UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

FACULTY OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL WORK

UNIT NAME: CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

CONFLICT THEORY

Introduction

Sociology is a science discipline focusing on the study of human

society, relationships, social patterns and processes as well as

seeking explanations and meanings of these interactions within an

individual as well as societal content. Sociological theories

help us to explain and predict the social world in which we live.

Conflict theory is a perspective in sociology that emphasize the

social, political, or material inequality of a social group, that

critique the broad socio-political system, or that otherwise

detract from structural functionalism and ideological

conservativism.

Origin Of Conflict Theory.

The ideas that make up the foundations of conflict theory can be

traced back to early philosophy. Han Fei Tzu (280 - 233 BC) and

other ancient Chinese philosophers taught that men are innately

weak and lazy. This assumption leads to the obvious conclusion

that the only way men can be controlled, then, is through

punishment. Those who have the power to punish can control

society, as the fear of the power of punishment keeps men in

check.

Polybius, a Greek philosopher (205-125 BC), focused his studies

on the Roman Republic. He believed that people were like herds of

animals. Weaknesses lead man to form communities in which the

strongest and bravest person became the leader. He believed

societies change and transition into a monarchy and that

monarchies are based on justice and legitimate authority.

Monarchies have an obligation to keep peace in society. However;

the same problems with men will be exhibited in their kings,

leading to corrupt and unjust monarchies. The result: tyrants and

tyranny. Tyranny is, however, self-limiting. Once it becomes

unbearable, the elite in society will figure out ways to over

throw the monarchy. Society will be in support of these new

leaders because they give more liberty and equality. This cycle

will repeat itself because the new leader will take some of the

liberty and sense of equality away from the people. Polybius

believed the only way to stop this cycle is to form a government

that combines the best elements from monarchies, aristocracies,

and democracy, like the Roman government during his time.

Many philosophers had similar ideas about conflict and society.

They believed that conflict was a necessary part of society.

Conflict, as a sociological theory, was formalized in the 19th

and 20th Centuries, building upon the ideas of people like those

mentioned above. Many sociologists have contributed to the

development of conflict theory, including Max Gluckman, John Rex,

Lewis A. Coser, Randall Collins, Ralf Dahrendorf, Ludwig

Gumplovicz, Vilfredo Pareto, and Georg Simmel. However, Karl Marx

is often credited as being the father of conflict theory.

Conflict theory can also be traced back to thinkers such as

Machiavelli or Thomas Hobbes, both of whom viewed humanity

cynically.

Modern conflict theory was out of its rationalistic context and

turned into an empirical investigation by David Hume and Adam

Ferguson. In treating conflict as an empirical fact, Hume laid

the foundations for the contemporary theory of the political

party. Ferguson turned these ideas into a general account of

political institutions and government, conceived as arising out

of struggle. Parallel theories appeared in France in the works of

Turgot.

Definition of conflict

Conflict may be defined as a struggle or contest between people

with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs, values, or goals. Conflict

on teams is inevitable; however, the results of conflict are not

predetermined. Conflict might escalate and lead to nonproductive

results, or conflict can be beneficially resolved and lead to

quality final products. Therefore, learning to manage conflict is

integral to a high-performance team.

Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as

class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant

ideologies. It is therefore a macro level analysis of society.

Karl Marx is the father of the social conflict theory, which is a

component of the 4 paradigms of sociology. (Ibid)

Subsequent thinkers have described different versions of conflict

theory; a common theme is that different social groups have

unequal power, though all groups struggle for the same limited

resources. Conflict theory argues that society is not best

understood as a complex system striving for equilibrium but

rather as a competition. Society is made up of individuals

competing for limited resources.

Francis Abraham (1983), observes that, conflict theories tend to

be specific restricted to the interrelationship between two or

more units within society. Racial tension, class war, religious

conflicts, strikes, protests, student power movements,

revolutions, peasant uprisings and the like often become subjects

of analysis.’

Major Propositions of Conflict Theory

1. Society and its elements are in the process of incessant

change although at varying degrees; change and conflict are

continuous and normal features of human society.

2. Society is not a system in equilibrium but a nebulous

structure of imperfectly coordinated elements which are held

together by the coercion of some elements and the subjection

of others.

3. Society is a stage populated with living, struggling and

competing actors; the universe is the setting within which the

conflicts of life are acted out.

4. Social conflicts are inherent in the very nature of social

structure; the distinction between exogenous and endogenous

conflicts is valid only in the analytical sense.

5. The inherent predilections to change in society vary in scope,

nature, intensity and degree of velocity; they may be latent

or manifest, gradual or destructive.

Francis Abraham, has classified conflicts into two categories.

a. Endogenous conflicts this include conflict of values,

authority, distribution of desirables, and conflict between

the individual and society

b. Exogenous conflict this include wars, cultural invasion and

conflict of ideology

There are two distinct traditions of conflict theory in the

classical works:

1. The power relations tradition of political philosophy. The

proponents of this tradition include Machiavelli, Bodin,

Hobbes and Mosca. They have analyzed conflicts in the polity

in terms of power relation and have treated the state as the

central object of analysis.

2. The tradition of competitive struggle in classical economics.

The proponents of this tradition include Adam Smith,Robert

Malthus and generations of economists after them. They placed

economic competition at the centre of the inquiry.

Sociological conflict is largely a synthesis of these two

traditions with primary focus on the unequal distributions of

rewards in society. Karl Marx has been label as the leading

architect of sociological conflict theory. Others include: C.

Wright Mills, Ralf Rahrendorf, Lewis Coser, and Randall Collins

among others.

Central ideas in conflict theory

The basic premise of conflict theory is that individuals and

groups in society struggle to maximize their share of the limited

resources that exist and are desired by humans. Given that there

are limited resources, the struggle inevitably leads to conflict

and competition. These struggles can lead to changes in

institutions and societies as different groups come into power.

