The Civilizing Process theory explained

The Civilizing Process is a book by the German sociologist Norbert Elias . It is an influential work in sociology and the most important work of Elías. It was first published in German in 1939. Because of the Second World War it was practically ignored, but it gained popularity when it was reissued in 1969 and translated into English. It covers the history of Europe from approximately 800 AD to 1900.

The first volume of The Civilizing Process, "The History of Customs", traces the historical evolution of the European habitus or "second nature", the psychic structures of the individual in particular shaped by social attitudes. Elias examined how post-medieval European norms relating to violence , sexual behavior , bodily functions, table manners and forms of expression were gradually transformed by rising thresholds of shame and disgust , working towards outside from a dress code. The "self-control" internalized by the increasingly complex networks of social relationships developed the "psychological" self-perceptions that Freud recognizes as the super-ego .

The second volume ofThe Civilizing Process, State formation and civilization , analyzes the causes of these processes. He finds them in the increasingly centralized state of the Modern Age and in the increasingly differentiated and interconnected network of society.

See here a detailed summary of The Civilizing Process by Elias

Norbert Elias – The Civilizing Process – Summary and Review – part 2

see: Norbert Elias – The Civilizing Process – Summary and Review – part 1

In "The Civilizing Process" Norbert Elias marks the ruling courts as a site in which western habitus was forged and later broadly circulated. Separated and independent warrior societies began to consolidate into growing political and physical entities. This was due, according to Elias, to social and economical developments. No one predesigned these changes and they had no clear objective, they were just warranted on account of shifting modes of social existence. This process of the monopolization of political and physical power has eventually led to the formation of the modern state.

These large scale and broad processes, Elias explains, have permeated into the consciousness of the individual. Elias terms this process as "sociogenetic". The consolidation of societies meant that physical struggles were replaced with struggles over political power and prestige which replace the sword. Elias shows how this was accompanied by the psychologicaliztion of rules of proper behavior. People had to be more socially aware in order to achieve their goals.

The civilizing process described by Elias is a constant process of self restraint and impulse management that were developed and established since the 16^th century and that were eventually spread world-wide. In Europe, Elias holds, what pushed the civilizing process forward was the rivalry between the nobility and bourgeoisie which was characterized by both competition and the need for cooperation.

Elias' historical perspective of the civilizing process relates to the dynamics between the nobility and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie adopted a certain habitus that was formed in nobility courts and adopted its manners and customs. The more the bourgeoisie resembles the aristocracy, the more the aristocracy has to refine its mode of conduct in order to distinguish itself and maintain prominent positions. This resulted in a growing sensitivity to nuances which has led to an ever increasing refinement of human behavior.

According to Elias, the dialectic movement between modes of social existence and human behavior is the driving force behind the civilizing process.     

Books are good for you:

  

Norbert Elias – The Civilizing Process – Summary and Review - part 1

In his famous "The Civilizing Process" sociologist Norbert Elias presents his perception of western societies have socially constructed the individual's habitus. Though Elias in not a Marxist thinker, his position according to which reality shapes consciousness places him close to Marx. In "The Civilizing Process" Elias describes a prolonged process of structural changes in western society since the Middle Ages and up to modern times which center on changes in the division of labor and the consolidation of political authority and the monopolization of physical power. These processes, according to Elias, have led to increasing mutual dependence in Western societies and have brought about psychological implications such as self-restraint and control that did not exist before. In Freudian terms, Elias speaks of a new "Super-Ego" which evolved in modern times.

According to Elias, monopolization, and especially the monopolization of physical force and violence warranted more self-restraint from both the government and the individual. In "The civilizing Process" Elias talks about "a chain of mutual dependence" which makes people dependent upon each other in order to perform various tasks and achieve their goals. This, according to Elias, explains why societies required more stability, regularity and supervision. Transportation and the development of markets increased human interactions between people who found themselves dependent on each other even without direct contact. This according to Elias has led for the need to coordinate actions and establish the "rules of the game". Playing be the rules meant a growing demand for self restraint.

 Elias describes the advancement of new functions and behavior patterns in the civilizing process of different groups. One of the consequences of these changes is the blurring of class differences. For example labor was usually considered the duty of the lower classes while the higher ones were free from it. In modern western civilization almost everybody works. This process began in Europe and was spread across sees, eventually with the aid of colonialism.

In "The Civilizing Process" Norbert Elias argues that the process of civilization in not linear and consistent. The multiplicity of social groups, as well as the varying and uneven sources of change, have created a variety of social behaviors and formations. However Elias does not see this as a source of legitimate social heterogeneity but rather a different phases in the course of the hegemonic formation of the western habitus. 

Norbert Elias – The Civilizing Process – Summary and Review - part 2

Books are good for you:

Norbert Elias- "The Genesis of Sport as a Sociological Problem" – article summary

In "The Genesis of Sport as a Sociological Problem" sociologist Norbert Elias offers a socio-historical approach for analyzing the formation of modern sports by focusing on the change in degree of tolerated violence through the process of civilization.

This civilization process according the Elias is one in which man repressed his bodily and emotional urges and learned to be more minded of other people with prohibitions becoming a part of the modern self, and restrictions becoming something natural.

This process is a spontaneous product of changing social formations.  Modern societies are characterized by state monopoly over the use of violence. Elias wonders how it came to be that what is now considered as "sports" originated in 19^th century England. He claims that the widespread circulation of English forms of sports is due to their compatibility with certain needs regarding leisure activities which have evolved in modern times.

 Elias shows this by refuting the assumption that modern sport is a direct successor of ancient classical sport played in ancient Greece. Ancient sporting activities, according to Elias, had very different characteristics and they evolved in very different settings. One of the central characteristics is the level and nature of permitted violence. In ancient times activities such as wrestling and boxing allowed for a much higher degree of violence than modern versions do. Traditional rules of the game were unwritten and flexible in their application, unlike today when rules are highly regulative, specified and debatable. For instance, unlike today, fights were not limited in time and lasted until one of the participants surrendered or was unable to keep fighting. The level of violence in ancient Greek sports was symptomatic of certain characteristics of that society, which for starters placed the rule of controlling violence in private rather than national hands.

The ethos of ancient sports was also different. Fighting in ancient Greece related to the fighting ethos of the warrior aristocracy rather than the professional athlete ethos of present times. The most important thing for a fighter back then was to keep on fighting, with victory or defeat in the hands of the gods and surrender being considered shameful. This ethos was also manifested in the importance of physical appearance which ties sport, war and the aesthetics of classical times. In addition, the moment of victory was the climax of ancient sport activities, while in modern time it's the participation and excitement (enhanced by gambling) which are important, and this explains why fairness and equal chances are so important.