Relation between Individual and Society
You learned in the previous module that conflict theory looks at society as a . His relationship to his efforts was no longer of a human nature, but based on. Second, social conflict is not limited to hostile or antagonistic opposition; it is not inextricably links two negative interests (I don't want the robber to kill me, but I. ductivity, and will then concern ourselves with the relation between social conflict and the changes ofsocial systems. A central observation.
The use of this threat to win x now implies its possible use against other positive interests of i. Indeed, the successful use of coercion against i creates the potential for i to ally his interests with others similarly coerced to jointly oppose j. Of course, j is encouraged to increase his power to coerce this group, which would mean also aligning with others interested in opposing i's group.
Thus, coercion carries within its use the tendency to divide, to polarize society. It is the agent of class struggle. However, for one reason or another these may be undesirable or unworkable.
One can then abdicate the interest. If success does not seem worth the cost, x may be left to the other person. On the other hand, one can resort to naked force.
For example, if persuasion, negotiation, and threat of war do not settle a boundary dispute, then the territory may be militarily captured. While coercive power balancing and balances do not necessarily involve force witness the complex everyday social behavior called driving, regulated by governmental coercive power, without forcethe intentional use of force is usually 9 the result of such balancing or a breakdown in a coercive balance.
I have classified the confrontation of interests--social conflicts--into those of positive interests, inverse interests, and incompatible interests. There are two other taxonomies of conflicts, aside from types of manifest conflict such as strikes, riots, arguments, and so on. One classifies conflict into the realistic and the unrealistic. Realistic conflict is that of interest, of power, between parties who are aware of the conflict and are intentionally trying to gratify their opposing interest.
As I define it, all social conflict is realistic, involving an intentional orientation towards other selves. Unrealistic conflict is antagonistic behavior resulting from individual frustration, aggression, or pugnacity. It is reflex behavior released along lines of antagonism, such as a family brawl, a race riot, or a wild shooting spree.
Unrealistic conflict is not social, and I will have little concern about it in this book. A second taxonomy divides conflicts by their subject.
There are conflicts of facts, of practices, of goods, and of ideas. A disagreement over a fact, such as whether a person committed a crime on April 13,or whether Newton invented the calculus is not a conflict in my terms unless some conflict of interest is generated.
It is possible for people to be jointly interested in the truth, as are the ideal scientist or scholar.
And truth is not a scarce good, but can be shared without diminishing it by quality or quantity. However, a disagreement over a fact can engage opposite interests, can involve status or esteem.
An arrogant style can invoke a desire to be right. Or facts can be crucial to deeply held ideas about what is right and wrong. Conflicts of practices or rules, what is sometimes called conflicts of rights, concern the correctness or applicability of formal or informal norms.
Do regulations governing television apply to cable TV? Are anti-pornography laws constitutional? Is a part-time worker eligible for unemployment compensation? Should a significance test be applied to a correlation coefficient based on a population of cases?
Disagreements as to the answers to such questions also can be decided in a disinterested fashion. However, questions of practice often are imbedded in normative frameworks, such as whether government ought to be more involved in regulating society or whether a scientist ought to be governed by methodological rules.
Thus, such disagreements become conflicts of interest--conflicts between the wants, desires, and needs of the opposing parties. Conflicts of goods are conflicts of positive, inverse, or incompatible interests. Two people want the same office; two disagree over a debt; or one wants the Democrats to win an election while the other wants the Republicans to win.
Conflicts of ideas, or ideological conflict, concerns what is right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust. Often, what is meant here is conflict between systems of values or norms which underlie a person being Buddhist, communist, egalitarian, materialist, hedonist, and so on.
Such conflicts are always conflicts of interest. They always involve needs, sentiments, the superego, and a person's superordinate goal--always engage a person's motivational calculus and his integrated personality. Conflicts of ideas are pure conflicts of social power. Rummel, The Conflict Helix, For full reference to the book and the list of its contents in hypertext, click book. Typographical errors have been corrected, clarifications added, and style updated. Conflict, as distinct from hostile attitudes or sentiments, always takes place in interaction between two or more persons.
Hostile attitudes are predispositions to engage in conflict behavior; conflict, on the contrary, is always a trans-action" Coser,p. See also Bernardpp. See also Longwho argues that violence is a means of establishing credibility and capability, and therefore communication. This distinction between coercive violence and force is similar to Thornton'sp. Symbolic acts are directed at persons for their psychological effect, as is terrorism. Although sabotage is virtually always directed against objects rather than against people, while terrorism is generally directed against people, a distinction cannot be made solely along these lines--for terrorism is occasionally used against objects.
The proper distinction--which coincides with the person versus objects distinction in most cases--is to be found in the psychological, rather than the physical objective of the act.
If the objective is primarily the removal of a specific thing or person with a view towards depriving the enemy of its usefulness, then the act is one of sabotage.
If, on the other hand, the objective is symbolic, we are dealing with terror. An assassination or murder may or may not be carried out publicly. If it is considered desirable merely to remove a certain public figure, a discreet poisoning win fulfill the requirement adequately, but it would not be terroristic.
Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance. It is this understanding of violence that underlies Clausewitz's famous saying that "war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other means"p.
Some, however, have interpreted war as force in my terms and therefore have taken him to task. For example Friedrichpp. It would indeed be more correct to say that diplomacy politics is the continuation of war by other means. It is when men despair of finding political solutions that they take to arms. This aspect is particularly patent in civil war situations.
It can be either coercive or force, and which face is manifested depends on a specific war and one's perspective. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.
No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.
Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.
In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient,[A] feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence — but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism.
The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation. He argued that what is most valued is a result of human labour and founded his ideas based on a capitalistic community, meaning a majority of the money is owned by only a small percentage. This causes a distinction between two classes, the industrialists and the working class. The industrialists, the ones that make up the small percentage, own the means of production.
The working class are those earning their wages by selling their labour. Problems become noticeable because the upper class is looking to get the most production possible for the least amount of money.
Social conflict - Wikipedia
A Surplus value is created; the profit industrialists hold on to caused by workers producing more than the employers actually need to repay the cost of hiring labourers. Another occurrence is exploitation; when workers receive less money than what their labour is worth.
Marx believed that the gap between industrialists and the labourers would continue to grow. The industrialists would become more and more wealthy, and the labourers continue to move towards poverty.
Conflict theory is seen throughout relationships and interactions between two groups of people including races, opposite sexes, and religions.Krishnamurti - Relationship, Conflict, Society - Audiobook
Max Weber and Karl Marx have two different approaches to the conflict theory. Marx supports the ideas of devianceclaiming that individuals choose to engage in such rebellious and conflicting behaviour as a response to the inequalities of the capitalist system. Weber discusses the conflict of stratification and its effects on power in society. He stresses propertyprestige, and power as the main influences to the conflicting behaviours of groups in society. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates.
With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.
Marx believed that an entrepreneur has more and more to keep up with the more his company and power expands[ citation needed ]. It becomes more difficult each time his range of power increases.
Stratification[ edit ] Stratification is the distribution of a valued good in levels, or could be seen as the inequalities among individuals and groups. Weber determined that there are three levels of stratification and those include: Property is related to control and ownership; prestige is the position that gains value determined by interactions with others; power is influence, relations, and position. Systems of stratification[ edit ] These systems share 3 characteristics. They are as follows: The rankings apply to social categories of people who share a common characteristic without necessarily interacting or identifying with each other.
People's life experiences and opportunities depend on the ranking of their social category.