The affirmation of the capitalistic lifestyle in the depths of feudal society was followed by the formation of the proletariat and bourgeoisie, with the latter representing the middle class during the period of its emergence and growth (Blumin, 6-20). In fact, society was always divided into rich, poor, and those who were between them, however, the middle class manifested itself in Europe relatively late. On the dawn of new times, Europeans continued to think with the categories of classes, not with property groups, and within the frames of one class there appear people with completely different level of income and mentality. Thus, in 1614 in the Estates General in France, the conflict included three classes: clergy, aristocracy and all who were left, with the latter representing the middle class that we know today. In 1813, Oxford dictionary included the notion of the middle class, which meant all citizens of average income who did not have a title of nobility and church dignity.
With that, the middle class always appeared the crucial element among the classes of medieval citizens. It was the bourgeoisie alliance with the royal authority that helped the latter to prevail the reactionary powers of feudalistic aristocracy and establish the powerful national and centralized stats in England, France and many other European countries. During this fight, cities lost their liberties and privileges; however, the middle class as the class of the emerging capitalistic society continued to enrich reinforce itself under the aegis of absolute monarchy (Weiner et al 77-79). Furthermore, the foundation of the middle class in England was largely determined by the rule of Oliver Cromwell, whose parliamentary army defeated the royal army at the battles of Naseby in 1645 and Preston in 1648. Under the pressure of masses, the king was executed and England was declared a republic, making rich merchants, entrepreneurs and new aristocracy in charge of the government. Furthermore, the Parliament became unicameral, executive power was granted to the soviet headed by military elite with Cromwell himself. Therefore, from now on, England was not absolute monarchy, but rather a power received as a result of a compromise and interests of the growing middle class and new aristocracy. However, monarchs used to breach their obligations and dissolve parliament. Later, in 1688-1689 there was carried out a coup d'etat that the Glorious Revolution (Glassman 127-128).
Hence, these are the political issues that followed the emergence of the middle class. Still, the middle class did not emerge as a result of a mere revolution of medieval burghers. On the contrary, its basis was founded by various social layers: accumulated money and medieval townsfolk, people who came from small craftsmen, wage workers - these are just several examples that constituted the primary force of the middle class (Miles, Vincent 110-114). Of course, some small guild masters and even a greater number of independent craftsmen and wage workers turned into small capitalists, and then, by gradually expanding the exploitation of wage work and, accordingly, by strengthening the accumulation of capital, into the so-called "sans phrase" capitalists (Blumin, 6-20). At the time of its growth, the middle class also consisted of the developing bourgeoisie intelligence, such as lawyers who ideologically justified the pretension of the growing bourgeoisie. Generally, the middle class recruited the representatives of functionary bureaucracy, which was typical for France in the 16-17th centuries. In this connection, France's trade turnover was rapidly increasing, and by 1789 trading with its colonies had reached 296 million livres (Heller 65-70). With all these figures, however, the quantitative predominance was represented by small craft enterprises.
Furthermore, considering the subsequent image of the middle class, in becomes clear that this modern interpretation has nothing to do with the middle class of the Enlightenment (Anchor, Robert 6-12). Moreover, the modern middle class is the direct opposition towards the middle class the conquered the Bastille and inspired the Critique of Pure Reason. On the contrary, the evolving middle class of the 19th century was a class of manufacturers and producers, that is, this class proved the carrier of the moral of builders, those people who create a real produce and defend their right to mark it as the value of public order (Miles, Vincent 110-114). Hence, a citizen who produced shoes wanted them to be considered a value that conveyed his unique world. This moral of a manufacturer brought by the middle class opposed the traditional religious and aristocratic society, with the moral of a manufacturer giving rise to the philosophy of the Enlightenment, didactic novel and construction painting of Cezanne.
However, labor does not appear the primary preference of the middle class. On the contrary, it bases on the possibility to avoid working. The conscience of the middle class was always based not on the lack of the created product, but on the maintenance of its symbolic values. With the growth of the middle class, even art ceased creating products, but rather switched to the production of shares. As a matter of fact, the philosophy of the middle class consisted in the fact that in insisted on relatively real values in comparison with symbolic rights.
Thus, the philosophy of life generated by the evolved middle class represented the philosophy of relativism, which is sometimes called the philosophy of Postmodernism. This type of reasoning is the exact opposite of the categorical philosophy of the Enlightenment, whereupon a person shaped with the philosophy of relativism is nothing like a person educated with the immutable criteria and moral absolutes. Hence, the middle class brought the consequence represented by the fact that moral absolutes bear many disadvantages. However, it is compensated by a powerful antidote against the corruption of society.
Nonetheless, the subsequent Industrial age created the favorable conditions for entrepreneurship. As a result, the middle class united officialdom, intelligence, and the overall layer of bourgeoisie. These were well-educated people who engaged in working and had a practical mind. For the people of the middle class, the interest towards enrichment was combined with the interest towards business that often seemed for them the sense of their lives.
Hence, the growing middle class appear drastically and qualitatively different from the medieval classes of burghers. The burgher class was an organic element of feudal society. With that, the developing middle class appeared the promoter of the new and progressive capitalistic relations of production, and was historically destined to play the future dominant role in upcoming bourgeois revolutions. On the contrary, the remnants of the medieval burgher class and the urban patrician system, which proved obsolete in their medieval and class exclusiveness, turned into a reactionary force that, along with the feudal aristocracy, barred the way towards the progressive development of society.
Works Cited
Anchor, Robert. The Enlightenment Tradition. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. 6-12. Print.
Blumin, Stuart M. The Emergence of the Middle Class: Social Experience in the American City, 1760-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. 6-20. Print.
Glassman, Ronald M. The Middle Class and Democracy in Socio-historical Perspective. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. 127-128. Print.
Heller, Henry. The Bourgeois Revolution in France, 1789-1815. New York: Berghahn, 2006. 65-70. Print.
Miles, Andrew, and David Vincent. Building European Society: Occupational Change and Social Mobility in Europe 1840-1940. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1993. 110-114. Print.
Weiner, Jerry, Mark Willner, George A. Hero, and Bonnie-Anne Briggs. Global History. the Industrial Revolution to the Age of Globalization. Hauppauge, NY: Barrons Educational Series, 2008. 77-79. Print.
