Introduction
1. Study of conflict within the framework of the school of social Darwinism (L. Gumplowicz, G. Ratzenngorfer, W. Sumner, A. Small)
2. Functional model of the structure of society (G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, T. Parsons)
3. Conflict model of the structure of society (G. Simmel, L. Koser)
Conclusion
Literature
Introduction
Social Darwinism is one of the prevailing theories in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. theories of social evolution, which borrowed the appropriate terminology from Charles Darwin and tried to explain social processes by analogy with biological ones. Theorists of Social Darwinism, such as G. Spencer, W. Sumner, L. Gumplowicz and others, described social processes through conflicts between social groups and individuals. In these conflicts, those who are luckier and have higher adaptation survive (the principle of “survival of the fittest”). The main mechanism in society is the mechanism of natural selection, which selects random changes. Thus, social development is not deterministic, but random.
Social Darwinism has been used to support a variety of political ideas, most notably to defend the principles of individualism and competition, spontaneity of social development, and free market capitalism. Its most reactionary variants are associated with racism (Woltmann in Germany, Lapouge in France, etc.), with attempts to connect social inequality with racial differences.
In modern sociology, the application of the random selection model to the evolution of society is considered incorrect, since it is not able to explain the high rate of social evolution, which does not leave time for the operation of the Darwinian selection mechanism and is usually very far from blind chance.
1.
Study of conflict within the framework of the school of social Darwinism (L. Gumplowicz, G. Ratzenngorfer, W. Sumner, A. Small)
The early sociological tradition, in its description of the nature of human society, its structure and processes, often proceeded from the idea of the universality of the laws of living nature, seeing analogies between social society and the animal world, between the life activity of society and the human body. It is not surprising that the origins of the subsequent study of conflicts in the philosophical and sociological traditions were the consideration of the processes of struggle in society. Struggle is not a human creation. The most complete description of the processes of struggle and its role in the animal world belongs, of course, to C. Darwin and A. Wallace. It is built on the ideas of natural selection, which is based on the struggle for existence, ensuring the survival of the fittest individuals. Fighting as a means of survival is associated with competition for food, territory, an individual of the opposite sex, or with the desire for a higher place in the hierarchical structure of one’s group.
Another form in which struggle is expressed is the playful interaction of animals. I. Huizinga writes about animal games with competitive elements that imitate wrestling: although puppies “pretend to be terribly angry,” they follow the rules: “for example, you cannot bite a play partner’s ear.” At the same time, while “playing,” they experience “great pleasure and joy.”
In turn, the struggle, which is based on problems of survival (territory, food, natural resources, power, etc.), has acquired the character of wars, armed conflicts, duels, strikes and other diverse forms. And yet, the description of social processes in society from the perspective of the struggle for existence gained some popularity in early sociology and became the basis for the emergence of the school of social Darwinism. The concept of social Darwinism denotes ideas according to which human society is interpreted primarily in a system of biological concepts based on the laws of natural existence.
One of the representatives of this school, L. Gumplowicz (1838–1909), author of the book “The Racial Struggle,” viewed society as a set of “groups of people mercilessly fighting among themselves for influence, survival and dominance.” The basis of all social processes is the desire of people to satisfy their own material needs, which, according to the author, is inevitably associated with the use of violence and coercion. Accordingly, social life is a process of group interaction, the main form of which is struggle. The fundamental reasons for this state of affairs are rooted in the fact that “people are inherent in mutual hatred, which determines the relations between groups, peoples, tribes and races.” The consequence of this is the inevitability of conflicts from the life of society, as it develops only their forms change.
The theory of the struggle for existence became the subject of consideration by another representative of the social Darwinist trend in sociology - G. Ratzenhofer (1842–1904). Both the struggle for existence and the absolute hostility of races are, in his opinion, among the main processes and phenomena of social life, and the basic law of sociology should be “bringing individual and social interests into mutual correspondence.” Another social Darwinist, W. Sumner (1840–1910), considered natural selection and the struggle for existence to be inevitable and universal conditions of social life. Theoretical descriptions of A. Small (1854–1926) are built around the category of “interest,” which he proposed to consider the main unit of sociological analysis, and the main social conflict in society, accordingly, is a conflict of interests.
Thanks to the works of L. Gumplowicz, G. Ratzenhofer, W. Sumner, A. Small and others, the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries is sometimes considered the initial period in the study of conflicts, which laid the foundations for the school of social conflict in sociology (Becker, Boscov, 1961). In accordance with the ideas of this school, conflict is identified with struggle, which, in turn, is considered as a form (and perhaps the main one) of social interaction.
The concept of conflict is beginning to occupy an increasingly stronger place in the theoretical descriptions of sociologists, and the phenomenon of conflict is beginning to attract their closest attention.
2. Functional model of the structure of society (G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, T. Parsons)
The initial attempts of sociologists to create a general sociological theory were based on equilibrium models of society, on ideas about the relatively stable and integrated nature of its structure. The position of functionalism (historically earlier) was originally formulated by Herbert Spencer, then developed by the equally famous scientist Emile Durkheim and continues to find its followers today.
Basic principles of functionalism
1. Society is a system of parts united into a single whole.
2. Social systems remain stable because they have internal control mechanisms.
3. Dysfunctions exist, but they are overcome on their own or eventually become ingrained in society.
4. Change is usually gradual rather than revolutionary.
5. Social integration, or the feeling that society is a strong fabric woven from various threads, is formed on the basis of the agreement of the majority of citizens of a country to follow a single value system. This value system is the most stable framework of the social system.
The functional model is based on the assumption of functional unity, i.e. harmonious correspondence and internal consistency of various parts of the social system. At the same time, social conflict is considered as a kind of pathology in the existence of social systems. Only if, for one reason or another, their internal harmony is disturbed, discrepancies and conflicts may arise.
A similar point of view, in particular, was held by T. Parsons, whose ideas are often assessed as the highest achievement of the functionalist trend in sociology. For Parsons, conflict is destructive, dysfunctional and destructive. Parsons prefers the term “tension” to the word “conflict,” viewing conflict as an “endemic” form of disease in the social organism. Concerns about social control and minimization of conflict led Parsons to believe that psychoanalysts and other mental health professionals could play a significant role in reducing social deviance. According to L. Coser, sociologists of this generation were focused on ensuring the maintenance of order, “balance,” and “cooperation,” which, for example, became the program position for E. Mayo and his school of industrial sociology. The analysis of conflict is beginning to be replaced by the study of ineffective functioning and psychological maladjustment.
Conflicts - enmity, civil strife, rivalry and their most acute forms, such as armed clashes and wars - have always been described in history textbooks along with national disasters, such as disease epidemics, famine, natural disasters, devastation, etc. Naturally, in the context ideas of harmony, the desire for internal integration, conflicts could not be considered other than “anomalies” that should and can be excluded from the life of society with a more correct and reasonable structure.
3.
Conflict model of the structure of society (G. Simmel, L. Koser)
Clarifying the structural-functionalist model of society, R. Merton first of all criticized the idea of the “functional unity of society”, contrary to which not homogeneity and unanimity, but conflict of values and clashes of cultures are typical for modern society. Thus, the idea of “social equilibrium” was opposed to the idea of “social change”, which in the literature is also often called the “conflict” model, or “conflict theory”.
The strongest exponent of the opposition point of view was Georg Simmel (1858–1918), whose ideas, developed by his followers, actually laid the foundation of modern conflictology and whose scientific heritage is valued so highly that he is sometimes considered one of the founders of modern sociology as a whole.
Only philistines can believe that conflicts and problems exist in order to be resolved. Both of them also have other tasks in their everyday life and life history that they perform independently of their own resolution. And not a single conflict existed in vain if time does not resolve it, but replaces it in form and content with another. True, all the problematic phenomena we have indicated are too contradictory to the present to remain motionless in it, and testify beyond doubt to the growth of a more fundamental process that has other goals than the mere displacement of an existing form by a newly formed one. For it is unlikely that the bridge between the previous and subsequent cultural forms has been so thoroughly destroyed as now, when only life, formless in itself, remains, having to fill the resulting gap. Equally undoubtedly, its goal is to create new forms that are more consistent with the forces of the present - perhaps deliberately delaying the onset of open struggle - and replacing only the old problem with a new one, one conflict with another. This is how the real purpose of life is fulfilled, which is struggle in the absolute sense, embracing the relative opposition of struggle and peace. The absolute world, which perhaps also rises above this contradiction, remains an eternal world mystery.
G. Simmel believed that conflict in society is inevitable, and considered one of its main forms to be the conflict between the individual and society. Simmel is credited with both the authorship of the term “sociology of conflict” and the priority in its foundation. Unlike Marx, Simmel showed interest in a wider range of conflict phenomena, describing conflicts between ethnic groups, and between different generations of people and cultures, and between men and women, etc. But the main difference between Simmel’s sociology of conflict and Marx’s ideas is it is the belief that conflict can lead to social integration and, by providing an outlet for hostility, strengthen social solidarity. Conflict, according to Simmel, does not always and does not necessarily lead to destruction; on the contrary, it can perform the most important functions of preserving social relations and social systems. Simmel formulated a number of provisions related to the functions of conflict concerning the parties involved in the conflict, as well as the social whole within which the conflict develops.
Despite the “sociological origin” of Simmel’s ideas, he understands conflict not simply as a clash of interests, but in a more psychologized way, as an expression of a certain hostility inherent in people and their relationships. Simmel considers the attraction to hostility, in turn, as the paired opposite of the need for sympathy. He speaks of "natural hostility between man and man" which is "the basis of human relations, along with another - sympathy between people." Simmel attributes an a priori character to the instinct of struggle, referring to the ease with which, in his opinion, hostility towards each other arises between people, developing into struggle in its most destructive manifestations. In the course of considering historical facts and ethnographic observations, Simmel “gets the impression that people have never loved each other because of things so small and insignificant as those because of which one hates the other.” Thus, Simmel could hardly be called an idealist, assessing social life, including its conflict forms, in positive terms.
Although many scientists have tended to view conflict as one of the central phenomena inherent in social systems, priority in attempts to understand its positive functions in the life of society is traditionally given to Simmel. It is believed that Simmel's ideas had a huge influence on American sociology and, above all, on the work of L. Coser
Despite the above-mentioned leading role of Marx and Simmel in creating the foundations of sociological conflictology, thanks to which they are deservedly called the first generation of its classics, their ideas and developments are not limited to the phenomenon of conflict itself and rather relate to the general field of conflict issues. Marx writes about the contradictions and opposition between parts of the social system, about the inevitability of struggle, the doom of class society to confrontation, which for the time being may remain hidden. In this context, many of Marx’s provisions are more consistent with the concept of struggle than conflict in its modern understanding. (However, Marx himself, recognized by Western sociology as an outstanding theorist in the field of conflict, writes specifically about struggle - class, economic, political, etc.)
The above applies to a large extent to the ideas of Simmel. The affirmation of the a priori nature of struggle brings his position closer to the ideas of social Darwinists, with their central concept of struggle. Simmel's descriptions, based on specific facts of a historical, ethnographic and political nature, often use the concept of conflict rather in a metaphorical sense.
It is important to note, however, that Simmel already introduces a distinction between the concepts of struggle and conflict. According to J. Turner, based on an analysis of numerous statements by Simmel, the latter views the conflict as a kind of variable, the intensity of which forms a continuum with the poles of “competition” and “struggle”, and “competition is associated with a more orderly mutual struggle of parties, leading to their mutual isolation , and struggle denotes a more disorderly, direct battle of parties.” Simmel believes that a conflict can change its severity and therefore have different consequences for the social whole. Thanks to the novelty of Simmel’s ideas, his works turned out to be a significant step forward in the development of conflict issues proper.
1. The social world can be considered as a system of variously interconnected parts.
2. In any social system of variously interconnected parts, a lack of balance, tension, and conflicting interests are revealed.
3. Processes occurring in the component parts of the system and between them, under certain conditions, contribute to the preservation, change, increase or decrease in the integration and “adaptability” of the system.