The essence of conflict theory is best epitomized by the classic

"pyramid structure" in which an elite dictates terms to the

larger masses. All major social structures, laws, and traditions

in the society are designed to support those who have

traditionally been in power, or the groups that are perceived to

be superior in the society according to this theory. Conflict

theorists would argue that all groups in society are born from

conflict. An example might be that of labor unions, which are

developed to fight for the interests of workers, whereas trade

organizations are made to fight for the interests of the moneyed

classes. This theory of groups is opposed to functionalism in

which each of these groups would play a specific, set role in

society. In functionalism, these groups cooperate to benefit

society whereas in conflict theory the groups are in opposition

to one another as they seek to better their masters.

"It is in the interests of those who have wealth to keep and

extend what they own, whereas it is in the interests of those who

have little or no wealth to try to improve their lot in life."

This can also be expanded to include any society's morality, and

by extension their definition of deviance. Anything that

challenges the control of the elite will likely be considered

"deviant" or "morally reprehensible." The theory can be applied

on both the macro level (like the U.S. government or Soviet

Russia, historically) or the micro level (a church organization

or school club). In summary, conflict theory seeks to catalog the

ways in which those in power seek to stay in power.

Conflict theory also holds that social order is maintained by

domination and power, rather than consensus and conformity.

According to conflict theory, those with wealth and power try to

hold on to it by any means possible, chiefly by suppressing the

poor and powerless. Conflict theory also ascribes most of the

fundamental developments in human history, such as democracy and

civil rights, to capitalistic attempts to control the masses

rather than to a desire for social order.

Conflict theory states that society or an organization functions

so that each individual participant and its groups struggle to

maximize their benefits, which inevitably contributes to social

change. The theory is mostly applied to explain conflict between

social classes, proletariat versus bourgeoisie; and in

ideologies, such as capitalism versus socialism.

Conflict theory has also been used to explain a wide range of

social phenomena, including wars and revolutions, wealth and

poverty, discrimination and domestic violence.

In understanding conflict theory, competition between social

classes plays a key part. The following are the primary

assumptions of modern conflict theory:

Interactions: Human interaction results in conflict.

Change: Conflict and change are normal and inevitable in

society.

Competition: Competition over scarce resources (e.g., money,

leisure, sexual partners, etc.) is part of all social

groups. Competition rather than consensus is characteristic

of human relationships. If everyone had the resources they

needed, conflict would not exist.

Structural Inequality: Inequalities in power and rewards are

built into all social structures. Resources are scarce and

groups will always compete over these resources.

Degree of Inequality: Inequality exists in varying degrees with

people having different amounts of resources; hierarchies

exist.

Revolution: Macro changes occur as a result of conflict

between competing interests rather than through adaptation.

It is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than

evolutionary.

Sources of conflicts

Class and identity differentials

Territoriarity or land conflicts

Economic competition

Differences in ideas, values, ideology and religion

Scarce resources (resources in general) that form the necessities

of life

Competition for example political, business, entertainment, and

sports

Diplomacy or intellectual prowess

Proponents of Conflict Theory

A. Early Conflict Theorizing

1. KARL MARX ;( 1818-1883)

Marx's theories about society, economics and politics –

collectively known as Marxism – hold that human societies

progress through class struggle: a conflict between an ownership

class that controls production and a dispossessed labouring class

that provides the labour for production. He called capitalism the

"dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," believing it to be run by the

wealthy classes for their own benefit; and he predicted that,

like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal

tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement

by a new system called socialism.

Marx viewed the structure of society in relation to its major

classes, and the struggle between them as the engine of change in

this structure. In relation to property there are three great

classes of society: the bourgeoisie (who own the means of

production such as machinery and factory buildings, and whose

source of income is profit), landowners (whose income is rent),

and the proletariat (who own their labor and sell it for a

wage).According to him theSociety was a two-class

system:Bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and

Proletariat (workers)

The distribution of political power is determined by power over

production that is, capital confers political power, which the

bourgeois class uses to legitimatize and protect their property

and consequent social relations. Class relations are political,

and in the mature capitalist society, the state's business is

that of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the intellectual basis of

state rule, the ideas justifying the use of state power and its

distribution, are those of the ruling class. The intellectual-

social culture is merely a superstructure resting on the relation

of production, on ownership of the means of production.

Finally, the division between classes will widen and the

condition of the exploited worker will deteriorate so badly that

social structure collapses: the class struggle is transformed

into a proletarian revolution. The workers' triumph will

eliminate the basis of class division in property through public

ownership of the means of production. With the basis of classes

thus wiped away, a classless society will ensue, and since

political power to protect the bourgeoisie against the workers is

unnecessary, political authority and the state will wither away.

Marx's view of class conflict has the following elements.

• Classes are authority relationships based on property

ownership.

• A class defines groupings of individuals with shared

life situations, thus interests.

• Classes are naturally antagonistic by virtue of their

interests.

• Imminent within modern society is the growth of two

antagonistic classes and their struggle, which

eventually absorbs all social relations.

• Political organization and Power is an instrumentality

of class struggle, and reigning ideas are its

reflection.

• Structural change is a consequence of the class

struggle.

Marx's emphasized on class conflict as constituting the dynamics

of social change, he argued that change was not random but the

outcome of a conflict of interests, and his view of social

relations as based on power were contributions of the first

magnitude. However, time and history have invalidated many of his

assumptions and predictions. Capitalist ownership and control of

production have been separated. Joint stock companies forming

most of the industrial sector are now almost wholly operated by

non-capital-owning managers. Workers have not grown homogeneous

but are divided and subdivided into different skill groups. Class

stability has been undercut by the development of a large middle

class and considerable social mobility. Rather than increasing

extremes of wealth and poverty, there has been a social leveling

and an increasing emphasis on social justice. And finally,

bourgeois political power has progressively weakened with growth

in worker oriented legislation and of labor-oriented parties, and

with a narrowing of the rights and privileges of capital

ownership. Most important, the severest manifestation of conflict

between workers and capitalist--the strike--has been

institutionalized through collective bargaining legislation and

the legalization of strikes.

Karl Marx, believed society is a dynamic entity constantly

undergoing change driven by class conflict. Whereas functionalism

understands society as a complex system striving for equilibrium,

the conflict perspective views social life as competition.

