What do you think?
Rate this book
The Civilizing Process
The Civilizing Process stands out as Norbert Elias' greatest work, tracing the "civilizing" of manners and personality in Western Europe since the late Middle Ages by demonstrating how the formation of states and the monopolization of power within them changed Western society forever.
592 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1939
95 people are currently reading
4533 people want to read
About the author
Norbert Elias
144 books186 followersNorbert Elias was a German-Jewish sociologist who later became a British citizen, though he is often referred to as a Dutch thinker, and made his home in Amsterdam in his latter years.
Elias's theory focused on the relationship between power, behavior, emotion, and knowledge over time. He significantly shaped what is called process or figurational sociology. Due to historical circumstances, Elias had long remained a marginal author, until being rediscovered by a new generation of scholars in the 1970s, when he eventually became one of the most influential sociologists in the history of the field.
(Some text from Wikipedia licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License)
Elias's theory focused on the relationship between power, behavior, emotion, and knowledge over time. He significantly shaped what is called process or figurational sociology. Due to historical circumstances, Elias had long remained a marginal author, until being rediscovered by a new generation of scholars in the 1970s, when he eventually became one of the most influential sociologists in the history of the field.
(Some text from Wikipedia licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
June 6, 2021
"Neveletlenség üdvözölni azt, aki éppen vizel vagy beleit üríti."
(Rotterdami Erasmus: De civilitate morum puerillum)
Jó tudni, hogy a nagy Erasmus foglalkozott azért fontos dolgokkal is.
Ha a kötet első felét nézzük, olybá tűnik, mintha a holmi illemtani összefoglalót látnánk: hogyan változott a századok során az asztali etikett, milyen szabályok vonatkoztak az orrtörlésre, a köpködésre vagy az evőeszközök használatára. Mondhatni, ez a kötet érdekesebbik fele, megtudjuk például, hogy nem ildomos "odanyújtani másnak valami büdös dolgot, hogy szagolja meg". Mindezt nem is akárki, hanem egy érsek (Giovanni della Casa) közli velünk, ami azért jelzi, eleink szakmányban tolták egymás orra alá a különböző aromás rothadmányokat, különben nem kellett volna érseki tekintéllyel tiltani. Elias folyamatában mutatja be, ahogy mai szemmel nézve igencsak undok cselekmények előbb az "udvar" szintjén esnek tilalom alá, majd tabusításuk leszivárog a társadalom alsóbb szintjeire is. Mondjuk, így terjed a "civilizáció".
Aztán a kötet második felében jön a keményebb, mondhatni, csonthéjas szöveg. Elias ugyanis szintet ugrik, az orrtúrás és az asztalkendők világa helyett hirtelen a nyugati államok* kialakulásának mikéntjében találjuk magunkat. Ezek a társadalmak minőségileg különböztek az ókoriaktól, egyfelől mert nem rabszolgatartásra épültek, másfelől pedig nem a ragadtak le a vízpartoknál, mint a Római Birodalom, hanem a kontinens belseje felé is terjeszkedtek. A szerző legfontosabb állítása, hogy a nyugati államok fejlődésének hajtóereje egy alapvető ambivalencia. Egyfelől jellemzi a központi hatalom folyamatos erősödése, aminek köszönhetően a királyok és az udvar fokozatosan (bár időnkénti visszaesésekkel) adó- és erőszakmonopóliumra tettek szert. Másfelől viszont ez a folyamat a társadalom egyre mélyebb diverzifikáltságával járt együtt, aminek következménye az lett, hogy a különböző elemek egyre inkább függeni kezdtek egymástól, még akkor is, ha az egyik egyértelműen alárendelt helyzetben is volt a másikkal szemben. Király függött az úrtól, úr a királytól, város a vidéktől és vidék a várostól, nemes a paraszttól és paraszt a nemestől. Mindenki egyre inkább rá volt utalva a másikra, a társadalmat egyre inkább átszőtte a kölcsönös függőség. A kulcs tehát, hogy az állam különböző tagjai között a viszonyok nem egyirányúak, hanem ugyanaz a viszony akár egyszerre lehet pozitív és negatív. Ez pedig egy folyamatos feszültséget teremtett a felek között, egyfajta törékeny egyensúlyt, ami felett az uralkodó csak azért tudott valamiféle kontrollt tartani, mert alávetettjei maguktól nem bírtak volna egymással, ezért mindegyik kénytelen volt (legalább időnként) a király támogatásáért folyamodni. (Ezt nevezi Elias királymechanizmusnak.) Ugyanakkor a tény, hogy a társadalmi egymásrautaltság egyre nőtt, ez egyben azt is jelentette, hogy a társadalmi csoportok fokozatosan többletjogokat tudtak szerezni maguknak - ez pedig lassan elvezetett minket oda, ahol ma a nyugati civilizáció van.
És itt találkozik egymással a kötet két fele. Eliasnak ugyanis az a baja az eddigi hipotézisekkel, hogy mind kiragadott pillanatokon keresztül, pontszerűen akarták magyarázni a civilizáció kialakulását. Pedig Elias szerint éppen az a lényeg, hogy nincsenek pillanatok, hanem egyetlen folyamat van, ahol a mikroszint eseményei (mint amilyen az asztali késhasználat) éppannyira lényegesek, mint Navarrai Henrik összes törvényei. Néhol túlírtnak tűnő szöveg, talán mert Elias a nüanszokon is hosszan hajlamos elidőzni. De érezni benne, forradalmi gondolatai vannak arról, hogyan kell szemlélni a történelmet, igyekszik olyan pszichológiai fogalmakat is integrálni (szégyen, feszélyezettség, egyéni agresszió, tudatalatti, stb.), amiket addig - és azóta is - a történészek bottal se piszkáltak. Összességében hihetetlenül izgalmas konstrukció a civilizációról, ami igazából nincs is, vagy legalábbis nincs kész, hisz folyton átalakul. Következésképpen talán pontosabb "civilizálódásról" beszélni. Néhol pedig még arról sem.
* Tegyük hozzá, amikor Elias a nyugati államról beszél, elsősorban a francia államról beszél. Ezzel együtt nem mulasztja el beleszőni fejtegetéseibe a német** vagy az angol állam sajátos fejlődési útjait sem, egyszerűen Franciaországot tartja leginkább alkalmasnak arra, hogy hipotézisét modellezze általa.
** Talán nem érdektelen (bár az értékelés ívéből kilóg) megemlíteni, hogy a francia és a német civilizációszemlélet között Elias fontos eltérést lát: az első a klasszikus "civilizáció", ami nyitott, és jellemzően az uralkodói udvarból lefelé terjed, a németre viszont inkább a "kultúra" elnevezést használja, ami a romantika hatására a hazafias polgárság körében jött létre, nem kis részben az idegen származású uralkodói házakkal szemben. Amíg a francia "civilizáció" lényege, hogy expanzív, meg akar honosodni mindenfelé, addig a német "kultúra" valami ellen határozza meg magát, ezért zártabb konstrukció. Bár magyar nyelvterületen a "kultúra" fogalma egyértelműen pozitív jelentéstartalommal bír, ezért ez a fejtegetés talán idegen tőlünk, de azért itthon is tapasztaljuk, hogy amelyik politikus a "mi kultúránkat" emlegeti, az többnyire valakivel szemben akar mozgósítani minket.
(Rotterdami Erasmus: De civilitate morum puerillum)
Jó tudni, hogy a nagy Erasmus foglalkozott azért fontos dolgokkal is.
Ha a kötet első felét nézzük, olybá tűnik, mintha a holmi illemtani összefoglalót látnánk: hogyan változott a századok során az asztali etikett, milyen szabályok vonatkoztak az orrtörlésre, a köpködésre vagy az evőeszközök használatára. Mondhatni, ez a kötet érdekesebbik fele, megtudjuk például, hogy nem ildomos "odanyújtani másnak valami büdös dolgot, hogy szagolja meg". Mindezt nem is akárki, hanem egy érsek (Giovanni della Casa) közli velünk, ami azért jelzi, eleink szakmányban tolták egymás orra alá a különböző aromás rothadmányokat, különben nem kellett volna érseki tekintéllyel tiltani. Elias folyamatában mutatja be, ahogy mai szemmel nézve igencsak undok cselekmények előbb az "udvar" szintjén esnek tilalom alá, majd tabusításuk leszivárog a társadalom alsóbb szintjeire is. Mondjuk, így terjed a "civilizáció".
