CONCEPT: Conflict

Conflict: Ancient Chinese philosophers, the Taoists specifically,  saw conflict as the ever-recurring but forward-leaning dialectical spiral of Night and Day -- that is, of Yin and Yang. It was a 'fatal embrace' of sorts destined to always produce Tomorrow, and never yesterday. Plato, the Greek philosopher, likewise saw conflict as a dialectical engagement. In his case, it was a clash between good and evil; and, indeed, he held that "each thing has its evil and good". This dichotomy between 'good' and 'evil' (or Self and Other) characterized (and still does) certain conceptions of the phenomenology of conflict situations. 

Karl Marx, the most consequential proponent of conflict, argued that class struggle was the real driver of epochal change in all human society. This struggle was powered the underlying modes and relations of production/reproduction and distribution in society at large. Those modes and relations were at once unequal, exploitative and unjust -- and contrary to human nature. The contradiction(s) thus build into the relations led to inevitable conflict (in a Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis format) and the pressure to resolve it -- typically and logically in the direction of a new economic and social order. Contradiction, it has been argued even by more recent scholars such as Marcuse, always has (built into it) the drive toward its resolution.

In his paper titled "Social Conflict and the Theory of Social  Change", Lewis Coser explored the functions of conflict (he clearly preferred the term conflict to violence) in the broader context of social change. His exploration focused on: (a) the impact of social conflict on change within enduring social systems, with particular reference to consequences for such concerns as "institutional rigidities, technical progress and productivity", and, (b) the "relation between social conflict and changes [or overhauls/overthrows] of social systems" (Coser, 1957: 197). 

One clear outcome of this exploration was Coser's proposition, inspired by George Sorel, that "conflict prevents the ossification of the social system by exerting pressure for innovation and creativity." He wrapped up his optimistic conception of the operation, and consequence, of social conflict in the following terms:

"The clash of values and interests, the tension between what is and what some groups feel ought to be, the [contest] between vested interests and new strata and groups demanding their share of power, wealth and status...[all of which] have been productive of vitality." 

Georg Simmel has presented perhaps the most intriguing and refreshing post-Marxian characterization of the idea and process of conflict. His version offers, as in a wedding, the opportunity to bring into the conversation "something new and something old, something borrowed and something blue" (that is, something that's not red -- figuratively). 

He argues that conflict is inseparable from social interaction, and thus “sociation”; and is even itself a form of sociation. He sees conflict, indeed, as “one of the most vivid interactions” and, as an example of social interaction, by definition beyond the scope of social acts by the lone individual. Furthermore, conflict is not the cause of some sort of pathology of human interaction, but the resolution or ‘cure’ of such pathology READ MORE

Social Differentiation, Stratification and Class ~ CSO 103, CSO 501

INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY:

LECTURE NOTES

By Prof. Mauri Yambo

TOPIC 4:  SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION, STRATIFICATION AND CLASS

-     Introduction: Conceptualizing Social Differentiation

-     Patterns and Sources of Social Differentiation

-     Evolutionary Universals

-     Social Stratification

-     The Nature of Social Class and the African Experience

-     Conclusion.

4.1. Introduction: Conceptualizing Social Differentiation

Differentiation and evolution are conceptual twins in many conversations about growth, structure and change, over time. Since Darwin, the two processes have been acknowledged as conjoined features or happenings, in the course of time, of all biological organisms. In turn, both social structure and societal change have been treated by influential sociologists (as we see in the next paragraph) as analogous to those observed in biology; hence the widely used phrase: organismic analogy. In this analogy, differentiation is an all-encompassing process: it pertains to and features in all forms of structuration. But not everyone is in agreement with this perceived correspondence or analogy of differentiation and evolution in long-term social change, on the one hand, and biological change, on the other.

For example, Steward (1976: 11-15), focusing on cultural evolution, points out that:

Click Here to Read the Whole Paper

Notes on Social Differentiation and Social Change

NOTES ON SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE

Prof. Mauri Yambo

1. Introduction: Conceptualizing Social Differentiation:

Leading scholars have sought to understand the process of differentiation in society over time, and have come up with a variety of useful conceptions and explanations. Among these scholars, whom students are called upon to read in order to likewise understand and explain (and thus to carry the baton forward), are Herbert Spencer[1] (1897)[2], Emile Durkheim (2014)[3], Max Weber (1947: 424-429)[4], Ferdinand Toennies (2001)[5], Georg Simmel, Talcott Parsons (1964: 339-357) and Niklas Luhmann (1987, 1995)[6].  All have looked at how societies evolve over time, based on the forms of complexity that arise inside them and the dissimilarities that perforce emerge among their members, driven by the inevitable pressures and contradictions of nature and nurture. I use ‘nurture’ here as an umbrella term for the multiplicity of ways in which “society, polity, economy and culture”, and even nature, affect us all – even as we, in turn, variously affect them...

