The purpose of this study is to reconstitute Norbert Elias' arguments on 'civilizing processes' in terms of the sociological theory of violence. Although similar efforts have been made hitherto by using the concept of 'decivilizing processes', these efforts have not yet to offer a conclusive argument. I discuss this in three parts.<br>　First, I focus on Elias' discussion of human-images, 'homo clausus' and 'homines aperti', which have been largely ignored in the discussions that focus on the 'decivilizing processes'. Elias was concerned with why the majority of people were unable to foresee the rise of Nazism. In response, Elias conceptualized a human-image that is a single 'rational' person who despised violent phenomena as an incomprehensible act: a being Elias defined as the image of 'homo clausus' (closed person). I clarify the formation of the self-image of 'homo clausus' by reexamining Elias' discussions in The Court Society and The Civilizing Process. Here, Elias used a multiple, interdependent human-image he labelled 'homines aperti' (open persons). By basing his discussion on 'homines aperti', he induced that the formation of an interwoven monopolized violence (for example 'good Society' and 'nation-state') gives impetus to the 'civilizing process' and thus generates the self-image of 'homo clausus'.<br>　This first argument then leads us to our second problem: to explain the generation of violent phenomena within the context of the self-image, 'homo clausus'. From our first argument based on 'homines aperti', we can understand that the interwoven monopolized violence contains two opposing tendencies, assimilation and distinction. Assimilation is the process of becoming collaborators with those who battle the same conflict. Distinction indicates the distinction collaborators make between themselves and others involved in the conflict. In a nation-state these two tendencies emerge from two directions, inter- and intra-state, and these two opposing tendencies generate many tensions within the patterns that are subsequently interwoven. The 'civilizing processes' are promoted only when these tensions are dissolved through freezing violence. Then when violence is frozen, the only way to dissolve these tensions are through hierarchical ranking, that is, to con figure these collaborators according to their respective power relations in a form with which they can concur, irrespective of their satisfaction or disapproval of the situation. Only when this hierarchical ranking is constantly and stably reproduced, relatively 'civilized' conduct becomes meaningful and the image of 'homo clausus' as an ideological (but false) image can be enforced. Of course, these hierarchical ranking need to be reassessed constantly and the resulting reforms may involve some suffering by many of the collaborators. When this suffering becomes aggravated, dissatisfied participants start to remove others who are collaborating against the same conflict; in other words, they practice exclusion. This 'exclusion' then cause those who possess a self-image of 'homo clausus' to savour a 'lust for submission' and a 'lust for attacking' thereby leading them to become a 'homo clausus of violence'. Thus, we are able to clarify the production of violence within the 'civilizing processes'.<br>　Finally, in my discussion on "Nazism as a civilizing process", I demonstrate that there is no contradiction between Elias' discussion of 'civilizing process' and National Socialism, by reexamining Elias' discussion of this topic in The Germans.