Norbert Elias and Social Theory

Kenneth A. Loparo, T. Landini, Kenneth A. Loparo, T. Landini, François Dépelteau

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781137312105
• eBook ISBN: 9781137312112
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Theory
• Index: Social Sciences

This book will compare the approach and works of Norbert Elias, well known for his analysis of the civilizing process, his work on sport and violence and, more largely, his figurational approach, with other important social theories both classical and contemporary.

Part I

Understanding Elias

Chapter 1

Main Principles of Elias’s Sociology

Tatiana Savoia Landini

Introduction

During the last few decades of the twentieth century, publication of Elias’s books increased significantly. The same has occurred with books and articles that have Elias as a central theme. In this respect, Smith (2001, 13) states that Elias has become more “fashionable” since the 1990s, meaning that more people are reading, discussing, and quoting his work.

Beyond discussing his theoretical approach, texts on Elias usually address parts of his life story. When considering his history, one question, in particular, stands out to those who recognize his importance in the fields of sociology and the social sciences: considering that his first book, The Civilizing Process, was published in 1939, why was it that his recognition as an established intellectual came only about three to four decades later?

Indeed, very few people read the original edition of The Civilizing Process, published in 1939. As noted by Mennell (1998, 3), this was not a good year to launch a book on the issue of civilization in Germany, especially if written by a Jew.¹ Other reasons would be the suspicion with which many sociologists view psychoanalysis and psychology, in addition to the tendency to compartmentalize domains of investigation. These two reasons combined led to the designation of The Civilizing Process (Elias [1939] 2000) as a simple history of manners (Quilley and Loyal 2005, 817).

The importance of the book was first recognized in 1968, when a reprint of The Civilizing Process was produced, followed by the publication of Elias’s new books, The Court Society (1969) and What Is Sociology? (1978).

Interesting enough, in Reflection on a Life (1994), Elias says that he had a recurrent dream: he was on the phone, and the voice on the other side of the line asked him to speak louder. This person kept repeating that it was not possible to hear him. Elias started to scream. The voice continued to ask him to speak louder. Some authors have commented on this dream (e.g., Garrigou and Lacroix [2001]; Heinich [2001]), trying to explain this ghost that haunted Elias. The many problems he faced early in his career and the consequent lack of recognition that lasted for decades are plausible reasons to explain the dream. I do not intend to enter into this discussion. My goal is to contribute to making Elias’s voice heard.

Elias left a rich legacy for the human sciences, in general, and sociology, in particular. His importance can be easily recognized by observing the number of quotations he receives every year (Smith 2001), especially in regard to The Civilizing Process. In the book, he uses examples of human behavior that stem from everyday life, such as changes in attitudes toward natural functions and sexual behavior, examples that make us laugh and blush with shame and yet, at the same time, cause us to react in disgust, loathing, and identification.

Reading, repeating, and quoting examples and extracts from The Civilizing Process might not be the best way to hear Elias’s voice. Indeed, I think we should take a look at another dimension of his work, a dimension that has been neglected by many: his analytical and cognitive perspective. In other words, his perception of society and key concepts he used to look at and understand reality. Keeping this in mind, I will highlight Elias’s view of society in The Civilizing Process, doubtless his magnum opus, and discuss in the following section the main principles of his sociology.

1. Elias’s Magnum Opus: The Civilizing Process

Right at the beginning of The Civilizing Process (ix), Elias makes a statement that seems to be quite simple: if someone could be transported to the past of his or her own society, that person would certainly see a very different way of life. Some habits would probably cause disgust, while others would bring curiosity and attraction. The person would conclude, then, that this society of the past was not “civilized” in the same way and to the same degree as modern Western societies. Although the problem is quite simple, the explanations to the questions that arise—How did this change happen? What were the forces or the drives behind this motion?—are not obvious or easy to find. These are some of the questions that The Civilizing Process seeks to answer.

The book is divided into four parts.² In part I, Elias examines the different definitions of the word kultur in Germany and the word civilisation in France. The aim of the book’s first part is to understand the development of these terms in connection with the development of the societies of which they are part or, in other words, the meanings assigned by each of these cultures, their emic definition. Instead of accepting the kultur versus civilisation argument, Elias provides an explanation for how the argument happened, how the German bourgeoisie erected the totem pole of kultur for themselves and used it to mock the civilization they saw in other countries, especially in France (Smith 2001, 36). The concept of civilization

expresses the self-consciousness of the West. One could even say: the national consciousness. It sums up everything in which Western society of the last two or three centuries believes itself superior to earlier societies or “more primitive” contemporary ones. By this term Western society seeks to describe what constitutes its special character and what it is proud of: the level of its technology, the nature of its manners, the development of its scientific knowledge or view of the world, and much more. (Elias [1930] 2000, 5)

The notion of civilization came from the courtesan concept of civilité, which was first used in France in the sixteenth century, but also in England (civility), Italy (civilità), and Germany (zivititat). Civility was used to distinguish the behavior of the court. It did explain or justify the social barriers between this group and the rest of society. In France, the concept of civilization

Expressed the social situation, behavior—and feeling—codes of an upper class which comprised aristocratic and bourgeois elements and which was more unified than in Germany. By the early part of the twentieth century the concept of civilization was used by people in Western societies to refer to a completed process. They increasingly saw themselves as the vanguard of a particular form of personality make-up which they felt compelled to disseminate. (Fletcher 1997, 9–10)

In nineteenth-century Europe, the concept of civilization did not imply any idea of process; civilization was seen as having reached its conclusion. In the hands of the French intelligentsia (influenced by the Court), civilization was associated with progress and national identity.

