This is a repository copy of Civilizing Process.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/105372/

Version: Accepted Version

Book Section:
Powell, R.S. orcid.org/0000-0002-8869-8954 (2014) Civilizing Process. In: Forsyth, C.J.
and Copes, H., (eds.) Encyclopedia of Social Deviance. Sage Publications . ISBN
9781452240336

Reuse
Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright
exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy
solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The
publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White
Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder,
users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website.

Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Civilizing Process

The civilizing (or civilization) process is a theory based on the very long-term development

of western European societies from the medieval period to the mid-twentieth century. This

long-term, developmental perspective is crucial - seen over the short-term the process may

not be discernible at all. It is a blind, unplanned and continuous social process that moves in

a general direction involving the shift towards a more complex, more interdependent, more

differentiated, more "civilized" and less violent society. Furthermore, this process is still

continuing and we ourselves form part of it. The theory links the development of nation-

states and the more complex organisation of society with the development of new modes of

behaviour. This is in recognition of the fact that the increasing complexity of social life goes

hand-in-hand with the gradual development of a more refined standard of conduct and

etiquette. Slowly, over many generations, behaviours that were once socially acceptable and

part of everyday public life (e.g. the bodily functions) come to be sanctioned and treated as

taboo as the social standard of manners develops, first among the upper classes and then more

widely. Put simply, as the structure of society becomes more complex there is a

corresponding and discernible shift in manners, culture and personality. This has

implications for the study of deviance as it follows that the socially defined designation of

deviant behaviours are related to the development of prevailing standards of manners and

behaviour.

Thus, the social rules of manners and conduct are constantly but gradually altering in a

particular direction such that what was once the norm, over time, comes to be considered

deviant or transgressive (e.g. changes in table manners). The unwritten rules governing

social conduct become greater and more varied alongside more formal rules derived from the

state and the need to organise an increasingly complex society. These social changes are
mirrored within individuals such that behaviours falling short of the required standard of the

time bring about feelings of disgust or repugnance in the observer (e.g. cruelty to animals)

and shame and embarrassment in the perpetrator (e.g. nudity). In earlier societies these

emotions were absent in relation to such behaviours as the development of the socially

required standard of "acceptable behaviour" was different. Primary, or more animalistic,

human impulses are therefore brought under self-regulation through the continuous social

pressures bearing down on individuals (e.g. the threat of social degradation, loss of respect

and self-respect) to the point where they are banished from consciousness. A key aspect here

is that society cannot be separated from the individual. Rather, social forces are in fact forces

exerted by people; forces exerted over themselves and others: social constraints become self-

restraints.

The Civilizing Process is the most famous work of the German sociologist Norbert Elias who,

through the detailed study of etiquette books and manuals over many centuries, charted the

gradual refinement of manners in western European societies from the medieval period up to

the mid-twentieth century. Crucially, these changes in human behaviour are linked to changes

in wider society and particularly the increasingly complex mode of life, which requires

individuals to monitor and control their behaviour in different ways and in different social

settings. That is, in earlier societies people conducted their affairs in relatively closed, more

homogeneous settings (e.g. the village) and social life was simpler. This development is best

summarized in the words of the Dutch sociologist Joop Goudsblom: more people are forced

more often to pay more attention to more other people.

The development of the urban mode of life leads to greater integration and the need for

people to perform different functions, which in turn leads to an increase in the "webs of
interdependence" between individuals, groups and nation-states. Key processes inherent in

these changes include: the division of labour; the growth of trade; urbanisation;

monetarization and taxation; increasing administration; and an increasing population. Thus,

the theory posits that over the very long-term western European societies are characterised by

greater social interdependencies which link more and more people together from different

social classes through economic and social exchange. This greater interdependency within

society is accompanied by an increase in the scope for individuals and groups to identify with

others and relate to each other. Very gradually, the prevailing standards of conduct of the day

are built in to individuals as a "second nature" as rules and sanctions from society become

sanctions within individuals and become automatic. For example, most of us in today's

society know from a very early age that urinating in a public space is inappropriate but this

behaviour in fact had to be learned by previous generations.

Competition and state formation are central themes of the civilising process. Competing

feudal powers are gradually eliminated until one monopoly power (the state) emerges and

claims a sole right to the use of violence and taxation. The internal population is then

pacified through the threat of state sanctions (i.e. violence) and people are able to act with

more calculation and foresight without the continued threat of violence as it gradually

becomes "confined to the barracks" and behind the scenes of social life. Individuals are thus

more able to restrain their behaviour. This then facilitates the division of labour, the growth

of trade and other processes cited above. Competition is not only central to state formation

however. Competition between classes perpetuates a continual refinement and modification

of etiquette and rituals among the upper classes as they seek to distinguish themselves and

their behaviour from that of the "vulgar" lower classes. These new behaviours are then

disseminated more widely through greater interdependence and contact with lower classes -
first to the bourgeoisie (or middle classes) and then to the lower strata of society - who seek

to emulate this behaviour. Similarly, behaviours can also be disseminated in the opposite

direction bringing about a relative convergence in the standard of conduct over the long term.

Perhaps the most common criticism of the civilizing process is that it represents a progress

theory which implies that western European societies are of a higher order than other

societies. However, Norbert Elias was clear that his starting point, early medieval Europe,

was by no means the start of civilization: no society can be considered "uncivilized" as there

is no absolute beginning. In this sense it is useful to think of civilizing processes as operating

at three different levels: the individual level involving the learning of adult standards of

behaviour by children through socialization; the particular society (or national) level relating

to the different standards of behaviour and etiquette between different cultures; the level of

humanity as a whole which, in very long-term perspective, refers to the processes of

collective learning undergone across the world such as: the development of speech; the use of

fire and other energy sources; the making and use of tools etc.

Elias also stressed the fact that the civilizing process can go into reverse in a much quicker

timeframe - decivilizing processes - and that civilizing processes are subject to counter-trends

and movements. Common cited examples of decivilizing processes are often characterised

by a relative loss of the capacity for individual self-control, a decline in identification with

other humans and groups, and the re-emergence of violence into the public sphere. For

instance, the Holocaust serves as an extreme and stark reminder that the civilizing process

can indeed go into reverse in a very short space of time. Over the long-term, however, the

general trend is towards a more "civilized" standard of manners and behaviour.

Though the civilizing process represents a study of western European nations the theoretical

framework has been applied to a range of other countries including China, Russia and the

United States. The theory has also been utilised in the analysis of the development of human

societies in a whole range of fields including: criminology; history; international relations;

organisational studies; political science and; social psychology. More recently urban scholars

have begun utilising the theory and applying it in seeking an understanding of urban social

relations using a long-term perspective.

Through its charting of the ever shifting standards of behaviour within human societies, the

civilizing process represents a testable theoretical framework of great use to the study of

deviance and the response of governments and authorities to this deviance.

Ryan Powell, Sheffield Hallam University

See also: Civility, Etiquette, Incivility, Informalization, Manners.

Further Readings

Elias, N. (2000) [1939]. The Civilizing Process (revised ed.). (trans. by Edmund Jephcott).

Oxford: Blackwell.

Fletcher, J. (1997). Violence and Civilization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Goudsblom, J. and Mennell, S. (1998). The Norbert Elias Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kuzmics, H. (1988). The Civilizing Process. In Keane, J. (Ed.), Civil Society and the State:

New European Perspectives (pp. 149-176). London: Verso.

van Krieken, R. (1998). Norbert Elias. London: Routlegde.

Mennell, S. (1990). Decivilizing processes: theoretical significance and some lines of

research. International Sociology, 5(2), 205-223.

Mennell, S. (2007). The American Civilizing Process. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Mennell, S. and Goudsblom, J. (Eds). (1998). Norbert Elias: On Civilization, Power and

Knowledge. London: University of Chicago Press.

Wouters, C. (2007). Informalization: Manners and Emotions Since 1890. London: Sage.