Logo SocioSite Logo SocioSite
Home Subjects CyberSociology Search About Add link Donate Contact


Twenty Years of Figurational Sociology
in the Netherlands [1969-1989] [1]

by Johan Goudsblom [2]

Johan Goudsblom Origins of a research group

Norbert Elias in the Netherlands

Paradigm regained?

Activities of the FS Research Group

The widening range of figurational sociology

Notes | Literature

Sociologists Sociologists in social media
© 2006-2018 AByT! All Rights Reserved

    Source:  ‘Introduction’  to:  Society  as  Process.   A  Bibliography
       of  Figurational  Sociology  in  the  Netherlands  (up  to  1989).
       Sociogenetic   and   Psychogenetic  Studies.

    The Figurational Sociology Research Group:
    Its origins

    In October 1976 thirteen sociologists and anthropologists met at the Sociological Institute of the Universtity of Amsterdam to found a research group for Figurational Sociology. As the proposed name indicated, they shared an interest in the work of Norbert Elias who had introduced the concept ‘figuration’ as a generic concept in sociology [Elias 1969a, 1969b, 1970; cf. Mennell 1989]. According to the minutes of the first meeting, they also found common inspiration in Johan Goudsblom’s Sociology in the Balance [1974]. An inventory was made of the research projects in which those present were currently involved and names were suggested of other participants to be invited. The group decided to stage monthly or bi-monthly meetings in which members would discuss informally their own work in progress.

    Within a few months after its founding, the group was accepted as a section of the Netherlands Sociological and Anthropological Association. Membership grew rapidly, reaching more than fifty within a year, and well over eighty a few years later. In accordance with the initial programme, meetings were held at approximately two months’ intervals, with attendance varying between fifteen and thirty participants. From the beginning, the majority of the members consisted of junior staff and graduates of the Sociological Institute of the University of Amsterdam. This also continued to be the location where the group convened. Members came from other universities as well, however, most notably from the Department of Anthropology of the University of Nijmegen at which one of the group's founders, Anton Blok, held a chair.

    Although the founders never intended this, the group soon came to be perceived as a distinct ‘school’ or ‘theory group’. Its own activities no doubt helped to create this impression, but it was reinforced by other events highlighting the work of Norbert Elias. Since Elias’s writings provided the common perspective of the Figurational Sociology Research Group, the images and self-images of the group were directly connected with the vicissitudes of the reception of Elias's work in the Netherlands.

    Index Norbert Elias in the Netherlands

    When the first German edition of Norbert Elias’s book The Civilizing Process was published in Switzerland in 1939, the author was living as a refugee in England. Several highly favourable reviews appeared, but because of the adverse time of publication these were never followed up by a sustained discussion. As a result, the book virtually fell into oblivion - except in the Netherlands, where it continued to attract comment and readers [Goudsblom 1977]. It was on the basis of Elias’s reputation as a notable scholar that — after his retirement as a Reader at the University of Leicester and his two years’ position as Professor of Sociology at the University of Ghana — he was invited to the Netherlands as a Visiting Professor for three consecutive autumn terms: in 1969 at the Department of History of the University of Amsterdam, in 1970 at the Department of Sociology of the same University, and in 1971 at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague.

    These visits followed closely upon the publication —after a long period of almost unbroken silence— of three important books in German: a re-issue of The Civilizing Process with a new introduction, The Court Society, and What is Sociology? The availability of these books, in combination with Elias's prolonged personal presence, made a strong impact in the Netherlands, not only in the academic world but among a wider audience of educated readers as well. Both in scholarly journals and in more general weekly and monthly periodicals, critiques of Elias's theory of the civilising process appeared, raising issues that were later reiterated in other countries. It was typical of the Dutch situation that, from the start, Elias was recognized as a sociologist rather than a historian and that What is Sociology? [1970] —which was translated as early as 1971— played an important part in the reception of his work. More attention was given here than elsewhere to Elias’s contributions to sociological theory.

