The Theory of Conflict - Essay Example

Conflict Theory Social theories count enormous number, but few of them have survived the criticism periods and the ages of new formations. Conflict theory is probably one of those which have remained intact in spite of the fact that its perspectives are gradually becoming out of date. Nevertheless, conflict theory incited the creation of the whole communist world, initiated Cold War and some other international disagreements, so it was to great extent prophetic. The present paper is designed to discuss this renowned approach to social functioning in terms of academic insights, made by its developers. As Collins (1974) writes, “the level of interpersonal interaction is all-inclusive; by the same token, it is highly abstract. To reduce its myriad complexities to causal order requires theory on another level of analysis. The most fruitful tradition of explanatory theory is the conflict tradition, running from Machiavelli and Hobbes to Marx and Weber” (Collins, 1974, p.56). It needs to be noted that conflict approach should be viewed in two interrelated context: the authors’ contemporary settings as well as the modern stage of sociopolitical development (ibid). Hobbes and Machiavelli were the first apologists of conflict theory, but their studies were directed rather to political dynamic enhancement than to certain social issues. Human behavior was explained in sense of their mercantile nature and materialistic interests (ibid; Coser, 1977), so the main precondition for conflict approach was the assumption that individuals struggle for commodities and defend their interests in most desperate way. Threat and violence breed nothing, but additional cruelty as well as the institutionalization and legalization of social and political intimidation (Aron, 1965). (Individuals' behavior is explained in terms of their self-interests in a material world of threat and violence. Furthermore, social order was founded primarily as coercion, organized by governments and aimed at oppressing certain social classes in favor of narrow circles. Machiavelli added into the study another component, which was an ideology, an artificial control method: in the realms of belief and devotion (associated with law or religion), and in the secret world of struggle over influence, virtues, concepts and mores do not precede interaction, but are introduced as socially created doctrine that serves the interests of certain factions. Marx (1818-1883) was probably the main contributor to conflict perspective, as he concretized the earlier studies and Hobbes’ scientific inquiries in order to add more specific factors determining the lines of division among clashing interests. Furthermore, the social scientist pointed to material and economic circumstances which activate particular interest manifestation. In addition, his theory of economic evolution became a sociological framework for several generations, since it precisely indicated the wheels that facilitated the achievement of political goals: market regulation, commodity and consumption culture creation and the low satisfaction of basic needs (in the majorities). Nevertheless, I would like to narrow my focus on Marx’s sociological views, which could be explained as following. First of all, “historically, particular forms of property (slavery, feudal landholding, capital) are upheld by the coercive power of the state; hence classes formed by property divisions (slaves and slave-owners, serfs and lords, capitalists and workers) are the opposing agents in the struggle for political power the underpinning of their means of livelihood” (Marx and Engels, 1930, p.48). Secondly, financial contributions establish the degree to which social groups are entitled to arrange their ‘interest struggle’, such mobilizing conditions constitute an array of interrelated variables between class and political influence. Tertially, there are some other conditions, organization and functioning of mental production, which naturally resolve the conflict between interests, because intellectual potential is considered dominant in ideological sphere, i.e. opinion-shapers have powerful tools of manipulation due to their high erudition and education level. Moreover, the scholar constructs another strong argument over his economy-oriented theory (Coser, 1977). Marx’s theory of stratification embraces a number of areas and creates a universal matrix for activities at both personal and institutional levels (Marx and Engels, 1930). The first principle of his stratification model implies the particular importance of the material conditions of an individual’s life and their strong influence on his/her lifestyle and degree of acceptable freedom, as property relations are vital in determining the self-support strategies as well as class cultures and related behaviors, controlled by poverty line (ibid). Furthermore, “the material conditions for mobilization as a coherent, intercommunicating group also vary among social classes; by implication, another major difference among class lifestyles stems from the differing organization of their communities and their differing experience with the means of social communication” (Collins, 1974, p.57). Consequently, social groups and circles are dissimilar in terms of their power over mental production: some classes enjoy more symbolic manifestation, whereas others should obey to this symbolic articulation as it is imposed to them from above. The aforementioned Marxian doctrine in reality produces a foundation for a conflict perspective, but the rest of the principles were explained by the other scholars. Weber, for instance, is commonly viewed as a creator of analytical methods of the theory, since the scholar added complication to Marx’s opinion, demonstrated that the powers controlling mental production were basically separate from property relations, revised the essentials of social divergence and upgraded the theory to a qualitatively higher level after considering thoroughly the most vital sets of resources. Due to the fact that Weber’s ideas are clearer, “we may summarize Weber as showing several different forms of property conflict coexisting in the same society, and hence, by implication, the existence of multiple class divisions; elaborating the principles of organizational intercommunication and control in their own right, thereby adding a theory of organization and yet another sphere of interest conflict, this time intraorganizational factions” (Collins, 1974, p. 59). Moreover, the scholar highlights that the violent oppression of the state logically precedes the emergence of economy as a phenomenon and therefore concentrates on material resources of both influence and violence (ibid). Hence, Weber introduces the new set of resources called ‘emotional products’, which underline the impact of religion of state control and the time-honored cooperation between government and religious institutions like church that alters social groups into status groups – this tendency can be applied to any territorial or ethnical communities , - and develops its own criteria for legality and righteousness. Moreover, Weber successfully addresses the issue of human nature and provides the insight parallel to Durkheim’s, Freud’s and Nietzsche’s studies: not human are similar to animals, as they have natural instincts, desires and emotional inclinations, yet the certain forms of integration instinct is reinforced in humans by the emotional component, characterized at belief- and prejudice-setting (Aron, 1965; Coser, 1977) in terms of community progress, i.e. the participation in religious rituals is determined by strong socialization needs with emotional nature. This formulation is attributed to Durkheim, as his scholarly analysis of rituals (Aron, 1965) can easily integrate into mass emotion-shaping and emotional bonds construction. Both Weber and Durkheim speak about a kind o emotional contagion, bred by physical and social connection, including concentrating on the common trends or actions )both verbal or non-verbal communication, behavior and political activity can be viewed within these universal frames). Goffman continues and finally completes Durkheim’s study, as he synthesizes the establishment of rituals at microlevel (i.e. in small social groups, such as families or friendly circles) and stresses the strategies and materials of stage-setting, i.e. the main factors influencing of success of emotional solidarity efforts. “Durkheim and Goffman are to be seen as amplifying our knowledge of the mechanisms of emotional production, but within the framework of Weber's conflict theory. For Weber retains a crucial emphasis: The creation of emotional solidarity does not supplant conflict, but is one of the main weapons used in conflict” (Aron, 1965, p.135). Emotional patterns can be therefore applied in the areas of greatest interest: in promoting domination within a certain class or institution, as they are a medium of alliance-formation, in particular those intended for cross-class clash. Furthermore, emotional rituals are used to enforce the vertical power and prestige distribution, in which some circles rule over the others by setting up a perfect or desirable condition that must be emulated by the ‘inferiors’. Weber’s ideas about religion attract the minds of contemporary thinkers, as it combines all aforementioned aspects of ruling through the exploitation of human emotional potential and the common sense of spiritual solidarity. The scholar thus introduces the pure concept of ‘black PR’, i.e. mass manipulation techniques, such as panics, ‘unexpected’ or ‘sudden’ events (to which the leaders expect emotional response nonetheless), common joy or euphoria. This archetype of social stratification embraces castes, national and ethnic minorities, intelligentsia and feudal estates are the forms of the implication of this ‘decency line’ in terms of strictly divided solidarities, based upon dissimilar distribution emotional patterns. This unspoken and unwritten rule exists in any religion between apologists, disciples, charismatic and ritual leaders. “From this analytical version of Weber, incorporating the relevant principles of Marx, Durkheim, and Goffman, we can move into an explicit theory of stratification. It should be apparent that there are innumerable possible types of stratified societies; our aim is not to classify them, but to state the set of causal principles that go into various empirical combinations” (Collins, 1977, p.60). As for human nature, conflict theorists explain it in terms of the basic stimuli, deriving from violent compulsion as a strong source of energy for cross-class interactions. Humans are basically sociable, but have strong predisposition to conflicts and competing behavior – those, probably, are the main reasons for interpersonal and global antagonism. Furthermore, Sigmund Freud to some degree simplified this model by introducing the issue of inherence or biological drives which incite conflicts. Each oppressive action stimulates opposite reaction, creating thus a strong emotional matrix for an entire social class, i.e. serving in favor of leaders and spiritual teachers. On the other hand, the theory can be viewed as a basis for group cooperation and support, as emotional basis can be extrapolated from passive solidarity onto active partnership. Conflict theory can be applied in many areas. For instance, in the field of education the main guideline for conflict theory is McLeod’s ‘Ain’t No Makin’ It’ (Arrow and Burns, 2004). The author claims that teachers regard the descendants of lower classes in more biased way, stigmatizing them as less competent and sophisticated students, as they initially have fewer opportunities to improve their language skills, creative and critical thinking. Furthermore, these children are learned for mainly manual job with an emphasis on submission, compliance and following school canons rather than independency, analytical thinking and self-manifestation. The author also indicates that the access to private schools is restricted for lower-class students, as tuition fee is quite high, whereas public schools are gradually worsening in terms of necessary equipment, so the basic preconditions for social stratification at schools are emotional perceptions and tuition cost. “Schools are also powerful agents of socialization that can be used as tools for one group to exert power over others – for example, by demanding that all students learn English, schools are ensuring that English-speakers dominate students from non-English speaking backgrounds. Many conflict theorists argue, however, that schools can do little to reduce inequality without broader changes in society” (Arrow and Burns, 2004, p. 172). Conflict approach also addresses the problems of crime and violence, including domestic forms of inappropriate behavior. Conflict theory assumes that several leading groups are in command of policy-making and legislative process and also determine behavioral norms according to convenience principle. Those actions which threaten the fulfillment of their interests, are positioned as outlaw – for instance, criminal legislation (defining trespassing, burglary, fraud and theft as crimes) was designed primarily to protect the wealth of those who have ‘much enough to lose’. In addition, the ancient laws were developed for the poor, because the representatives of this broad social class were imprisoned and sentenced more frequently, whereas the dominant circles were not always expected to obey the legislation and current policy trends. Nowadays, this means of influence has been modified: those poorer usually cannot afford a lawyer, so there is a considerable percentage of innocent prisoners. Ethnic exploitation was a prominent source of crime at the period of slavery, but nowadays ethnic prejudices also exist in courts – for instance, Latinos are commonly regarded as potential criminals (ibid). “Much of the high crime rate among the poor, they argue, is attributable to a lack of legitimate opportunities for improving their economic condition. They would also be likely to point to racism as well as classism in the criminal justice system, suggesting that crime will disappear only if inequality and exploitation in that system and in society at large are also eliminated” (ibid, p.190). Furthermore, in the area of professional realization, conflict theory can be viewed in terms of troubles, emerging when an individual strives to ‘move up’ from lower-class context. Career advancements are attributed to those who had been brought up in the spirit of white-collar success, but nowadays the conflict is exaggerated by growing availability of education so that everyone can at least try to participate in job market competition. To sum up, conflict theory was conceptualized by Machiavelli, Hobbes, Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Goffman, who made specific contributions to its development. The perspective derived from basic presumptions about power distribution and finally turned into a strong theoretical framework, which considers emotional and economic aspects of stratification and class solidarity. In spite of the fact that the approach operates at macrolevel, it can be easily adjusted to the establishment of consciousness and social position at individual level. Works cited Aron, R. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1965, Vol.1 Arrow, H. & Burns, K. L. Self-Organizing Culture: How Norms Emerge in Small Groups. In Mark Schaller & Christian S. Crandall, Eds., The Psychological Foundations of Culture, pp. 171–200. NJ: Erlbaum, 2004. Collins, R. Conflict Sociology. New York: Academic Press, 1974 Coser, L. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed.. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977 Marx, K. and Engels, F. Selected Writings New York: International Publishers, 1930. Read More