4. It can also be imagined that many of the processes that are usually thought to destroy a system (for example, violence, disagreement, deviance and conflict) under certain conditions strengthen the basis for integration of the system, as well as its “adaptability” to surrounding conditions.
The definition of conflict belonging to L. Coser is one of the most common in Western science: “Social conflict can be defined as a struggle over values or claims to status, power or limited resources, in which the goals of the conflicting parties are not only to achieve what they want, but also neutralizing, damaging or eliminating an opponent.” It is applicable and actually used in relation to a wide range of conflict phenomena - from interstate to interpersonal. As significant aspects of this definition for further consideration, we note, firstly, the reduction of the conflict to one of the forms of struggle, and secondly, the negative nature of the goals associated with influencing the opposing side, the softest of which is its neutralization.
Of all the “classics” of conflictology, Coser develops the most multidimensional and comprehensive view of conflicts: he writes about the conditions and factors for the emergence of conflicts, their severity, duration and functions. It was the latter that took priority in Coser’s theoretical system, giving rise to the designation of his entire concept as “conflict functionalism.” By developing and clarifying Simmel's ideas, Coser largely changed the way science looks at conflicts. In his opinion, recognizing conflict as an integral characteristic of social relations does not in any way contradict the task of ensuring the stability and sustainability of the existing social system. Coser's interests focus not so much on the analysis of the sources of conflict and its emergence in social systems, but on its functions. His first major work on conflicts was called “Functions of Social Conflict” (1956). This book truly played a historical role in the design and fate of conflictology, and Coser’s development of Simmel’s ideas about the positive functions of conflict is rightfully considered as one of the highest achievements of conflictology. In the preface to the Russian edition of his book, L. Coser indicates that his book is still “republished in the same form in which it was published in 1956, and is considered a bestseller among books on sociology published in America,” and its total circulation since the first edition there have been 80 thousand copies.
Conclusion
The merits of the “second generation” of classics of conflictology are not limited to the development of the ideas of K. Marx and G. Simmel and the description of new aspects of conflict phenomenology. It was the work of R. Dahrendorf and L. Coser that created the possibility of scientific study of conflicts, primarily through a more rigorous definition of the problem fields of their research. The concept of conflict begins to separate from the concept of struggle and acquires a more specific content and a more specific description. The conflict ceases to be an abstract phenomenon (as in the descriptions of the “first generation”), it acquires a specific phenomenology and specific framework for its existence in social space. Ideas about the positive functions of conflict oppose discrimination against the phenomenon of conflict and its unambiguous interpretation as a harmful, dangerous phenomenon, indicating a “pathology” or “illness” of the social organism. They paved the way for the approval of the basic principles of modern conflictology - the recognition of conflicts as a natural and natural characteristic of social relations, the possibility of conflicts occurring in a variety of forms, including constructive ones, as well as the affirmation of the fundamental possibility of conflict management.
Literature
1. Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. – Mn., Aspect Press, 2002.
2. Babosov E.M. Conflictology. Mn., 2000.
3. Volodko V.F. Psychology of management: Course of lectures. – Mn., 2003.
4. Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. – St. Petersburg, 2000.
5. Enikeev M.I. General and social psychology: a textbook for universities. – Mn.: Ecoperspective, 2000.
6. Voit O.V. Secret psychology./ Voit O.V., Smirnova Yu.S. – Mn.: Modern School, 2006.
Conflict-free model of society.
The problem of conflict received its further theoretical justification in the 20th century. At the same time, the theory of conflict is opposed to the theory of structural-functional analysis of society.
Representatives of functional analysis assigned only a negative role to conflicts. They adhere to an equilibrium, conflict-free model of society. According to the views of supporters of this direction, society is a system, the vital activity and unity of which are ensured through the functional interaction of its constituent elements, such as the state, political parties, industrial associations, trade unions, church, family, etc.
Based on the idea of the unity of society as a prerequisite for its balance and stability, functionalists call the presence of common values among members of society as a decisive means of ensuring social unity. These can be legal guidelines, moral norms, religious commandments. These values form the basis of the life of society and determine the practical activities of both individuals and social groups and organizations. This, naturally, is a one-sided and narrow approach to the consideration of phenomena occurring in society.
In the middle of the 20th century, a direction took shape in sociology that comprehensively and deeply explores the problem of social conflicts. Works began to appear devoted to the development of the actual theory of social conflict. Conflicts were viewed as phenomena organically inherent in the life of society. The most famous researchers in this area are R. Dahrendorf, L. Koser, K. E. Boulding and etc.
Theory "conflict models of society"
German liberal sociologist Rolf Dahrendorf created the theory of the “conflict model of society” based on the fact that any society is constantly subject to social changes and, as a result, experiences social conflict at every moment. He examined the reasons for the formation and stages of development of social conflicts, at the basis of which he saw a conflict of interests.
Any society, in his opinion, relies on coercion of its members by others. The subjects of society are initially characterized by inequality of social positions (for example, in the distribution of property and power), and hence the difference in their interests and aspirations, which causes mutual friction and antagonism. Dahrendorf comes to the conclusion that social inequality and the contradictions generated by it certainly create social tension and conflict situations. Exactly interests of subjects directly influence the formation of conflict. (Therefore, in order to understand the nature of the conflict, it is necessary first of all to understand the nature of interest and the ways in which the subjects of the conflict perceive it. And here R. Dahrendorf distinguishes objective (latent) and subjective (explicit) interests. They, in his opinion, are revealed already at the first stage of manifestation conflict, when “both sides” of the conflict emerge... But these sides are not yet literally a social group, have not consolidated into it. Therefore, Dahrendorf calls them quasigroups, At the same time, in each of these groups there is the formation of certain common interests and a psychological orientation towards their protection. All this characterizes the first stage of the development of the conflict.
The second stage of conflict development consists, according to Dahrendorf, in the direct awareness of latent, i.e. secretive, deep-seated interests of subjects and thereby in the organization of quasi-groups in actual factions organization of interest groups 1.
The third stage consists of direct clashes between certain “identical” groups (for example, classes, nations, political organizations, small groups, etc.). If there is no identity, then the conflicts are incomplete, i.e. not fully formed. Dahrendorf states: “in general, every conflict reaches its final form only when the elements involved... are identical” 1.
According to R. Dahrendorf, social conflicts are also based on political factors: the struggle for power, prestige, authority. Conflicts can arise in any community where there are dominant and subordinate people. Inequality of social positions means unequal access to development resources of individuals, social groups or communities of people. And hence the inequality of their position and the contradiction of interests. The inequality of social positions is reflected in the power itself, which allows one group of people to control the results of the activities of other groups.
The struggle for the possession and disposal of resources, for leadership, power and prestige make social conflicts inevitable. Conflict is perceived not as a good thing, but as an inevitable way to resolve contradictions.
Dahrendorf argues that conflicts are pervasive components of social life. They cannot be eliminated just because we do not want them; they must be taken into account as a reality. Conflicts are sources of innovation and social change. They do not allow society to stagnate, since they constantly create social and psychological stress. According to Dahrendorf, the suppression and “cancellation” of conflicts leads to their aggravation. Therefore, the task is to be able to control the conflict: it must be legalized, institutionalized, developed and resolved based on the rules existing in society.
The theory of positive functional conflict.
American sociologist Lewis Coser in the works “Functions of Social Conflicts”, “Continuation of the Study of Social Conflict” and others, he substantiates his theory of positive functional conflict. Under social conflict he understands
a struggle for values and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the opponents' goals are to neutralize, damage or destroy the enemy 2. L. Coser emphasizes that any society is characterized by inevitable social inequality and eternal psychological dissatisfaction of members of society, which generate tension between individuals and other social groups. This tension is often resolved through various kinds of conflicts. Based on the state of society, Coser gives a classification of social conflicts. He notes that in closed societies, social conflicts can destroy social ties, divide it into hostile groups, and lead to revolution. In open societies, conflicts are given an outlet, which alleviates tension. They can carry positive potential, contributing to the development of society.
General theory of conflict. American sociologist Kenneth Edward Boulding in “Conflict and Protection; general theory" states that in modern
In societies it is possible and necessary to regulate social conflicts. Boulding believes that conflict is inseparable from social life. The idea of the essence of social conflicts allows society to control and manage them, to foresee their consequences. According to Boulding, conflict is situation, in which the parties understand the incompatibility of their positions and strive to get ahead of the enemy with their actions. Conflict acts as a type of social interaction in which the parties are aware of their confrontation and their attitude towards it. And then they consciously organize themselves, develop a strategy and tactics of struggle. But all this does not exclude the fact that conflicts can and should be overcome or limited.
Sources of conflicts. In general, foreign sociologists have made great progress in the study of social conflicts. The studies of Soviet scientists primarily emphasized the material, economic and class nature of the conflict. It was a Marxist concept and it boiled down to the analysis of clashes between antagonistic classes - a simplified approach to studying the problem. And since it was believed that there were no antagonistic classes in a socialist society, this meant that there were no conflicts. Therefore, almost no research has been conducted on this problem.
Only in the last decade has this topic begun to be covered in articles published, for example, in the journals “Conflicts and Consensus”, “Sociological Research”, etc. Monographic studies have appeared, round tables are being held on the problem of social conflicts in the transition period.
It is recognized that society is preserved as a whole by the constant resolution of its inherent internal comrades. It has already been said above about conflicts generated by the unequal position of people in relation to the authorities. In other words, when some, being in power, manage and command, others are forced to obey and carry out issued decrees, directives, orders.
The cause of social conflict may be mismatch of interests and goals relevant social groups. The presence of this reason was pointed out by E. Durkheim and T. Parsons.
The cause of social conflict can be discrepancy between individual and social values. Each individual and social group has a certain set of value orientations regarding the most significant aspects of social life. But while meeting the needs of some groups, obstacles arise from other groups. At the same time, opposing value orientations appear, which can become the cause of conflict. For example, there are different attitudes towards property: some believe that property should be collective, others advocate private property, and others strive for cooperative property. Under certain conditions, supporters of different forms of ownership may come into conflict with each other.
An equally important source of conflict is social inequality. Experts in the field of sociology of conflict note that people’s social positions and the nature of their claims depend on their access to the distribution of values (income, knowledge, information, cultural elements, etc.). The desire for universal equality, as history has shown, cannot be considered as a good thing, because it leads to leveling, to the extinction of many incentives for creative activity and initiative. To be fair, it should be noted that it is impossible to satisfy the needs and interests of everyone. Therefore, inequality, including social, irremovable. It exists everywhere and often has a positive meaning, because it contributes to the manifestation of wealth and stimulates the vital energy of people. Conflict arises at such a degree of inequality when it is regarded by one of the social groups as very significant, preventing the satisfaction of its needs. The resulting social tension leads to social conflicts.
18.2 Functions and classification of social conflicts
Positive and negative functions of conflicts.
In the existing literature, two points of view are expressed: one is about the harm of social conflict, the other is about its benefits.
We are talking about the positive and negative functions of conflicts.
Considering the role of conflict as an inevitable phenomenon in the development of society, we can highlight one of its functions, which is release of psychological tension in relations between opposing parties. The existence, so to speak, of outlet valves and outlet channels helps the mutual adaptation of individuals and stimulates positive changes.
Another positive function of conflict is communicative-connecting* Through this function, the parties to the conflict become aware of their own and opposing interests, identify common problems, and adapt to each other.
Another positive function of conflict, arising from the previous ones, is that conflict is able to play consolidating role in society and even be a driving force for social change. This happens when, in the course of resolving a conflict, people perceive each other in a new way and they become interested in cooperation, and opportunities for this are identified.
However, social conflicts are often negative and destructive. They can destabilize relationships in social systems, destroy social communities and group unity. Thus, strikes can cause serious damage to enterprises and society, because economic damage from business shutdowns can become a factor in the imbalance of the economy. National conflicts disrupt relations between nations. But whatever points of view exist regarding the functions of social conflicts, it can be argued that they are necessary elements of the development of society, without them there can be no movement forward.