    After his three terms of teaching at Dutch institutes of higher learning, Elias was repeatedly invited back to this country for lectures and conferences. Several more of his books were translated into Dutch, including a collection of essays published under the title Sociology and History (1971); The Established and the Outsiders for which he wrote a new introduction (1976); and The Civilizing Process (1982) which went through several printings and of which more than 14,000 copies were sold. After spending a few years in Germany, at the Universities of Konstanz, Aachen, Bochum, Frankfurt and Bielefeld, Elias eventually settled in Amsterdam, where he is still actively writing, giving interviews, and receiving visitors.

    Index Paradigm regained?

    This is not the place to attempt summarising the debate about the nature and meaning of Elias’s work. Suffice it to say that when the second edition of The Civilizing Process appeared I myself was among those who considered this book as being of paradigmatic significance. In a lengthy review I quoted Thomas Kuhn to the effect that a scientific paradigm (1) offers a solution to some fundamental problems, (2) leaves a number of specific problems unsolved, and (3) provides guidelines for solving these specific problems [Goudsblom 1970].

    In my review I elaborated mainly the first point, claiming that Elias’s work pointed the way out of some basic theoretical dilemmas in sociology. It provided elegant and consistent solutions to some persistent problems of conceptualisation: how to come to grips with the relationships between society and individual, between change and structure, and between purposeful action and unintended consequences.

    As I later pointed out, discussions about paradigms in sociology were ‘in the air’ at the time [Goudsblom 1977: 63-64]. There was mounting dissatisfaction with the dominant trends in the field, represented by the theoretical approach of structural functionalism and the methods and techniques of survey research. Critical students discovered the Frankfurt school and other varieties of Marxism; junior staff members were drawn toward symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology; several older sociologists felt urged to re-examine their own position.

    In this turbulent situation Elias became a pivotal figure. In his books and lectures he dealt with problems of which many people were now keenly aware: changing codes of behaviour and morality and their connection with shifts in power balances. Moreover, he did so in a way that was characterised neither by a ‘positivism’ tending to reduce all really significant problems to triviality, nor by a self-styled ‘critical’ stance in which moral critique and scholarly analysis were deliberately confounded.

    In the Dutch edition of Sociology in the Balance [1974], and even more explicitly in the English edition [1977] I tried to substantiate these programmatic statements by comparing the theoretical orientation implied in a number of well known sociological studies to the perspective unfolded in Elias’s work. Meanwhile others used this perspective in studies with a more empirical orientation [Mennell 1989: 24].

    It should be noted, however, that — while we treated ‘figuration’ as a central generic concept — none of us felt strongly inclined to label our work as ‘figurational sociology’. We regarded the methodological principles to be found in the writings of Elias as valid for sociology at large, and in a sense even for the human sciences in general. Our aim was certainly not to create a particular parochial branch of sociology named ‘figurational sociology’.

    Within the field as a whole, however, the idea that paradigmatic importance might be attributed to Elias's work was inevitably interpreted as the claim of just one more ‘school’. The tendency to identify the ‘figurationists’ or the ‘Eliasians’ (as they were variously called) as a specific ‘paradigm community’ was reinforced by the appearance of another group upon the Dutch sociological scene. This group, which proudly designated its own work as ‘explanatory sociology’ [Wippler 1978), was more inclined to think in terms of ‘theory groups’ and ‘research programmes’.

    From this point of view two of its members — one of whom (Kuiper) had also joined the Figurational Sociology Research Group — wrote an article on ‘the research programme of figurational sociology’ [Flap and Kuiper 1981]. Although, owing to an overly scientistic bias, the authors were not entirely successful in conveying the spirit of the work they tried to typify, their article did a great deal to contribute to the image of figurational sociology as a distinct approach. Its influence extended to Germany, where it was published in one of the leading professional journals.

    Later research and publications on developments in Dutch sociology reinforced the image of competing schools: Maso and Godschalk 1980; Hagendijk and Prins 1984; Vansuyt and Roorda 1987; Rijnen and Rijnders 1990.

    Index Activities of the Research Group

    The Figurational Sociology Research Group has been active on various fronts. During the first years after its founding, it held about six meetings a year. Sometimes a guest speaker was invited, including Norbert Elias himself and visiting colleagues from England and Germany such as Eric Dunning, Stephen Mennell, Hermann Korte, Peter Gleichmann, Volker Krumrey and Michael Schröter. Usually, however, a member of the group itself presented a paper about his or her current research. Many articles that were subsequently published in journals and many chapters in PhD theses received their first public discussion in meetings of the group.

