The Rise of the Bourgeoisie: From Capital Accumulation to Lifestyle
The late 19th century witnessed the bourgeoisie’s transformation from a class defined by capital accumulation to one increasingly preoccupied with lifestyle and social distinction. As William James observed, the bourgeois “self” encompassed not just personal attributes but all possessions—from property to social connections. This expansive self-definition reflected the class’s growing confidence after decades of economic dominance.
The period saw the material comforts of the bourgeoisie reach unprecedented levels. While earlier generations had lived surrounded by ornate furnishings and abundant fabrics, the late Victorian era introduced purpose-built suburban villas surrounded by greenery—a stark contrast to urban row houses or aristocratic mansions. This shift originated in Britain’s Bedford Park (1870s) before spreading to continental Europe’s Cottage-Viertel in Vienna and Berlin’s Dahlem district.
The Contradictions of Bourgeois Identity
The bourgeoisie faced a fundamental paradox: their distinctive lifestyle emerged relatively late in their historical development and proved surprisingly transient. This explains the nostalgic view of the pre-1914 period as the “Belle Époque.” The new suburban ideal represented more than architecture—it signaled a retreat from public displays of status toward private domesticity.
Unlike aristocratic country houses designed for political networking (like the Villa Hügel of the Krupp dynasty), bourgeois homes prioritized family comfort. As one Bostonian advised his sons: “Find a suburb, build a house, join a country club, and make your club, home, and children the center of your life.” This withdrawal reflected both democratization’s erosion of bourgeois political influence and the loosening of Puritan values that had previously driven capital accumulation.
Education as Social Currency
With traditional status markers becoming unreliable, education emerged as the primary bourgeois credential. Universities expanded dramatically—German student numbers tripled (1875-1912) while France’s quadrupled. Yet access remained exclusive: only 2% of French youth passed the baccalaureate in 1910.
Elite institutions like Britain’s public schools (64-160 by 1900) and American Ivy League colleges created self-perpetuating networks. As the Beta Theta Phi fraternity noted, alumni associations formed “circles of cultivated people who otherwise would never have met.” These connections proved economically valuable—the Delta Kappa Epsilon brotherhood counted J.P. Morgan among its members by 1912.
The Fragmentation of Middle-Class Identity
The bourgeoisie faced definitional crises as their ranks swelled. Gustav von Schmoller estimated they comprised 25% of Germany’s population, including managers, technicians, and even skilled workers. This expansion blurred boundaries:
1. The “old” petty bourgeoisie (artisans, shopkeepers) clung to radical anti-capitalism
2. A new white-collar class emerged from expanding service sectors
3. Wealthy industrialists sought aristocratic validation through titles and marriages
Meanwhile, the traditional bourgeois values of thrift and diligence eroded as inherited wealth grew. Thorstein Veblen’s “leisure class” theory (1899) captured this shift toward conspicuous consumption.
Sports, Leisure, and Social Stratification
Recreational activities became crucial class markers. Tennis clubs facilitated respectable mixed-gender socialization, while golf’s exclusivity (a £900 Mercedes in 1909 versus 1.5 golf clubs) reinforced professional networks. The amateur ideal—enshrined in the 1896 Olympics—served as a subtle class barrier, requiring both time and money that laborers lacked.
British public schools institutionalized sports as character-building, exporting the model globally. This “muscular Christianity” blended bourgeois morality with aristocratic pastimes, creating a distinctive behavioral code for the ruling class.
The Crisis of Bourgeois Confidence
Despite material comforts—Keynes’ father lived well on £1,000 annually with servants and vacations—the fin de siècle bourgeoisie exhibited profound anxiety:
1. Political Displacement: Democratization reduced influence (Vienna’s liberals marginalized, Boston Brahmins yielding to Irish politicians)
2. Cultural Disorientation: Nietzsche and Barrès replaced Spencer and Renan as intellectual guides
3. Generational Tension: Youth cultures embraced modernist rebellion
4. Gender Roles: Women’s emancipation challenged patriarchal family structures
Germany epitomized these contradictions—its spectacular economic and scientific progress coexisted with ambivalence toward liberalism. Thomas Mann’s critique of Western “civilization” versus German “Kultur” revealed deeper ideological fractures.
The Rush to Armageddon
The bourgeoisie’s crisis culminated in the paradoxical enthusiasm for World War I. Figures like Rupert Brooke welcomed the conflict as spiritual renewal—a stark contrast to earlier liberal pacifism. Italian Futurist Marinetti exalted war’s ability to “rejuvenate the intellect,” while French students anticipated “the greatest outburst of French strength.”
This collective death-wish reflected the bourgeoisie’s lost historical mission. Having achieved material success, they found their rationalist, progressive ideology inadequate to confront modernity’s complexities. The “strange death of liberal Europe” (as one historian termed Britain’s prewar crisis) applied equally to the continent’s dominant class.
Legacy: The Bourgeoisie’s Unfinished Project
The prewar bourgeoisie bequeathed contradictory legacies:
1. Material Infrastructure: Suburban living, consumer culture, and mass education systems
2. Cultural Institutions: Museums, universities, and philanthropic traditions
3. Psychological Complexes: Status anxiety and nostalgia for “lost worlds”
Their unresolved tensions—between individualism and conformity, progress and tradition, rationalism and irrationalism—would define 20th-century politics and culture. The 1914 cataclysm revealed a class that had conquered the material world but lost its spiritual compass, a paradox that continues to resonate in contemporary discussions of capitalism and its discontents.