Talk:Petite bourgeoisie

Petite not petit

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.

Pazouzou (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Petit bourgeoisie

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)

Fixed. ✏ Sverdrup 21:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Shorne 21:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

American Beauty

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

Two types

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)

Wait...

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? 129.133.139.4 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).

I will not be watchlisting this article, so if anyone wants to address a remark to me, leave it on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts with definition of bourgeoisie

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)

The bourgeoisie were "middle class" in feudal societies. In capitalist societies, they are upper class. Ninguém (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (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)

References

All the references were removed. Is there a reason for that? Ninguém (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (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.158.143.133.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

This article needs to be moved to the proper spelling

"Petite bourgeoisie" redirects here, but it should be the primary article. ("Petit" is the masculine adjective in French, which is incorrect.) But I don't know how to move an entire article like that.

Hi, I agree. I just did the correction. — Womtelo (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC).

Better translation in lead?

Currently the opening reads as follows: "Petite bourgeoisie (literally small bourgeoisie)..."

Given that the core noun in this phrase (bourgeoisie) is both jargon and a loanword, I don't feel that translating only the 'small' adjective removes much of the fog surrounding the phrase. Could we find a better translation for the term? BananaBork (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Definition contains no citations

The entire [[1]] section of this page, including the Modern-day examples list, contains no citations. Particularly in the list of examples, it's unclear where they come from.

--Phoenix Kahlo (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Article doesn't really explain what the Petite bourgeoisie are, or why they are significant

The definition is quite scanty, and doesn't really explain what being able to "buy the labor of others" actually means, or why doing so while also "typically work alongside their employees" is significant enough to constitute a distinct class. The examples also don't seem very informative. Why is a lawyer in a small partnership petite bourgeoisie, but not (presumably) one in a large partnership, or working independently? We then get a paragraph blaming the petite bourgeoisie for fascism, but which (IMO) doesn't give a convincing argument (particularly the claim that it is due to businesses being run by sexually-repressed patriarchal families). It also talks about the Petite bourgeoisie and the middle class, as though they are separate things. And then finally, the bulk of the article isn't actually about the petite bourgeoisie per se, but about how they are portrayed in literature, which is probably significant enough a subject to cover, but shouldn't be the majority of the article. Iapetus (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the French name being used

In other articles that involves a non-european name, wikipedia refuses to use the native name. Rama bridge, or Turkiye are examples. The commonly cited excuse is that this is an English wiki. Why is the French name being used in this case? Why isn't the English name being used? I'm open to believe there is a good reason but from my current point of view this looks like wiki has some inherent bias against non-europeans. 57.135.144.142 (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)