The Civilizing Process by Norbert Elias is one of the most influential and enduring contributions to 20th-century sociology. Published in 1939, the work traces the historical conditions and social mechanisms through which a specifically modern habitus and an increased level of self-control emerged over centuries. For Elias, the civilizing process is not evidence of moral progress but the result of complex social figurations closely tied to the development of power structures and social differentiation.
Scholarly and Historical Context
The book was written in the 1930s in exile and first published in 1939, at a time when Europe stood on the brink of World War II. Elias, a student of Karl Mannheim, combined historical analysis with an innovative sociological approach. Initially overlooked, the work was rediscovered from the 1970s onward in the context of renewed interest in process-oriented and historically grounded sociology and has since been recognized as a classic.
Key Points
The Civilizing Process by Norbert Elias
Main Proponent: Norbert Elias (1897–1990)
First Published: 1939
Country: Germany
Key Idea/Assumption: Civilization is not moral progress but a historically social process of growing self-control shaped by power and dependency structures.
Foundation for: Sociology of the body, violence and affect research, process sociology, theories of social control and long-term social change.
Central Question and Theoretical Aim
Elias asks how long-term changes in behavior and social order occur. Why did norms regarding manners, violence, intimacy, and emotional expression change so fundamentally in European history? His answer: Through processes of social differentiation, increasing dependencies, and the development of state power structures, people were compelled to exercise greater self-control—to curb their emotions, regulate impulses, and behave in a „civilized“ way. This development is neither linear nor morally motivated but emerges from complex social dynamics.
The Civilizing Process: Main Theses
Changing Standards of Behavior
Elias uses etiquette and education manuals to show how everyday practices changed: for example, eating habits, dealing with bodily functions, feelings of shame and embarrassment. Practices that were public and open in the Middle Ages became increasingly taboo in the modern era. This shift involves the internalization of social expectations—people begin to monitor and discipline themselves.
State Formation and Monopolization
This development is closely linked to the emergence of centralized power structures. In absolutist states like 17th-century France, a monopoly on violence developed: only the state had the legitimate right to use force. At the same time, new social structures arose, such as court society, where behavior, language, and posture were highly regulated. The civilizing process is thus part of a long-term “figuration” in which external constraints become internal self-constraints.
Examples of the Civilizing Process
- Use of Cutlery: Initially common only at noble courts, later adopted by the bourgeoisie, and eventually established as a societal standard. This process shows how „courtly“ norms spread through wider social figurations.
- Red Traffic Light Without Traffic: Someone who waits at a red light even in the absence of traffic demonstrates how external social constraints (laws, sanctions) have become internal self-restraint—a classic example of behavioral internalization.
- Table Manners: Chewing loudly or burping was normal in the Middle Ages but became taboo with the rise of bourgeois and courtly etiquette.
- Duel Bans and Monopoly on Violence: Duels once permitted were banned under state monopoly on violence—personal conflicts had to be settled through institutions.
- Shame and Bodily Functions: Personal hygiene and excretion were moved from public to private spaces; hygiene acquired normative significance.
- Affect Control: Open displays of emotions like anger, pain, or shame came to be seen as inappropriate—self-control became a virtue.
- Social Consideration: NormsNorms are socially shared rules or expectations that guide and regulate behavior within a group or society. like speaking quietly on public transport show how consideration has become internalized self-discipline—even without visible control.
These examples illustrate: The civilizing process is effective in everyday life—it changes what is considered “normal,” “decent,” or “acceptable,” often without conscious reflection.
The Concept of Figuration
One of Elias’s key conceptual innovations is the idea of figuration. He defines this as dynamic networks of mutual dependencies among people. Societies are not made up of isolated individuals or overarching structures but of evolving webs of relationships that are historically developed, emotionally charged, and shaped by power dynamics.
A classic example is the court as a social figuration: a web of mutual dependencies that generates and maintains specific forms of behavior—through surveillance, etiquette, and self-restraint.