Aztán a kötet második felében jön a keményebb, mondhatni, csonthéjas szöveg. Elias ugyanis szintet ugrik, az orrtúrás és az asztalkendők világa helyett hirtelen a nyugati államok* kialakulásának mikéntjében találjuk magunkat. Ezek a társadalmak minőségileg különböztek az ókoriaktól, egyfelől mert nem rabszolgatartásra épültek, másfelől pedig nem a ragadtak le a vízpartoknál, mint a Római Birodalom, hanem a kontinens belseje felé is terjeszkedtek. A szerző legfontosabb állítása, hogy a nyugati államok fejlődésének hajtóereje egy alapvető ambivalencia. Egyfelől jellemzi a központi hatalom folyamatos erősödése, aminek köszönhetően a királyok és az udvar fokozatosan (bár időnkénti visszaesésekkel) adó- és erőszakmonopóliumra tettek szert. Másfelől viszont ez a folyamat a társadalom egyre mélyebb diverzifikáltságával járt együtt, aminek következménye az lett, hogy a különböző elemek egyre inkább függeni kezdtek egymástól, még akkor is, ha az egyik egyértelműen alárendelt helyzetben is volt a másikkal szemben. Király függött az úrtól, úr a királytól, város a vidéktől és vidék a várostól, nemes a paraszttól és paraszt a nemestől. Mindenki egyre inkább rá volt utalva a másikra, a társadalmat egyre inkább átszőtte a kölcsönös függőség. A kulcs tehát, hogy az állam különböző tagjai között a viszonyok nem egyirányúak, hanem ugyanaz a viszony akár egyszerre lehet pozitív és negatív. Ez pedig egy folyamatos feszültséget teremtett a felek között, egyfajta törékeny egyensúlyt, ami felett az uralkodó csak azért tudott valamiféle kontrollt tartani, mert alávetettjei maguktól nem bírtak volna egymással, ezért mindegyik kénytelen volt (legalább időnként) a király támogatásáért folyamodni. (Ezt nevezi Elias királymechanizmusnak.) Ugyanakkor a tény, hogy a társadalmi egymásrautaltság egyre nőtt, ez egyben azt is jelentette, hogy a társadalmi csoportok fokozatosan többletjogokat tudtak szerezni maguknak - ez pedig lassan elvezetett minket oda, ahol ma a nyugati civilizáció van.
És itt találkozik egymással a kötet két fele. Eliasnak ugyanis az a baja az eddigi hipotézisekkel, hogy mind kiragadott pillanatokon keresztül, pontszerűen akarták magyarázni a civilizáció kialakulását. Pedig Elias szerint éppen az a lényeg, hogy nincsenek pillanatok, hanem egyetlen folyamat van, ahol a mikroszint eseményei (mint amilyen az asztali késhasználat) éppannyira lényegesek, mint Navarrai Henrik összes törvényei. Néhol túlírtnak tűnő szöveg, talán mert Elias a nüanszokon is hosszan hajlamos elidőzni. De érezni benne, forradalmi gondolatai vannak arról, hogyan kell szemlélni a történelmet, igyekszik olyan pszichológiai fogalmakat is integrálni (szégyen, feszélyezettség, egyéni agresszió, tudatalatti, stb.), amiket addig - és azóta is - a történészek bottal se piszkáltak. Összességében hihetetlenül izgalmas konstrukció a civilizációról, ami igazából nincs is, vagy legalábbis nincs kész, hisz folyton átalakul. Következésképpen talán pontosabb "civilizálódásról" beszélni. Néhol pedig még arról sem.
* Tegyük hozzá, amikor Elias a nyugati államról beszél, elsősorban a francia államról beszél. Ezzel együtt nem mulasztja el beleszőni fejtegetéseibe a német** vagy az angol állam sajátos fejlődési útjait sem, egyszerűen Franciaországot tartja leginkább alkalmasnak arra, hogy hipotézisét modellezze általa.
** Talán nem érdektelen (bár az értékelés ívéből kilóg) megemlíteni, hogy a francia és a német civilizációszemlélet között Elias fontos eltérést lát: az első a klasszikus "civilizáció", ami nyitott, és jellemzően az uralkodói udvarból lefelé terjed, a németre viszont inkább a "kultúra" elnevezést használja, ami a romantika hatására a hazafias polgárság körében jött létre, nem kis részben az idegen származású uralkodói házakkal szemben. Amíg a francia "civilizáció" lényege, hogy expanzív, meg akar honosodni mindenfelé, addig a német "kultúra" valami ellen határozza meg magát, ezért zártabb konstrukció. Bár magyar nyelvterületen a "kultúra" fogalma egyértelműen pozitív jelentéstartalommal bír, ezért ez a fejtegetés talán idegen tőlünk, de azért itthon is tapasztaljuk, hogy amelyik politikus a "mi kultúránkat" emlegeti, az többnyire valakivel szemben akar mozgósítani minket.
November 6, 2015
Norbert Elias,great sociolog, pure product of european culture in what it has of better. I have read one of his most famous book many years ago " La dynamique de l'Occident ". It highlighted the formation of Europe from the political organization of states. I discover this book which is a kind of mirror of it because it takes place at the domestic level. How gets organized the life at the concrete level of the individuals people : sexual behavior, way of knowing how to being at the table, things to be said and not to be said... It is original, finely analyzed often funny.
March 7, 2010
This book was so cool. But that is just me. I think you would have to be a real history geek to enjoy it, but there is this whole section on medieval manner books that is hilarious. Norbert is trying to demonstrate the shift in consciousness that occurred as people lived in more complex societies, rather than on isolated feudal estates. His point is that behavior that we currently take for granted-- manners, civility--- had to be learned over time. The books he quotes were written for adults trying to make it in complicated court societies. So there is a lot of advise about, not slurping from the spoon if you are sharing it, how to share a bed with some one who is a higher rank than you, don't put the bone back on the platter after you have gnawed on it, don't use your sleeve to blow your nose, and my favorite--- don't greet people if they are urinating or defecating.
January 16, 2025
Niet uitgelezen; op de helft gestopt. Dit is het derde werk van Elias dat ik in korte tijd lees en het lijdt aan dezelfde mankementen als de twee eerdere boeken (De hofsamenleving en Studies over de Duitsers) die ik las.
Elias is een typische Duitse menswetenschapper/filosoof: onnoemelijk lange zinnen, verschrikkelijk vakjargon, eindeloze herhalingen, wijdlopige stukken met zeeën van zinloze details die een lezer zich later toch niet meer herinnert, etc. etc.
Eigenlijk is er geen doorkomen aan. Een redelijk intelligente lezer heeft de lijnen en concepten na twintig bladzijden wel door en zal zich met steeds meer irritatie en verveeldheid door het werk heen moeten worstelen. Eenmaal op de helft komt de gedachte op 'Waarom lees ik dit überhaupt nog?'
Het manco van dit soort werken is dat de in essentie originele en blikverruimende ideeën verstopt zitten in een geweld aan overbodigheid, herhaling en vakjargon. Elias' theorie is in een video van vijf minuten samen te vatten en een A4tje met tekst volstaat om de kern ervan over te brengen. Waarom je dan in godsnaam een boek van bijna 800 bladzijden (!) moet schrijven is mij een raadsel - alleen de herziene inleiding (uit 1969) bedraagt al zo'n 70 bladzijden (!) en beslaat daarmee dus al tien procent (!) van het totale boek.
Nee, dit was geen pretje. Misschien pik ik het boek ooit nog op om deel twee uit te lezen, maar de kans is klein. Vier sterren voor de originele ideeën, nul sterren voor het boek zelf - twee sterren dus.
Elias is een typische Duitse menswetenschapper/filosoof: onnoemelijk lange zinnen, verschrikkelijk vakjargon, eindeloze herhalingen, wijdlopige stukken met zeeën van zinloze details die een lezer zich later toch niet meer herinnert, etc. etc.
Eigenlijk is er geen doorkomen aan. Een redelijk intelligente lezer heeft de lijnen en concepten na twintig bladzijden wel door en zal zich met steeds meer irritatie en verveeldheid door het werk heen moeten worstelen. Eenmaal op de helft komt de gedachte op 'Waarom lees ik dit überhaupt nog?'
