In general, conflict theory seeks to scientifically explain the general contours of conflict in society: how conflict starts and varies, and the effects it brings. The central concerns of conflict theory are the unequal distribution of scarce resources and power. What these resources are might be different for each theorist, but conflict theorists usually work with Weber’s three systems of stratification: class, status, and power. Conflict theorists generally see power as the central feature of society, rather than thinking of society as held together by collective agreement concerning a cohesive set of cultural standards, as functionalists do. Where power is located and who uses it (and who doesn’t) are thus fundamental to conflict theory. In this way of thinking about things, power isn’t necessarily bad: it is a primary factor that guides society and social relations.
Lewis Coser’s theory of conflict
Coser’s theory of conflict suggests that conflict is a natural and instinctual part of human life, present in various aspects of society. Unlike conflict among other animals, human conflicts often have goal-oriented motives, with different possible paths to achieve those goals. This variation in conflict paths allows for negotiation and different levels of conflict. Coser argues that conflict has both internal and external consequences for groups.
Internal conflict: Internal conflict within a social system leads to the development of norms, lines of authority, and judiciary systems to address conflicts. It is viewed as a psychological need for individuals to engage in conflict, and low-level, frequent conflict serves as a release valve for hostilities, preventing them from building up and becoming disintegrative for the system. Frequent conflict also creates moral and social structures that facilitate social integration. However, not all internal conflicts are functional, and their impact depends on the types of conflict and social structures involved.
Coser identifies two types of internal conflict: those that threaten or contradict the fundamental assumptions of the group relationship and those that do not. Groups with high levels of interaction and personal involvement tend to suppress or discourage conflict, but when it does occur, it can be intense due to unresolved grievances and high emotional mobilization. In contrast, groups with less frequent interaction and lower demand for involvement are more likely to benefit from functional conflict.
External conflict: External conflict between groups, especially when it becomes violent, also has functional consequences. It strengthens group boundaries, increases group solidarity, enhances power dynamics, and encourages coalition formation with other groups. Violent conflict intensifies these effects. Group boundaries become stronger and better guarded, leading to a clearer distinction between group members and outsiders. Conflict fosters a sense of camaraderie and similarity among group members, leading to greater emotional ties and a sacred perception of the group. Additionally, conflict tends to centralize power structures within the group, enabling more efficient response times and negotiation of external relations. It also promotes the formation of coalitions with previously neutral parties.
Coser’s theory highlights the role of conflict as an innate and functional aspect of human society. It emphasizes the variations in conflict types, levels, and consequences, both internally within groups and externally between groups. Conflict can serve as a release valve, facilitate social integration, strengthen group boundaries, enhance solidarity, centralize power structures, and foster coalition formation.
Ralph Dahrendorf
Ralf Dahrendorf was a sociologist who developed the conflict theory, emphasizing the presence of conflict in society as a normal part of social order. Unlike some theorists who saw conflict as innate to human nature, Dahrendorf viewed it as a result of power dynamics and the structure of society. His influential work on social inequality, “Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society,” argued that neither structural functionalism nor Marxism alone provided a complete perspective on advanced societies.
Dahrendorf defined class in terms of levels of authority rather than solely wealth, combining elements from Marxism and structural functionalism to develop his own theory of class conflict in post-capitalist society. He identified two approaches to society: the Utopian, which emphasized consensus and stability, and the Rationalist, which focused on dissension and conflict as drivers of change. Dahrendorf believed that the consensus view had dominated sociology and sought to balance it with a class-conflict perspective.
Authority, according to Dahrendorf, involved coercive control backed by formal legitimacy and was associated with social positions. However, authority also created a dichotomy between those who held power and those who were excluded. This led to the formation of latent interests and conflict groups, which could manifest through political organizations. Dahrendorf argued that class conflict stemmed from authoritative domination and subjugation, and its objective was to change the existing social structure.
Dahrendorf observed that capitalism had evolved since Marx’s time, leading to a more complex system of inequality. He referred to this as post-capitalism and highlighted the institutionalization of class conflict in state and economic spheres, such as unions, collective bargaining, courts, and legislative debates. Dahrendorf believed that conflict theory and consensus theory were both necessary to understand society, with conflict theory focusing on conflicts of interest and the forces that hold society together despite these tensions.
Dahrendorf’s conflict theory emphasized the role of authority, the formation of conflict groups, and the importance of class conflict in shaping social structure. He challenged Marx’s two-class system and the sole focus on property ownership, arguing for a more nuanced understanding of power dynamics in modern society. Dahrendorf believed that conflict not only maintained the status quo but also led to societal change and development.
How Conflict theory differ from functionalism
Conflict Theory:
Conflict theory, rooted in the works of Karl Marx and later developed by scholars like Ralf Dahrendorf, sees society as inherently marked by conflict and social inequality. It emphasizes the existence of competing interests, power struggles, and the unequal distribution of resources. According to conflict theory, society is divided into different social groups, such as social classes or ethnic groups, that engage in conflict to protect their interests and gain control over scarce resources.
Conflict theorists argue that social order is not based on consensus or harmony, but rather on the exercise of power by dominant groups to maintain their privileged positions. These power dynamics are seen as perpetuating social inequality and creating tension within society. Conflict theory views social change as an inevitable result of these conflicts, with social movements and revolutions emerging as means to challenge and transform existing power structures.
Functionalism:
Functionalism, on the other hand, associated with sociologists like Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons, takes a different approach to understanding society. It views society as a complex system composed of interconnected parts that work together to maintain social order and stability. Functionalists focus on the functions or purposes that social institutions, such as the family, education, and government, serve in maintaining the overall balance of society.
Functionalists argue that these social institutions contribute to the smooth functioning of society by fulfilling various functional prerequisites. For example, the family is seen as providing socialization and reproduction, while education offers knowledge and skills. Functionalism emphasizes the interdependence of these institutions and how they contribute to the overall stability and cohesion of society.
Unlike conflict theory, functionalism views social change as a disruptive force that can undermine social order. It sees society as striving to maintain equilibrium and restore stability in response to any disruptions. Functionalists believe that social norms, values, and shared understandings contribute to social integration and consensus, allowing society to function harmoniously.
Therefore, we understand from the above that conflict theory highlights conflict, social inequality, and social change as inherent features of society, while functionalism focuses on social order, stability, and the functions of social institutions. Conflict theory emphasizes power struggles and critique, whereas functionalism emphasizes social integration and consensus. These two theoretical perspectives provide distinct frameworks for analyzing and understanding social phenomena and the dynamics of society.
Post a Comment