According to the conflict perspective, society is made up of

individuals competing for limited resources (e.g., money,

leisure, sexual partners, etc.). Competition over scarce

resources is at the heart of all social relationships.

Competition, rather than consensus, is characteristic of human

relationships. Broader social structures and organizations (e.g.,

religions, government, etc.) reflect the competition for

resources and the inherent inequality competition entails; some

people and organizations have more resources (i.e., power and

influence), and use those resources to maintain their positions

of power in society.

Societies are defined by inequality that produces conflict,

rather than which produces order and consensus. This conflict

based on inequality can only be overcome through a fundamental

transformation of the existing relations in the society, and is

productive of new social relations.

The disadvantaged have structural interests that run counter to

the status quo, which, once they are assumed, will lead to social

change. Thus, they are viewed as agents of change rather than

objects one should feel sympathy for.

Human potential (e.g., capacity for creativity) is suppressed by

conditions of exploitation and oppression, which are necessary in

any society with an unequal division of labour. These and other

qualities do not necessarily have to be stunted due to the

requirements of the so-called "civilizing process," or

“functional necessity”: creativity is actually an engine for

economic development and change.

According to William J. Chambliss (1973), Marx’s analyses of

conflict theory in the capitalist society are as follows:

1. The importance of property-To Marx, the most distinguishing

characteristic of any society is its form of property, and

the crucial determinant of an individual’s behavior is in

his relation to property. Classes are determined on the

basis of the individual’s relation to the means of

production. It is not a man’s occupation but his position

relative to the instruments of production that determines

his class. Property divisions are the crucial breaking lines

in the class structure. Development of class consciousness

and conflict over the distribution of economic rewards

fortified the class barriers. Since work was the basic form

of man’s self-realization, economic conditions of the

particular historic era determined the social, political abs

legal arrangements..

2. Economic determinism-The capitalist society is based on the

concentration of means of production and distribution in the

hands of a few. The capitalists who hold the monopoly of

effective private property take control of the political

machinery, and their interest converge in the political and

ideological spheres, political power, properly so called, is

merely the organized power of one class for oppressing

another. The bourgeoisie use the state as an instrument of

economic exploitation and consolidation of self interest. He

says the economic power of the bourgeoisie is transformed

into political power, and the entire political processes and

institutions including the courts, the police and the

military and the ruling elites become sub servant to the

interest of the capitalists.

3. Polarization of classes-Inherent in capitalist society is a

tendency toward the radical polarization of classes. He says

the society break up into two great antagonistic classes:

bourgeoisie and proletariat. The capitalists who own the

means of production and distribution, and the working

classes who own nothing but their own labor.

4. Inauguration of the communist society-socialization of

effective private property will eliminate class and thereby

the causes of social conflict. The state will eventually

wither away as it becomes obsolete in a classless society in

which nobody owns anything but everybody owns everything and

each individual contributes according to his ability and

receives accordingly to his need.

5. The theory of surplus value-capitalists accumulates profit

through the exploitation of labor. The value of any

commodity is determined by the amount of labor it takes to

produce it. The labor time necessary for the worker to

produce a value equal to the one he receives in the form of

wages is less than the actual duration of his work. Surplus

value refers to the quantity of value produced by the worker

beyond the necessary labor time-meaning the working time

required to produce a value equal to the one he has received

in the form of wages. Since employers have the monopoly of

the instruments of production, they can force workers to do

extra hours of work, and profits tend to accumulate with

increasing exploitation of labor.

2. GOERG SIMMEL(1913-2003): CONFLICT AND THE LAW

Levels of concern

There are four basic levels of concern in Simmel’s work. First

are his assumptions about the psychological workings of social

life. Second is his interest in the sociological workings of

interpersonal relationships. Third is his work on the structure

of and changes in the social and cultural “spirit” of his times.

He also adopted the principle of emergence, which is the idea

that higher levels emerge from the lower levels. Finally, he

dealt with his views in the nature and inevitable fate of

humanity. His most microscopic work dealt with forms and the

interaction that takes place with different types of people. The

forms include subordination, superordination, exchange, conflict

and sociability.

Viewing conflict as a normal part of the social order, Simmel

regards legal relations within the context of super ordination-

subordination interactions as being reciprocal,not just

oppressive.For him,the seemingly one-sided action of the superior

giving the law and the subordinate receiving it is actually a

bilateral and contractual relationship. Law is possible, Simmel

states, only when the subordinate acquiesces to its demands. In

short, Simmel considers conflict as merely an intense form of

interaction

He also comments on a specific type of conflict,competition,and

its relation to the law.He says,competition is an indirect

conflict that is neither offensive nor defensive he describes

competition as those ‘conflicts which consists in parallel

efforts by both parties concerning the same prize’ (1969:57).In

this sense competition is seen as pure,honest,legitimate,and

useful to society.However,when competition employs such means as

violence,damage to property,fraud,and slander,then it is said to

be illegitimate.Because illegitimate competition has the

potential to harm society,the law must intervene to regulate it.

Simmel (1950) contends that it is possible to identify patterns

of conflict, cooperation, and competition in the social

associations called the dyad and the triad. According to Simmel,

the relationship between two parties forms the simplest

sociological formation, the dyad. Third party appears in the

triad and, thus, the form of social interactions is fundamentally

altered. Simmel states that the non-partisan third party may

function either as a mediator with the intent of bringing

together two disputing parties in order to produce harmonious

agreement between them, or else function as an arbitrator who

balances the disputing parties’ contradictory claims against one

another and eliminates what is incompatible in those claims.

Relying on these Simmelian ideas, legal sociologist Vilhelm

Aubert (1963) classifies the types of interpersonal conflict that

arise in a dyadic relationship between two individuals or two

groups, the sources of these conflicts, and the ways of resolving

these conflicts. For him, two types of interpersonal conflict can

be readily distinguished in regard to whether they involve

interests or values. Conflict of interests has its source in

competition. In this case, conflict arises from a situation of

scarce resources as when two parties desire the same thing but

the amount available is not sufficient to satisfy each of them

completely and for all time i.e. when the proprietors of the only

two supermarkets in town compete over same limited pool of

potential customers.