Het manco van dit soort werken is dat de in essentie originele en blikverruimende ideeën verstopt zitten in een geweld aan overbodigheid, herhaling en vakjargon. Elias' theorie is in een video van vijf minuten samen te vatten en een A4tje met tekst volstaat om de kern ervan over te brengen. Waarom je dan in godsnaam een boek van bijna 800 bladzijden (!) moet schrijven is mij een raadsel - alleen de herziene inleiding (uit 1969) bedraagt al zo'n 70 bladzijden (!) en beslaat daarmee dus al tien procent (!) van het totale boek.
Nee, dit was geen pretje. Misschien pik ik het boek ooit nog op om deel twee uit te lezen, maar de kans is klein. Vier sterren voor de originele ideeën, nul sterren voor het boek zelf - twee sterren dus.
October 13, 2008
*The Civilizing Process* is dense, discursive, Germanic, and in some ways pre-professional in its sociology (Elias has to argue at length, for example, for a discipline of historical psychology that is now well-established), but also fascinating and, in places, hilarious.
The first third of the book details the historical development of manners in the West (primarily France, Germany and England) through a survey of etiquette instructions from the early middle ages to the nineteenth century. This is the hilarious part, as behaviors a modern adult would not even consider (such as pissing on the tapestries in a home, or picking up a turd and offering it to another person to smell) turn out to be learned aversions from which our ancestors had to be deterred. I loved the specificity of this portion of the book; the section on attitudes toward meat-eating was especially fascinating, and I adore the coinage "threshold of repugnance," which Elias uses throughout. Reading it transformed my view of my own reactions and behavior in many everyday situations, and made me think about how things I usually consider "natural," such as feeling disgusted upon walking by a pool of vomit next to a dumpster, actually result from a complex web of socio- and psycho-historical factors.
The last two-thirds of the book were more of a slog for me, but I'm glad I read them. They address the larger historical causes and effects that lead to the outward signs of "civilization" outlined in the first section. His view of history is sometimes uncomfortably teleological (all cultures are on some point of the same continuum, and the Western countries are the farthest advanced along it), but his observations are still quite interesting, and considering the publication date (1939) he takes a very balanced view toward Freud's psychoanalytical revolution - for Elias, it's important but in need of much further refinement. He makes many points which I found myself chewing over long after having read them, and applying to other histories and works of art.
Overall, I highly recommend it, although I might skip over the majority of Part IV, which is largely a reiteration of the points that have gone before, and go straight to the last, concluding section.
The first third of the book details the historical development of manners in the West (primarily France, Germany and England) through a survey of etiquette instructions from the early middle ages to the nineteenth century. This is the hilarious part, as behaviors a modern adult would not even consider (such as pissing on the tapestries in a home, or picking up a turd and offering it to another person to smell) turn out to be learned aversions from which our ancestors had to be deterred. I loved the specificity of this portion of the book; the section on attitudes toward meat-eating was especially fascinating, and I adore the coinage "threshold of repugnance," which Elias uses throughout. Reading it transformed my view of my own reactions and behavior in many everyday situations, and made me think about how things I usually consider "natural," such as feeling disgusted upon walking by a pool of vomit next to a dumpster, actually result from a complex web of socio- and psycho-historical factors.
The last two-thirds of the book were more of a slog for me, but I'm glad I read them. They address the larger historical causes and effects that lead to the outward signs of "civilization" outlined in the first section. His view of history is sometimes uncomfortably teleological (all cultures are on some point of the same continuum, and the Western countries are the farthest advanced along it), but his observations are still quite interesting, and considering the publication date (1939) he takes a very balanced view toward Freud's psychoanalytical revolution - for Elias, it's important but in need of much further refinement. He makes many points which I found myself chewing over long after having read them, and applying to other histories and works of art.
Overall, I highly recommend it, although I might skip over the majority of Part IV, which is largely a reiteration of the points that have gone before, and go straight to the last, concluding section.
August 22, 2018
divan bućkuriš.
"Kada se radi o pojedinčevom pristanku da će u određenoj društvenoj formi živeti s drugima, kao i o opravdanju činjenice da pojedinac, npr., živi unutar države, ili da je vezan za druge ljude kao građanin, činovnik, radnik ili seljak, a ne više kao vitez, sveštenik, kmet ili nomad-stočar - treba reći da su ovaj pristanak i ovo opravdanje naknadni. Pojedinac tu nema mnogo izbora. On se rađa u određenom poretku s posebnim institucijama. Njega uslovljavaju da se manje ili više prilagodi. Čak i ako smatra da ove insitutcije nisu posebno dobre niti korisne, on ne može jednostavno povući svoj pristanak i iskočiti iz postojećeg poretka. Može pokušati da se povuče kao avanturista, skitnica ili umetnik i pisac, konačno, može pobeći na pusto ostrvo, ali i kao begunac od poretka on je zapravo njegov proizvod. Neodobravanje ovog poretka i bekstvo od njega isto je tako jasan znak da je čovek tim poretkom uslovljen kao i kada ga ceni i opravdava".
"Kada se radi o pojedinčevom pristanku da će u određenoj društvenoj formi živeti s drugima, kao i o opravdanju činjenice da pojedinac, npr., živi unutar države, ili da je vezan za druge ljude kao građanin, činovnik, radnik ili seljak, a ne više kao vitez, sveštenik, kmet ili nomad-stočar - treba reći da su ovaj pristanak i ovo opravdanje naknadni. Pojedinac tu nema mnogo izbora. On se rađa u određenom poretku s posebnim institucijama. Njega uslovljavaju da se manje ili više prilagodi. Čak i ako smatra da ove insitutcije nisu posebno dobre niti korisne, on ne može jednostavno povući svoj pristanak i iskočiti iz postojećeg poretka. Može pokušati da se povuče kao avanturista, skitnica ili umetnik i pisac, konačno, može pobeći na pusto ostrvo, ali i kao begunac od poretka on je zapravo njegov proizvod. Neodobravanje ovog poretka i bekstvo od njega isto je tako jasan znak da je čovek tim poretkom uslovljen kao i kada ga ceni i opravdava".
November 1, 2012
I read this book as filling in the gaps between Bourdieu and Gregory Clark. That is, fleshing out the connection between class-stratified aesthetics and macro-social secular shifts in behavior. Bourdieu seemed to think of aesthetics as ultimately arbitrary, serving only to signal and reinforce class distinctions, but I think if he were more rational, he could have seen how involved aesthetics (such as, for instance, the trend towards smaller knives at the dinner table) are with real social factors. Aesthetics are about display and selection for both mating and coalitional purposes. Requiring, for instance, elite aspirants to display the proper taste is one method society uses to select for the appropriate qualities in the elite. These qualities and norms then (in a rational society) trickle down, and in this way a people gradually transforms itself into what it wishes to become.
In Elias' story of medieval and early modern Europe, increased social scale leads a society to select for more rational and controlled behavior, behavior which is more suited to the massive social interdependence that characterizes a large scale society. I think Clark saw increases in scale as the result, rather than the cause, of this selective process, but maybe they would both agree that it's really a self-reinforcing spiral.
Elias is even more vague than Clark's gesture towards "cultural or genetic" factors that would embody this shift, and it's my hope that we will soon see more work filling in the gaps here, so as to develop a powerful and parsimonious model that can incorporate and account for class dynamics, economic trends, and cultural aesthetics.
In the conclusion Elias makes clear that he sees his "genealogy of morals" in Foucauldian terms (discrediting the practices of power by unearthing their origins). This is very disappointing, but shouldn't distract the reader from the book's many strengths, including an excellent comparative history of France and Germany.
In Elias' story of medieval and early modern Europe, increased social scale leads a society to select for more rational and controlled behavior, behavior which is more suited to the massive social interdependence that characterizes a large scale society. I think Clark saw increases in scale as the result, rather than the cause, of this selective process, but maybe they would both agree that it's really a self-reinforcing spiral.
Elias is even more vague than Clark's gesture towards "cultural or genetic" factors that would embody this shift, and it's my hope that we will soon see more work filling in the gaps here, so as to develop a powerful and parsimonious model that can incorporate and account for class dynamics, economic trends, and cultural aesthetics.