    Members of the group also played a prominent part in other events celebrating Elias’s work. One such occasion was Elias’s eightieth birthday in 1977. The recently founded Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift (Amsterdam Journal of Sociology) published a festschrift, Human Figurations, with contributions in English and German, directed at an international audience. It was later to be followed by two German volumes prepared by the same team of editors [Gleichmann e.a. 1979; 1984]. In a brief foreword the editors of the festschrift noted that the sociology of Norbert Elias was gaining increasing recognition. They found it ‘in accord with the perspective of figurational sociology transcending disciplinary boundaries’ that the volume contained articles covering ‘a broad spectrum of inquiry in the human sciences’ [Gleichmann e.a. 1977:5].

    Also on the occasion of Elias’s eightieth birthday the literary review De Gids - which counted two prominent members of the Research Group, Godfried van Benthem van den Bergh and Abram de Swaan, among its editors - organized a large conference in Amsterdam on ‘Marxism, psychoanalysis and the sociology of Norbert Elias’. The implied juxtaposition of his name with those of Marx and Freud expressed an unmistakable tribute to the octogenerian.

    Members of the Research Group were also invited to attend meetings on Figurational Sociology and the Theory of the Civilising Process arranged by the Theory Groups of the British and the German Sociological Associations. Thus they presented papers at a conference at Balliol College in Oxford in January 1980 [Bruin & Brinkgreve 1980], at Bremen in 1980, and at Bamberg in 1982. The presence of small Dutch delegations at these conferences added to the group’s visibility and strengthened the internal cohesion of its core group. It also added to the prestige of such British and German advocates of Elias's work as Dunning, Mennell, Korte, and Gleichmann who at the time found little collegial rapport in their own countries.

    Meanwhile in the Netherlands itself the activities of the Research Group were concentrated on an event that was to be its first large-scale public manifestation. Early in 1980 the Dutch Sociological and Anthropological Association asked its Figurational Sociology section to organise the Association’s annual congress in December 1981. The organising committee decided to stage the meetings around the theme ‘Civilising processes and theories of civilisation’, with the focus on Elias’s theory. Sociologists, historians and anthropologists were invited to apply this theory to a variety of cases and, possibly, to compare it with other theories and test its validity. The invited speakers included both members and non-members of the Figurational Sociology group [Goudsblom 1981].

    The conference was held at the University of Amsterdam. Elias himself delivered the keynote address with a lecture on very long-term processes of civilisation and pacification. The papers that followed brought a great deal of new empirical material to bear on his theory — material based on historical, sociological and anthropological research of civilising processes in various settings. Most of these papers were subsequently published in various journals and books. The actual proceedings have been described and commented upon by several persons; the fullest and most balanced account was given by Nico Wilterdink [1982].

    As his report clearly brings out, on the second day the conference evolved into a bitter confrontation, culminating in Anton Blok’s insinuation that Elias’s theory had racist undertones. One of the reasons for this unexpected outbreak was, so it seems, the urge among some of the participants to make it abundantly clear that they did not wish to be regarded as the obedient disciples of a dogmatic school, spinning —to use Blok’s phrase— the prayer wheels of an established orthodoxy.

    The startlingly hostile stance taken by Blok and others had a demotivating effect upon the Figurational Sociology Research Group. Some of its members now evidently wished to dissociate themselves from it. Most of the others were badly stung by the allegation of orthodoxy, which ran very much counter to the spirit in which they themselves conducted their research. Since, by then, many members held university positions which enabled them to discuss their work with congenial colleagues independently of the Research Group, the frequency and attendance of the group’s meetings dropped. However, on the iniative of the Inter-University Foundation for the Social Sciences in the Netherlands (SISWO), in 1990 the group is to be reactivated under a new name, ‘Process Sociology Research Group’.

    Index The widening range of figurational sociology

    In retrospect it is clear that by 1981 research inspired by the figurational perspective in general and the theory of civilising processes in particular already had a momentum of its own. It has been continuing vigorously, regardless of the vicissitudes which the Research Group went through in the aftermath of the conference.

