Apology for bourgeoisism

"People of the middle": getting rid of the extremes of master and slave positions

In Russia, a cultural complex of radicalism has long been formed and is being reproduced to this day. "Tears", rejection of the middle and the norm - these are the main features of this complex

In Russia, a cultural complex of radicalism has long been formed and is being reproduced to this day. "Tears", rejection of the middle and the norm - these are the main features of this complex.

Historically, it took shape in the depths of the Russian Raznochinskaya intelligentsia and was consolidated by the long-term domination of the normative Soviet culture based on revolutionary rhetoric. This complex is expressed in the rejection of the pattern of behavior of the tradesman, the layman and the philistine. It is a completely common place in today's public discourse, regardless of political preferences and value positions. Here is the “Final battle between goodness and neutrality” (A. Navalny’s blog credo), and the convulsive political rhetoric of E. Limonov, and – just at random from a recent one – this is the judgment of R. Litvinova: “For me, “to be like all normal people” in in the form in which it is imagined by the layman, the tradesman, is, of course, the highest insult. It is curious that when, within the framework of this dominant rhetoric, one of its bearers wants to kick another, he does this by pointing out his lack of radicalism - this is how Limonov calls Navalny a “mattress”.

And so, at the level of common places of culture, anti-bourgeoisism prevails in our country. And who is the bourgeois? On the one hand, this is just a tradesman, an urban inhabitant: the word "bourgeoisie" comes from the old French burg ("city"), like the German "burgher". The city dweller personifies a special category of people - the people of the middle. If you remove the film of Marxist interpretation, then the bourgeoisie is a group of people that has developed between the masters and their subjects. The medieval bourgeoisie is a layer that avoids extremes, the best description of which belongs to Aristotle: “In every state there are three parts: the very wealthy, the extremely poor, and the third, standing in the middle between the two ... People of the first type become mostly insolent and big scoundrels ... It turns out the state , consisting of slaves and masters, and not of free people, a state where some are filled with envy, others are contempt ... The people we mentioned do not even want to go along the same road with their opponents.

Of course, the existence of "people in the middle" is provided economically - by the presence of a certain level of prosperity. But economic well-being here is a relative concept. That very “middle class” in Russia today cannot take place not for economic, but for cultural reasons, due to the constantly reproducible culture of radicalism. Therefore, the city dweller primarily appreciates bourgeoisness. What are the main elements of this position?

Intelligence and rationality. Calculation, and not impulse and anguish, is the main credo of the bourgeois.

Awareness of one's own interest and practical action based on it. This means that the political action of the townsman-philistine is guided not by abstract ideas, but by reason. The entire critique of philistinism is based on reproaches that the bourgeoisie is not inclined to be guided by abstract ideas dressed in a package of ethical and aesthetic radical pathos. Indeed, he is guided by mundane reasons of his own.

Healthy skepticism. The bourgeois is not inclined to trust anyone much, especially when it comes to politics. He will never identify himself with either power or alternative utopian political promises. Skepticism and irony for the bourgeois is the most important means and way of maintaining their own individualistic position.

Friendship and friendly relations, which must necessarily be based on individual autonomy and independence. The bourgeois is skeptical of relationships based on dependence and reverence, preferring relationships based on independence and equality.

Compromise and conformism are the most important traits of the bourgeois and city dweller. Only he is able, avoiding the extremes of master and slave positions, to come to a reasonable consensus. Conformity is an attitude of prudent common sense: in order to agree with something, it is not at all necessary to identify with this position "with all your heart." But it is precisely the set of conventions and rituals of politeness that constitutes the very essence of urban bourgeois life. Conformity, however, must be understood adequately here: it is not an agreement to anything. Agreement and compromise - the ability of equals to negotiate with equals, while an attitude based on the demand for unconditional submission on the part of some and unlimited consent to obey on the part of others - returns us to the extremes of interaction between small and large scoundrels.