By contrast, a conflict of values has its source in dissensus.

Here; two parties disagree strongly with each other’s (religion,

moral, ideological, political) beliefs e.g. Pro-choice and pro-

life groups disagree fundamentally over whether the abortion of a

human fetus is, in fact, murder, and therefore immoral and

illegal. Because two parties are also competing over scarce

resources needed to propagate their beliefs, a conflict of values

is almost always intermingled with a conflict of interests. In

Auberts’s analysis, all social conflicts can be traced back to

dissensus and/or competition.

He considered conflict, a form of association, endemic in any

interaction. The ‘instinct of opposition’ and the element of

hostility are thought of as being essential ingredients of group

relationships. Nevertheless, more often than not, conflict

establishes unity and strengthens the group. According to Simmel

‘Conflict is admitted to cause or modify interest groups,

unifications, organizations…If every interaction among men is a

sociation, conflict-after all one of the most vivid interactions,

which, furthermore, cannot possibly be carried on by one

individual alone-must certainly be considered as sociation. And

in fact, dissociating factors-hate, envy, need, desire-are the

causes of the conflict; it breaks out because of them. Conflict

is thus designed to resolve divergent dualisms: it is a way of

achieving some kind of unity, even if it be through the

annihilation of one of the conflicting parties…Conflict itself

resolves the tension between contrasts. The fact that it aims at

peace is only, an especially obvious, expression of its nature:

the synthesis of elements that work both against and for one

another...”

Simmel, thus, rejected the notion that conflict is a disruptive

temporary phase. He considered peace and conflict to be

equivalent faces of social reality; neither is inherently

constructive or destructive, ‘In contrast to such pure

negativity, conflict contains something positive. Its positive

and negative aspects, however, are integrated; they can be

separated conceptually but not empirically’

Simmel's discussion of the differences between small and large

groups--between the intensity of involvement among individuals in

the primary group and the distance, aloofness, and segmentation

of individuals in larger groups--reveals his general dialectical

approach to the relation between individual freedom and group

structure. His minute sociological analysis is part of his

general philosophical view of the drift of modern history. Like

Durkheim, Simmel theorizes about types and properties of group

relations and social solidarities as part of a more general

endeavor to assess and evaluate the major trends of historical

development and to elaborate a diagnosis of his time.

In his economic philosophy, Economic exchange, Simmel argues,

can best be understood as a form of social interaction. When

monetary transactions replace earlier forms of barter,

significant changes occur in the forms of interaction between

social actors. Money is subject to precise division and

manipulation and permits exact measurement of equivalents. It is

impersonal in a manner in which objects of barter, like crafted

gongs and collected shells, can never be. It thus helps promote

rational calculation in human affairs and furthers the

rationalization that is characteristic of modern society. When

money becomes the prevalent link between people, it replaces

personal ties anchored in diffuse feelings by impersonal

relations that are limited to a specific purpose. Consequently,

abstract calculation invades areas of social life, such as

kinship relations or the realm of esthetic appreciation, which

were previously the domain of qualitative rather than

quantitative appraisals.

3. MAX WEBER. (1864-1920)

Weber sees class in economic terms. He argues that classes

develop in market economies in which individuals compete for

economic gain.

He defines a class as a group of individuals who share a similar

position in market economy and by virtue of that fact receive

similar economic rewards. Thus a person's class situation is

basically his market situation. Those who share a similar class

situation also share similar life chances. Their economic

position will directly affect their chances of obtaining those

things defined as desirable in their society.

Class, Status, Party

To Him, all communities are arranged in a manner that goods,

tangible and intangible, symbolic and material are distributed.

Such a distribution is always unequal and necessarily and

involves power, Classes, status groups and parties are phenomena

of the distribution of power within a community'' Status groups

makes up the social order, classes the economic order, and

parties the legal/political order. Each order affects and is

affected by the other.

He agrees with Marx that economics played a central role inpower distinction. He also believed in two other factors:

Social prestige (status)

Example: someone could be poor and still hold a lot of powerbecause of social prestige MMMMMM MMMMMMM

Political influence

Weber defined power as “the ability to impose ones will onanother, even when the other objects”

Authority: legitimate power; used with consent of the ruled

Distribution of power and authority is the basis of socialconflict

HOWEVER: if subordinates believe in the authority they avoidedconflict

If authority is not recognized as a legitimate conflict occurs,

People with power want to keep it and People without power want

to seek it

He said there were three types of authority:Rational-legal;

Traditional and Charismatic.

Weber argues that the major class division is between those who

own the forces of production and those who do not. He

distinguished the following class grouping in capitalist society:

the propertied upper class, the property-less white-collar

workers, the petit bourgeois, and the manual working class.

Patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and

journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant

opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now

hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a

revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the

common ruin of the contending classes.

In the social productions of their existence, men inevitably

enter into definite relations, which are independent of their

will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage

in the development of their material forces of production. The

totality of these relations of production constitutes the

economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which

arises a legal and political superstructure and to which

correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of

production of material life conditions the general process of

social, political and intellectual life. It is not the

consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their

social existence that determines their consciousness. At a

certain stage of development, the material productive forces of

society come into conflict with the existing relations of

production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal

terms – with the property relations within the framework of which

they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the

productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then

an era of social revolution begins. The changes in the economic

foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the

whole immense superstructure

4. RALF DAHRENDORF

Although he was initially influenced by the thought of Karl Marx,

He departed from Marx’s focus on the conflict between the social

classes and looked instead to the conflict between interest

groups.

According to Dahrendorf(1959) social inequities have their basis

not only in economics but also in bureaucratic and political

power. Meaning, those with power give orders and those without

take orders. He says power relations of super-ordination and

subordination form the basis of antagonisms between groups.

According to him, there exist the following groups:

1. Quasi groups-are aggregates of people occupying identical

power positions and holding latent interests or unconscious role

expectations. This group may have conflicts of interest with

other groups, but the conflicts are usually overt. People from

this group can be recruited into an interest group.