In Germany, the notion of civilization took another direction because the social and political contexts were different. Germany had no powerful political center but instead had many small courts that spoke French and were not interested in what could constitute German culture. In contrast, to German bourgeois intellectuals, Zivilisation was associated to something superficial, to appearances. Unlike the idea of zivilisation, kultur expressed the proudness of the German intellectuals and became associated with deep feelings as well as knowledge of classical books, art, philosophy, and inner enrichment leading to the intellectual formation of the individual. It was used by the intellectuals to distinguish themselves both from the court (situated above them) and from the outsiders (socially situated below them). The small German bourgeoisie were politically impotent, and, consequently, they developed their worldview and self-identity in a realm other than the political one (Fletcher 1997, 8).

The antithesis between the court-aristocracy and these middle classes expressed in the concepts Kultur and Zivilisation was transformed from a “social” to a national one. This occurred in conjunction with the slow rise of the German bourgeoisie to a class which bore the “national consciousness”: it was defined first in terms of its relation to a nobility and then in terms of its relation to other nations. Along with this development there occurred a change in the perception of German “national character.” Honesty and sincerity were held up as typical of the German people, in contrast to superficial courtesy, an attitude which stemmed from the relatively isolated and clearly defined German middle class, which found expression in the German intelligentsia through their artistic and literary products. Thus, with the slow rise of the middle classes, the social characteristics of this class gradually broadened to the national level. (Fletcher 1997, 8)

The first part of the book, therefore, discusses the cultural roots of nationalism and, by doing so, Elias rejects the theory of progress. By tracing the development of the antithetical concepts of kultur, zivilisation (Germany), and civilization (France and England), Elias highlights aspects of a social and psychical transformation (Fletcher 1997, 7).

By using emic definitions (opposing to ethic definitions), Elias questions the belief that Europe was actually progressing and becoming more “civilized.” In other words, instead of simply accepting this belief, Elias questions the very definition of civilization. He tries to understand the concepts of civilization, civility, and courtesy by relating them to the development of the societies in which they were used. It is important to emphasize the connection between concepts and social development. His goal is not only descriptive, tracing the changes of these notions; rather, he tries to understand the societies that have shaped them. These are the tasks that he accomplished in the following parts of the book.

In this respect, the second part of the book shows changes in relation to table manners, attitudes toward bodily functions, sexual behavior, and so on. Starting from various sources such as literature, painting, historical documents, and manners books, Elias talks about how people from different time periods used to understand a given behavior. Once again, in order to understand what has come to be considered “civilized,” he goes back to the previous concepts of courtoisie and civilité (civility). The questions he aims to answer are how and why Western society went from one pattern to another, from civility to civilization (Elias [1930] 2000, 51).

Some texts of Erasmus de Rotterdam were chosen as main sources of empirical data to explain the sociogenesis of the concept of civility. In Erasmus’s books, civilité gained a specific new meaning. For instance, in the book On Civility in Boys (De civilitate morum puerilium), dedicated to the son of a nobleman, Erasmus discusses good manners, and by doing so, he transforms the concept of civility. Elias’s goal is to “establish that the precepts contained in the work [of Erasmus] are embodiments of a mental and emotional structure among the secular upper classes of the Middle Ages” (Fletcher 1997, 12). Therefore, books on good manners are not objects of study in themselves; through them, Elias seeks information about the mental and emotional structure of that time.³

In brief, Elias shows that changes in behavior do not occur randomly, but follow a specific direction: increasing feelings of shame and repugnance toward some behaviors, followed by a concomitant tendency to hide behind the scenes of social life the same behaviors that cause these emotions. By using examples from daily life, Elias describes the relationship between psychological dynamics (the feelings of shame and repugnance) and social dynamics (explicit in the notions of refinement and civilization). In Elias’s own words,

In conjunction with this growing division of behavior into what is and what is not publicly permitted, the psychic structure of people is also transformed. The prohibitions supported by social sanctions are reproduced in individuals as self-controls. The pressure to restrain impulses and the sociogenetic shame surrounding them—these are turned so completely into habits that we cannot resist them even when alone, in the intimate sphere. (Elias [1930] 2000, 160)

As shown in the examples cited by Elias, much of what was previously allowed became restricted or prohibited. The high sensitivity to various activities, especially those related to the animal nature or “first nature” of human beings coincided with increasing segregation of these activities from the rest of social life; they became private. The commands that control t...

Table of contents

• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• Part I—Understanding Elias
• Part II—Elias and Classical Social Theory
• Part III—Elias and Contemporary Social Theory
• Index