I used to listen to The Urban Exchange Podcast a year ago. It was funny at times but some topics I really just don’t understand. It was my source of “filtered” news from the Philippines. I don’t regularly read the local newspapers unless there is an article that catches my attention. Journal articles and working papers are now my sources of news.
The word “bourgeois” was mentioned a lot in their season premiere (found here for those who would like to listen). It is unfortunate that this word has become a pejorative for some aspect of social and economic life. It is equally unfortunate that this pejorative means different things to different people. What they do not know is that we should not be ashamed or even feel guilty of being bourgeois. See the etymology in Wikipedia. You might be surprised. For German folk, it is closely related to buerger (which you might have encountered when going to the Buergerberatung, usually in the city hall). The meaning is that a buerger is a citizen, plain and simple. An unfortunate artifact of the French Revolution is the distortion of its meaning (which still persists today). After reading its historical meaning, we should be proud that we are bourgeois. Bourgeois is not equal to elitist. Sure, we could have refined taste but just because one enjoys and understands the finer things in life better does not mean that the person is elitist. There is such a thing as being a democratic elitist. This is different from being a hipster douche.
Social classes are here to stay. It is one of the consequences of our freedom to associate. When you were young, you might have entertained the thought that we should strive for equality (in almost every aspect and almost at any cost). Somehow this would lead to having peace for ourselves. History has already played this game to no avail (this is putting it mildly–check out Russia after the revolution). Or if you are unconvinced, think of an extreme example. Equalize every person’s penis. See who has the last laugh.
We should not feel guilty of being bourgeois. A lot of the bourgeoisie are responsible for the evolution of high culture, scientific progress and wealth. We may quibble about how earnings are distributed across social classes but all of us are trying to find a way to live life to its fullest. Having more money is beside the point. It just means that the chosen industry is doing much better now. Things might change in the future depending on market conditions and we may see reversals of fortune. At the end of the day, being bourgeois is a departure from back-breaking work to a life refining one’s craft, caring for one’s family, helping other people and having time for oneself.
The Blog 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 17, 2012 at 10:29 am
jayeel
Hello, Andrew. Thanks for your thoughts here. Thanks, in particular, for shedding light on the etymology of “bourgeois”. This is an issue my students in social theory would problematize.
One important nuance coming from the writings of Marx and Engels, as you would know, is that it refers to the class of capitalists or those who owned the factors of production. While the logic of capitalism in terms of generating surplus (or profits) certainly benefits them, it also has engendered another class – the proletariat. These are, of course, those who do not own anything apart from their labor. As he puts it:
“Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.”
Marx problematizes this system that thrives in a system of inequality. While the social elite (intelligentsia, affluent, bourgeois) may have fostered significant developments in history, we should not also discount that these may have been at the expense of the underclass. Marx again:
“Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth – the soil and the laborer.”
And one final thing: the marginalized have also contributed their fair share towards lasting progress. And most of the time in terms of brawn and greater political will that the bourgeois are often afraid to risk their lives for. Some examples: The Reformation, French Revolution, and even the Philippine Revolution of 1896.
Thanks, Andrew! Have a great week ahead!
September 17, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Andrew Pua
jayeel, thanks for your comment.
capital being “undead” labor is indeed a powerful image but one that severely discounts the resulting reallocation of resources that we do not observe fully. for instance, a worker in the olden times would have to do a lot of back-breaking work to earn a living that will even below today’s poverty line (which is worse than meager). but know, the advances in production and the more effective use of capital has reduced this need. in fact, we are working less and less as time passes by. furthermore, this freeing up of time has given us more time to pursue other wants (including artistic and scientific goals). we could now go to school (at our own time). we are less worried about getting infectious diseases. we are less burdened by our families. in fact, the problems of our world today are almost negligible compared to the problems of the world in the dark ages. bloody revolutions of the past destroy families. i get irritated when people talk about building a bloody revolution to reorganize society (according to whose eyes, I ask?). not only are the underclass caught in the middle but many other people, including the bourgeois.
the reallocation of resources has made earning a living tougher. this is the other side. nowadays, you need to acquire more skills. the unskilled worker is getting paid less and less and will ultimately be replaced by even cheaper methods (either through immigrants or through automation). this is more and more a fact of life. we have to be grown up about this. what some people forget is that at the end of the day, we have to find a way to continue living. this is where being bourgeois is important. The spark of individual responsibility, virtuous living and independence is what the bourgeois represent. Rather than depending on the state (and being taxed unjustly because some are not doing their part–ultimately turning into resentment), we should strive more to be bourgeois and not feel guilty about it. remember that being bourgeois is also about helping other people in need. in fact, the german “sonderweg” is built on this principle (no doubt influenced by pietism).