2.Interest groups are organized associations of people mobilized

into action by virtue of their membership in the group. They

share manifests or conscious goals. He states that interest

groups are real agents of conflict.

3.Conflict groups-emerge out of interest groups. Conflict groups

attempt to instigate revolutionary social change; sometimes

through violence means.

Dahrendorf proposed the conflict model of society as an

alternative sociological paradigm. He maintains that if the

social conflict model is to provide a more realistic picture of

society than that proposed by structural-functionalism, it must

presuppose four essential points.

1. Every society is subjected at every moment to change: social

change is ubiquitous.

2. Every society experiences at every moment social conflict:

social conflict is ubiquitous

3. Every element in a society contributes to its change

Dahrendorf distinguishes between two theories of society in

contemporary sociology: the integration theory of society and the

coercion theory of society. Whereas the former is equated with

structural-functionalism, the latter corresponds to conflict

theory. According to him, coercion theory views social structure

as a form of organization held together by force and constraints

and reaching continuously beyond itself in the sense of producing

within itself the forces that maintain it in an unending process

of change, he says conflict theory is anti-systemic in character.

It often concentrates on specific units within societies such as

class, parties, fashions, interest groups etc.

Authority

He says that various positions within society have different

amounts of authority. Authority does not reside in individuals

but in positions. He was opposed to those who focus on the

psychological or behavioral characteristics of the individuals

who occupy such positions. According to him those who adopted

such approach are not sociologists. An authority always implies

both super ordination and subordination. Those who occupy

positions of authority are expected to control subordinates; that

is, they dominate because of the expectations of those who

surround them, not because of their own psychological

characteristics these expectations, like authorities, are

attached to positions, not people. To him authority is not

constant. Traceable to the fact that authority resides in

positions and not persons.

Authority within each association is dichotomous; thus two, and

only two, conflict groups can be formed within any association.

Those in positions of authority and those in positions of

subordination hold certain interests that “contradictory in

substance and direction”. Groups on top and at the bottom are

defined by common interest. He says the interest, which sound

psychological, are basically large-scale phenomena.

This conflict of interest need not be conscious in order for

super ordinates or subordinates to act. Their interests are

objective in the sense that they are reflected in the

expectations (roles) attached to positions. Individuals do not

have to internalize these expectations or even be conscious of

them in order to act in accord with them. If they occupy given

positions, then, they will behave in the expected manner.

Individuals are adjusted or adopted to their roles when they

contribute to conflict between super ordinates and subordinates.

Dahrendorf called these unconscious role expectations latent

interests. Manifest interests are latent interests that have

become conscious. He saw the analysis of the connection between

the two interests as a major task of conflict theory.

Dahrendorf felt that, the concept of latent and manifest

interests, of quasi groups, interest groups, and conflict groups,

were basic to an explanation of social conflict. Under ideal

conditions no other variable would be needed. However, because

conditions are never ideal, many different factors do intervene

in the process. He mentioned technical conditions such as

adequate personnel, political conditions such as the overall

political climate. The way people are recruited into the quasi

group was another social condition, He felt that if recruitment

is random and determined by chance, then an interest group, and

ultimately a conflict group, is unlikely to emerge.

In brief, Dahrendorf argued that once conflict groups emerge,

they engage in actions that lead to changes in social structure.

When the conflict is intense, the changes that occur are radical.

When it is accompanied by violence, structural change will be

sudden. Whatever the nature of conflict, sociologists must be

attuned to the relationship between conflict and change as well

as that between conflict and the status quo.

According to him Karl Marx need to be adjusted to fit into new

industrial society.

1. Decomposition of labour-He argues that the society we have is

not simply bi-polarized (rich and poor) its more differentiated:

The worker is a complexlot (high skilled,semi-skilled,no skill)

meaning workers cannot be seen as one homogenous group.

Middleclass (In between the rich and poor is a new category of

people particularly professionals (bankers,nurses)

2.Decomposition of capital-We no longer have the typical owners

of means of productions increasingly ,you rarely find dig

companies owned by one person or family, In fact the control of

business have shifted to salaried managers,some of them might be

share-holders of companies.

3.Growth of social mobility-unlike in the past,there is a lot of

inter-generational mobility-one can transit from poor to middle

class or rich through education or business.

4.Growth of equality-The state has the mandate to tax the rich to

provide services to the poor

5.labour(trade unionism)-Unlike time of Marx, workers are

unionised ,they belong to legitimate union ensuring controlled

conflict between worker and the employer.

He argues that because of trade unionism, conflict within

organisation is not as descriptive as they used to be. There is

an established machine through which conflict can be resolved.

Criticism

While Dahrendorf sought to blend the ideas of structural

functionalism and Marxism, conflict theory did little to improve

the theory. Conflict theory has many of the same problems of

structural functionalism. Conflict theory is also linked to

structural functionalism by its ideas about systems, positions,

and roles. Overall, the theory has few similarities with Marxism.

In addition the theory takes only a macro sociological

perspective. The theory fails to address much of social life.

In increasingly modern, multicultural societies, the contested

concept and construct of identity received growing emphasis, and

was the focus of many debates. As a consequence of the debates

over identity, and inevitably in a globalizing, modern,

multicultural world, the issues of citizenship came into play.

Specifically, the discussions analyzed the ways in which

citizenship contributed to the formation and construction of

identities. Dahrendorf’s adherence to Marxian seemingly prevented

him from participating in these debates. Absent from Dahrendorf’s

theory were any significant discussions of culture, and

therefore, citizenship and identity.

5. LEWIS COSER (1913-2003)

The aim of Coser's conflict theory is to clarify and consolidate

a conceptual framework which will be useful for understanding

social conflict.

