R.J. Robinson (1987) argues that the crux of Elias's theory of the `civilizing process' lies in its status as historiography and claims to have shown that `all Elias's main claims about social history are demonstrably false.' Accordingly, he argues, `the theory of the civilizing process seems very largely destroyed.' Close reading of Robinson, however, suggests that he has misinterpreted Elias in significant ways and that a more accurate reading of Elias's texts will be necessary before his theory can be properly evaluated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, P. 1974. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: New Left Books.
2.
Bauman, Z.1979. `The Phenomenon of Norbert Elias'. Sociology13:117-125.
3.
Bogner, A.1986. `The Structure of Social Processes: a Commentary on the Sociology of Norbert Elias'. Sociology20:387-411.
4.
Cipolla, C.M. 1972. Fontana Economic History of Europe Vol.1., The Middle Ages. London: Fontana/Collins.
5.
Elias, N. 1978a. What is Sociology?London: Hutchinson.
6.
Elias, N. 1978b. The Civilizing Process, Vol.1: The History of Manners. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
7.
Elias, N. 1982. The Civilizing Process. Vol.2: State Formation and Civilization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
8.
Elias, N. 1983. The Court Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
9.
Elias, N. and Dunning, E. 1986. Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
10.
Giddens, A. 1981. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. London: Macmillan.
11.
Giddens, A. 1985. The Nation-State and Violence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
12.
Kuzmics, H.1984. `Elias's Theory of Civilization'. Telos61:83-99.
13.
Robinson, R.J.1987. `The Civilizing Process': Some Remarks on Elias's Social History'. Sociology21:1-17.
14.
Sica, A.1984. `Sociogenesis versus Psychogenesis: The Unique Sociology of Norbert Elias', Mid-American Review of Sociology9:49-78.