    The activities of the Figurational Sociology Research Group represent an episode during which the reception of Norbert Elias’s work in the Netherlands was most intense. In a more general way the reception had already begun before the German occupation in 1940, with favourable comments and reviews by the influential literary critic Menno ter Braak and the sociologist and criminologist W.A. Bonger. In some intellectual circles, mainly comprising readers of Ter Braak and former students of Bonger, the original Swiss edition of The Civilizing Process continued to be read and recommended throughout the war and post-war years.

    In the early 1970s, when Elias himself regularly lectured in the Netherlands and collected a small group of admirers around him, his ideas became the subject of a wider public interest. Almost immediately following upon the publication of some highly laudatory reviews of his recent books in German and Dutch, controversies arose — in newspapers and monthly reviews as well as in scholarly journals. Some critics simply derided Elias as a cult figure. Others more substantively challenged his view of the civilising process or the wider implications of his ideas for problems of philosophy and history.

    It was partly due to the confusion and vehemence of these debates that some of those who were influenced by Elias’s writings and teachings kept a rather low profile in this respect. If for this reason alone, it would be impossible to demarcate once and for all the boundaries of figurational sociology clearly. Yet it is generally agreed that a number of contributions to sociology in the first place, but also to anthropology and to a lesser extent to history, fall within its orbit. These contributions cover a wide array of substantive problems. They have in common a shared theoretical perspective and they derive their central concepts and ideas from the same body of writings. In terms of citation networks they are connected by ‘strategic dependency’ rather than ‘functional dependency’ [Whitley 1982; Hagendijk & Prins 1984].

    Some central research themes have been directly inspired by Elias’s work. Foremost among these is a concern with the theory of the civilising process and with the problem of whether and to what extent this theory can be made to apply to eras and areas not covered in Elias’s original book. Abram de Swaan, Cas Wouters, Paul Kapteyn, Christien Brinkgreve and several others have addressed themselves to this problem. A recurrent issue in their work is the question first raised by Wouters of whether the civilising process in Europe and the United States in its current stage can be characterised in terms of increasing ‘informalisation’.

    Another common problem relates to the continuation of state formation processes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which raises questions about the modern welfare state and its implications for personality structure. In this area De Swaan’s work is pivotal; others, such as Wouters and Bram van Stolk and Rineke van Daalen have added important contributions.

    Other common focuses of research are to be found in Anton Blok’s work on control of violence and codes of honour in Mediterranean countries and in Mart Bax’s work on ‘religious regimes’, both of which have inspired anthropologists of a younger generation to conduct investigations along similar lines. On the whole, however, research themes tend to range widely, as they do in Elias’s own work, with regard both to time and space and to topic. By and large, the linking characteristics are rather to be found in the general approach, in the use and avoidance of particular concepts and turns of phrase, and in a style which tends to be more literary and polished than the average standard in sociology.

    In accordance with their low degree of organisation and their diverging substantive interests, Dutch figurational sociologists have never founded a journal or series of publications of their own. Yet there are some periodicals in which the figurational point of view is strongly represented — to such a degree that these are sometimes regarded by outsiders as ‘organs’ of ‘the school’.

    This was very much so in the case of Symposion, an annual review edited by a group of young scholars who had been students of sociology and anthropology at the Universities of Amsterdam and Nijmegen in the 1970s. Unfortunately only three issues appeared (1979-81). Strong continuity on the other hand has been achieved by the Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, founded in 1973 by junior staff of the sociology department at the University of Amsterdam, some of whom were later to join the Figurational Sociology Research Group. The contingent of figurational sociologists in the editorial board has increased over the years, and while editorial policy has never been avowedly committed to figurational sociology, it has always proved to be sympathetic toward this perspective. A third periodical to be mentioned in this context is the literary monthly De Gids. It is typical that quite a few contributions to figurational sociology — including Elias’s ‘Essay on Time’ — were first published not in a professional journal, but in this general cultural review.

    Another cluster of publications bearing the traces of a strong exposure to the perspective of figurational sociology is formed by a number of dissertations in sociology written under the supervision of De Swaan and myself at the University of Amsterdam. Over the years, however, graduates and postgraduates from the University of Amsterdam have swarmed out over other universities as well. Partly through the dispersal of personnel, partly through the dissemination of ideas by books, reviews and oral presentations, figurational sociology has spread out over the whole country. Samples of it can also be encountered in the Netherlands Journal of Sociology, an international journal sponsored by the Netherlands Sociological and Anthropological Association. In anthropology, the figurational approach is now most clearly manifest in the departments of the Catholic University at Nijmegen and the Free University at Amsterdam.

    In the process of diffusion, the intellectual perspective itself has not remained unchanged. Often it is almost imperceptibly merged with other views — in sociology, in anthropology, in history. One field in which traces of its influence continue to be rare is, somewhat surprisingly, psychology.

    A handy yardstick for the extent to which the figurational perspective has become established in the Netherlands is its acceptance in the leading textbooks. One of the most popular textbooks in sociology, by De Jager and Mok [1989 - 9th ed.], which has been thoroughly revised over the years, has given increasing attention both to the concepts and ideas inherent in the figurational perspective and to empirical studies carried out along these lines. More recent textbooks exhibit its influence even more clearly. While avoiding any direct identification with figurational sociology, the introductions to sociology by Berting and Verrips-Roukens [1985] and by Wilterdink & Van Heerikhuizen [1985; 1989] are evidently informed by a figurational approach. A strong leaning toward this approach is also exhibited in Blok’s introductory essay on theoretical and methodological perspectives in anthropology [Blok 1975].

    Although until now Elias’s influence among social scientists has extended nowhere as far as in the Netherlands, interest in his work is growing in many other countries as well. In Germany, where he has received several high distinctions, he is widely revered as one of the very few surviving links with a lamented past. The sociologist Korte [1988] has written a biographical introduction to his early work, and the number of dissertations and other monographs in sociology and history inspired by it is increasing each year. A tribute in disguise is the announced four-volume critique of the theory of the civilising process by the anthropologist Hans Peter Duerr, the first two volumes of which have appeared in 1988 and 1989.

    In France Elias is recognised as an inspiring predecessor by historians of the Annales school and by one of the leading sociologists, Pierre Bourdieu. Parts of his work are now also available and being discussed in other languages of both Western and Eastern Europe and in Japanese.

    Only in the English-speaking world does its reception appear to be lagging somewhat behind. Within sociology, however, it is being aided by the currently reviving interest in such fields as comparative historical sociology and the sociology of culture, and by the emergence of new research areas such as the sociology of emotions. For all these areas, Elias’s work contains seminal ideas, especially at the high level of general synthesis at which seemingly disparate phenomena can be shown to be interdependent. It is to be expected that Stephen Mennell’s lengthy and informative monograph [Mennell 1989] will further stimulate interest in these ideas. Meanwhile the journal Theory, Culture & Society appears to be developing into a regular platform for publications by and about Elias [Featherstone 1987].

    In the Netherlands, the Department of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam continues to be the hub of what may loosely be called ‘figurational sociology’ or, as Elias himself has recently suggested, ‘process sociology’. Even there, those who are clearly affiliated with this approach constitute a minority which especially in its early years often met with bitter opposition (cf. Van Peursen). In the entire spectrum of sociology in the Netherlands, the ‘figurational’ segment is even smaller. All the same, as this bibliography clearly demonstrates, the figurational perspective is by no means confined to Amsterdam, nor to sociology.

    The critical discussion and empirical elaboration of Elias’s writings which started in the Netherlands some twenty years ago is now taking place on a much larger scale in an international context. Work along these lines in other countries might benefit from a better acquaintance with the Dutch contributions over the preceding period. Making these more readily accessible is the purpose of the present publication.

    Obviously any inventory can only show the work that has been done up to a particular moment. Figurational sociology, or process sociology, in the Netherlands is a continually expanding field, in terms of both the number of studies carried out and the range of subjects covered by these studies.

    For the period up to 1989, however, a fair measure of completeness has been attained, thanks to Willem Kranendonk who has performed with great dedication the task of collecting the data for this bibliography. In doing so he could draw on a long-standing familiarity with figurational sociology and an impressive sense of accuracy. I have also been able to profit from these qualities through his comments on earlier drafts of this introduction.

    Index Notes

    [1] Amsterdam, November 1989. © 1990 J. Goudsblom
         Published in: Society as Process. A Bibliography of Figurational Sociology in the Netherlands (up to 1989). Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Studies, pp. 13-27. Compiled by Willem H. Kranendonk. Amsterdam 1990 (= Publikatiereeks Sociologisch Instituut, Universiteit van Amsterdam). The original references have been adapted to the SocioSite environment.

    [2] Having been personally involved in the development of figurational
         sociology in the Netherlands I cannot avoid mentioning my own part in it. Choosing an appropriate form for this is an example of the problem mentioned by Norbert Elias in the opening sentence of What is sociology? and discussed at greater length by him in his remarks on personal pronouns — the problem of how to speak about oneself ‘as one human being among others’. The most customary way of relating events in which one has taken part oneself is to use the first person singular, thus adopting an egocentric point of view. In scientific papers the usage has developed of taking a more detached stance, and of referring to one’s own work by name; thus one writes ‘as Johnson (1985) has shown’, even if Johnson happens to be oneself. When referring to my writings in this introduction I shall follow the latter rule and use the third person; for my activities I shall stick to the more familiar first person.

    Index Literature

    Berting & Verrips-Roukens: see Verrips

    Blok, Anton [1975]
    Wittgenstein en Elias: een methodische richtlijn voor de antropologie (Wittgenstein and Elias: a methodological guideline for anthropology).
    (= Inaugural lecture, Catholic University of Nijmegen, April 24, 1975) Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. Reprinted with a new Postscriptum, Amsterdam 1976: Athenaeum, Polak & Van Gennep 80 pp

    Bruin, Kees / Brinkgreve, Christien [1980]
    De figuratie-sociologen bijeen (The figurational sociologists meet)
    In: Sociodrome, 2: 7-9.

    De Jager, H. / Mok, A.L. [1978, 1983, 1989]
    Grondbeginselen der sociologie. Gezichtspunten en begrippen.
    Leiden/Antwerpen 1989 - 9e: Stenfert Kroese. Vanaf de 7e herziene druk 1978: 335-337 is ‘Figuratiesociologie’ toegevoegd aan de ‘Epiloog: Sociologische stromingen‘ (360-362 in 8e herz. druk 1983).
    (‘Figurational sociology’ added to the ‘Epilogue: Theoretical currents in sociology’ of the textbook “Principles of sociology: Perspectives and concepts”, from its revised 7th edition onwards)

    Elias, Norbert [1969a]
    Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen, 2 Volumes (1939). Second edition with a new Introduction. Bern and Munich 1969: Francke Verlag
    (Vol. I: The Civilizing Process. The History of Manners. New York / Oxford 1978. Vol. II: Power and Civility. New York 1982 / State Formation and Civilization. Oxford 1982)

    Elias, Norbert [1969b]
    Die höfische Gesellschaft. Untersuchungen zur Soziologie des Königtums und der höfischen Aristokratie. Mit einer Einleitung: ‘Soziologie und Geschichtswissenschaft’. Neuwied and Berlin: Luchterhand
    (The Court Society. With an Introduction: ‘Sociology and history’. Oxford: Basil Blackwell / New York: Pantheon Books 1983)

    Elias, Norbert [1971] Wat is Sociologie? Utrecht/Antwerpen: Het Spectrum (Dutch translation by Jan Vollers and Johan Goudsblom of Elias’s Was ist Soziologie?, Munich 1970: Juventa Verlag)
    (What is Sociology?. London 1978: Hutchinson)

    Featherstone, Mike [1987]
    Norbert Elias and Figurational Sociology. Some Prefatory Remarks.
    In: Theory, Culture & Society, 4(2/3): 197-212

    Flap, Henk / Kuiper, Yme [1981]
    Figuratiesociologie als onderzoeksprogramma (Figurational sociology as a research programme), in: Mens en maatschappij 54(3) (1979) 232-269
       Revised German version: ‘Figurationssoziologie als Forschungsprogramm’, in: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 33(2): 273-301.