CLICK Here to Access the Full Text [This text was first uploaded on November 16, 2015, and then rested. It is only today re-posted on this blog, and thus made publicly available again, It is best accessed via a laptop or PC]

















[CSO 103, CSO 501, Theory]

Georg Simmel: The Essence of His Conflict Theory

Simmel (1955: 13-14) says several remarkable things about conflict (Kampf) in society. His reasoning often appears convoluted, and, just as often, quite profound. All in all, he is emphatically a precursor to all who engage in serious thinking about the place of conflict in social life these days.

He argues that conflict is inseparable from social interaction, and thus “sociation”; and is even itself a form of sociation. He sees conflict, indeed, as “one of the most vivid interactions” and, as an example of social interaction, by definition beyond the scope of social acts by the lone individual. Furthermore, conflict is not the cause of some sort of pathology of human interaction, but the resolution or ‘cure’ of such pathology.

Conflict is not, tautologically speaking for a moment, the cause of conflict – the cause of itself. Rather, Simmel sees it as both a consequence and a resolution – but of what? It is a consequence and a resolution of “divergent dualisms” – that is, of “the tension between contrasts” -- between, if you like, yin and yang, thesis and antithesis.  

His is not a deliberately Marxian conception, though he uses certain decidedly Marxian terms, such as (Simmel, 1955: 14-15):
1. "the antithetical and the convergent" (p. 14)
2. Conflict is "the synthesis of elements that work both against and for one another" (p. 14)
3. "Conflict itself resolves the tension between contrasts" (p. 14) 
4. "unity of harmony and contradiction" (p. 15)

But he is not anti-Marx. Instead, he chooses to strike his own path. The phenomenology of social life, as he has observed it, suggests to him that conflict's resolving function (effect) is triggered, ultimately, by the presence and interplay of certain “dissociating factors”: “hate, envy, need, desire” (Simmel, 1955: 13).

To him, the most likely dialectical consequence of conflict is not necessarily a Marxian sort of overthrow -- though it may turn out to be that -- but rather peace between and among the parties. It is not conflict, then, that is to be resolved when there is conflict -- since, as we have already seen, it does not cause itself. Instead, attention must in principle and pointedly be paid to the dissociating factors -- the real causes of conflict.

Viewed more broadly, the “dissociating factors” -- briefly identified above -- call to mind, and are a selection from, the seven deadly sins of the bible, namely: (1) Lust/desire/lechery, (2) gluttony/over-consumption/ selfishness, (3) greed/avarice/hoarding, (4) physical laziness/ sloth/despair, (5) wrath/hatred/anger, (6) envy/jealousy, and (7) pride/vanity (see All About God Ministries, ChangingMinds.Org The Seven Deadly Sins, Wikipedia). 

Simmel thus reverts to Christian theology for clarity about, and validation (for him) of, the causality of conflict. Consciously or subconsciously, he turns that theology, that worldview, into his conceptual scheme. 

Abraham considerably distorts all this by observing that, for Simmel, conflict is not “a disruptive temporary phase. [Instead,] peace and conflict [are] equivalent faces of social reality; neither is inherently constructive or destructive” (Abraham, 1982: 109-10). For Simmel, conflict is neither disruptive but always temporary', nor temporary but always disruptive. It is a resolving process, with, though he does not explicitly say so, a clear dialectical trajectory (or "Laws of Motion").

Harmony and conflict are neither equivalent 'faces' of social life, nor, in defined situations, always co-present in equal measure. I don't think Simmel suggests that at all, even when he defines peace as the "synthesis" (that is, the 'sociation') of contending forces. In clear dialectical motion, "interpenetration" precedes "synthesis" and prepares the grounds for it. Prior to a particular form of synthesis, as Engels would point out, there is always some kind of imbalance -- the very reason a resolution ( a negation, if you like) is sought, or seeks to impose itself, before it is in turn negated: if not here, in this web of group affiliations, then there -- or there and then.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: 1. Anchoring the above interpretation is this passage:

“Conflict is admitted to cause or modify interest groups, unifications, organizations... If every interaction among men is a sociation, conflict – after all one of the most vivid interactions, which, furthermore, cannot possibly be carried on by one individual alone – must certainly be considered as sociation. And in fact, dissociating factors – hate, envy, need, desire – are the causes of conflict; it breaks out because of them. Conflict is thus designed to resolve divergent dualisms; it is a way of achieving some kind of unity, even if it be through the annihilation of one of the conflicting parties...Conflict itself resolves the tension between contrasts. The fact that it aims at peace is only one, an especially obvious, expression of its nature: the synthesis of elements that work both against and for one another. [Conflict] is roughly parallel to...the most violent symptom of a disease which represent (sic) the effort of the organism to free itself of disturbances and damage caused by it” (Simmel, 1955: 13-14).

             2. Georg Simmel lived from 1 March 1858 to 28                   September 1918.

---

REFERENCES:

^{Abraham, M. Francis (1982) Modern Sociological Theory: An Introduction. (Tenth Impression). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.}

Simmel, Georg (1955) Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. New York: The Free Press.