In the conclusion Elias makes clear that he sees his "genealogy of morals" in Foucauldian terms (discrediting the practices of power by unearthing their origins). This is very disappointing, but shouldn't distract the reader from the book's many strengths, including an excellent comparative history of France and Germany.
June 29, 2007
Wherein one can learn that it is considered impolite in some circles to piss on the curtains.
November 22, 2020
Un libro fundamental para entender nuestro comportamiento, pensamiento, nuestra sociedad, nuestro pasado y nuestro futuro. Norbert Elias debería ser mucho más leído y conocido porque ha creado un trabajo de investigación que nadie debería dejar pasar. Además lo hace desarrollando diferentes niveles de la experiencia: a veces explica desde la interacción entre personas, a veces se remite al mundo literario, luego va al estudio de regiones y naciones e incluso atiende la perspectiva más "macro", llegando a formular una trayectoria de la civilización desde lo que nos precedió hasta los que nos espera.
Elias carece de los defectos que normalmente podríamos encontrar en un autor con características similares a él, puesto que Norbert no escribe con un lenguaje intencionalmente complejo sino que siempre trata de explicar las cosas de la forma más sencilla posible. Además, aunque no es su interés central, no excluye de su formulación teórica a poblaciones normalmente olvidadas por los pensadores europeos más influyentes, es decir, los habitantes de tercer mundo y en especial las mujeres.
Quizás los únicos problemas que le veo al libro es que a partir de un poco después de la mitad, el autor empieza a ser muy reiterativo en su afán por conectar ideas previamente mencionadas con el punto que está tratando de hacer en ese momento. No diría que es algo que debió evitar por completo porque ayuda a entender por qué aspectos tan aparentemente disímiles como los modales en la mesa y la historia de la Francia feudal y absolutista están relacionados entre sí y, adicionalmente, me permitió refrescar planteamientos que leí antes y que de otra forma tal vez hubieran sido olvidados. Pero el que haga tales remembranzas tan constantemente sí llega a dificultar un poco la lectura vigorosa del libro y a ratos tiende a ser un poco tedioso estar "repasando" de la mando de Elias, sin embargo, pienso que así demuestra su impresionante disciplina académica a la hora de leer, reflexionar y escribir una teoría de la civilización.
Finalmente, creo que el punto débil del libro es que me dejó la sensación de que la trayectoria que sigue nuestra sociedad está casi inevitablemente destinada a seguir por el camino de la civilización . No sé si Elias hubiese considerado posible la aparición de eventos tan drásticos como para revertir durante siglos o milenios el trayecto de la sociedad civilizada o puede que hasta detenerlo por completo. Él mismo dice que muchas veces olvidamos lo fácil que se perdería nuestro modo de vivir racional y previsor si las características sociales que lo sostienen (el monopolio fiscal y de la violencia, por mencionar una de las más prominentes) se vinieran abajo por alguna razón. Por la época en la que vivió no pudo vislumbrar la posibilidad de una catástrofe ambiental que justamente acabara con este modo de vivir o con cualquier modo de vivir y tal vez por eso no le presta tanta atención a la posibilidad de que se invierta, se transforme por completo o se acabe esa línea de progresión que él rastrea en la historia de occidente. De cualquier forma, como ya mencioné, su teoría sin da lugar a que esos riesgos existan.
En suma, es un libro que debe leerse. Haciendo énfasis en el "debe", esto quiere decir que seguramente no será la lectura más entretenida que vayas a hacer (aunque sí será mucho más divertida que leer a otros científicos sociales que se esfuerzan por ser incomprensibles) pero sí será una que estoy seguro que cambiará la forma en que vez hasta el tenedor con el que comes y además de te dejará pensando sobre lo que propone el libro mucho tiempo después de haberlo terminado. Y ese tipo de textos yo considero que debe leerse regularmente aunque no tenga la suavidad de las mejores novelas o la embriagante estética de la poesía.
Elias carece de los defectos que normalmente podríamos encontrar en un autor con características similares a él, puesto que Norbert no escribe con un lenguaje intencionalmente complejo sino que siempre trata de explicar las cosas de la forma más sencilla posible. Además, aunque no es su interés central, no excluye de su formulación teórica a poblaciones normalmente olvidadas por los pensadores europeos más influyentes, es decir, los habitantes de tercer mundo y en especial las mujeres.
Quizás los únicos problemas que le veo al libro es que a partir de un poco después de la mitad, el autor empieza a ser muy reiterativo en su afán por conectar ideas previamente mencionadas con el punto que está tratando de hacer en ese momento. No diría que es algo que debió evitar por completo porque ayuda a entender por qué aspectos tan aparentemente disímiles como los modales en la mesa y la historia de la Francia feudal y absolutista están relacionados entre sí y, adicionalmente, me permitió refrescar planteamientos que leí antes y que de otra forma tal vez hubieran sido olvidados. Pero el que haga tales remembranzas tan constantemente sí llega a dificultar un poco la lectura vigorosa del libro y a ratos tiende a ser un poco tedioso estar "repasando" de la mando de Elias, sin embargo, pienso que así demuestra su impresionante disciplina académica a la hora de leer, reflexionar y escribir una teoría de la civilización.
Finalmente, creo que el punto débil del libro es que me dejó la sensación de que la trayectoria que sigue nuestra sociedad está casi inevitablemente destinada a seguir por el camino de la civilización . No sé si Elias hubiese considerado posible la aparición de eventos tan drásticos como para revertir durante siglos o milenios el trayecto de la sociedad civilizada o puede que hasta detenerlo por completo. Él mismo dice que muchas veces olvidamos lo fácil que se perdería nuestro modo de vivir racional y previsor si las características sociales que lo sostienen (el monopolio fiscal y de la violencia, por mencionar una de las más prominentes) se vinieran abajo por alguna razón. Por la época en la que vivió no pudo vislumbrar la posibilidad de una catástrofe ambiental que justamente acabara con este modo de vivir o con cualquier modo de vivir y tal vez por eso no le presta tanta atención a la posibilidad de que se invierta, se transforme por completo o se acabe esa línea de progresión que él rastrea en la historia de occidente. De cualquier forma, como ya mencioné, su teoría sin da lugar a que esos riesgos existan.
En suma, es un libro que debe leerse. Haciendo énfasis en el "debe", esto quiere decir que seguramente no será la lectura más entretenida que vayas a hacer (aunque sí será mucho más divertida que leer a otros científicos sociales que se esfuerzan por ser incomprensibles) pero sí será una que estoy seguro que cambiará la forma en que vez hasta el tenedor con el que comes y además de te dejará pensando sobre lo que propone el libro mucho tiempo después de haberlo terminado. Y ese tipo de textos yo considero que debe leerse regularmente aunque no tenga la suavidad de las mejores novelas o la embriagante estética de la poesía.
November 24, 2008
For Elias, people learn to obey a code of conduct, people are restrained and refined, and emotions are culturally constructed. He discusses sophistication of speech and our elaborate and refined use of language. He claims we have made it second nature to adopt a social milieu. Elias has a formula for the book - socio-genetic and psychogenetic (micro and macro) - consisting of three parts: 1. courtesy (middle ages, sixteenth century - time when Erasmus wrote his text) 2. civilitai (court society), and 3. civilization (19th century). As people came into increasingly denser contact with other people there was a drive for distinction and showing attentiveness to other people. Urbanization, social density, increasing division of labor, inter-directedness, and other economic changes drove the privatization of bodily functions and affect. Elias also discusses the avoidance of shame and embarrassment. Shame implies moral lapse - a moral transgression; whereas embarrassment is a milder term, referring to seeing oneself in the eyes of others.
