It is difficult to define the abstract concept of “civilization”. Norbert Elias made it his business to describe civilization and how it was changing.

Norbert Leo Elias: The life of the sociologist

Norbert Leo Elias’ life began in Breslau in 1897. There he grew up in a middle-class family. Elias attended a municipal grammar school, passed the matriculation examination there and began studying after his military service in 1918. At the University of Breslau he studied philosophy; In 1924 he received his Dr. phil. at this same university. In the same year he continued his studies at the University of Heidelberg in the field of sociology. At the beginning of the nationalist rule of the NSDAP, the institute for sociology closed and Elias went into exile. After his return he was mainly employed as a sociology professor.

He wrote his main work “On the Process of Civilization” as early as 1939. His research was based on “manner books”: He focused his attention primarily on how the feelings of embarrassment and behavioral control in society had changed over the years. He examined what was considered “moral,” what was forbidden, and how the boundaries changed over time.

Norbert Elias’ career reached a high point when his work “On the Process of Civilization” (1976) was received and recognized. In 1977 he received the Theodor W. Adorno Prize from the city of Frankfurt am Main for his work. In his work, he developed an original sociological theory that still plays a significant role today, as it functions as a basis for civilization research, which is still being built on today. Norbert Elias died in Amsterdam in 1990.

“On the process of civilization”: the principles

With his theory, he pursued a claim to universality and interdisciplinarity, since it can be used to establish a connection between historical science, sociology and psychology, but it also has points of contact with political science and literary studies.

Norbert Elias saw a need to think of society not in terms of the individual, but in terms of people in their overall social context. “Civilization” was viewed by Elias fundamentally as a process: he described it as dynamic and changing over time. This change is historically conditioned on the one hand, and sociogenetic and psychogenetic on the other. The first volume of his work deals in detail with the psychogenesis of personality structure. The long-term change in the psychic structure of individuals was described as “psychogenesis”; there is a correspondence between the social type and the personality type. The central question here was how personality adapted to social requirements. The development of the individual could only be examined in its chains of interdependence. Elias divided this development of personality structure into three stages: medieval courtoisie, courtly civilité and modern civilisation. The individual regulates his own desires and drives according to society, so as not to attract negative attention; the norms and values ​​of society are internalized. Elias meant the change from external to internal constraints.

In the second volume, Elias expanded his theory in parallel and went into more detail on sociogenesis. This was also divided into three stages of the process: feudalization, the monopoly of power and the socialization of these monopolies. The object of investigation was not the individual, but the human communities: the aim was to find out more about the long-term changes in the structure of society. Society itself divided Elias into so-called figurations. It is a matter of interdependence, i.e. mutual dependency and dependency between those involved. These connections could arise on an emotional basis (e.g. families) or in other ways, such as an institution (e.g. school). According to Elijah, these figurations followed moral and legal precepts. Over time, they developed a certain momentum of their own, so that they became independent of the wishes of the individual. If society changed, the figurations and their interdependencies also changed at the same time.

Findings based on his theory

According to Elias, the process of civilization is unplanned, but not without rules. It’s more about the dynamics of the interconnected structures mentioned, which then produce the changes. There is no zero point and no end point in the process: for him there was no “not at all civilized” society and no “completely civilized” society. In addition, civilization does not develop in a straight line; it may even be declining.

Elias was looking for general rules explaining how Western society developed from medieval feudal society to the 19th century, against a background of the mutual influence of the individual and society. He observed that affect control was not yet necessary to a great extent in the Middle Ages: there were hardly any long-term consequences of violent behavior. The chains of ties between the companies would also have been rather short, since there was only a limited division of labor. In the period of “courtesy of warriors” (from about the 11th/12th to the 17th/18th century) the chains of action became more complex, the free warrior disappeared as a result of increasing monopolization. Those who wanted to be held in high regard in society now had to adapt and control their own behavior more.

The main findings were that functional differentiation increased, especially in sociogenesis, and that this was accompanied by a lengthening of the interdependence chains. The consequences of misconduct create a compulsion to take a long-term view; otherwise serious social and economic disadvantages must be expected (example: prison). The need for affect control is therefore increasing. Another statement by Elias said that the psychologization and rationalization of society was constantly increasing. Finally, it should be mentioned that, according to Elias, the thresholds of shame and embarrassment are also rising. Shame corresponds to the fear of imminent loss of prestige after exceeding a norm or rule; Embarrassment, in contrast, feeling when someone else broke a rule.

Critical voices against the theory of civilization

At the heart of the criticism of Norbert Elias is the “Elias-Duerr controversy”. In his work “The Myth of the Civilization Process”, Hans Peter Duerr extensively criticized Elijah’s principles. One of the main points of criticism was the selection of sources and the analysis of his sources. Duerr postulates that sadism and violence in medieval life were by no means so permitted and was accepted, as Elias described it. In addition, the picture that Elias drew of the reality of life in the Middle Ages was too one-sided, so that a comparison with the present is not possible.

Duerr also accused Elias of not being able to distinguish satirical writings from serious works, so that his conclusions were only fallacious. He also practiced political and moral criticism of the theory of civilization: It is close to ideologies such as evolutionism, colonialism or Eurocentrism. With his theory, Elias spread the idea that there is a “higher level of civilization” and a “powerful superiority” of some civilizations.

Defenders of Elias, on the other hand, object that Elias revised his theory himself and the new edition of 1969 went unnoticed. In addition, Duerr is accused of being hostile, destructive and hateful towards Elias. Ultimately, the term “civilization” was also used purely descriptively by Elias; he did not intend any evaluation or hierarchization of cultures. The still numerous receptions and applications of his theory show that Elias gave important food for thought and starting points in his theory; For example, questions relating to the process of globalization and world society are examined using theory.