    Gleichmann, Peter R., Goudsblom, Johan / Korte, Hermann (eds) [1977]
    Human Figurations. Essays for Norber Elias / Aufsätze für Norbert Elias.
    Amsterdam: Stichting Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, 463 pp

    Gleichmann, Peter R. / Goudsblom, Johan / Korte, Hermann (eds) [1979]
    Materialien zu Norbert Elias' Zivilisationstheorie [1] (Studies in Norbert Elias's theory of the civilizing process Vol. I). Frankfurt am Main, reprint 1982: Suhrkamp (= stw #233) 436 pp

    Gleichmann, Peter R. / Goudsblom, Johan / Korte, Hermann (eds) (1984)
    Macht und Zivilisation. Materialien zu Norbert Elias’ Zivilisations-theorie 2 (Power and Civilization. Studies in Norbert Elias’s theory of the civilizing process Vol. II). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (= stw #418) 322 pp

    Goudsblom, Johan [1970]
    ‘Bij de tweede druk van Über den Prozess der Zivilisation’. In: Mens en Maatschappi,j 45(5): 352-361 (Review article on the occasion of the second edition [in Germany 1969] of The Civilizing Process by Norbert Elias).
    Reprinted as ‘De paradigmatische strekking van Het civilisatieproces’ (The paradigmatic tenor of The Civilizing Process) 27-38 in: Goudsblom 1987>

    Goudsblom, Johan [1974]
    Balans van de sociologie. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Het Spectrum 240 pp / Sociology in the Balance: A Critical Essay. Oxford: Basil Blackwell / New York: Columbia Universitty Press, 1977

    Goudsblom, Johan [1977]
    Responses to Norbert Elias’s work in England, Germany, the Netherlands and France [with a bibliography of reviews and other writings published up to 1978 containing references to Elias’s work, of which an extensive selective bibliography is added], 37-97 in: Gleichmann e.a. 1977 [page reference to this version]
       Dutch translation of part (presented to the Gids-symposion on Marxism, Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Norbert Elias, Amsterdam June 17, 1977) in De Gids 140-4/5 (1977) 238-256
       A revised version of the concluding section: ‘The Sociology of Norbert Elias: Its Resonance and Significance’, in: Theory, Culture & Society (Special issue on ‘Norbert Elias and Figurational Sociology’) 4(2/3) (1987) 323-337
       A supplemented German translation: 'Aufnahme und Kritik der Arbeiten von Norbert Elias in England, Deutschland, den Niederlanden und Frankreich', 17-100 in: Gleichmann e.a. 1979, and a further supplement: ‘Kurze Ergänzung der Rezeptionsgeschichte’, in: Gleichmann e.a. 1984, pp. 305-322.
       A comprehensive and revised Dutch translation: ‘Weerklank en kritiek: reacties op het werk van Norbert Elias, 1923-1979 [=1978]’, 61-144 + 240-260 in: Goudsblom 1987

    Goudsblom, Johan [1981)
    Civilisatieprocessen en civilisatietheorieën (Civilizing processes and theories of civilization)
    In: Sociodrome, 6: 13-14.

    Goudsblom, Johan [1987]
    De sociologie van Norbert Elias (The sociology of Norbert Elias)
    Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 271 pp.

    Hagendijk, Rob / Prins, A.A.M. [1984]
    Referenties en revérences. Onzekerheid, afhankelijkheid en citeer-netwerken in de Nederlandse sociologie (References and reverences: Uncertainty, dependency and citation networks in Dutch sociology)
    In: Mens en Maatschappij, 59(3):226-250

    Jager, de: see De Jager

    Korte, Hermann [1988]
    Über Norbert Elias. Das Werden eines Menschenwissenschaftlers
    (Norbert Elias: The genesis of a human scientist).
    Frankfurt: Suhrkamp

    Maso, Benjo / Godschalk, Jan [1980]
    Kleine sociologie van het bedanken (A brief sociology of acknowledgements), in: Sociodrome, 5: 7-9.

    Mennell, Stephen [1989]
    Norbert Elias: Civilization and the Human Self-Image.
    Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Peursen, van: see Van Peursen

    Rijnders, Kyong / Rijnen, Angela [1990]
    Theoriegroepen in de sociologie: Werving, selektie en toetreding van nieuwe leden (Theory groups in sociology: Recruitment, selection and accession of new members), in: R. Hagendijk / Harbers, H. / Hicks, E. (eds) [1990] Sociaal-culturele wetenschappen in beweging. Amsterdam: SISWO, pp. 53-78 (= Special issue Febr. 1990 of WO NieuwsNet. Tijdschrift voor wetenschapsonderzoek)

    Van Peursen, Albertine [1989]
    Onder sociologen. Een onderzoek naar de problemen van het samenleven op het Sociologisch Instituut te Amsterdam (Among sociologists. An inquiry into the problems of living together at the Amsterdam Sociological Institute). Amsterdam 1989: Uitgeverij Vergezocht (= M.A. thesis, Sociologisch Instituut, Universiteit van Amsterdam)

    Vansuyt, Chantal / Roorda, Carla [1987]
    Onzekerheden, lokale strategieën en theoretische oriëntaties in de Nederlandse sociologie (Insecurities, local strategies and theoretical orientations in Dutch sociology).
    In: Tilly Berkenbosch e.a. [1978] Ideeën en identiteiten, facetten van de Nederlandse sociologie (Ideas and identities: aspects of Dutch sociology). Amsterdam: SISWO, pp. 103-133
    (= SISWO-Publikatie #321, ed. by R. Hagendijk, C. Schulte Fischedick & G. de Vries)

    Verrips-Roukens, Kitty / Berting, J. / Witte, M.C. de / Cruson, C.I. [1985]
    Inleiding in de sociologie. 5 Delen + reader + video disk, edited by prof. dr J. Berting & drs C.A. Verrips-Roukens. Heerlen: Open Universiteit (Introduction to sociology. [5 volume Open University Course])

    Whitley, R.D. [1982]
    The Establishment and Structure of the Sciences as Reputational Organizations.
    In: Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins and Richard Whitley (eds) [1982] Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Reidel. pp. 313-357.

    Wilterdink, Nico [1982]
    De civilisatietheorie in discussie. Opmerkingen bij een congres (The theory of the civilizing process in the crossfire of discussion. Report and comments on a congress)
    In: Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, 8(4): 571-590.

      Het congres ‘Civilisatieprocessen en Civilisatietheorieën’, Amsterdam 17-18 dec. 1981, georganiseerd door de Werkgroep Figuratiesociologie van de N.S.A.V. / Refers to the congress on ‘Civilizing Processes and Theories of Civilization’, Amsterdam Dec. 17-18, 1981, organized by the Figurational Sociology Research Group of the Dutch Sociological and Anthropological Association N.S.A.V.
    Revised German translation: ‘Die Zivilisationstheorie im Kreuzfeuer der Diskussion. Ein Bericht vom Kongress über Zivilisationsprozesse in Amsterdam’, in: Gleichmann e.a. (eds) [1984]: 280-304. [This version includes (302-304) a full list of the papers presented]
       German summary: ‘Bemerkungen zur Zivilisationstheorie’
    (Comments on the theory of the civilizing process), 530-534 in: F. Heckman & P. Winter (eds), 21. Deutscher Soziologentag 1982. Beiträge der Sektions- und Ad-hoc-Gruppen. Opladen 1983: Westdeutscher Verlag (Proceedings of the 21st German Sociological Convention [at Bamberg] 1982: Contributions to the sessions of the sections and the ad hoc-groups [on Figurational Sociology inter al., including German summaries of six contributions by Dutch participants]

    Wilterdink, Nico / Heerikhuizen, Bart van (eds.) [1985, 1989]
    Samenlevingen. Een verkenning van het terrein van de sociologie (Societies. An exploration of the field of sociology).
    Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 442 pp.

    Wippler, R. [1978]
    Nicht-intendierte soziale Folgen individueller Handlungen
    (Unintended social consequences of individual actions).
    In: Soziale Welt, 29(2): 155-179.


Logo SocioSite Logo SocioSite
Home Subjects CyberSociology Search About Add link Donate Contact

SocioSite Logo
Editor dr. Albert Benschop
Social & Behavioral Studies
University of Amsterdam
Created May, 2006
Last modified 03rd April, 2017