September 23, 2021
Het Civilisatieproces: Sociogenetische en psychogenetische onderzoekingen uit 1939 (Über den Prozeß der Zivilisation: soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen) van Norbert Elias. Een meesterwerk uit de sociologie van de vorige eeuw. In dit boek probeert Elias te achterhalen waarom wij bepaalde fatsoensnormen hebben en ons gedragen op de manier waarop wij doen. Hij analyseert dit enerzijds op maatschappelijk vlak in zijn Sociogenetische studie, hier ziet hij een proces van vervlechting binnen de middeleeuwse samenleving dat uiteindelijk vormt in de monarchieën van afgelopen eeuwen. Deze vervlechting gaat gepaard met een grotere wederzijdse afhankelijkheid van de burgers en een afname in geweld. Gezien men steeds meer afhankelijk is van elkaars steun en leeft van zijn reputatie behoort iedereen zich aan steeds strengere fatsoensnormen te houden. Als middeleeuwse krijger kon je je buurman nog neerslaan in een ruzie, maar aan het hof is dit zeker niet meer mogelijk. Elias traceert deze vorderende fatsoensnormen door het lezen van verschillende boeken die beschrijven hoe men zich moet gedragen. Het lezen van deze boeken is soms hilarisch om te lezen, zo beschrijft Elias dat je in de middeleeuwen wel gal mocht spugen, maar dan alleen als je er vervolgens op ging staan, want anders was het onbeschoft, kan je het je voorstellen in de tegenwoordige tijd? Hier start Elias zijn psychogenetische studie, waarin hij ziet dat mensen zich de fatsoensnormen steeds meer zijn gaan internaliseren door de grotere wederzijdse afhankelijkheid.
Een boek dat je aan het denken zet over hoe ons gedrag tot stand komt en ons gene in sommige momenten niet natuurlijk is, maar cultureel tot stand is gekomen. Genoeg om over na te denken! Mocht deze analyse je interesseren, kijk dan vooral op mijn uitgebreidere videoanalyse; https://youtu.be/N4JbDmZMYqQ
Een boek dat je aan het denken zet over hoe ons gedrag tot stand komt en ons gene in sommige momenten niet natuurlijk is, maar cultureel tot stand is gekomen. Genoeg om over na te denken! Mocht deze analyse je interesseren, kijk dan vooral op mijn uitgebreidere videoanalyse; https://youtu.be/N4JbDmZMYqQ
August 12, 2009
The methodology is extremely effective and well-outlined. Good for its subject matter and conclusions, but also its methods. This book was quite an experience to read and was very influential in my intellectual development.
April 10, 2021
The book slowly develops the perspective of figurations and how the "sociogenetic" processes happening over long time periods relates to the "psychogenetic" processes happening in individuals' lives. If you want a short version, just read Part 4 and the Postscript.
I appreciate that he says he wants to avoid "verbal fetishes", and to that end is careful throughout the book to define all concepts used. "Figuration", for example, is always used while also saying things like, "networks of relationships", or the "structure of interconnections between people".
"Habitus" is used in the book, but is not theoretically defined in detail. It is used, it seems to me, to stand in for the result of the psychogenetic processes adhering at any one time in a particular individual, that will of course be somewhat shared because of shared experience of figurations. But in this book, there isn't a theoretical chapter defining habitus, unlike in later uses by Bourdieu.
The book also leans on Freud's concepts as a way to understand what happens inside individuals, far more than leaning on habitus. The id, ego, and superego are discussed many times throughout the book. This is something we see fall away with later discussions of the same issues, for example in the work of Bourdieu.
But much of what Bourdieu talks about can be found in this book. The entire idea about how social positions dictate what individuals see as true ideas—all that is already here. Reading this book, Bourdieu seems far less original. The main theses of the Bourdieu's book "Distinction" are already in The Civilizing Process, albeit without Bourdieu's theoretical concepts (like "cultural capital"). But the definition of cultural capital is already in this book (as is the general concept also referred to earlier in this paragraph, this idea of positions in structures of relationships dictating what people see as true ideas). And this was published in 1939!
In the Postscript, Elias takes Parsons and his followers to task for creating a false dualism between the "individual" and "society". It is in the Postscript where we see the clearest and most thoroughly described refutation of the idea that we can and should study individuals in relation to a "society". Rather, he focuses on relationships and the interlinked processes of sociogenesis (the formation of structures in relationships over very long periods of time) and the processes of psychogenesis.
Also, Elias has a later book called "The Germans". But this book, "The Civilizing Process", could have been called "The French". The book, particularly Part 3, focus on the sociogenesis of structures of relationships in French society. Parts 1 and 2 talk more about Germany (relative to the other parts of the book), but as a foil for France. Even in parts 1 and 2, the main focus is France.
This brings me to my critique, which led me to not give 5/5. The book really focuses on what he ends up calling "Western" countries, essentially, England, France, and Germany. And as I said above, the main focus is France. There isn't much discussion of what happened in the world outside of these countries that may also have led to Europeans wanting to talk about being "civilized". I.e., I'm thinking about colonization of the Americas. The book talks about the time period starting in 700 CE, and goes into the 1800s. So there is the period between 700 and 1492 that he does talk about and shows how roots of people talking about things like "civilized manners" and "civilization" were already forming. But there is no discussion of the impulse toward appearing "civilized", starting in 1492, with any reference to the Americas and Indigenous peoples. The civilizing process is described to be a process endogenous to Europe. (By "civilizing", he means largely how people developed manners that we would now called "civilized", with many of these being characterized by more "self-restraint"—even if we want to, for example, we might excuse ourselves from a table at a fancy dinner in order to pass gas; there is more restraint). (These ideas, also, were developed in conjunction with talks with my friend Erich Luna, also on Goodreads! We discussed the book together as we read it the last few months). So you need to read the book while thinking about this Eurocentrism critically.
But the book already has the perspective of figurations, sociogenetic and psychogenetic processes, and habitus. To get the idea of how those fit together in his ideas, you can read this book and basically have a good understanding. I will continue to read more from Elias but perhaps later he will drop some of the Freudian concepts. I'm honestly not sure what I think about the Freudian concepts, having not studied them much in contemporary European social theory. But they clearly went out of style for some reason, and I doubt publishing a paper these days while relying on Elias's discussion of Freudian concepts would get one very far. In any case, the book is worth reading!
June 16, 2023
“The Civilizing Process" by Norbert Elias, first published in 1939, offers a groundbreaking analysis of the development and transformation of European society and its processes of civilization. Elias, a German sociologist, presents a comprehensive account of the social and cultural shifts that have shaped the manners, behaviors, and power dynamics of individuals and groups over centuries. In this academic review, we delve into the key themes, strengths, limitations, and scholarly significance of Elias's influential work, shedding light on its contributions to the understanding of social change and human behavior.
Elias's "The Civilizing Process" provides a rich and nuanced exploration of the interplay between social structures, power dynamics, and individual behavior throughout history. He argues that civilization is not a static state but a dynamic process, intricately connected to changes in power relations, economic structures, and the development of state institutions. By analyzing the transformation of manners, etiquette, and self-restraint, Elias uncovers the hidden mechanisms underlying the civilizing process.
One of the strengths of Elias's analysis lies in his meticulous examination of historical sources and the depth of his research. His interdisciplinary approach, drawing from sociology, psychology, anthropology, and history, allows for a comprehensive understanding of the complex web of factors influencing societal changes. Elias's ability to connect micro-level individual behaviors with macro-level societal transformations sets "The Civilizing Process" apart as a landmark sociological work.
Moreover, Elias's concept of the "civilizing process" offers valuable insights into the mechanisms through which individuals internalize societal norms, leading to the emergence of self-restraint, the suppression of violence, and the rise of the modern state. His emphasis on the long-term historical perspective and the interdependence of various social processes challenges reductionist or deterministic explanations of social change.
However, it is important to acknowledge that Elias's work has been subject to criticisms. Some scholars argue that his analysis may be Eurocentric, focusing primarily on Western European societies and neglecting the experiences and processes of other cultures. Additionally, while Elias provides a comprehensive account of the civilizing process, his theory does not explicitly address power differentials related to class, race, and gender, which may limit its applicability in contemporary sociological discussions.
"The Civilizing Process" by Norbert Elias stands as a seminal work in sociology, offering a profound and encompassing analysis of the social and cultural transformations that have shaped European society. Elias's rigorous research, interdisciplinary approach, and long-term historical perspective contribute to the book's scholarly significance and enduring relevance in understanding the complexities of social change and human behavior.
The book's contributions lie in its capacity to stimulate critical reflections on the interplay between power, social structures, and individual behavior. Elias's concept of the civilizing process invites readers to reconsider the multifaceted nature of civilization and its impact on human societies. It provides a valuable theoretical framework for understanding the mechanisms through which societies evolve and transform over time.
"The Civilizing Process" by Norbert Elias stands as a remarkable and influential work in the field of sociology. Despite its potential limitations, this academic review recognizes its scholarly significance and intellectual depth. By unveiling the intricate connections between social structures, power dynamics, and individual behavior, the book invites readers to critically engage with the complexities of social change and the evolving nature of civilization.
