Blueprint of the Bourgeois

If Hanna Arendt is to be believed, and I strongly suspect she is, Thomas Hobbes writing in the seventeenth century provided us with the blueprint of the bourgeois personality, one who is relentlessly engaged in the process of acquiring wealth, the type that would become the predominant character, world-wide, in the three hundred years that have followed. In this regard, she tells us that:

“There is hardly a single bourgeois moral standard which has not been anticipated by the unequaled magnificence of Hobbes’ logic. He gives an almost complete picture, not of Man but of the bourgeois man, an analysis which in three hundred years has neither been outdated nor excelled. ‘Reason . . . is nothing but Reckoning’; ‘a free Subject, a free Will . . . [are words] . . . without meaning; that is to say, Absurd.’ A being without reason, without the capacity for truth, and without free will — that is, without the capacity for responsibility — bourgeois man is essentially a function of society and judged therefore according to his ‘value or worth . . . his price; that is to say so much as would be given for the use of his power.’ This price is constantly evaluated and reevaluated by society, the ‘esteem of others,’ . . . “

The bourgeois was originally the owner of the means of production who was the bane of Karl Marx’s existence, the ugly capitalist who ground his workers under his foot, stealing the profits they made and keeping the profits for himself. The capitalist today may no longer own the means of production. He may own properties, deal in stocks and bonds, or more than likely be the C.E.O. of a multinational corporation. He might even be a professional athlete! He has become the man Hobbes described early on, a man fixated on making more money than he can possibly spend in his lifetime. The amorality of the bourgeois who simply wants to live well soon becomes the immorality of the exploiter and the dodger of taxes who uses others and places additional burdens on those who can ill afford to take up the weight. All of this is predicated on his fascination with wealth and power as ends in themselves. As Arendt notes:

“The so-called accumulation of capital which gave birth to the bourgeois changed the very conception of property and wealth: they were no longer considered the results of accumulation and acquisition but their beginnings; wealth became a never-ending process of getting wealthier. The classification of the bourgeois as an owning class is only superficially correct, for a characteristic of this class has been that anyone could belong to it who conceived of life as a process of perpetually becoming wealthier, and considered money as something sacrosanct which under no circumstances should be a mere commodity for consumption.”

Arendt thought the Leviathan, Hobbes major work, provided the blueprint I mentioned at the outset. The type of person he describes feeds on raw competition, creating in the world of the bourgeoisie a war of man against man, survival of the fittest. Hobbes said this was a state of nature and suggested that in such a state life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In this state humans cease to be human and become pawns in a game in which the capitalist himself becomes wealthy at the cost of those who oppose him.

Needless to say, this blueprint has changed considerably since Hobbes drew it. Raw capitalism has never seen the light of day, the state of nature becoming in the transition a bit of an exaggeration. Capitalism has always been tempered by remnants of Christian ethics and the rule of law, constraints on the raw greed that motivates the man or woman who seeks only money and more money, a person Arendt describes as “more-than-rich.” In this country we have a number of such laws that prohibit the unfettered growth of capital in the hands of a few — or so it would seem. But those who are more-than-rich spend much of their time working to make sure that those laws and those restraints — such as tax laws and the E.P.A., for example — are rendered nugatory, weakened so that the government cannot effectively interfere with the making of huge profits. The type Hobbes describes still exists.

There are good people owning property and paying others to work for them. And there are private owners of small corporations who do not exploit their employees. To be sure. These people do not fit the blueprint that Hobbes provided us with. But for the “more-than-rich” in this country the blueprint is accurate: there are those who would squash all opposition underfoot in order to amass more and more wealth –money beyond reckoning — thereby creating ugly juxtapositions. Athletes sign multi-million dollar contracts while many others around them must work two jobs or have no place to live and no food on the table. The average corporate C.E.O. in this country makes nearly 400 times as much annually as his or her average employee. And the C.E.O. typically pays little or no income taxes.

The picture is unpleasant, but it is not overblown. We claim to be a Christian country (or some make the claim) while at the same time we see around us the 1% growing richer, the middle class disappearing, and the more-than-poor growing poorer and more numerous. What this means, it seems to me, is that those laws that protect the rest of us against the rich must be enforced and even strengthened because the blueprint that Hobbes provided us with in the seventeenth century is not the least bit exaggerated when it comes to describing unfettered capitalism, including the type of person who flourishes in our day and who would just as soon see all around him fail as long as he amasses great wealth.


12 thoughts on “Blueprint of the Bourgeois

  1. Hugh – the word that jumps out for me is ‘amoral’ . I have been wondering about the re-emergence of trade unions, and how that might help the workers who are keeping the big companies going, but who seem to have less and less benefits for their efforts. Hope you are getting out of the freeze 🙂 Susan

  2. There are many stories in the New Testament that address this attitude (about others) — we have advanced in technology and through many modern ways, yet I fear that there will be more camels reaching heaven via the eye of a needle than there will be rich folks.

    • It always interests me that the poor folk who surround you are so much happier and more generous than the fat cats in this country who ignore those in need.

  3. Hugh, the accumulation of wealth has a diminishing marginal utility, especially at various thresholds. When you have enough for a roof over your head and food on the table, when you have enough to buy a more comfortable dwelling, etc. The punch line from the movie “I Am,” is money does not buy happiness, but the absence of money can make you unhappy,

    The guy that made the movie was disillusioned that buying this huge house did not make him happy. Keith

  4. Dr. Curtler, as always you get me thinking.

    What comes to mind is C. B. MacPherson’s book, “Political Theory of Possessive Individualism”.

    This eminent Canadian political philosopher took seriously both the VALUES of liberalism — especially concerning the achievement of freedom for individuals (self-realization) – and Marx’s CRITIQUE of the economic contradictions and tendencies of the capitalist economic system.

    This leads him to a critical analysis of the presumed relationship between freedom and property in the works of Hobbes, Locke, and others in the same tradition, as well as in modern economic theory and culture.

    A good takeaway from this work is one that even traditional conservatives have approved, to wit: Markets establish prices not values.

    A powerful point, indeed.

    Respects and regards,

    Jerry Stark

    • Marx’s main point, as I understand it, is that the capitalist creates surplus value (above and beyond profit) and this he takes away from the worker who actually created it to begin with. A powerful ethical point, I would say.

  5. One can only wish that all those who find money to be their ultimate goal, that they seemingly can never have enough and have sold their consciences long ago, would be visited by the three ghosts in Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”. What we have today, in my view, is capitalism run amok. In this nation, the greedy have bought themselves a president who is doing as promised, making them richer and removing the roadblocks to their desire for unlimited wealth, to the extreme detriment of the entire nation save for those few. Something will have to give soon …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s