Coser (1956) emphasizes on the functions, rather than the

dysfunctions, of social conflict. Coser wants us to view conflict

as an integral part of normal social processes, not as some sort

of problem or pathology or social disease. Because of his

emphasis on the functional attributes of conflict and conflict as

a factor leading to greater levels of social integration,

Coser ,is concerned primarily with how ‘conflict prevents the

ossification of the social system by exerting pressure for

innovation and creativity’ According to him, conflict allows

expression of hostility and the mending of strained

relationships. It leads to the elimination of specific sources of

conflict between parties and enables redress of grievances

through the establishment of new norms or the affirmation of old

ones. He says social conflict not only generate new norms and

institutions but also new coalitions and alliances; they bring

about technological improvements, revitalize the economy, and

lubricate the social system; they facilitate the release of

tension and frustration and enable the social system to adjust

itself.

Coser has suggested a number of prepositions concerning the

intensity and impact of conflict.

Internal social conflict which concerns goals, values or

interests that do not contradict the basic assumptions upon

which the relationship is founded tend to be positively

functional for social structure.

The closer the group, the more intense the conflict, where

members participate with their total personality and

conflicts are suppressed, the conflict, if it breaks out

nevertheless, is likely to threaten the very root of the

relationship.

Internal conflicts in which the contending parties no longer

share the basic values upon which the legitimacy of the

social system rest threaten to disrupt the structure.

In groups comprising individuals who participate only

segmentally, conflict is less likely to be disruptive. Such

groups are likely to experience a multiplicity of conflict.

In loosely structured groups and open societies, conflict,

which aims at resolution of tension between antagonists, is

likely to have stabilizing and integrative functions for the

relationship

B. Neo-Marxian Conflict Theorizing

6. WRIGHT MILLS (1916-1962)

Wright Mills has been called the founder of modern conflict

theory. In Mills’ view, social structures are created through

conflict between people with differing interests and resources.

Individuals and resources, in turn, are influenced by these

structures and by the "unequal distribution of power and

resources in the society. Mills argued that the interests of

these elite were opposed to those of the people. He theorized

that the policies of the power elite would result in "increased

escalation of conflict, production of weapons of mass

destruction, and possibly the annihilation of the human race."

In his work, he believes social structures are created because of

conflict between differing interests. People are then impacted by

the creation of social structures, and the usual result is a

differential of power between the "elite" and the "others".

Examples of the "elite" would be government and large

corporations.

According to Mills’ economic, social and political power in

American society is manipulated by three interlocking

hierarchies. The theory descriptive of the ‘military-industrial

complex’ expounds the principle of a monolithic power structure

in American society. That is, all major decisions are made by a

fairly autonomous few whose interest is cohesive. These elites

hail from the same kinds of families, have superior education at

prestigious schools, enjoy important connections, and have direct

access to strategic power centers.

According to Mills, the Marxian view, which makes the economic

dominants the real power-wielders, and the liberal view, which

treats the political leaders as the captains of power, and the

folk assumption of warlords as virtual dictators, is

oversimplifications. That is why he uses the term ‘power elite’

to indicate the reality of a triumvirate consisting of the top

men in economic, political, and military positions who coalesce

to form a unified hierarchy (William J.Chambliss 1973)

C. Neo-Weberian Conflict Theorizing

7. RANDALL COLLINS (1941)

He analyses a wide range of social phenomena on the basis of a

general assumption of conflicting interests of the parties

involved, their social location, available resources and options.

He does not rely exclusively on any one of the several pioneers

of conflict theory.

According to Collins ‘human being are sociable but conflict-prone

animals’. The primary basis of conflict is violent coercion which

is always a potential resources and a zero-sum sort. In every

society there is differential distribution of desirable such as

wealth, power, prestige and other valued goods. The system of

inequality divides society into rank hierarchies-graded levels of

individuals with more or less resources available to them. There

is a continuing competition between groups or social strata for a

greater share of the desirables. Every individual seeks to

maximize his subjective status accordingly to the resources

available to him and to his rivals.

He says, conflict inevitably arises from the unequal distribution

of desirables such as wealth, power, prestige and other goods

Individual strive to maximize their share of the scarce

commodities. Those who possess greater share of the goods, try to

consolidate their position. Collins introduces a number of other

variables: the resource people bring to their struggle, their

social position, the groups which they belong and their numerical

strength and the intensity of interpersonal attraction.

He concludes that ‘The basic premises of the conflict approach

are that everyone pursues his own best line of advantage

according to resources available to him and to his competitors;

and that social structures-whether formal organizations or

informal acquaintances-are empirically nothing more than men

meeting and communicating in certain ways’(William J.Chambliss

1973)

Criticism of Conflict Theory

Conflict theory argues that conflicts are physically viable and

usually leads to violence/conflicts that leads to revolution.

However, not all conflicts are physically viable and not all

conflicts leads to violence/revolutions

Conflict theory reduces social reality into two pairs of

opposites – bourgeois and proletariat, the elite and the masses,

the rulers and the ruled. Nevertheless, reality is quite

different. Social conflicts manifest themselves in a variety of

ways and numerous interest groups and any attempt to reduce them

to a common principle or a dualistic conception is inevitably

sterile.

Equally conflict theorists assume that human society is in a

continuous and unending process of change. This assumption

however is the negation of an historical reality exemplified for

thousands of years by many traditional societies and tribal

states which have changed very little. On the other hand,

substantial changes have occurred without significant conflicts,

as in the case of many new nations - states where silent

revolutions have been initiated and legitimized by enlightened

political elites.

Marx paid much attention to the role of property to the economy

(capitalism) while neglecting socialism. Thus social conflict

does not always cut across entire society. In addition, property

relations do not exhaust manifestations of power relations in

society.

CONFLICT CYCLE

A conflict cycle is a process, through which a conflict developsfrom the time of formation to the time of resolution. There aredistinct stages which conflicts have in common, through whichthey pass, sometimes over and over again.Elements of conflict cycle:

A conflict cycle involves four basic elements:

1. The issues: this differentiates basic from symptomaticissues and resolvable from irresolvable issues.

2. The circumstances that precipitate manifest conflict[triggers] through identifying barriers to conflict orconflict management behaviors and events that precipitatesuch. Such behaviors Control by avoiding triggering newepisode unless constructive purpose will be served

3. The conflict-relevant acts of the principals. Understand howcharacteristic conflict behaviors can generate additionalissues.