GPT
Elias's "The Civilizing Process" provides a rich and nuanced exploration of the interplay between social structures, power dynamics, and individual behavior throughout history. He argues that civilization is not a static state but a dynamic process, intricately connected to changes in power relations, economic structures, and the development of state institutions. By analyzing the transformation of manners, etiquette, and self-restraint, Elias uncovers the hidden mechanisms underlying the civilizing process.
One of the strengths of Elias's analysis lies in his meticulous examination of historical sources and the depth of his research. His interdisciplinary approach, drawing from sociology, psychology, anthropology, and history, allows for a comprehensive understanding of the complex web of factors influencing societal changes. Elias's ability to connect micro-level individual behaviors with macro-level societal transformations sets "The Civilizing Process" apart as a landmark sociological work.
Moreover, Elias's concept of the "civilizing process" offers valuable insights into the mechanisms through which individuals internalize societal norms, leading to the emergence of self-restraint, the suppression of violence, and the rise of the modern state. His emphasis on the long-term historical perspective and the interdependence of various social processes challenges reductionist or deterministic explanations of social change.
However, it is important to acknowledge that Elias's work has been subject to criticisms. Some scholars argue that his analysis may be Eurocentric, focusing primarily on Western European societies and neglecting the experiences and processes of other cultures. Additionally, while Elias provides a comprehensive account of the civilizing process, his theory does not explicitly address power differentials related to class, race, and gender, which may limit its applicability in contemporary sociological discussions.
"The Civilizing Process" by Norbert Elias stands as a seminal work in sociology, offering a profound and encompassing analysis of the social and cultural transformations that have shaped European society. Elias's rigorous research, interdisciplinary approach, and long-term historical perspective contribute to the book's scholarly significance and enduring relevance in understanding the complexities of social change and human behavior.
The book's contributions lie in its capacity to stimulate critical reflections on the interplay between power, social structures, and individual behavior. Elias's concept of the civilizing process invites readers to reconsider the multifaceted nature of civilization and its impact on human societies. It provides a valuable theoretical framework for understanding the mechanisms through which societies evolve and transform over time.
"The Civilizing Process" by Norbert Elias stands as a remarkable and influential work in the field of sociology. Despite its potential limitations, this academic review recognizes its scholarly significance and intellectual depth. By unveiling the intricate connections between social structures, power dynamics, and individual behavior, the book invites readers to critically engage with the complexities of social change and the evolving nature of civilization.
GPT
September 3, 2021
An underrated work of genius that has blown my mind
To begin with, I have no formal training as a sociologist, so my review might have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless, this book hit much harder than many others I have read on similar topics.
Before I go on to praise this work, however, I will point out three very pronounced drawbacks that may make it inaccessible to the average reader: 1) the topics and ideas are complex: they require a level of attention and patience that some laymen might not want to put in; 2) It is long: with small lettering and the time needed to understand complicated topics, it is much longer than those deceitful 480 pages of this edition (excluding appendixes and notes); and 3) some parts can be boring: this will vary depending on the interests of each person—for myself, I found it tedious to read at times, especially the long parts where the author presents evidence for his ideas with lengthy and numerous historical examples. Even so, I think that this was a very necessary element in order to secure its position as a well-founded theory.
As for praise, I have much of it. In the book, Norbert Elias conducts a study of the social, political, economic, and psychological changes that occurred in the population from the Middle Ages up to his time. In the first volume, he describes how changes in power structures resulted in increased feelings of repugnance towards uncivilised things and behaviour, leading people of to develop stronger control over their drives and impulses. The second deals more with the political and economic aspect, explaining how the monopolisation of violence and that of taxation came to be what we know as the ‘state’, and changed those aforementioned power structures in ways that influenced people’s habits and affect-controls. These changes are all shown to be interconnected, ultimately forming what Elias calls the civilising process. I hope this does not read too sesquipedalian and tiring. Unless you are 100% dumbfounded by that, just read the book.
Overall, Elias exhibits an immense consciousness of the world he lived in, and works on his theory with what seems to me to be a successful apolitical frame of mind. Although I initially did not feel too good about being smacked in the face with the 30-page 1968 postscript after I thought I had finished this beast of a book, this postscript is essential. He shows that he is not only aware of the ideological as well as philosophical ideas that underpinned modern thought and their flaws, but also the (socio-?) psychological reasons for them, neatly fitting them into the rest of the book. He shakes the foundations of European philosophical traditions and pushes a crowd of sociologists down with them—it all felt very so strangely Heideggerian as I read it.
Another great virtue of the book is that Elias writes clearly and unambiguously. While I have admittedly read very little secondary literature, I would be surprised if anyone were to find the need to ‘interpret’ Elias. Though oftentimes quite dense, his ideas are revealed in their entirety, he is unfailingly consistent, and most importantly, he unites all the elements of this long work into a beautifully cohesive theory.
I find it quite regrettable that Elias is barely known in wider contexts. I vigorously hope that this greatly underappreciated thinker gains more traction in other academic spheres—maybe simplified versions of his theory could even reach public consciousness. For now, I am happy that I found him for myself. Never did I expect this book to come to such a satisfying end.
P.S. – Would make a great anime
To begin with, I have no formal training as a sociologist, so my review might have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless, this book hit much harder than many others I have read on similar topics.
Before I go on to praise this work, however, I will point out three very pronounced drawbacks that may make it inaccessible to the average reader: 1) the topics and ideas are complex: they require a level of attention and patience that some laymen might not want to put in; 2) It is long: with small lettering and the time needed to understand complicated topics, it is much longer than those deceitful 480 pages of this edition (excluding appendixes and notes); and 3) some parts can be boring: this will vary depending on the interests of each person—for myself, I found it tedious to read at times, especially the long parts where the author presents evidence for his ideas with lengthy and numerous historical examples. Even so, I think that this was a very necessary element in order to secure its position as a well-founded theory.
As for praise, I have much of it. In the book, Norbert Elias conducts a study of the social, political, economic, and psychological changes that occurred in the population from the Middle Ages up to his time. In the first volume, he describes how changes in power structures resulted in increased feelings of repugnance towards uncivilised things and behaviour, leading people of to develop stronger control over their drives and impulses. The second deals more with the political and economic aspect, explaining how the monopolisation of violence and that of taxation came to be what we know as the ‘state’, and changed those aforementioned power structures in ways that influenced people’s habits and affect-controls. These changes are all shown to be interconnected, ultimately forming what Elias calls the civilising process. I hope this does not read too sesquipedalian and tiring. Unless you are 100% dumbfounded by that, just read the book.
Overall, Elias exhibits an immense consciousness of the world he lived in, and works on his theory with what seems to me to be a successful apolitical frame of mind. Although I initially did not feel too good about being smacked in the face with the 30-page 1968 postscript after I thought I had finished this beast of a book, this postscript is essential. He shows that he is not only aware of the ideological as well as philosophical ideas that underpinned modern thought and their flaws, but also the (socio-?) psychological reasons for them, neatly fitting them into the rest of the book. He shakes the foundations of European philosophical traditions and pushes a crowd of sociologists down with them—it all felt very so strangely Heideggerian as I read it.
Another great virtue of the book is that Elias writes clearly and unambiguously. While I have admittedly read very little secondary literature, I would be surprised if anyone were to find the need to ‘interpret’ Elias. Though oftentimes quite dense, his ideas are revealed in their entirety, he is unfailingly consistent, and most importantly, he unites all the elements of this long work into a beautifully cohesive theory.
I find it quite regrettable that Elias is barely known in wider contexts. I vigorously hope that this greatly underappreciated thinker gains more traction in other academic spheres—maybe simplified versions of his theory could even reach public consciousness. For now, I am happy that I found him for myself. Never did I expect this book to come to such a satisfying end.
P.S. – Would make a great anime
October 20, 2009
Very much a product of its time, this work argues for a correlation and indeed even causation between increasingly affected manners and the formation of centralized states. Part one is perfectly unreadable; part two is perfectly hilarious (if only because it borrows liberally from such masters of civil manners as Erasmus and Giovanni della Casa); part three is completely intolerable if you have an intellectual aversion to the word "feudalism" and get hives just from thinking about it; and part four summarizes the whole lot by equating civilization with Western modernity, which is a moving target perpetually defined by the fact that the West always achieves it first. In short, it is alternately boring as shit and so funny that I cried, but always dogmatic, always teleological, racist, classist and sexist, and mostly if not entirely wrong.
