The bourgeois is a central figure in every modern history. In France more than anywhere else,
because French aristocracy and monarchy were defeated in the great French Revolution fashion,
the France bourgeois appeared manifestly supreme for a century and a
half after it, to the extent that the two words have been combined into a single idea:
la France bourgeoise. It is
argued that it was in the period that the bourgeois attained self confidence,
ceased to aspire to enter the old hierarchy, and sought rather to replace it.
He developed his own moral and economic doctrine and formed an original
class with a spiritual unity. At the same time he became an object of attack, satire and animosity,
far more concerted than ever before.
The Age of the Bourgeoisie is the setting in which the
history of these years is usually placed.
The notion has bred a large number of generalisations. The first stage in any study of France must be a clarification of
its meaning and an assessment of its value as an instrument of explanation.
There are two ways of understanding the phrase la France bourgeoise. It means first of all the domination of
bourgeois attitudes of mind. In this definition, the rise of the bourgeoisie can be traced,
from the sixteenth
century or earlier, not from the paint of view of political or economic power, but in terms of the
development of
rules of conduct and ways of thought which gradually won increasing acceptance, list of political issues,
political correctness origin, and important political issues, in opposition to
the ideals vaunted
by the monarchy, the french aristocracy and the Church. In this view what distinguished France
after the Revolution was the
prevalence of the bourgeois mentality, not just among the rich, but equally among artisans, shopkeepers and even peasants.
The longevity of bourgeois domination that is to say, the rule of those who exemplified, practised or advocated
bourgeois virtues most successfully is explained by the masses' adhesion to and approval of those virtues.
There were
hard fought struggles for success, but these disputes did not involve fundamental differences, and that is why regimes
succeeded each other without transforming the structure of society.
Only when the very rich tried to copy the old
aristocracy and ceased to be the common man's ideal, did they meet with opposition and resistance. An attempt will be
made here to define the bourgeoisie's values, to investigate how far these formed the basis of a consensus which held
France together, and to analyse more closely the whole notion of consensus.
The second meaning of la France bourgeoise involves political analysis and economic determinism. After the monarchical
and aristocratic ancient regime, it is argued, one of the French Revolution effects was to give
political power and political issues to the bourgeoisie. The Declaration of
the Rights of Man was only a pretence of democracy and equality. Though the seigneurial privileges were abolished,
those of money were not. The bourgeoisie took the place of the french aristocracy. They bought the confiscated national lands.
They filled the parliamentary assemblies, even when universal suffrage nominally gave sovereignty to the masses.
The equality of opportunity they preached was false since only the well-to-do could afford secondary education,
which was the key to success. They devoted much of their energy to fighting the Church, which they claimed was
imprisoning the people in mysticism and superstition, but there were those who said that this was only a way of
consolidating their own leadership and distracting the masses from their social grievances. This theory has been
refined by those who distinguish between the types of bourgeoisie which dominated in different periods.
It is
argued that each political correctness and political regime based itself on a new `rising class'.
Thus Louis Philippe was `managed by the grands
bourgeois for the profit of their class' are cases of political correctness. Napoleon III's reign was that of big business.
The Third Republic was
sustained by the middle bourgeoisie, the graduates of the scientific schools and universities. However, the Marxists
maintain that this apparent gradual democratisation is an illusion and that France has ultimately been controlled not
by the bourgeoisie in general but by the financial magnates who held the purse strings in all the major activities
and achievements of the country. Building on this, France has been exposed as dominated by 200 families.
In fashion of cultural revolution, the royalists,
incited by their hate of the Orleanists, provided more social documentation for this phenomenon,
by showing how the
families which came to the fore at the French Revolution of 1789, clung to office through every
subsequent regime, changing
their party labels to suit the prevailing bourgeoisie fashions but always accumulating new power by intermarriage, so that they
became veritable dynasties, successfully preventing the growth of real democracy.
This view in fashion of the french revolution became particularly
widespread at the time of the Popular Front. Leon Blum held this group responsible for his failure.