4. The various consequences. Understand the feelings generatedby conflict episodes, how they are coped with, and thereforewhether they are fueling the next episode.

A conflict is not a static situation, but a dynamic one – the

intensity level changes over a conflicts’ life cycle. An

understanding of the conflict cycle is essential for an

understanding of how, where and when to apply different

strategies and measures of conflict prevention and management.

Over time, numerous suggestions and models of conflict patterns

have been put forward. Among these models and suggestions, a

number of patterns stand out. Conflicts tend to be described as

cyclical in regard to their intensity levels, i.e. escalating

from (relative) stability and peace into crisis and war,

thereafter deescalating into relative peace. Most scholars also

agree that these cycles are reoccurring. This proposition is

strongly supported by empirical research on conflict patterns.

Here, it should also be noted that many scholars add stable,

sometimes called durable, peace as an additional phase in which

the conflict is considered resolved – i.e. the reoccurring

pattern of the conflict has been stopped. Also, most models

divide both the escalation and de-escalation of the conflict

cycle into phases. It can also be noted that in many cases the

conflictmodel has taken the form of a U, or an upside-down U.

The division into phases, and the cyclical perception of

conflict, has also become the starting point for research on

conflict prevention, management and resolution. In principle,

conflict prevention, conflict management and conflict resolution

are regarded as applicable in different phases of a conflict. In

sum, conflict prevention measures are designed for the early

phases, before a conflict has become manifest (open). Management

measures are applied in later phases when a conflict is manifest,

but before violence has occurred. Conflict resolution could, on

the other hand, be applied in the de-escalation phase after a

violent conflict has occurred.

As illustrated below, the division into phases is a much

simplified description of reality. Also, there are disagreements

both within the academic and the policy community, as well as

between the two as to how these measures should be understood and

applied.

The model of the life-cycle of conflicts presented here includes

both the conflict process itself and possible prevention,

management and resolution measures. This conflict cycle is

presented in the form of an upside-down U-curve, illustrating a

conflict cycle in its most simplified form, i.e. the rise from

stable peace to war and the de-escalation to stable peace. The

model presented below is an ideal model of the conflict cycle, an

analytical construction developed to simplify analysis.

The curve is divided into five levels of conflict intensity

(stable peace, unstable peace, open conflict, crisis, and war) in

a total of nine chronological phases. Stable peace is a situation

where tension between the parties is low and there exists

different forms of connections and cooperation between them,

often including economic and environmental cooperation, as well

as cooperation within other non-sensitive issue-areas.

During a period of unstable peace, tension has increased. This is a

situation where, albeit the existing negative peace, the tension

between the parties is so high that peace no longer seems

guaranteed. An open conflict is when the conflict is defined and the

parties have taken measures to deal with it, even if militarized

options are not adopted. In the crisis phase, the risk of war is

imminent and militarized options are the preferable or likely

option. There may be sporadic violence between the parties at

this stage, but there is no regular open violence. In the war

phase,on the other hand, there is widespread and intense

violence. In the de-escalation phase the pattern is reversed,

moving from war to crisis, through open conflict and unstable

peace to finally reach a situation of stable peace.

Just as the phases of the conflict cycle are important, the

connection between conflict prevention and conflict- and crisis

managing needs to be developed further. The easiest way to

separate between the concepts is by focusing on the time factor.

Starting with conflict prevention, it is by definition applied

before the conflict has become open and violent, i.e. to prevent a

conflict from emerging in the first place (or to prevent a

conflict from re-escalating in a post-conflict phase). Conflict

prevention measures are effective at the levels of stable- and

unstable peace before a conflict has become manifest. Here, it is

important to differentiate between structural- and direct

preventive measures. The former are most applicable in the stable

peace phase and consist of structural measures that often aim at

specific groups or issues such as economic development, political

participation or cultural autonomy. The benefits of applying

structural measures at an early stage is simply that the

acceptance of preventive measures tends to be higher at low

levels of inter-party suspicion and hence more far-reaching and

institutional measures can be implemented. If structural

preventive measures are implemented at an early stage, including

both the building of institutions and development of trust and

(longer-term) cooperation, they decrease the perceived need to,

and hence risk of, escalating a potential conflict issue into the

level of unstable peace. The more pronounced a conflict becomes

the more specific measures it requires. At the same time,

structural measures are losing importance as a probable strategy.

In the unstable peace phase, the direct preventive measures are

directed at issues with a shorter term goal in mind, i.e. to

reduce tension and create trust between the actors.

Simultaneously, the window of opportunity for longer-term

initiatives, such as the building of institutions, fades away

slowly and the conflict becomes more issue specific and more

costly in financial and political terms. Direct preventive

measures can, for example, be formal or informal workshops

dealing with the possible conflict issues. They can also aim at

creating openness in certain fields such as the military,

reducing military spending, or achieving cooperation in rescue

operations. Other examples include sanctions, coercive diplomacy,

the dispatch of special envoys, and problem-solving workshops. It

should be noted that the border between structural and direct

prevention is unclear and that aspects of the two are often

overlapping.

Conflict management and crisis management do, on the other hand,

involve tactics that are enforced when violent conflict is deemed

likely (conflict management) or imminent (crisis management), but

before a situation escalates into war. Conflict management can be

enforced, as soon as the conflict has been identified by the

actors, as an effort to reduce tension and prevent further

escalation. Direct measures, such as reduction of military

forces, third party intervention, informal and formal

communication or general CBMs, can be designed to handle the

conflict and reverse destructive behavior into constructive. The

measures are often bilateral as questions many times are

sensitive and not seen as threatening at this stage. However,

multilateral forums, such as the UN, are increasingly being used.

Crisis management is employed in the short time frame before a

war is to erupt, when the conflict escalates rapidly and the time

for management measures is limited. This period is characterized

by a scarcity of time and other resources to address the

conflict, as well as inadequate information.

Crisis management entails more drastic measures than conflict

management and aims at containing the outbreak of militarized

conflicts with all available means. Examples of such measures

include third party intervention by actors such as NATO or the

UN. Some analysts also view preventive strikes as possible

conflict- and crisis management measures. However, in this paper,

conflict and crisis management measures do not include preventive

strikes and similar extreme military measures.

During the stage of war, neither prevention nor management is

possible.Military means are used as the primary tool, even if

political, economic and social tools are used simultaneously to

decrease the opponent’s willingness and/or capability to fight.

At this stage, the actors either haveto fight things out until

reaching a so-called hurting stalemate where both parties realize

the need to end the conflict, or peace has to be enforced by

external actors. At this stage there are of course many different

measures that could be utilized, but few of these are peaceful.

One example of a measure is to prevent military conflicts from

spreading to other states or regions. It should be noted that

there often is a great reluctance to allow external intervention

before war tiredness and a hurting stalemate hasbeen reached.

If the militarization of a conflict is temporarily controlled,

either through a peace treaty or a cease fire, it may be possible

to reverse the positions of the actors and make them adopt more

constructive behavior. Initially, the focus is on separating the

actors and preventing further mistakably or deliberate escalation

(peace keeping). This stage is comparable to the crisis stage in

the escalation phase and often involves third party actors that

assist with peacekeeping and/or monitoring. When the more

imminent threats of re-escalation have been dealt with, further

opportunities exist for less short-term and direct measures, and

the conflicts move into the conflict management phase. There is

still a risk for escalation, but no imminent threat of war. When

the conflict has deescalated further, a phase of peace building

follows, which gives room for more long-term measures. Finally,

if the peace building efforts meet with success, the conflict

moves to the peace consolidation phase where the aim is to make

actors more cooperative and create an inclusive peace for all

involved parties. In other words, the de-escalation phase shares

many similarities with the escalation phase.

The later stages of peace building and peace reconciliation are

often financially costly and require enormous political and

economic commitment from the international community as well as

the involved actors. This is not to mention the economic and

social costs that affect the population at large, but especially

the poorer sections of society. Thus, the conviction that

resolution and other mechanisms applied to deal with conflicts

have to be introduced after the conflict is militarized is

humanitarian as well as financially unsound. In general, the

measures used in the de-escalation phase are often much more

financially and politically demanding than pro-active measures in

the escalation phase.

Furthermore, measures taken after a war often have to involve

third parties, like the UN or stronger military actors that can

guarantee security for all actors involved, which is not needed

to the same extent inthe escalation phase. This takes a lot of

political compromises and intense negotiations in an environment

that lacks trust. Without exception, trust is lacking after a

militarized conflict and trust between the involvedparties is

tremendously difficult, although not impossible, to rebuild. In

the real world, there are often no, or limited, trust until the

peace consolidation phase has been initiated.

Conflict Transformation

Conflict Transformation refers to a holistic and multifaceted

process of engaging with conflict. It aims to reduce violence and

to protect and promote social justice and sustainable peace. It

requires work in all spheres, at all levels and with all

stakeholders.

Conflict Transformation needs to be accountable to those directly

affected by conflict but requires networks and linkages to

sustain it. Conflict Transformation is an ongoing process of

changing relationships, behaviors, attitudes and structures, from

the negative to the positive. It requires timely interventions,

respect for cultural context, patience and persistence and a

comprehensive understanding of the conflict.

Conflict transformation is to envision and respond to the ebb andflow of social conflict as life giving opportunities for creatingstructure change processes that reduces violence, increasedjustice, indirect interaction and social structures and respondto real life problems in human relationships.

It aims to transform negative destructive conflict into positiveconstructive conflict and deals with structural,behavioral andattitudinal aspect of conflict.

The term refers to both the process and the completion of theprocess.As such,it incorporates the activities of processes suchas conflict prevention and conflict resolution and goes furtherthan conflict settlement or conflict management.

It is therefore important to note that;

Conflict should not be understood solely as an inherentlynegative and destructive occurrence, but rather as apotentially positive and productive force for change ifharnessed constructively."

Conflict transformation is a long term gradual and complexprocess requiring sustained engagement and interaction."

Conflict should not be regarded as an isolated event thatcan be resolved or managed, but as an integral part ofsociety's ongoing evolution and development."

Conflict transformation goes beyond merely seeking tocontain and manage conflict, instead seeking to transformthe root causes of a particular conflict."

Conclusion

In this chapter, 'we have examined the life cycle of conflict. It

is necessary to emphasize as pointed out during the discussion on

the various stages of conflict that conflict may deviate from the

cycle by repeating phases, depending on the nature of the

conflict and disposition of the parties in conflict. In addition,

conflict may stay at a particular stage or stages for an extended

period of time. It is also important to state that it is possible

for conflict to end before reaching the last stage after a long

period of low violence. On a concluding note however, while

conflict is an integral part of social existence, its effective

management could have positive impact on the society.

References:

Dahrendorf, R. (1959) Class and class conflict in industrial

society.Stanford: Stanford University Press

George, R. (1992) Sociological Theory 3rd edition New York:

Mogrow-Hill

Oberschall, A. (1978) Theories of Social Conflict: The Free Press

Dahrendorf, R. (….) The Modern Social Conflict: An Essay of the

Politics of Liberty

Wall, J.A., and R.R. Callister (1995) Conflict and its

management: A Journal of Management

Chambliss.J.W, ED (1973) Sociological Reading in the Conflict

Perspective. Menlo Park, Cal: Addison-Wesley

Simmel.G. (1964) Conflict and The Web of Group

Affilation.Glencoe, IL: The Free Press

Kurt W. (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel.Glencoe, IL: The

Free Press

Coser.l.(1956)The Functions of Social Conflict.Glencoe,IL.The

Free Press

Swanstrom, N. and Weissmann, M. (2005), Conflict, Conflict

Prevention, Conflict Management and Beyond. A conceptual

exploration. CONCEPT PAPER. Central Asia – Caucasus Institute

Silk Road Studies Program. John Hopkins University, Washington,

D.C.

Karl Marx, Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production,

Vol.1.Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House