To highlight the innovative character of the concept of figuration, it is useful to compare it with other key sociological terms such as „role,“ „system,“ „field,“ or „discourse.“ The following table situates Elias’s concept within the landscape of classical and modern social theories:
| Term | Origin | Relation to Figuration |
|---|---|---|
| RoleA role is a set of socially expected behaviors and norms linked to a specific social position. | Role theory (Mead, Parsons) | Roles are embedded within figurations; they arise from reciprocal expectations and power relations. |
| Interdependence | Elias, systems theory | Central condition of any figuration: actors are mutually dependent and co-constitute each other. |
| System | Parsons, Luhmann | Figuration as a dynamic alternative to the static concept of system – with emphasis on historical processes. |
| Social Field | Bourdieu | Like figurations, fields are relational orders; Elias emphasizes emotions and long-term developments more strongly. |
| Social Group | Simmel, Homans, Tajfel | Figurations include groups but place greater emphasis on power imbalances and social control. |
| Discourse | Foucault | Figurations and discourses structure behavior – Elias focuses more on habitus, feeling structures, and conduct. |
| Civil SocietyA group of individuals connected by shared institutions, culture, and norms. | Tocqueville, Habermas | Civil society figurations emerge through voluntary association – Elias analyzes their inequalities. |
| Subject Position | Post-structuralism | Subject positions emerge within figurations: individuals are neither fully autonomous nor completely determined by others, but embedded. |
Impact and Reception
Initially, the book received little attention—partly because it was published just before the outbreak of World War II. Only in the 1970s did Elias’s approach gain broader recognition. His concept of the civilizing process was particularly influential in the sociology of the body, violence research, and historical studies of socialization, serving as a counter-model to moral narratives of progress. His work has also left deep marks on history and anthropology.
Critique and Further Development
Critics have pointed to the Eurocentrism of the work: Elias relies almost exclusively on European sources and developments. The very term „civilization“ is also problematic, having often been used historically to denigrate other cultures. Nevertheless, Elias’s approach is widely regarded as a valuable heuristic, especially in debates on discipline, power, and social control (cf. Michel Foucault).
Comparison of Central Concepts in Elias, Bourdieu, and Foucault
How do social power relations shape the subject? The following overview highlights similarities and differences among three influential social theories.
Sociology offers different concepts for understanding the emergence and operation of social norms, power relations, and behavioral patterns. Three of the most influential approaches come from Norbert Elias, Pierre Bourdieu, and Michel Foucault. Despite their different theoretical foundations, all address the question of how social power relations become embedded in the subject—whether as self-restraint, habitus, or discipline.
The table below compares key aspects of their theories and shows similarities and differences in their understandings of socialization, embodiment, and power:
| Aspect | Norbert Elias | Pierre Bourdieu | Michel Foucault |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Long-term social change | Habitus & social fields | Power, knowledge, subject |
| Form of power | Social dependencies (figuration) | Symbolic violence | Discipline & discourse |
| Internalization | Self-restraint | Habitus | Subjectivation |
| Role of the body | Civilized body | Carrier of habitus | Object of disciplinary power |
| Norms & rules | Historically evolved | Socially embedded | Discursively produced |
Key sociological concepts compared to Elias’s concept of figuration – with reference to theoretical origins and analytical focus.
Significance for Sociology Today
The Civilizing Process offers crucial insights for understanding long-term social development, especially in relation to:
- SocializationSocialization is the lifelong process through which individuals learn and internalize the norms, values, roles, and practices of their society.: Elias shows how social expectations are inscribed in individual behavior patterns across generations.
- Norms and ValuesValues are deeply held beliefs and ideals about what is good, desirable, and important in a society.: The changing notions of shame, embarrassment, and affect regulation demonstrate that morality is historically contingent and socially constructed.
- Social Roles and Status: Courtly societies produced highly differentiated roles—a precursor to modern forms of status differentiation (cf. also Bourdieu).
- ExclusionThe social process of marginalizing individuals or groups, limiting their access to resources, rights, and participation. and Discipline: Those who do not behave in a „civilized“ manner face exclusion—a dynamic that continues to shape contemporary debates on migration and integration.
Conclusion
Norbert Elias’s The Civilizing Process is a landmark work in sociology that bridges macro- and micro-perspectives, history and social analysis. It provides a long-term view of civilization as a process of affect control, social differentiation, and power consolidation. Elias’s work is not only historically significant but also highly relevant for analyzing modern societies.
References
- Elias, N. (2000). The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Revised edition, edited by Eric Dunning, Johan Goudsblom, and Stephen Mennell. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Mennell, S. (1998). Norbert Elias: An Introduction. Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
- van Krieken, R. (1998). Norbert Elias. London: Routledge.
- Linklater, A. (2016). Violence and Civilization in the Western States-System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