June 7, 2010
Using etiquette books from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries, Elias fashioned a theory of the evolution of our emotional lives and our notions of our self that is provocative and profound. Since he tried to explain many of the things that interested Foucault, I was happy to learn that the journal Foucault Studies had a special issue earlier this year comparing Elias' ideas with those of Foucault. It might have changed my life if I had read this book thirty years ago when I first noticed it. For now it certainly changes my perspective on my study of the history of emotions.
May 10, 2007
Dense, academic, and sprawling in its scope, this book gets at the root impulses that people use to separate themselves from each other: manners, class, money. The time period is the Middle Ages, the basement from which we have constructed our sense of modernity. Affective restraint figures prominently in the brinkmanship of class, consciously and unconsciously. Elias's argument has altered how I see the world.
July 5, 2018
Fascinating social history that gives a different perspective on the past. It makes one realize how we read modern sensibilities back into everything from the Bible to the American Revolution. We definitely think differently today but it is clear that Western society cannot sustain this aberration of manners and civility that began just a short time ago and is in the process of ending.
August 2, 2014
Simply spectacular. Must read. I don't even know where to begin besides saying "yes" to this one.
Currently reading
November 2, 2020
May 27, 2024
Scandali e forchette
A un certo punto il libro narra di come nell'XI secolo il Doge di Venezia sposò una nobile greca, dell'Impero Romano d'Oriente, e di quanto scalpore, anzi, scandalo suscitò l'uso da parte di lei della forchetta per mangiare, strumento allora ignoto negli Stati italiani o nell'Europa Occidentale in genere. Scandalo, dico, perché la diabolica forchetta arrivò a sollevare le ire dei preti tanto che quando la donna fu colpita da una grave malattia, ci fu chi disse fosse un segno della collera divina.
Ora a noi lettori del XXI secolo, mille anni più tardi, questa può sembrare solo un aneddoto gustoso che tutt'al più ci fa scuotere la testa divertiti e un po' sconcertati per quelle che etichettiamo rapidamente come stranezze o arretratezza, per poi passare a pensare ad altro.
Eppure già qui, nel gioco che si crea inevitabilmente tra questa cronaca dei tempi passati e il lettore contemporaneo, si può misurare l'intento del libro o persino i suoi effetti involontarî, cioè mostrare come gli àmbiti interessati da determinate pratiche sociali siano vissuti come di importanza estrema, vitale, in determinati luoghi e tempi e invece suscitino totale disinteresse in altri. La prima domanda può essere: perché tutto questo bailamme per una innocente forchetta? Ma la seconda domanda, ben più impegnativa, può essere: e quali sono oggi le nostre "forchette"? Quali sono quelle pratiche, quei fatti del vivere insieme che se toccati ci danno la sensazione angosciosa che rischino di far crollare l'intera società (da cui argomentazioni del tipo: "Se si permette questo, alla fine si permetterà qualunque cosa!") ma che magari, tra cento o duecento anni, torneranno nell'ambito della normalità o dell'indifferenza?
L'autore mette giustamente in luce come i meccanismi che disciplinano il comportarsi in società agiscano ancora nel presente, e che ad esempio, per restare a tavola, una persona che si ostini a mangiare con le mani in pubblico, oggigiorno, sarebbe a rischio di venire classificata come disturbata mentalmente e bisognosa di essere "curata". Forse l'intervento delle autorità sanitarie è la versione odierna dei preti che mille anni fa invocavano l'ira divina per la Dogaressa e la sua forchetta.
Il libro è stato pubblicato nel 1938, quasi cent'anni fa, in un'epoca di passaggio in cui stava cominciando ad allentarsi, come nota lo stesso autore, quel processo di progressiva estensione della sfera del pudore, del controllo degli affetti, del dominio della vergogna, processo che si può fare partire con la fine del Medio Evo e l'avvento dell'epoca moderna. Da allora ad oggi sono passati i decennî, c'è stata la rivoluzione dei costumi, c'è un rispetto assai maggiore per l'individualità, sono state sottoposte a severa critica le istituzioni disciplinanti e verticali come la famiglia, la scuola, il sistema psicologico-psichiatrico, c'è la celebrazione della spontaneità (ma va ricordato che quello di spontaneità rimane un concetto spesso opaco e scivoloso). Eppure ancora oggi ci scandalizziamo, se non per le forchette, per altre cose forse non così dissimili: c'è chi paventa l'introduzione anche da noi di alimenti a basi di insetti come nientemeno che una minaccia alla civiltà; ci si accapiglia appassionatamente per decidere se le donne sbaglino a scoprirsi troppo (nelle pubblicità, in televisione o su internet) o se sbaglino a coprirsi troppo (se di fede islamica); non parliamo poi di tutta l'agitazione che ancora suscita la regolazione della sessualità, se parlarne, come parlarne, se tacerne, come insegnarla, cosa classificare come violenza, e così via.
Se il libro non è per nulla invecchiata nelle sue riflessioni ed è anzi un ottimo strumento per guardarsi una volta di più allo specchio e riflettere sui nostri vincoli a partire da quelli dei secoli passati, sconta due carenze, forse inevitabili proprio per la sua età, per essere un pionieristico punto di partenza.
Il primo punto è che, pur mostrando con chiarezza e dettaglio il processo storico che ha portato a una crescente autodisciplina dell'individuo nella nostra società, non ne spiega le cause contingenti, ovvero perché questo è successo proprio con l'avvento dell'età moderna e nei secoli successivi.
Il secondo punto, che forse esorbiterebbe comunque dall'intento e dalle competenze dell'autore, è delucidare il meccanismo profondo che porta gli esseri umani a esigere con tanta ostinazione, che a volte sfocia anche nel fanatismo, il conformismo dei proprî simili su questioni essenziali quando vissute dall'interno ma banali e strane se viste dall'esterno.
Insomma, sappiamo che a un certo punto si è passati dallo scandalo verso chi usava la forchetta allo scandalo per chi non la usa. Ma forse ancora non sappiamo il perché.
A un certo punto il libro narra di come nell'XI secolo il Doge di Venezia sposò una nobile greca, dell'Impero Romano d'Oriente, e di quanto scalpore, anzi, scandalo suscitò l'uso da parte di lei della forchetta per mangiare, strumento allora ignoto negli Stati italiani o nell'Europa Occidentale in genere. Scandalo, dico, perché la diabolica forchetta arrivò a sollevare le ire dei preti tanto che quando la donna fu colpita da una grave malattia, ci fu chi disse fosse un segno della collera divina.
Ora a noi lettori del XXI secolo, mille anni più tardi, questa può sembrare solo un aneddoto gustoso che tutt'al più ci fa scuotere la testa divertiti e un po' sconcertati per quelle che etichettiamo rapidamente come stranezze o arretratezza, per poi passare a pensare ad altro.
Eppure già qui, nel gioco che si crea inevitabilmente tra questa cronaca dei tempi passati e il lettore contemporaneo, si può misurare l'intento del libro o persino i suoi effetti involontarî, cioè mostrare come gli àmbiti interessati da determinate pratiche sociali siano vissuti come di importanza estrema, vitale, in determinati luoghi e tempi e invece suscitino totale disinteresse in altri. La prima domanda può essere: perché tutto questo bailamme per una innocente forchetta? Ma la seconda domanda, ben più impegnativa, può essere: e quali sono oggi le nostre "forchette"? Quali sono quelle pratiche, quei fatti del vivere insieme che se toccati ci danno la sensazione angosciosa che rischino di far crollare l'intera società (da cui argomentazioni del tipo: "Se si permette questo, alla fine si permetterà qualunque cosa!") ma che magari, tra cento o duecento anni, torneranno nell'ambito della normalità o dell'indifferenza?
L'autore mette giustamente in luce come i meccanismi che disciplinano il comportarsi in società agiscano ancora nel presente, e che ad esempio, per restare a tavola, una persona che si ostini a mangiare con le mani in pubblico, oggigiorno, sarebbe a rischio di venire classificata come disturbata mentalmente e bisognosa di essere "curata". Forse l'intervento delle autorità sanitarie è la versione odierna dei preti che mille anni fa invocavano l'ira divina per la Dogaressa e la sua forchetta.
