Embracing Your Inner Bourgeois*

Or, What's So Bad About Looking Respectable?

*Title inspired from this comment from materfamilias on her post here, (responding to comments from the Scarves discussion at The Thoughtful Dresser), "Personally, I rather think that fighting one's inner bourgeois is a foolish and losing battle, and I'd rather embrace my and give her a bit of funk while I'm at it..."

From Merriam-Webster.com:

Main Entry:
1bour·geois
Pronunciation:
\ˈbu̇rzh-ˌwä also ˈbu̇zh- or ˈbüzh- or bu̇rzh-ˈ\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle French, from Old French burgeis townsman, from burc, borg town, from Latin burgus
Date:
circa 1565
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the townsman or of the social middle class 2 : marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity 3 : dominated by commercial and industrial interests : capitalistic

Back in my 20's and 30's, one of the worst insults that could be lobbed at one was "bourgeois." Bourgeois carried the implication of staid, smug, middle class complacency, intellectual laziness, and indiscriminate materialism. Coming of age when I did during the counter-culture years, I fought against that part of myself that craved comfort, stability, and yes, luxury. As an outer manifestation of those values, my friends and I chased a more bohemian aesthetic, while I still secretly admired more classic and quality pieces that I saw on stylish, upscale women. The primary sartorial values my parents had instilled were a) buy quality fabrics and workmanship and b) stick to simple styles as you won't tire of them quickly. Not surprisingly, I've come full circle back to that way of thinking when it comes to style.

In the comments on Linda's Scarves post, a few people described Hermès scarves as looking too "bourgeois." In some instances, I think the word was being used in place of "stodgy" or "matronly," but I think also it was being used to represent that stuffy complacency that we ascribed to it way back when. But thinking about style and how it reflects our values, doesn't it make sense from the standpoint of avoiding mindless over-consumption to have a few good things that will last for decades rather than chasing trends or purchasing cheap throw-away-after-a-few-wearings types of items? Which is more materialistic and "bourgeois": the quiet luxury that an Hermès scarf conveys or the overwrought look of someone decked out in a "J'adore DIOR" t-shirt, huge Chanel logo earrings and a $2K bag splashed with overdone designer logos? (And yes, I recognize that there is a vast universe of middle ground.)

Sure, some of the Hermès scarf designs can be a bit stodgy, and I say that as someone who is nuts for anything with an equestrian theme. But it's all in how you wear it, and even the stodgy can become ironic if done right. To me, the trick is to keep the rest of the ensemble simple and current, and wear with an air of insouciance. Materfamilias gets it Exactly Right.

Stodgy is as stodgy does. A lack of intellectual curiosity, a dour and judgemental demeanor, and a miserly spirit will always appear dowdy regardless of what au courrant garments one wears, whereas a generous spirit, an open heart and a sense of fun will always look fresh. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have some nice, classic things. If that's bourgeois, so be it. And, as my grandmother used to say, "there's no point in having nice things if you don't use them."

Updated to add: I'd missed this earlier, but Duchesse at Passage des perles has some great comments on this topic as well. Another one to file under Great Minds Think Alike! Love this bit especially, "I began to wonder, as opposed to what? Insouciantly bohemian? Stoutly working class? Private-jet megarich?"