|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Petite not petitEdit
The term petit bourgeois (petty bourgeois) is the common one used by Marx and others, instead of a generic name for the class. If you do want to stay with a class name then it should be petite bourgeoisie and not petit bourgeoisie since bougeoisie is a word with the feminine gender, and the adjective must be in accord with this. AlainV 04:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Bourgeois is not bourgeoise, OK? So it's petit in the singular, seems to me: and the sense in which people do use it, quite a lot. It is also the usual spelling AFAIK -- when the vulgar and more usual petty is not used.
- IMO this insistence on the petite usage, justified here in terms of class, seems AFAIC positively deceptive and possibly even purposely misleading and obscurantist.
- Moved from the Village Pump
- Would someone please help me to move Petit bourgeoisie to Petite bourgeoisie and set up a redirect from the old name to the new one? I tried to move the page, but something went wrong. Shorne 20:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I deleted the reference to American Beauty, because I cannot for the live of me think how that film deals with petty bourgeoisie in any (overt/recognisable) way. If you can prove how, feel free to put it back in. Cheers, Lawson
The literature knows two types of petit bourgeois. One is the good natured person. This like superficial sociability. Thea are in clubs and have a strong orientation by family. The malicious kind of p.b. have following character: spitefulness, gossip, and slander, know-it-all and bumptious manner. They see the world in "black and white" and they are against minorities. Adorno called them the "authoritariam person". --Fackel 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the "ruling bourgeois class" was usurping the aristocracy, not answering to it as its "servant." how, if at all, did the aristocracy govern the ruling bourgeois? 126.96.36.199 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Andrew
- I think "servant" here is probably misleading. Also, the article ignores an evolution in the meaning of the term. In the 18th century, the petite bourgeoisie were small shopkeepers, innkeepers, landlords, and manufacturers: essentially the same as the grande bourgeoisie, but not as wealthy and not operating on a comparable scale. Increasingly, as the Industrial Revolution progressed, a second class, occupying a similar economic position, began also to be referred to as petit bourgeois: an educated class of functionaries in government and business. In this latter case, "servant" makes some sense (although it is still a bit disparaging, with its sense of personal rather than economic service).
Conflicts with definition of bourgeoisieEdit
The table in this article appears to conflict with the definition in bourgeoisie. That article indicates bourgeoisie refers to middle class, although it later gives a geographically limited alternative reference to upper class. So which is it?
MaxwellPerkins 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- In feudal society, at least in France, bourgeoisie were the residents of a town (bourg). In capitalist societies, they are the middle class. In Marxist parlance, they are the owners of the means of production as private property. That certainly did not make them upper class; see all the snide remarks in English literature (Jane Austen, say, or Edith Wharton), accompanied with a look down the nose, at people who made their money in "trade." In terms of the Three Estates (Estates of the Realm), they are commoners. So which is it? MaxwellPerkins (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect the reason is that Wikipedia articles should contain factual matter (i.e. 'article meat' with citations where relevant) and pretty much nothing else. The references for this article is more like a "reading list", as in "if you want to know more about this topic, on which we have written very little, these are some books you can read". That can be a problem from two angles: it's not the standard for Wikipedia to include reading lists, and, there's no way for anyone to know if these books are good or relevant books and hence should be "proposed" to the reader without actually reading all of them. I'm not going to delete them though, but it would be much better if the content could be incorporated into the article instead of just being listed as recommended reading.188.8.131.52 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC).