgeois. While my Honda Civic would be considered relatively modest in the U.S. (it’s not a Mercedes or BMW, after all), others would consider it a luxury. Conceptions of wealth and poverty are almost always relative; the standards are arbitrary and shift constantly. Thus, to deride someone as "bourgeois" is ultimately ephemeral; today’s upper-middle class is tomorrow’s lower-middle class (at least materially).

Thus, I am going to try to stop using "bourgeois" and "bourgeoisie" in a negative sense. (Perhaps I should start a campaign to have them reinstated as positive terms!) If someone is arrogant, selfish, or shallow, then he/she should be called (and critized) as such. However, that person should not be categorized as "bourgeois" for there is no shame in being middle-class!