one fact that we always forget is that everything we do is at the expense of something else. it takes time for people to learn this lesson but because of resource constraints and the finiteness of time and space, we are doing things at the expense of others. it is a powerful image to always replace underclass for the word others. i am not going for an end justifies the means argument. i am not even going for a survival of the fittest argument. these old cliches should be refined and reinterpreted.
as an example, when we chose to pursue graduate studies, we have done this at the expense of many things and people. for one, we have not used our productive potential to help our family directly (ofw money counts but is more indirect). we have also reduced the time we spend with our family (we could be helping our younger siblings in school. we could have been there when your younger sister has boy problems.). we also have “bumped” off another applicant from the list of potential applicants (one who may be poorer than us and may need it more). when we get funding, this is precisely what happens. when we do not have funding, we take money from others to finance our studies (we either borrow from our family or borrow from others). financing of studies is at the expense of others.
it is natural that the upper classes are afraid of risking their lives. they have more to lose. but many of the members of the american revolution are in fact what we would consider upper class nowadays. some even owned slaves despite their belief in equality under the eyes of God. i am not sure why risking lives is such an important conversation when talking about history. what about those who are just trying to live their lives? case in point: what did ordinary germans do after the second world war was declared over? during the japanese occuptation, what did our citizens do? is it really just about risking lives? as the cliche goes: it is easy to die but hard to live.
jayeel, thank you once again. i wish you a pleasant week!
September 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm
jayeel
Thank you, Andrew, for these points. It will be endless to discuss everything you have raised here – and my suggestion is that we do it over some Trappist beer one day soon! But for now, let me just raise a few questions/points:
1. Does the fact that that others are always excluded whenever we make decisions – human opportunity costs, let’s call them – justify the furtherance of the underclass? It’s one thing to talk about some family members being left behind but it’s also another thing if an entire marginalized class is engendered.
2. Can we really strive to be bourgeois? Does everyone have the capacity and capability to become one? If we are born into an environment of inequality (in terms of wealth, physique, gender, and other variables one can think of), then by default others are bound to lose. Others therefore, using Arjun Appadurai’s framework, are less predisposed to imbibe an aspirational posture.
3. Is gaining entry to the bourgeoisie a sincerely ideal situation? This we can discuss either philosophically or sociologically.
4. Finally, I wish to clarify that in a way Marx does not antagonize the bourgeoisie. It is the interpretation of Marx’s writings that have encouraged militant antagonism against those in control of resources. Marx’s first agenda is to expose that capitalism is in itself a system that dehumanizes all of us. By selling our labor (i.e. by being employed), we are effectively abandoning what it means to be human – and that is to pursue deep human aspirations without regard for how much one will earn. The entry of capitalism has rendered all of us, in other words, valuable only in relation to monetary income. Georg Simmel, my favorite thinker, has the same view in the Philosophy of Money.
I maintain some of this critical attitude, Andrew, but it does not mean I could fully escape the logic of the system. By being an academic, even if it is something I really cherish, I am in the end selling my labor to interests bigger than I. Publish or perish, I believe, is what they call this debilitating academic culture.
September 19, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Andrew Pua
jayeel, thanks for your comments. i agree it does not seem to have an end. human history is the best evidence of this. beer would be most welcome especially trappist beer! let me respond one question at a time.
1. It seems too big a leap from others to the underclass. true, my examples are somewhat limited to a rather small social circle but the funding example is a better example. i am more interested in what would happen if we choose not to make those decisions. think of the following counterfactual:globalization has always been criticized as exploitative especially to the marginalized. a useful exercise is to think what would happen if globalization did not take place at all! i am sure that the marginalized are even more marginalized or would probably have a harder time surviving. i am not saying that poverty is necessary for progress. this is a horrible idea. we want everyone to be rich (perhaps rich according to one’s abilities not assigned something according to one’s means and abilities). we do not want someone to be rich because we took it from others. in fact, the attempt to redistribute wealth from the very rich to the very poor does not work at all and would be an idea that should die an immediate death.
we always hear of big business exploiting the poor. what big businesses do best is respond to incentives. the state has a big role in creating gaps that could be exploited by those knowledgeable.
