Wear Clean Draws  (because there’s 5 million ways to kill a ceo)

In my post on the book, The Myth of the French Bourgeoisie, I noted that Maza’s argument is in line with something others have noted about the marker “yuppie”. Its usage indicates that it’s an identity against which people nearly always define themselves in opposition. People don’t want to be called yuppies and, if they know they fit the profile, then they use the term self-ironically or sarcastically.

Lately though, reading more mainstream political blogs, I’ve come across the use of ‘bourgeois’ in what seems to be a straight up, no sarcasm way: The Jack and Jill politics blog, for example, bills itself as a ‘black bourgeois’ perspective on politics. Then, over at Lola’s blog, she recommended Boughetto News where they write:

This is real thought-provoking commentary on pop culture. And you? You’re probably bourgeois - and as such it is your job, your mission to help the ghetto among us. I will do my part in showing you what you’re up against. That’s right. “Helping us see the madness … to stop it.”

Of course, when I read this, I immediately thought of the histories I’ve read, particularly of the black women’s club movement, which sought to bring social uplift to the lives of lower class blacks, in an effort to be accepted by whites. I also thought of Michael Eric Dyson’s discussions of intra-class warfare among blacks in Is Bill Cosby Right?.

While it’s not surprising that any group of people aspires to these goals, what had me flummoxed was the positive use of the word “bourgeoisie”. It has always been used as an epithet among whites, especially lefties. And, as we saw, it is seen as and used as an insult, such as when belledame called Amanda (Pandagon) a bougie in some discussion at Feministe. Somehow, revisionist history has it that I was the one who called Amanda a bougie. heh. Which I never fucking do because I hated being on lefty discussion lists and reading the epithet, “That is such a bourgeois idea” or “It’s an objectively bourgeois position”. When I first discovered lefty blogs, over and over again you had to defend yourself against this charge. Drove me batty, and I thought the argument wrong. But more, what irritates is the use of a person’s individual social location in the class structure as an argument against them, as if their mere income, wealth, and education can make or break the worth of their ideas.

That’s just plain assinine.

Anyway, it just made wonder: why the hell and when the hell did bourgeois become a positive label? Is it being used without irony or sarcasm? I don’t know.

On a related note, my library spree of a coupla weeks ago netted me a book from the black history month display. I was tempted to snatch up a bunch but I already had 16 books and I figured I ought not be rude about books likely in high demand. What did catch my eye was Lawrence Otis Graham’s Our Kind of People: Inside America’s Upper Class. I’ve been reading it off and on — a few chapters in, reading about historically black colleges right now. A friend from grad school did her master’s on HBCs and I served as an informal reader — we tried to help each other out that way.

The book is a little too verbose about the nitty gritty details, but otherwise it’s an interesting read. It’s weird to read Graham on the topic because he’s not your typical leftist. He’s a proud, albeit sometimes critical, member of this group. He’s at once protective and critical, but critical in unexpected ways — and sometimes protective in unexpected ways. It’s hard to get a handle on — Graham’s perspective — because I think — and I could be wrong — he’s playing his cards close to his chest. Which would be expected. It’s like being a member of skull and bones and writing a book about it. Well, not quite.