The Civilizing Process vs The Court Society - Essay Example

Rhetorical “The Court Society” certainly portrays an interesting argument as seen through several perspectives. Thebook brought a stronger force in the historical learning of royal courts. The dynamics presented in the discussions touching on royal court societies demand an open mind and lots of patience to conjure up a relevant analysis. Norbert Elias is a prominent figure in the field of sociology and he tackled this topic with much intelligence and passion. Despite producing quality materials in the subject, Elias has not received the amount of recognition that matches his contribution (Mastenbroek 173). It is, however, important to focus on his solid work in a bid to highlight why his contribution deserves recognition, especially in the field of sociology. He had the ability to analyze the links between two different things. They include the inner qualities and operations of humans, their motivation, limitations and perceptions; and the embodying social bonds that did exist. On the other hand, Elias certainly understood the relationship portrayed by interdependence and the ever-changing power balances amongst individuals and groups (Kilminster 42). These indications can only compare with the works of other prominent personalities in other fields. They include Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud, but it is upon an individual to weigh out the dynamics before making such a conclusion (Gordon 72). In the real sense, the court society is an example of how human histories are explored but in larger perspectives that are known as societies. Sigmund Freud studied human histories, but only delved into individual perspectives that can be termed as small scale in this case. The royal court society provides a deeper understanding of the relationships between different groups and individuals in the royal courts albeit in a perspective that treats the courts as societal organizations other than just mere courts. Relevance can be located in Rossellini’s movie, “The Coming to Power of Louis XIV.” The court society according to Elias was based on critical sociological problems and questions that characterize such discussions. The works are remembered for figurations, visual clarity on relations between certain groups and outsiders, and the dynamics of involvement and detachment (Elias and Scotson 15). To a larger extent, the court society was also characterized by the differences between the subject-adequate and the object-adequate levels of knowledge. Subject-adequate issues mainly involved the perceptions that were embedded in an individual’s fears or wishes, whereas the object-adequate figurations mainly addressed more realistic observations that were distant from wishes and/or fears. These are some of the guidelines that guided and continue to guide societies even in contemporary settings. They attempt to uncover the secret behind certain associations, choices, and behaviors portrayed by court societies. Courts depict unique behaviors that result in transformations amongst societies and it is important to comprehend the issues that facilitate such outcomes (Elias and Scotson 15). The emergence of court societies and the disappearance of feudal organizations can also be described using the concepts found in the court society. One complex issue about how court societies managed to survive through several transitions is exemplified in the unrepeatable phenomena that characterized specific rulers (Ascher 89). These are issues like greatness, creativity, genius, and charisma that a given ruler possessed. These qualities are never easily transferred from one individual to the other. Thus, it is appropriate to question how societies repeat the historical act of abiding by stipulations in court societies. In simpler terms, we are supposed to consider the issue of specific developmental structures that necessitated people’s interdependence, and the figurations possessed by humans that justified the formation of a central position of power in a given society. It is imperative to note that these central positions had bigger freedoms of decision-making or what we may call absolutism. As a matter of fact, certain reasons led to this continuity despite having differences in the qualities portrayed by rulers, otherwise known as unrepeatable phenomena. Architectural designs and the general planning of the court are examples of how social distance was materialized between the different groups that comprised of a court. These social living spaces were the barriers that characterized living, sleeping, dining, and the ceremonial areas. From the fact that these living spaces stood for as long as they could, the bourgeoisie and other groups were forced to always adhere to cultural distinctions created by the social living spaces which appeared constantly. These implications can be described as the main enhancers of self-discipline described as the most important factor in creating a court society. It is from this point that Elias went ahead to include the same topic in his book entitled The Civilizing Process. Here, the “History of Manners” is discussed in the best way including how a king’s bedroom can serve as the venue for atypical rituals, which eventually reproduce social Hierarchies by means of psychological manipulation (Bondanella 168). Etiquette is thus used as an avenue through which subjects are ruled. Rulers who distance themselves from the people are likely to command much power than rulers who eliminate the aspect of distance. Louis XIV realized the importance of etiquette, and it is evident in most of his endeavors. Rossellini’s movie depicts the same dimension with notable emphasis on aspects that would have affected both ancient and contemporary societies (Bondanella 165). Louis engages in very intelligent moves that that strengthen his power and appearance amongst the court members. Rossellini, on the other hand, ensures that we the viewers are able to see all the manipulations