Using the word
bourgeoisie rather loosely, he wrote: `Despite all appearances to the contrary, it is the bourgeoisie which has ruled
France for the past century and a half.' Even when the masses made their will felt in parliament, the bourgeoisie was
able to resist. It controlled the local assemblies, the upper ranks of the civil service, the press, finance,
the business world, and, under the Third Republic, the Senate. `The French bourgeoisie held power for all this time,
refusing to resign it or share it.' In 1940 the disastrous results of their blindness and conservatism were revealed.
They were shown up as degenerate, incompetent, out of date, wedded to traditions of routine, and with no reserves of
energy or imagination to meet the crisis of that year.
Extract from “France 1848 – 1945 Ambition & Love”, by Theodore Zeldin. Oxford University Press, Britain:1979.
Cowardly Bourgeois, Brave Bourgeoises, and Loyal Servants:
Bourgeois Identity during the Crisis of 1846-47
Cynthia Bouton
On 13 January 1847, a riot erupted in the small French town of Buzançais in the
department of the Indre after some women intercepted several grain carts passing
through town. What began as a classic subsistence movement triggered two days of
food rioting and class hostilities. In a key incident, the son of a landowner shot and
killed a protester; a crowd then beat the shooter to death. Local elites cowered before
the crowds and utterly failed to halt the riot’s course. Disorder soon spread throughout
the region. The July Monarchy mounted a stringent repression, including military
occupation, highly publicized trials, and unusually severe sentences (three hangings),
all designed to discipline both rebellious populace and cowering local elites. The riot
immediately received media attention during the Europe-wide crisis years, 1846-47,
focused polemics in the political press, facilitated factional critiques of the
government, and contributed to the debates preceding the Revolution of 1848.
Inspired by exciting and provocative recent work by French historians such as
David Garrioch, Carol Harrison, and Sarah Maza,2 I explore bourgeois identity at
mid-nineteenth century through a close study of this riot. However much historians
may grapple with the slippery abstractions of the terms “bourgeois” and
“bourgeoisie,” at least two groups of people had no trouble identifying them in the
stark realities of 1847—the rioters and the July Monarchy magistrates charged with
maintaining order. Indeed, the affair forced participants to negotiate crucial aspects of
bourgeois identity and solidarity.3 I would like to explore how the tensions generated
by the crisis of 1846-47, the experience of riot and repression, and the subsequent trial
of twenty-six rioters reflected and shaped social identities at the end of the July
Monarchy. 4 Not only did rioters specifically target households they had identified as
“bourgeois,” but the government itself largely shared their perception of who
constituted the bourgeoisie, and although rioters and July Monarchy grands notables
held sharply contrasting views of bourgeois responsibility for public order and for
social welfare, they converged in their condemnation of male bourgeois performance
during the crisis. Indeed, July Monarchy spokesmen took advantage of the public trial
of the Buzançais rioters to teach a lesson in identity formation and solidarity.
Located in a grain-producing region in the center of France on the river Indre,
in 1847 Buzançais had a population of just over 4000 inhabitants.5 Its industrial
activity included wool production, metallurgy (iron forges and smelting mills along
the Indre river), and modern, export-oriented grain mills.6 Agriculture occupied over
forty percent of its population in the 1840s and powerful, non-noble proprietors
controlled vast quantities of land. Industry employed thirty-three percent of the
population and counted several entrepreneurs among its highest tax-payers.
The economic crisis of 1846 struck the Indre harshly. Between March 1845
and March 1847, wheat prices rose almost 200 percent,7 and bread prices doubled in
less than a year.8 Fall and winter brought rising unemployment and lower pay. In
these circumstances, hundreds of desperate people in the Indre applied for assistance.
Departmental and local authorities, like most of their national counterparts, responded
slowly and inadequately, largely preferring private to public forms of relief. Linking
assistance to work, many communities turned to charity workshops (ateliers de
charité), which they funded through borrowing, and with subscriptions from local
elites.10 Demand for work quickly outstripped the capacity of workshops to supply it,
despite wages that were half the rate in normal times.
