 |
| The États Généraux of 1789 - it's all about representation! |
The concept of an historical "Fourth Estate" is, like many of the concepts that describe the premodern world, a modern concept, and it is based on the idea of the importance of representation. The moderns, who looked backwards in time, saw a world where the clergy, nobility and bourgeoisie had representation, but the rest of the population did not, (such as in the Eighteenth Century États Généraux), and this representation was derived from the estates. Therefore, they understood an estate to be a body that had representation. So what about all those unrepresented people? They were conveniently lumped into a "Fourth Estate" by whig historians.
Building on this understanding, the term "Fourth Estate" began to be applied to the media, who had an effective say in public matters by virtue of their purpose. The media began to see itself as another political instrument, critical in maintaining public transparency. (More recently, bloggers have started to claim the title!) This, of course, is all based on the misguided idea that the defining quality of an estate is that it had representation. The estates long predate the representative bodies they later contributed to, and what defined them are the things they actually contributed to society (other than their opinions).
This is not in any way to undervalue representation, but perhaps it ought to be considered that modern society overvalues suffrage. Which is more important: to have a say in social matters, or to actually contribute to society? The entire discussion over "Fourth Estate" is one that values representation above contribution. Calling the non-bourgeois workers "Fourth Estate" is to undervalue their labour, while the media's own claim to the title somehow suggests that their voice is more important than any economic contribution.
This is not in any way to undervalue representation, but perhaps it ought to be considered that modern society overvalues suffrage. Which is more important: to have a say in social matters, or to actually contribute to society? The entire discussion over "Fourth Estate" is one that values representation above contribution. Calling the non-bourgeois workers "Fourth Estate" is to undervalue their labour, while the media's own claim to the title somehow suggests that their voice is more important than any economic contribution.
As I previously observed, the First Estate contributed spiritual benefits, social services and knowledge; the Second Estate contributed justice, stability and protection; while the Third Estate contributed material goods, physical labour and real wealth. (What did the bourgeoisie contribute?). Each estate served the whole of society, not just itself, and so what it produced was for the benefit of all. (In future posts I'll discuss more about why the Third Estate, from the time of the Ancien Régime, began to begrudge the other two.)
So, who was the Fourth Estate? Quite simply, there was no Fourth Estate, nor has there ever been. My adopting the name is equivalent to taking a name like "The Unicorn Stable" or "The Round Triangle" or "Persona qui non est", but more thematically appropriate. Anyone who genuinely considers themselves to be members of the mythical Fourth Estate is just being pretentious.
"Anyone who genuinely considers themselves to be members of the mythical fourth estate is just being pretentious"
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the definitions in the first place are for want of a better word "loose" if a person genuinely considers themselves in this category, then to be dismissive of them exhibits at an intellectual level, a bourgeoise contempt of their fellow man.
As for.. "Which is more important: to have a say in social matters, or to actually contribute to society?"
Many would say we are now living in the information era, so from this perspective bloggers can claim the title of belonging to the fourth estate as their actions could be considered a contribution to society.
Or perhaps the outdated labelling needs to be updated to reflect the societal changes and perhaps they should be given membership to the fifth estate
Welcome Gerard and thank you for your contribution.
DeleteActually, in the period we are discussing the three estates were not "loose" associations, but their composition was quite rigidly defined in both law and custom. Many parliamentary bodies throughout Christendom based their structure on the estate system. For example, in the pre-revolutionary États Généraux of France, each estate would elect a number of representatives and each estate would have one vote. In other words, all the representatives of the First Estate would have to agree by consensus what their vote would be, and the same for the Second and Third Estates.
By referring to people who identify themselves as "The Fourth Estate" as "pretentious" I'm identifying a quintessential example of modern snobbery. While snobbery originated in the premodern period, it came to life during early modernity. Snobbery is a social phenomenon where members of the bourgeoisie appropriated the mannerisms and symbols of the old order as a means of legitimising their new found authority. (This is a topic I will be addressing in the future, although I have decided yet if it deserves a dedicated post.)
Modern economists have, indeed, tried to redefine the terminology of the estates of the realm to fit the "reality of the modern world". This, of course, is another classic example of snobbery. I.e. the estates were never formally reorganised, but their old symbols have been appropriated by the new bourgeoisie in order to legitimise their claim to lead society.
As to your point on whether opinions ought to be considered a contribution to society, that was exactly the debate I was trying to solicit from this post! Indeed, in an era of information, does opinion rank in the same order as salvation, virtue and economy? I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the matter.