The Pretensions of the Bourgeoisie
The bourgeois is a central figure in every modern history. In France more than anywhere else, because aristocracy
and monarchy were defeated in the great Revolution, the 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, in opposition to the ideals vaunted
by the monarchy, the 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 ancien regime, it is argued, the Revolution gave political power 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 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 regime based itself on a new `rising class'. Thus Louis-Philippe was `managed by the grands
bourgeois for the profit of their class'. 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.
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 Revolution of 1789, clung to office through every subsequent regime, changing
their party labels to suit the prevailing fashions but always accumulating new power by intermarriage, so that they
became veritable dynasties, successfully preventing the growth of real democracy. This view 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.
|
|
|