Il libro è stato pubblicato nel 1938, quasi cent'anni fa, in un'epoca di passaggio in cui stava cominciando ad allentarsi, come nota lo stesso autore, quel processo di progressiva estensione della sfera del pudore, del controllo degli affetti, del dominio della vergogna, processo che si può fare partire con la fine del Medio Evo e l'avvento dell'epoca moderna. Da allora ad oggi sono passati i decennî, c'è stata la rivoluzione dei costumi, c'è un rispetto assai maggiore per l'individualità, sono state sottoposte a severa critica le istituzioni disciplinanti e verticali come la famiglia, la scuola, il sistema psicologico-psichiatrico, c'è la celebrazione della spontaneità (ma va ricordato che quello di spontaneità rimane un concetto spesso opaco e scivoloso). Eppure ancora oggi ci scandalizziamo, se non per le forchette, per altre cose forse non così dissimili: c'è chi paventa l'introduzione anche da noi di alimenti a basi di insetti come nientemeno che una minaccia alla civiltà; ci si accapiglia appassionatamente per decidere se le donne sbaglino a scoprirsi troppo (nelle pubblicità, in televisione o su internet) o se sbaglino a coprirsi troppo (se di fede islamica); non parliamo poi di tutta l'agitazione che ancora suscita la regolazione della sessualità, se parlarne, come parlarne, se tacerne, come insegnarla, cosa classificare come violenza, e così via.
Se il libro non è per nulla invecchiata nelle sue riflessioni ed è anzi un ottimo strumento per guardarsi una volta di più allo specchio e riflettere sui nostri vincoli a partire da quelli dei secoli passati, sconta due carenze, forse inevitabili proprio per la sua età, per essere un pionieristico punto di partenza.
Il primo punto è che, pur mostrando con chiarezza e dettaglio il processo storico che ha portato a una crescente autodisciplina dell'individuo nella nostra società, non ne spiega le cause contingenti, ovvero perché questo è successo proprio con l'avvento dell'età moderna e nei secoli successivi.
Il secondo punto, che forse esorbiterebbe comunque dall'intento e dalle competenze dell'autore, è delucidare il meccanismo profondo che porta gli esseri umani a esigere con tanta ostinazione, che a volte sfocia anche nel fanatismo, il conformismo dei proprî simili su questioni essenziali quando vissute dall'interno ma banali e strane se viste dall'esterno.
Insomma, sappiamo che a un certo punto si è passati dallo scandalo verso chi usava la forchetta allo scandalo per chi non la usa. Ma forse ancora non sappiamo il perché.
September 27, 2017
It's actually quite mind-opening. The stunning grand perspective of Elias on combining the psychological study and culture study to explain how the civilization evolve turned out not to be empty and weak which possibly common problem of "thinking big", but rather rich and sharp.
I really like how he expands the topic on the conflict of civilization and culture under different culture discourse, and how such differences distinguish the core and appearance of social struggles in different countries historically, eg. 17-18th century France and Germany. And eventually expand the synchronical study at the beginning to a more grand picture of Civilization process from small trivia daily-life routine and etiquette to more bigger-picture social changes--all the way combining with the interaction with the evolving change and the importance of human mind and emotion, to explain his theory diachronically.
Elias is a true master of approaching social study and his theories in a diachronical way--and in fact more than that--rather than keeping it in a single small point, he concentrates his focus not just how things works but how individuals psychologically interact with. Anyone who interest in social study and psychoanalysis, his works will be very very inspiring!
I really like how he expands the topic on the conflict of civilization and culture under different culture discourse, and how such differences distinguish the core and appearance of social struggles in different countries historically, eg. 17-18th century France and Germany. And eventually expand the synchronical study at the beginning to a more grand picture of Civilization process from small trivia daily-life routine and etiquette to more bigger-picture social changes--all the way combining with the interaction with the evolving change and the importance of human mind and emotion, to explain his theory diachronically.
Elias is a true master of approaching social study and his theories in a diachronical way--and in fact more than that--rather than keeping it in a single small point, he concentrates his focus not just how things works but how individuals psychologically interact with. Anyone who interest in social study and psychoanalysis, his works will be very very inspiring!
December 31, 2020
Despite having gone to graduate school for sociology, I never heard (or at least recall hearing) an instructor or reading mention this book or its argument. This is a shame, because I think the book is an excellent study of historical sociology and a compelling piece of theory that touches on all aspects of sociology from culture to crime (not the culture of crime, but those two concepts separately). The only reason I picked it up is because I read Steven Pinker's book Better Angels of our Nature, which is an excellent summation of Elias but one that is for a general audience, IMHO after reading both.
I'm glad I read this book, and I think the post-script was a great lens to help me figure out why "theory" in American sociology is so hard to grasp (and perhaps an abandoned effort by most sociologists? who I think now hew toward to more natural science model of testing arguments and hypotheses and avoiding large and prescriptive theoretical arguments).
I wish I had read this sooner, it almost makes me want to go back and read Max Weber and Durkheim again...
I'm glad I read this book, and I think the post-script was a great lens to help me figure out why "theory" in American sociology is so hard to grasp (and perhaps an abandoned effort by most sociologists? who I think now hew toward to more natural science model of testing arguments and hypotheses and avoiding large and prescriptive theoretical arguments).
I wish I had read this sooner, it almost makes me want to go back and read Max Weber and Durkheim again...
September 2, 2024
Elias basically argues that as western societies became more centralized under a monarch from the Middle Ages to about 1700, new rules of behavior and manners at court emerged, replacing the uninhibited violence of the Middle Ages. This violence didn’t disappear in the early modern period, however. The new centralized government assumed the threat of violence as a tool for social control. Thus violence becomes the property of the state.
Interesting thesis and he argues it well, but the book didn’t need to be 500 pages. Also he uses Freud for his psychological analysis which is understandable given he wrote it in 1939 but still pretty sus. Overall pretty good but I did skim the really boring and technical parts sorry.
Interesting thesis and he argues it well, but the book didn’t need to be 500 pages. Also he uses Freud for his psychological analysis which is understandable given he wrote it in 1939 but still pretty sus. Overall pretty good but I did skim the really boring and technical parts sorry.
July 17, 2024
“The tendency of the civilizing process to make all bodily functions more intimate, to enclose them in particular enclaves, to put them ‘behind closed doors,’ has diverse consequences. One of the most important, which has already been observed in connection with various other forms of drives, is seen particularly clearly in the case of the development of civilizing restraints on sexuality. It is the peculiar division in man which becomes more pronounced the more sharply those aspects of human life may be displayed in social life are divided from those that may not, and which must remain ‘intimate’ or ‘secret.’”
October 24, 2021
Pensavo fosse una roba pallosissima e invece è molto figo, ora devo raccattare il secondo volume. Affronta il tema della civilizzazione nel tempo ed è molto attuale in alcune sue parti, come là dove racconta delle differenze tra Francia e Germania nell’evolversi di questo termine rispetto al concetto di cultura
May 27, 2022
Increíble como Elias escribe tres libros distintos en uno solo, con focos argumentativos diferenciados, pero que se complementan en unas conclusiones que atan todo como una estructura lógica y coherente. Apasionante, teórica y profunda... Es una obra plenamente interdisciplinaria que nos muestra las claves para entender lo que es civilización.
December 19, 2024
Intriguing book that shows the struggle of Elias to develop his curiosity for sociology and history.
The first chapters are the ones I liked the most, introducing manners, customs and the incorporations of those by the Western European countries from medieval ages to the Napoleonic Era.
[Recommended by Bastos]
The first chapters are the ones I liked the most, introducing manners, customs and the incorporations of those by the Western European countries from medieval ages to the Napoleonic Era.
[Recommended by Bastos]
February 11, 2025
Titanica obra en que muestra como un tapiz todos los entramados de la sociedad humana, desde la interioridad psicológica del individuo hata la lucha de loa estados, y la iintima relación que teje ambos extremos.
Recortado en un proceso historico concreto de 500 años describe las leyes que explican la sociabilidad toda.
Recortado en un proceso historico concreto de 500 años describe las leyes que explican la sociabilidad toda.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews