Decivilising processes are what happens when civilising processes go into reverse; both terms are used here in a specific technical sense derived from the work of Norbert Elias ( The Civilising Process, 2 vols., 1978/1982, orig. 1939). The first part of the paper briefly sketches aspects of the theory of civilising processes necessary for identifying symptoms of their reversal. It is inferred that true decivilising processes would be marked by breaking links and shorter chains of social interdependence, associated with higher levels of danger and incalculability in everyday life, the re-emergence of violence into the public sphere and a decline in mutual identification, reduced pressures on individuals to restrain the expression of impulses (including the freer expression of aggressiveness), changes in socialisation and personality formation, and increasing fantasy-content of modes of knowledge. The second part of the paper examines evidence relating to four candidates for the label `decivilising process'. The debate about the `permissive society' suggests that this was `decivilising' in a very limited sense: it involved a `highly controlled decontrolling of emotional controls'. Evidence of an upturn in violence in contemporary United States and British society is examined next; the data of Gurr, Stone and Dunning suggest the longterm trend was until recently downwards. The Holocaust and other instances of mass murder are discussed next. Finally, it is proposed that the clearest cases of decivilising processes would be those where trends could be observed over at least three generations; evidence should be sought in the collapse of complex societies (such as the Roman Empire) and episodes such as the Thirty Years War and its aftermath, and the so-called `Wild West'.

Norbert Elias's The Civilizing Process, which was published in German in 1939 and first translated into English in two volumes in 1978 and 1982, is now widely regarded as one of the great works of twentieth‐century sociology. This work attempted to explain how Europeans came to think of themselves as more “civilized” than their forebears and neighboring societies. By analyzing books about manners that had been published between the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries, Elias observed changing conceptions of shame and embarrassment with respect to, among other things, bodily propriety and violence. To explain those developments, Elias examined the interplay among the rise of state monopolies of power, increasing levels of economic interconnectedness among people, and pressures to become attuned to others over greater distances that led to advances in identifying with others in the same society irrespective of social origins. Elias's analysis of the civilizing process was not confined, however, to explaining changing social bonds within separate societies. The investigation also focused on the division of Europe into sovereign states that were embroiled in struggles for power and security. This article provides an overview and analysis of Elias's principal claims in the light of growing interest in this seminal work in sociology. The analysis shows how Elias defended higher levels of synthesis in the social sciences to explain relations between “domestic” and “international” developments, and changes in social structure and in the emotional lives of modern people. Elias's investigation, which explained long‐term processes of development over several centuries, pointed to the limitations of inquiries that concentrate on short‐term intervals. Only by placing short‐term trends in long‐term perspective could sociologists understand contemporary developments. This article maintains that Elias's analysis of the civilizing process remains an exemplary study of long‐term developments in Western societies over the last five centuries.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract