Conflict Theory

CONFLICT THEORY

Conflict theory views social conflict as the constant, and change as the result of this conflict. Since conflict is continuous, change is continuous. Change produces new interest groupings and classes, and conflict between these produces further change. Any particular change represents the success of victorious groups or classes in imposing their preferences upon others. A number of social theorists have espoused this approach, and here we shall focus on the main ideas of three important conflict theorists: Karl Marx, Lewis Coser, and Ralf Dahrendorf.

1. Karl Marx (1818–1883)

The Marxian theory of social change is based on the basic understanding that social change occurs due to the constant conflict in a society between its haves and have nots. In the initial chapter of the Manifesto of the Communist Party (2007), Marx and Engels spell out their concept of history in the following lines: “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, 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 reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

Marx’s theory of conflict or social change is based on dialectical materialism. For him, social change occurs due to the conflict of two antagonistic classes based on ownership of the means of production. For Marx, all societies throughout history consist of two classes, viz., the haves and the have-nots, who are in antagonistic relation. Marx showed the trajectory of a society's development, moving from one stage to another due to conflict between its two classes.

Marx argues that it is the prevailing material conditions which determine one’s class position. He contends that the unequal distribution of material resources among the different classes leads to class struggle. The ruling class derives its power from the control of ownership and the forces of production. It exploits the subordinate class, leading to conflict between the two classes. Marx developed the idea that society consists of base and superstructure. The base consists of the economy, while the superstructure comprises other political, legal, moral, and cultural institutions. Karl Marx (1976, pp. 3-4) in his book “Preface and Introduction to a contribution to the critique Political economy” has stated that the base (economy) controls the other aspects of social life (superstructure). “In the social production which men carry on, they enter into a definite relations that are indispensable and independent to their will, their relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material powers of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitute the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which rise the legal and political superstructure and to which corresponds definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life. At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come in conflict with the existing relations of production… then comes the period of social revolution. With the change in the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed.”

Due to the exploitative relationship between the classes, class polarisation happens. The subordinate class within class in itself develops class consciousness and emerges as class for itself; ultimately, revolution occurs. Class in itself, in Marxian understanding, is simply an economic category which does not have any class consciousness. When a particular class develops class consciousness, its members will unite as a class against exploitation by the dominant class. Marx argues that a class, after developing class solidarity, moves toward the stage of class for itself. For Marx, a social group really becomes a class when it becomes a class for itself.

Marxian Model of Class Conflict and Social Change:

Class: In Marxian understanding, class is an economic category whose members share the same relationship with the forces of production.

Class in Itself: It is simply a social group sharing the same relationship with the forces of production. They do not have any class interest in solidarity.  

Class in itself Class Consciousness Class Solidarity Class for itself Class conflict

2. Lewis A. Coser (1913–2003)

The conflict approach to social change gained additional momentum in the middle of the twentieth century, prompted by racial conflicts, class struggles, and warring interests. Undoubtedly, the best-known conflict theorist among contemporary American sociologists is Lewis A. Coser. In his widely read book, The Functions of Social Conflict (1956), Coser holds that conflict has both positive and negative effects. He explains that conflict is part of the socialisation process and that no social group can be completely harmonious. Conflict in society is inevitable because individuals have a predisposition to both hate and love. Thus, conflict is part of the human condition. But conflict can be constructive as well as destructive because it frequently resolves disagreements and leads eventually to unity. He believes that conflict leads to greater adjustment and adaptation as groups learn to live side by side. Moreover, conflict encourages “in-group” cohesion because group members share a common enemy and a common cause.

Coser views conflict as a means of promoting social change. People who feel their society meets their needs are unlikely to want to change it. Those whose needs are not satisfied will attempt to change the situation by confronting the dominant group that has suppressed their goals. An obvious example is the civil rights movement in the United States. But Coser maintains that conflict can lead to change in a number of ways, including the establishment of new group boundaries, the drawing off of hostility and tension, the development of more complex group structures to deal with conflict and its accompaniments, and the creation of alliances with other parties. Each of these can result in a new distribution of social values, with the concomitant formation of a new social order. Therefore, conflict is seen as a creative force that stimulates change in society.

3. Ralf Dahrendorf (1929–2009)

Ralf Dahrendorf, in Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1959) and “Toward a Theory of Social Conflict” (1958), explained social conflict primarily in terms of unequal relations of authority. He argued that positions of authority and subordination generate opposing latent interests, from which quasi-groups and, under suitable conditions, organised interest groups may emerge. Conflict between these groups can produce changes in social structure.

He rejects the Marxian notion of social class as determined by the relations to the means of production and defines it in terms of the unequal distribution of authority. All groups in society are divided into those with authority and those without. He maintains that social conflict has a structural origin and is to be “understood as a conflict about the legitimacy of relations of authority”. In any organisation, roles and positions can be dichotomised into two “quasi-groups” whose members have opposed “latent interests.” The group in position of power or authority is interested in preserving the status quo, whereas the subordinated group is interested in change. These two “quasi-groups” are potential antagonists in that their members share common experiences, roles, and interests, whether or not they are aware of them.

Under proper “conditions of organisation,” interest groups emerge from quasi-groups as members develop a leadership cadre, effective intra-group communication, a consistent ideology, and an awareness of their common interests. Dahrendorf suggests that the more organised subordinate interest groups become, the more likely they are to be in conflict with the dominant group. The “conditions of conflict,” such as opportunities for social mobility and the responses of the agents of social control, will determine the intensity and violence of conflict. By “intensity”, he refers to the emotional involvement and animosity felt by the participants. He proposes that the more organised the interest groups and the more regulated their conflict, the less violent the conflict will be. Conflict, in turn, leads to structural change as a result of a change in dominance relations. The type, speed, and magnitude of change depend on the “conditions of structural change.” These conditions include the capacity of those in power to stay in power and the pressure potential of the dominated interest group. Conflict between workers and management, the unionisation process, and the changes brought about by the unions are used by Dahrendorf to illustrate his theory.

Dahrendorf altered Marx’s theory in several ways. He saw conflict as a problem of unequal authority in all sectors of society, in contrast to the strict Marxian notion of classes. Then he emphasised the importance of dealing with external conflict, whereas in the Marxian conception, conflict is identified as the primary driver of society's internal workings. Furthermore, Dahrendorf pointed out that conflict in a given society results not from internal contradictions arising in historical development but from pressures exerted by other societies. Finally, Dahrendorf contended that many conflicts are not capable of resolution as Marx has suggested, but are most frequently controlled through “compromise.”

4. Georg Simmel

Georg Simmel, in his chapter “Conflict” in Sociology: Investigations on the Forms of Sociation (1908), argued that conflict is a form of sociation and that conflict and harmony are interconnected elements of social life. He held that conflict is a permanent feature of social life and that it can bind people with similar interests, thereby keeping society dynamic and ever-changing. He emphasised the positive functions of conflict and examined several ways in which conflicts may be terminated, including the disappearance of the object, victory, compromise, and conciliation.

Simmel’s approach shows that conflict is not necessarily destructive; it can contribute to social integration, adjustment, and change. More broadly, conflict theory focuses on processes such as exploitation, discrimination, and revolt that generate conflict in society. Although conflict theories provide important explanations of social relations, other social situations and conditions also need to be taken into account.

George Simmel believed that conflict and consensus, as well as order and disorder, are part of an eternal dialectic of social life. Unlike thinkers who envisioned a society free of tension, Simmel argued that a completely conflict-free society is impossible, viewing war and peace as equally natural and inevitable aspects of reality.

1. The Principle of Dualism: Simmel’s approach is grounded in the assumption that the subsistence of any aspect of human life depends on the co-existence of diametrically opposed elements. He believed that human existence is shaped by the tension between contradictory elements, and he rejected the idea of a society characterised by pure harmony. Instead, conflict and consensus, along with peace and war, are all part of the eternal dialectic of social reality and act as two sides of the same reality.

2. Forms of Interaction: Simmel applies the principle of dualism to the relationship between the individual and society, as well as to various forms of “sociation.” He emphasised that the socialised individual always remains in a dual relation with society, incorporated within it, yet also standing against it. Each person is both a product of society and a life acting from an autonomous center. Social interactions, therefore, always involve both harmony and conflict, as well as attraction and repulsion. Even negative dissociating factors such as hate, envy, need, and desire are causes of conflict and must certainly be considered forms of sociation.

3. Positive Functions of Conflict: Simmel uniquely focused on the positive functions of conflict at a time when it was generally regarded as disruptive and dangerous. He showed that conflict, as a form of sociation, can promote both social unity and disunity. Through conflict, negative feelings are brought into the open; if these feelings were suppressed, they might continue to build and contribute to greater social disruption. Conflict also permits participants to make a more realistic appraisal of social relationships and of their areas of agreement and disagreement. According to Simmel, all social relationships have both positive and negative elements; purely harmonious and lasting social relationships are inconceivable. Conflict is thus designed to resolve divergent dualisms and to achieve some form of unity, even if only through the annihilation of one of the conflicting parties.

4. Peace and Conflict are Intertwined: Simmel insisted that neither peace nor conflict is the ultimate manifestation of historical reality; they exist as equals. Instead, peace and conflict are reciprocally intertwined in historical reality. Just as conflict can be transformed into peace, peace can equally be transformed into conflict.

5. How Conflict is Resolved: Simmel suggested four ways in which conflict may be terminated:

a) Disappearance of the object: The contending parties are deprived of the object of their conflict, often by a third party.

b) Victory: Resulting from the superiority of one party over the other, this is the simplest and most radical way of getting from fight to peace.

c) Compromise: The two parties agree to divide or otherwise share the object of conflict; if the object cannot be shared, they may agree to a symbolic compromise.

d) Conciliation: Based on a purely subjective orientation, this involves a change of heart and is summarised by the dictum to “forgive and forget,” distinguishing it from the objective sharing seen in a compromise.