Classification and typology of conflicts.
There are a great many conflicts in society. They differ in scale, type,
composition of participants, causes, goals and consequences. They try to classify them according to spheres of life, for example, conflicts in the economic sphere, in national relations, in the social sphere, etc.
Conflicts can also be classified into depending on subjects And zones of disagreement. This classification can be expressed as follows: 1.
Personality conflict- includes conflicts occurring within the personality, at the level of individual consciousness.
Interpersonal conflict - disagreements between two or more people of one or more groups. They oppose each other, but individuals who do not form a group can join them.
Intergroup conflict - conflict between social groups and social communities of people with opposing interests. This is the most common conflict.
Conflict of belonging - when individuals have, as it were, a double identity. For example, those in conflict form a group within a larger group, or an individual is simultaneously part of two competing groups pursuing the same goal.
Conflict with the external environment - the individuals who make up the group experience pressure from the outside, primarily from administrative and economic norms and regulations. They come into conflict with the institutions that support these norms and regulations.
The typology of social conflict can be presented in this way:
Confrontation - passive confrontation between groups with opposing political, economic and social interests. As a rule, this confrontation does not take the form of an open clash, but presupposes the presence of irreconcilable differences and the application of pressure;
Rivalry- the struggle for recognition of personal achievements and creative abilities from society, a social group, a social organization. The goal of competition is to acquire better positions, recognition, or demonstrate superiority by achieving prestigious goals;
Competition - a special type of conflict, its goal is to obtain benefits, profits or access to scarce goods.
Professor at the University of Michigan A. Rappoport, arguing with a famous American expert in the field of conflict theory, a professor at Harvard University T. Schelling, convincingly proved that it is impossible to fit all conflicts into a single universal scheme. There are conflicts
a) "fight"- when opponents are divided by irreconcilable contradictions and one can only count on victory;
b) "debate"- where a dispute is possible, maneuvers and both sides can count on a compromise;
c) “games”- where both parties act within the same rules, so they never end and cannot end with the destruction of the entire structure of the relationship.
This conclusion is important, as it removes the aura of hopelessness and doom around each of the conflicts, whether in international relations or within society 1 .
Conflict from the point of view of sociology, it is, first of all, a model of behavior with a special distribution of roles, sequence of events, ways of expressing views, value orientations, forms of defending interests and goals. Based on behavioral theory, the purpose of conflict is to achieve one's own interests at the expense of the interests of others. When interests are clearly demonstrated, the subjects, object and means of conflict are identified, and then it is open, or full-scale conflicts. If the interests in the conflict are poorly structured, the number of participants is small, it is less legalized and the behavior of the participants is hidden. This type of conflict is called "hidden" or incomplete(for example, violation of labor discipline, absenteeism, civil disobedience, etc.).
You can also name false conflict - this type is at the intersection of psychological and sociological approaches to conflict analysis. In the case of a false conflict, its objective grounds are most often absent. Only one side has a false idea that there is a conflict, when in reality there is none.
There are other variants of the typology of social conflicts for various reasons. There is no point in putting an end to this, since the problem of detailed development of the typology remains quite open and scientists still have to continue the analysis.
Subjects conflict relationships. An important issue when considering social conflicts is the question of the actors and executors of conflict relations. Along with the concept parties to the conflict This may include such concepts as participant, subject, mediator. Note that one should not identify participants and subjects of social conflicts, as this can lead to confusion in understanding the roles performed in the conflict.
Participant conflict can be any person, organization, or group of individuals who take part in the conflict, but are not aware of the purpose of the conflict contradiction. A participant may be an outsider who accidentally finds himself in the conflict zone and has no interest of his own 1 .
Subject social conflict is an individual or social group capable of creating a conflict situation, i.e. firmly and relatively independently influence the course of the conflict in accordance with their interests, influence the behavior and position of others, and cause certain changes in social relations.
Since very often the needs of subjects, their interests, goals, claims can be realized only through the use of power, political organizations such as parties, parliamentary organizations, the state apparatus, “pressure groups”, etc. can take direct part in conflicts. They are the exponents of the will of the relevant social groups and individuals. Often, social conflict takes the form of a conflict between political, ethnic and other leaders (the broad masses take to the streets only at moments of the highest aggravation of the situation). Thus, in most social and national conflicts in the first years of perestroika in our country, the subjects were exclusively representatives of state government structures.
A well-known specialist in the field of conflict theory, R. Dahrendorf, considered subjects of conflicts three types of social groups:
Primary groups- these are direct participants in the conflict who are in a state of interaction regarding the achievement of objectively or subjectively incompatible
Secondary groups -- those who strive to not be involved
directly in the conflict, but contributes to its incitement. Third groups- forces interested in resolving
conflict.
It should be noted that social conflict is always struggle, generated by the confrontation of public and group interests.
Conflict does not arise suddenly. Its causes accumulate and sometimes mature over a long period of time. Conflict is a struggle between conflicting interests, values and forces. But in order for a contradiction to develop into a conflict, it is necessary to realize the opposition of interests and the corresponding motivation of behavior.
18.3. Mechanism of social conflict
Adherents of this theory, like functionalists, focus on society as a whole, examining its institutions and structural formations. However, these two approaches differ in many ways. If functionalists describe society as relatively static, then conflictologists focus on processes that continuously transform social life. Where functionalists emphasize order and stability in society, conflictologists emphasize disorder and instability. Where functionalists see common interests shared by members of society, conflictologists focus on the interests of divergent ones. If functionalists view consensus as the basis for social unity, then conflictologists argue that social unity is an illusion and can only be achieved by force. Finally, functionalists view social structures as necessary and conditioned by the demands of group life, while conflictologists consider many of these structures to be unnecessary and unjustified.
Basic sociological theories of social conflict. The most famous concepts are the positive functional conflict of L. Coser (USA), the conflict model of society of R. Dahrendorf (Germany) and the general theory of conflict of K. Boulding (USA).
According to the concept of Lewis Coser, society is characterized by fatally inevitable social inequality, eternal psychological dissatisfaction of its members and the resulting tension between individuals and groups, caused by their sensory-emotional, mental disorder, which periodically finds a way out in their mutual conflicts. Therefore, Coser reduces social conflict to the tension between what is and what should be in accordance with the feelings of certain groups and individuals. By social conflict he understands the struggle for values and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the opponents’ goals are to neutralize, damage or destroy the opponent. This is the most common definition of conflict in Western political science.
Coser closely links the form and intensity of conflict with the characteristics of the conflicting groups. Since conflict between groups contributes to the strengthening of intra-group solidarity and, consequently, the preservation of the group, the group leaders deliberately resort to searching for an external enemy and incite an imaginary conflict. There are also known tactics aimed at searching for an internal enemy (“traitor”), especially when leaders suffer failures and defeats. Coser justifies the dual role of conflict in the internal cohesion of a group: internal cohesion increases if the group is already sufficiently integrated and if an external danger threatens the entire group and is perceived by all group members as a common threat. At the same time, Coser notes, large groups with a high degree of complicity among their members can show a significant degree of flexibility. Small groups, as well as those that are not sufficiently integrated, can show cruelty and intolerance towards “evading” members.
Coser believed that his concept of social conflict, combined with the “equilibrium-integral” theory and the consensus principle of structural functionalism, would overcome the shortcomings of the latter and become something like a general sociological theory of society. However, the concept of positive functional conflict did not prevail for long.
Ralf Dahrendorf in the mid-1960s came up with a substantiation of a new theory of social conflict, known as the conflict model of society. His work “Classes and class conflict in industrial society” (Dahrendorf R. Classes and Class Conflict Society. 1965) has received wide recognition.
The essence of his concept is as follows: any society is constantly subject to change, social changes are omnipresent; at every moment society is experiencing social conflict, social conflict is omnipresent; every element of society contributes to its change; any society relies on coercion of some of its members by others. Therefore, society is characterized by inequality of social positions occupied by people in relation to the distribution of power, and from this arise differences in their interests and aspirations, which causes mutual friction, antagonism and, as a result, structural changes in society itself. He compares the suppressed conflict to the most dangerous malignant tumor on the body of the social organism.
Societies differ from each other not in the presence or absence of conflict, but only in different attitudes towards it on the part of the authorities. Therefore, in a democratic society, conflicts do occur, but rational methods of regulation make them non-explosive. “He who knows how to cope with conflicts by recognizing them in regulation takes control of the rhythm of history,” writes R. Dahrendorf. “He who misses this opportunity receives this rhythm for himself.” opponents".(Darendorf R. Society and Democracy in Germany. N.Y., 1969. P. 140.)
The general theory of conflict by American sociologist Kenneth Boulding is outlined in his book “Conflict and Defense: A General Theory” (Boulding K. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. N.Y., 1963). All conflicts, in his opinion, have common elements and common patterns of development, and the study of both can present the phenomenon of conflict in any of its specific manifestations. Therefore, Boulding concludes, knowledge of the “general theory of conflict” will allow social forces to control conflicts, manage them, and predict their consequences.
Conflict, according to his concept, is inseparable from social life. In the very nature of man lies the desire for constant hostility and struggle with his own kind, for the escalation of violence. Boulding defines conflict as a situation in which the parties are aware of the incompatibility of their positions and each party seeks to take a position contrary to the interests of the other. At the same time, conflicts are a type of social interaction when the parties are aware of both their opposition and their attitude towards it. They consciously organize themselves, developing strategies and tactics of struggle. But all this does not exclude the fact that conflicts can and should be overcome or at least significantly limited.
The scientist considers two aspects of social conflict - static and dynamic. In the static aspect, the parties to the conflict and the relationships between them are analyzed. Since individuals, organizations, groups (ethnic, religious, professional, age, etc.) can act as warring parties, conflicts can be divided into personal, organizational and group. In the dynamic aspect, Boulding considers the interests of the parties as motivating forces in the conflict behavior of people. Based on the theory of behaviorism, he defines the dynamics of conflict as a process consisting of a set of reactions of the warring parties to external stimuli. All social conflicts are “reactive processes.” For example, “the phenomenon of the emergence and growth of love is completely analogous to the arms race, which, like war, is reactive process".(Bouldtng K. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. N.Y., 1963. P. 25.) In other words, Boulding sees the essence of social conflict in certain stereotypical human reactions. In this regard, he believes that any conflict can be overcome and resolved by appropriately manipulating stimuli by changing the reactions, values and drives of individuals, without resorting to a radical change in the social system itself.
Evaluating conflict theory. This theory serves as a good counterbalance to the functional approach. Indeed, since the advantages of one approach are the disadvantages of the other, the two complement each other in many ways. While functionalists have difficulty studying social change, conflict theorists have an advantage. And where conflict theorists have difficulties, for example when considering some aspects of consensus, integration and stability, the functional approach provides insight into the problem.
According to some representatives of both movements, the differences between them are so great that they see no basis for reconciliation. Meanwhile, many sociologists have taken up this task. For example, R. Dahrendorf and G.E. Lenski sees a “two-faced Janus” in society and argues that functionalists and conflictologists simply explore two aspects of the same reality. They note that both consensus and conflict are key features of social life. In addition, both approaches traditionally have a holistic view of social life, which assumes that societies are systems of interconnected parts.
Other sociologists, such as L. Coser and J. Himes, based on the ideas of G. Simmel, believe that under some circumstances conflict can be functional for society. It then promotes commitment and loyalty to the group and thus plays an integrative role. Conflict can also prevent the ossification of social systems, forcing them to change and renew themselves.
Slide 2
CONFLICT MODEL
R. Darrendorf created the theory of the conflict model of society. In his opinion, society is constantly subject to social changes, i.e. always experiences social conflict. Social inequality among members of society and the social contradictions generated by it create social tension and conflict. The conflict is influenced by the interests of the subjects. Darrendorf identifies among them interests: objective (latent); subjective (explicit).
Slide 3
Model stages:
identifying the parties to the conflict - forming the interests of the group and focusing on their protection; awareness of hidden (latent) interests of subjects and organization of groups with common interests; clash of groups (classes, nations, parties, etc.).
Slide 4
Levels at which conflict can occur:
between inconsistent expectations that are placed on a person playing a particular role; between the social roles we must play simultaneously; intragroup conflicts; between social groups; conflicts at the level of society as a whole; interstate conflicts.
Slide 5
Dahrendorf builds a hierarchy of conflicts that differ in the level of action - from the micro to the macro level, numbering 15 types of conflicts. Class conflict as the central conflict of society depends on the nature of the power prevailing at a particular historical stage. In modern society, this conflict is defined as a conflict between industrial and post-industrial society. The conflicts of industrial society are losing their severity and significance. New conflicts are emerging, generated by a change in the nature of power and relations in society. For example, a conflict between image and lifestyle. Influencing such conflicts, according to Dahrendorf, is pointless and inappropriate, since they are formed by the natural evolutionary path of the development of society.
Slide 6
POSITIVE FUNCTIONAL CONFLICT THEORY
L. Kozer substantiated this theory. In his opinion, conflict is “a struggle for values and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the opponents’ goals are to neutralize, damage or eliminate the enemy.” It is believed that in a closed society, conflicts destroy social ties and lead to revolution. In an open society, conflicts are given an outlet and can contribute to the development of society. Positive functions of conflict: release of psychological tension; communicative and connecting function; consolidating function (in the process of conflict, interest in cooperation appears).
Slide 7
Causes of conflicts:
Lack of any resources: power; prestige; values. People by nature always strive for power and possession of more resources, so tension exists in any society. The differences between the conflicts that arise in this way can only lie in where the energy of the conflict itself is directed. Closed and open societies direct the energy of conflict differently.
Slide 8
A closed society (rigid, unitary) is usually split into two hostile classes. The conflict between them completely destroys social harmony. Energy goes towards violence, revolution. An open society is pluralistic in its political and social structure and more conflict-ridden, as it is open to new influences. There are several conflicts between different layers and groups. But at the same time, in an open type of society there are social institutions that are capable of maintaining social harmony and directing the energy of conflict to the development of society. That is why there are two types of conflicts: constructive; destructive.
Slide 9
Conflict, according to Coser’s theory, is necessary and natural for any society, since it performs adaptive and integrative functions and contributes to the stability and viability of individuals in the social system. But if it develops incorrectly, it can perform a negative or destructive function. Therefore, the theory of functional conflict analyzes: the negative consequences of conflict for society; positive consequences for society. The emotions prevailing among the participants in the conflict, the level of values for which there was a struggle, determine the degree of severity of the conflict. Functional conflict theory is often compared with R. Dahrendorf's theory, although Coser criticized his German colleague for the lack of research on the positive consequences of conflict.
Slide 10
CLASSIFICATION OF CONFLICTS
Conflicts are classified according to spheres of life (social conflict, national conflict, etc.), as well as depending on the subjects and areas of disagreement: personal - conflict at the level of individual consciousness; interpersonal conflict - disagreements between people; intergroup - conflict between social groups and communities; conflict of affiliation - when individuals have dual affiliation (for example, they are members of competing groups, but pursuing the same goal); conflict with the external environment - pressure from administrative, economic norms and regulations, conflict with institutions that support these norms.
Slide 11
Types of social conflict: confrontation (passive opposition of groups); competition (struggle for recognition of personal achievements and creativity); competition (a type of conflict where the goal is to obtain benefits, profit and access to benefits). Professor A. Rapoport identified the following types of conflicts: fight (irreconcilable contradictions, the goal is victory); debates (manoeuvres are possible, but ultimately a compromise is possible); game (conflict within the rules).
Slide 12
There are also conflicts: open (full-scale): interests, object, subject, tactics, etc. are clearly demonstrated; hidden (incomplete). An example is civil disobedience; false conflict (the idea of existence arises only on one of the parties).
View all slides
Social Darwinism. The first attempts to create a sociological theory of improving the social system, where the role of conflict would be substantiated, date back to the second half of the 19th century. During this period, the works of the English sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) appeared, for example, “Fundamentals of Sociology,” where the thesis about the universality of the conflict was developed.
Spencer argued that the struggle for survival, conflicts between individuals and groups contribute to balance in society and ensure the process of social development. G. Spencer was a supporter of social Darwinism, which developed during this period. Social Darwinists argued that society can be identified with an organism. This makes it possible to explain social life by biological laws. Prominent representatives of this teaching, along with Spencer, were W. Bagehot, W. Sumner, L. Gumplowicz, G. Ratzenhofer, A. Small, who, describing the manifestations of social struggle in the clash of interests, inherited norms and new ideas, drew attention to the problem conflict.
Marxist theory. A special place in the theory of social conflict is occupied by the works of Karl Marx (1818 - 1883), whose discovery of a materialist understanding of history made it possible to take a fresh look at the development of social relations. According to K. Marx, in society people enter into necessary social relationships with each other that do not depend on their will and consciousness. This is the main condition for the formation of a social substance, society. Its development is carried out in accordance with the dialectical law of unity and struggle of opposites, which in this society are represented by large social groups or classes. The main problem in their relationship is the system of resource distribution. Based on this, the main theses of Marx’s concept of conflict are formulated:
The more unevenly scarce resources are distributed in the system, the deeper the conflict between the ruling and subordinate classes.
The more the subordinate classes become aware of their true interests, the more likely they are to doubt the legitimacy of the existing form of resource distribution.
The more the subordinate classes become conscious of their interests and begin to doubt the legitimacy of the existing distribution, the more likely it is that they will have to jointly enter into open conflict with the ruling classes.
The higher the ideological unification of the members of the subordinate classes, the more developed their structure of political leadership, the stronger the polarization of the opposing classes.
The greater the polarization between the dominant and the oppressed, the more violent the conflict will be.
The more violent the conflict, the more structural changes it will cause to the system and the greater the redistribution of scarce resources that will result.
Researchers of the legacy of K. Marx drew attention to the fact that he considered class conflict without a theoretical analysis of its various behavioral forms. The absolutization of the role of economic relations in the emergence of social conflict is pointed out. Marx believed that each of the conflicting parties has only one goal - the desire to manage scarce resources, which was refuted by social practice. Despite this, Marx's theory became widespread.
Functional theory of conflict. A notable step in the study of conflict by Western sociology was the work of the German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858-1918). The author of Sociology, published in 1908, is rightfully considered the founder of the functional theory of conflict. According to Simmel, conflict is a universal phenomenon; Moreover, a completely unified and harmonious group or society is generally unthinkable. Even if they existed, then, not having a mechanism for self-development and not being exposed to impulses that stimulate change, they would not be viable.
Simmel's conclusions about the impact of conflict on the internal structure of a group are important. In extreme situations, for example in the event of war, the tendency towards centralization increases until the establishment of a despotic regime. Having emerged, a centralized structure strives for self-preservation and, for this purpose, tends to look for a new enemy to create new external conflicts. Simmel's contribution to conflict theory is the inclusion of the third party. Relationships in a dyad allow only the possibility of straightforward conflict. With the advent of the “third,” the opportunity opens up for multifaceted relationships, awareness of differences, the formation of coalitions, the formation of group solidarity, i.e., the possibility of complex social interaction.
Thus, in the period from the second half of the 19th century. and until the beginning of the 20th century. functional concepts recognized social conflict as a normal phenomenon of social existence, an integral property of social relations. Conflicts were assigned an important positive role in the social process. What was common to the concepts considered was that the conflict was analyzed at the macro level (class, people, state).
Structural functionalism. In the first half of the 20th century. The problem of conflict in sociology developed within the framework of the systemic-functional school. During this period, applied sociological research was intensively developed, aimed at identifying the conditions for the emergence and course of conflicts at the micro level - in small groups and between individuals. The task of practical sociology was to find effective methods for resolving conflict situations in organizations and in production. These conflicts were viewed as negative processes that hinder the development of society. The attention of sociologists was occupied by strikes, protest demonstrations, riots, military conflicts and other “anomalies” of social reality.
This reorientation in the approach to the study of social Conflict was substantiated by the American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) in his work “The Structure of Social Action”. Analyzing the functional model of society, T. Parsons considered conflict as the cause of destabilization and disorganization of social life. Having defined conflict as a social anomaly, he saw the main task in maintaining conflict-free relations between various elements of society, which would ensure social balance, mutual understanding and cooperation. At the level of the social system, legal institutions, religion and customs perform an integrative function. As society develops, it increases its “generalized adaptive capacity” and becomes less conflict-ridden.
T. Parsons’ concept was rightfully criticized for its “unviability” and in the 50s in Western sociology there was a return to the conflict model of society.
The theory of "positive-functional conflict". The publication in 1956 of the work of the American sociologist Lewis Coser “The Functions of Social Conflict” laid the foundations for the modern Western sociology of conflict. In the concept of “positive functional conflict,” L. Coser substantiated the positive role of conflicts in ensuring the sustainability of social systems. Developing Simmel's ideas, Coser argued that there are no and cannot be social groups without conflict relations. In this theory, conflict is viewed as a struggle for values and social status, power and insufficient material and spiritual benefits. This is a fight in which the goals of the parties are to neutralize, damage or destroy the enemy.
According to Coser, the struggle between social groups and individuals for the redistribution of wealth and power performs positive functions. Firstly, by defusing tense relations between the participants and giving vent to negative emotions, the completed conflict makes it possible to preserve the relationship between the conflicting parties, i.e., return them to their original state. Secondly, during conflict interaction people get to know each other more, since conflict performs a testing function. Mutual cognition facilitates the transformation of adversarial relationships into cooperative relationships.
L. Koser notes the ambiguous role of external conflict for group cohesion. Internal cohesion increases if the group is sufficiently integrated and if external danger threatens the entire group, and not part of it, and is perceived by all group members as a common threat. Insufficiently integrated groups are characterized by harshness towards dissenting members and a desire to suppress manifestations of internal conflicts. Coser believed that the positive function of social conflict is that it stimulates social change, the emergence of new social orders, norms and relationships.
"Conflict model of society." At the end of the 50s, the German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf (b. 1929) substantiated a new theory of social conflict, which was called the “conflict model of society” (“Classes and class conflict in industrial society,” 1957). It reflects the influence of K. Marx's ideas on class polarization, struggle and resolution of class conflict through revolutionary means. According to Dahrendorf, the Marxist theory of class struggle cannot explain the conflicts of modern capitalism.
R. Dahrendorf argues that society is subject to change at every moment and these changes are all-pervasive. Therefore, any society experiences social conflicts occurring at various levels. Any society relies on coercion of some of its members by others. Therefore, class conflict is determined by the nature of power. R. Dahrendorf considers attempts to eliminate the underlying causes of social antagonisms useless and admits the possibility of influencing changes in the specific course of the conflict. This opens up for modern society the prospect of not revolutionary upheavals, but evolutionary changes.
General theory of conflict. In the early 60s, the American sociologist Kenneth Boulding attempted to create a universal doctrine of conflict - a “general theory of conflict” (“Conflict and Defense: A General Theory”, 1963). In accordance with it, conflict is a universal category inherent in the living and inanimate world, which serves as a basic concept for analyzing the processes of social, physical, chemical and biological redemption. All conflicts have common functions, properties and tendencies of occurrence, course and resolution. According to Boulding, in human nature there is a desire for constant struggle with one’s own kind, for the escalation of violence. However, conflicts need to be overcome and significantly limited.
The theory considers two models of conflict - static and dynamic. In the static model, Boulding analyzes the “parties to the conflict” and the system of relations between them. These relationships are built on the principle of competition. In the dynamic model, Boulding considers the interests of the parties as motivating forces in people's conflict behavior. Using the ideas of behaviorism, he defines the dynamics of conflict as a process consisting of the reactions of the opposing parties to external stimuli. Therefore, social clashes are “reactive processes.”