2. This is a source of debate now in economics and other social sciences regarding James Heckman’s suggestion of early childhood intervention (you might be interested in reading more of this). to me the bottom line is that everyone has the capacity and capability to be bourgeois. it is not a social class but an attitude helpful in having a good life. for instance, all of us cannot be excellent violin players. that means that we have to look deep in ourselves to find what we are really good at. one could say that our entire life is partly a struggle not for identity but something more basic–what are we good for? people call this purpose and it does not have to be confined in a religious sense. even people who are less predisposed to be aspirational would have to find meaning in their lives. this is where family, friends even strangers can be helpful.
i do not share your negativity with respect to others being destined to lose. if they choose to be defined this way, then they are responsible for their own poverty.
3. i think you would enjoy reading the book by deirdre mccloskey on the bourgeois virtues (her 6-volume magnum opus in progress). she tries to show that capitalism has actually enriched or even reinforced virtuous living.
4. “By selling our labor (i.e. by being employed), we are effectively abandoning what it means to be human – and that is to pursue deep human aspirations without regard for how much one will earn. The entry of capitalism has rendered all of us, in other words, valuable only in relation to monetary income. Georg Simmel, my favorite thinker, has the same view in the Philosophy of Money.” Marx and Simmel are not original in this aspect. the bible already has this gaining riches yet having an impoverished soul angle. but i don’t think it implies that we should abandon the supply of labor completely. i do not also think that capitalism has somehow transformed us into a cog that generates money. as i mentioned in my previous post, we have been living very different lives compared to our ancestors. the back-breaking toil is no more. the longer life is here to stay. the problems faced by every person has changed from how should we survive to the next day to how could i be a better parent to my kids. instead of asking how do we survive to the next day, we think even further ahead. we do a lot of work so that our offspring will be well provided. there are more but i hope you get my point.
once again, thanks for your comments!
September 19, 2012 at 4:30 pm
ilcapitano
Dear Andrew, Jayeel,
Let me share a few thoughts regarding this discussion…
Regarding to 2., I think what Jayeel is hinting at was the notion of “Culture of Poverty” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_poverty) — an assertion what we call poverty is not just a state of lacking resources but also a state of having a different value system. I agree that the first aspect, which is “not having”, could be countered (on a personal scale) by choosing to not be in a state of “not having” which should result to conviction to circumvent poverty. However, the possibility of making this choice is subject to one’s value system — and it is here that the second aspect of poverty comes into play. For example, in their mode of thinking, maybe the idea of emancipation from poverty is absent (especially in very limited world views) or at least that they are not enabled to make such a choice.
How does one circumvent this “culture”? I do not know (perhaps Jayeel could say more on this). Education could be a start – injecting “bourgeois values” into the poor who exhibit some potential – but I think it could only advance the cause so far. For one, will these “new values” be nurtured in a system which does not have it — where such values are foreign. [This also goes to any form of change attempted which I’ve seen in the Philippines.]
As for 4. I agree that capitalism and globalization has changed our lives for the better but I think it’s important to see how it has also strayed from the path of “saving humankind”. Let’s take the case of computers (and what I’ll say here after is based partly on reflection and also speculation). For sure, the capitalist market structure (I honestly don’t know the right term and I’m inclined to just use the phrase the “Big Bad Corporation”) matched with the development of actual technology has brought us today to a state where computing power is cheap — hardware has become cheaper, the information structure is much more effective and has allowed rapid exchange across continents and computing power has been increasing exponentially (or something). For sure this has, in one way or another, made our lives better.
But one can’t say that this is without cost — both in terms of “values and practices” and “actual costs”. These “actual costs” are mostly externalized — we have probably over-mined our way through the Earth, destroying helpless communities blah blah blah. This is just from the production part, of course. A large wound is also created and sustained by the post-consumption part — more so since most of our computers are being continually “designed for the dump”. [yes, I’m purporting that one reason for cheaper computers is the fact that they are of lower quality and they are really not made to last – (anecdotal evidence) my first laptop, a hand-me-down Toshiba, could easily outlast, strength-wise, my more powerful HP laptop now]. The system (actual product design, economics, etc.) now has made the notion of “repairs” obsolete since the most “convenient” and “economical” answer for people who find problems with their computers after long and hard use would be to simply buy a new one and throw out the old one — in a sense, there is an incentive for consumers to generate waste.
This way in which the BBCs have been responding to incentives has evolved into a system where actual corporate practices, e.g. “designing for the dump”, have to be either intrinsically aligned to this incentive-based system or it will fail and get gobbled up by the system (i.e. a producer who wants to not “design for the dump” will probably not succeed in the market). This is a “value system” that is more self-serving, more than anything.
That is why, and I veer off-track, the idea of “capitalism with a human face” (often formulated under several terms – e.g. “charity”, “corporate social responsibility”, etc.) for me, which I took from the highly convincing Zizek, is somewhat preposterous. As Zizek says, it’s like having a system which destroys a wall on one hand and repairs it with the other. A possible caricature of this would be some local community in some third-world country, say Africa, destroyed by over-mining but where kids are, nicely, given free computers by the BBC responsible for overmining (or now, maybe it’s not that BB anymore) so yeah, they could use that for learning now. Destroying the wall on one hand and attempting to repair it with the other.
—-
Ok, I probably came off as some “really hippy anti-corporation tree-hugger” here (which is probably partly true) but I just wanted to bring to the fore the fact that, yes, I agree that capitalism, globalization and all these other things that we can group under the nice big term called “development” has helped advance human living but, at some point, due to innate greediness or we really just became stupider or selfisher or things got out of hand or maybe nature really doomed us to be this way, we started going off-track and in as much as these movements have allowed us to grow — it is a growth that is not without cost (actual “extenalized costs” such as environmental and human damage and highly-incentive driven values and practices).
Sorry if naging medyo off-topic ako (but that’s what your previous discussion lead me to)… 😀
September 19, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Andrew Pua
jerome, thanks for the comments.
you said that, “For example, in their mode of thinking, maybe the idea of emancipation from poverty is absent (especially in very limited world views) or at least that they are not enabled to make such a choice.” this is preposterous. i think this is dangerous thinking. they do not have “limited worldviews” at all. this is the reason why i have been stressing the benefits of capitalism (aside from those you mention about advancement). i am not sure everybody understands the radical changes capitalism has brought to a lot of people. poor people in a capitalist system would even be poorer (or worse dead) in a communist environment. stalin’s time should already be enough to convince any other alternative to capitalism would be disastrous. i am not saying that capitalism is perfect. when combined with human folly, it is natural to see the “poverty of the soul” that you have been mentioning. amassing as much wealth for its own sake is not virtuous at all. but our greed (which is a human folly rather than a defect of capitalism) is responsible for that.
your comment on the foreign nature of these bourgeois values is much more relevant. is it true that poor people do not have these values? i doubt this. in olden times, humans have longed to explore the unknown. humans made discoveries that we take for granted now (or not even understand how they could have thought of these in very resource-constrained times). these values exist in every human being. the entrepreneurial spirit is probably what differentiates us from animals. in the case of the philippines, we have scientists everywhere (some not recognized at all and some come from poor backgrounds!). at the end of the day, something’s gotta give if one persists in wallowing in self-pity.
you also made comments about the resulting environmental degradation and resource depletion resulting from capitalist initiatives. one question that is unasked is how this degradation and depletion came about in the first place? did the state participate in such efforts? how has the system of politics we have contributed to this? but the most important aspect one always ignores is that the modern times are marked by a reduced dependence on natural resources. a large portion of our income really comes from human capital (around 2/3 of income)–the labor component that some would call alienated even undead. physical capital comprises around 1/3 of income. so this degradation, though unfortunate, is getting too much attention and assigning blame incorrectly.
but your comment on our ability to waste is well taken. but this is where entrepreneurs could find their niche! in fact we have waste management industries. i am waiting for ingenious ideas to convert waste into something more useful. a capitalist system is conducive to this type of ideas. you could guess what would happen in alternative systems.
you said, “a producer who wants to not “design for the dump” will probably not succeed in the market.” it really depends on the social, political and economic environment. if that producer does not survive, then it means that the product is too expensive relative to existing alternatives. sort of like the market has spoken. but the story does not end there. another entrepreneur can use this as a stepping stone toward a new product. furthermore, that same producer could decide to try again. also we should ask why it is prohibitive for that producer to enter the market. did the state unwittingly allow for bigger businesses to prosper for the sake of political power? those are the more important questions to ask. of course, sometimes, the idea just does not work.
a short digression is in order. more and more systems are now migrating to linux and other open source based software. this is not just about the community helping each other. many linux distributions have failed because they fail to deliver to the consumer. entry costs of learning linux has been prohibitive at the start. but now, you see the almost user-friendly linux distributions out there.
the point is that the dynamic processes behind capitalism are very powerful and tampering it with human folly can be disastrous. capitalism with a human face does not make sense precisely because it already has a human face. forcing people to do charitable work is even worse than pity sex.
reading zizek is not really getting the big picture. his own interviews (i do not know if he is being ironic) show that he is a sad and angry person and one who cannot accept that communism has lost (what he does know is manipulating language to repackage communism into something else). check his interview here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/09/slavoj.zizek
he is even arrogant enough to think he understands what stupid people do.
in the last paragraph, you said something about nature dooming us to be this way. this is human folly that i am talking about earlier.
thanks for the comments!
September 19, 2012 at 6:39 pm
jayeel
Wow, we have really covered a lot of details here!
I will not respond to all but I would like to address some of the fundamental underpinning in this discussion thus far.
1. We cannot say that everyone has the propensity to aspire and fulfill whatever they want to. I really, really wish it were that easy (Hello, Jean-Paul Sartre). Social structural limitations do exist on top of biological ones. To blame the poor for not striving enough is to come from the point of view of, well, the bourgeoisie – or those equipped with tools and capabilities because they can afford them. And as basic sociology puts it, our thoughts and behavior are heavily shaped by the social environment. If you are born in a middle class family, you have better chances at succeeding in life than someone less advantaged than you. That’s the basic concept of “opportunity structures” or life opportunities afforded to the class you are born into.
2. Thank you, Andrew, for recognizing the capitalism is not perfect. That exactly is the point Jerome is trying to make. However, I don’t think communism as an ideal system is being trumped by Jerome. What perhaps he and I agree on is that capitalism, for all the wonders it has brought to the world, is a broken system. It is a meritocratic system that places great premium on merit, efficiency, and profit-making. This system says, as Andrew has suggested above, that if you fail in the competition, all there is to blame is you. That to me, as a sociologist, neglects the presence of structural inequality.
3. Can capitalism’s fetish for “cheaper, better, faster” not be the root problem of labor oppression in places like China, Vietnam, and guess what, the Philippines? Andrew has rightly suggested it, too, that without proper political control, capitalism will exploit places where cheap labor exists and natural resources can be harnessed incessantly.
4. I do not celebrate capitalism as an ideal system to get people out of poverty. While there are people who have certainly benefited, there are others who are experiencing its painful brunt. Welcome to the real world of social inequality. It is in this sense that Zizek is right (let’s forget about his psychological state and arrogance). But because capitalism has reigned supreme, it has become inescapable. In sociological terms, we have reified it – allowing it to govern us and measure our value today. (A personal case: I don’t want to be an entrepreneur. I don’t want to be in the corporate world. I want to be a simple academic teaching and conducting research on social inequality. For that, the market has punished me. The salary I am receiving now is way below the average of those who have played the game right by being in the right economic sectors.)
Pasensiya na at na-excite ulit akong magsulat! Okay, back to my work now. Ciao! 🙂
September 20, 2012 at 9:43 am
Andrew Pua
jayeel, thanks for the comments.
it is unfortunate that some of the ideas mentioned in my earlier post did not get through or got conveniently forgotten because somehow you have made up your mind already. let me respond item by item.
For #1: it is supposed to be that easy. i agree that there are certain structural limitations (which has to be defined in some way) that might prevent people in the lower class to fulfill their aspirations. but this need not be the case anymore nowadays. we should not ask why capitalism is a “broken” system. what we should ask is why these structural limitations are there in the first place. can we trace the source? can we solve the problem?
consider the following example: an unfortunate fact is that most businesses would only hire from dlsu, ateneo, up, uaap. why one may ask? past experience might have convinced businesses that graduates from these universities are more likely to be better (in some aspect related to business) than other graduates. that does not mean that there are no bad eggs from these universities. my god, there are tons of them. so a lot of our parents have chosen to pick these schools in favor of other schools. you might have been dealt with an unlucky hand and was placed in a poorer home and your parents (though supportive of education) cannot help so much. what should you do?
here is a situation where we have what you would call a structural limitation. if this person really wants this education because of some aspirations, he could take the entrance exams first and wait and see. if he does not have money, he either has to borrow or work part-time for the moment. suppose he gets accepted. the matter of paying for the tuition becomes crucial. many options are available: choose to apply for a scholarship (which usually is need-based in the philippines) or choose to work alongside paying the tuition. i know that it isn’t much but it helps. if he is a bright student, then he can always write to foundations, asks his professors for advice. i am sure that the charitable in every one of us will do what they can to help. they just have to ask.
notice that anything bad you can think of capitalism does not appear at all. we should ask why schools have high tuition fees. if it is because it reflects the true cost of running the school, then high tuition fees are there to stay. otherwise, schools should try to figure out ingenious ways to cut costs (the first candidates are cutting down network licenses for Microsoft and Apple. building parallel computing facilities might encourage the used of older hardware, etc.).
what do you think this person should do in the face of this structural limitation? blaming the government certainly isn’t productive. being angry at society might be productive–he may turn out to be a good rock star.he may work for television. and so on… he could always return to school if he wants to. what do you think?
with the advent of open courseware and many other free educational resources, schools must be rethinking their business model. this person can choose to have free online education instead. question now would be–would businesses like this? i am not sure. but it is a start.