openly. A dying Cardinal Mazarin allows him to enter the room but under strict conditions. Louis must apply makeup on his body if he desires to enter Mazarin’s room. This serves as a typical demonstration of symbolic and ritualistic gestures that are required by the kingship. To strengthen the ritualistic impression even further, Louis engages in some kind of prayer, but the authenticity behind it is questionable. Apparently, Louis understands that religious conformation is expected from him and only engages in it as part of his role. As Louis leaves his wife’s bedroom she starts clapping amidst some kind of applause meant to send a certain message to the public. His wife’s actions imply that Louis has fulfilled all his marital obligations and is, therefore, a responsible leader. Additionally, the King also declines to accept the rich inheritance offered by Mazarin on his death bed (Bondanella 166). This supposedly signifies that the king does not owe anybody known as a commoner in his court. The irony of this issue is exemplified in the fact that the king accepts the offer behind the scenes. He, however, cautions against the publicity of the same. The King also understands that men appreciate the appearance of things, as opposed to the reality behind these particular things. This is the main reason as to why he opts for expensive clothes that generally bleed the financial welfare of court members (Elias and Scotson 67). Court members have to work so hard to dress the king and this diverts their attention and energy away from the possibility of opposing the king’s policies. This is a typical manifestation of prevalent social living spaces that characterized court societies (Bondanella 167). Court members and the bourgeoisie were also subjected to psychological manipulations created by the ceremony accompanying meals. Louis is seen having meals on very high tables and the people have to stand round the table watching him as he eats his good food. In order to control the minds of his subjects with greater influence, Louis turns every meal into a religious ritual that must be attended by all the subjects. In the end, it is evident that he creates a system that ignores conceptual facts in favor of vague displays that can easily work against him in the future. Distancing the people from the rulers in such fashion, however, requires precision in terms of proximity and intimacy (Smith 111). Other implications are depicted in matters of both invisibility and visibility with respect to boundaries created by the private and public spheres. For instance, certain people were ordered or allowed to enter the king’s room to fulfill certain duties. This serves as a typical manifestation of how a given function can be elevated to the level of prestigious importance as well as the people performing it (Lapham 66). In real sense, court people personify a given objective as opposed to objectifying personal things. The etiquette displays should be seen as portions of a duel between the noble ethos of spending and status, versus the bourgeois ethic of saving, work, and prosperity. A courtly king had more power than any feudal king given the fact that he could distribute money with all his emotional attachments, surrounded by suitors all the time. In simpler terms, the money possessed by a courtly king pulled people towards him. Louis XIV also had to with conflicting interests posed by members of his court in other areas apart from the central headquarters at Versailles (Duindam 24). The nobility had shrinking financials fortunes and thus depended on the kings for protection against the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie with their growing wealth. Similarly, the bourgeoisie needed the king to protect them from the aristocrats. This cycle of events resulted in a network of interdependency as opposed to the emergence of capitalism (Ferguson 36). Elias gives a detailed account of how the court society operated and how it was able to recur across many settings. He gives this account by dwelling on the issue of etiquette and other dynamics that characterized the scene. Elias’s book and Rossellini’s movie are clear indications of how idleness at the courts was a lucid game of power played by professional players. We also get to know that the so called creatures who took part in the process are actually human beings who lived together. Furthermore, he competed against each other in a way similar to ours. Additionally, it is evident that the courtiers used the limiting pressures that befell them in the process of shaping their personalities and how they dealt with others. Courtly figuration can thus be termed as the vital element that relates the feudal history with contemporary society. Elias stands out as a prominent personality in sociology in the light of these and other contributions. Works Cited Ascher, A, A Community Under Seige. The Jews of Breslau under Nazism Ca: Stanford University press, 2007. Print. Bondanella, Peter. Italian cinema: from neorealism to the present. New York: Continuum International Publishing, 2001. Print. Duindam, J. Vienna and Versailles. The courts of Europe’s dynastic rivals, 1550-1780, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print. Elias, N and Scotson, J L. The Established and the Outsiders, Dublin: University College Dublin Press; originally published in 1965, 2008. Print. Ferguson, N. The War of the World, London: Penguin, 2007. Print. Gordon, D, ‘The Canonization of Norbert Elias in France: A Critical Perspective’ French Politics, Culture and Society, 20.1 (2002): 68-94. Print. Kilminster, R. Norbert Elias. Post-philosophical Sociology, London: Routledge, 2001. Print. Lapham, L. Lapham’s Rules of Influence, New York: Random House, 1999. Print. Mastenbroek, W. ‘Norbert Elias as organizational sociologist’ in van Iterson, Mastenbroek, Newton, and Smith (2002): 173-88. Print Smith, D. Norbert Elias and Modern Social Theory, London: Sage, 2001. Ca:Stanford University Press. 2007. Print. Read More