Chapter1: Introduction: Sociological Theory

Early Conflict Theory

KARL MARX AND CONFLICT THEORY

MAX WEBER AND CONFLICT THEORY

GEORG SIMMEL AND CONFLICT THEORY

THE RE-EMERGENCE OF CONFLICTTHEORY IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Ralf Dahrendorf's Dialectical Theory

Lewis Coser's Conflict Functionalism

CONCLUSION

Early Conflict Theory

A long with functionalism, conflict theory was sociology's first theoretical orientation. Even some early functional theorists, such as Herbert spencer, developed conceptualizations of conflict; yet, over the years, these functional approaches increasingly came under attack for underemphasizing conflict and change. In seeking "the function" of sociocultural forces for meeting needs for integration and other requisites, functionalists tended to underemphasize the effects of inequality in systematically generating conflict, disintegration, and change.

Conflict theory in sociology began with Karl Marx (1818 1883), but the development of the approach owes a debt to two other early German sociologists, Max Weber (1864-1920) and Georg simmel (1858-1918). Weber and Simmel also articulated conflict theories, but they were suspicious of Marx's polemics and, as a result, added necessary qualifications and refinements to Marx's ideas. Taken together, Marx, Weber, and Simmel provided the core ideas that still inspire contemporary conflict approaches. Despite the genius of these early masters, conflict theory remained recessive during the first half of the twentieth century, although considerable research and limited theorizing was performed on particular instances of conflict, such as ethnic tensions or colonialism. The ideas of Marx, Weber, and Simmel on conflict began to resurface in America and assume a central place in sociological theory during the 1950s in the works of two German-horn sociologists, Ralf Dahrendorf and Lewis Coser. Although others were also involved in the development of the new conflict approach, Dahrendorf and Coser set the tone for tiffs revival in the United States. In Europe, conflict sociology had always been more prominent, and so, it should not be surprising that Europeans sparked interest in conflict theorizing. In this chapter, we will first explore the key insights of Marx, Weber, and Simmel and then we will review Dahrendorf's and Coser's ideas. From this conceptual base, conflict theory has gone in many interesting directions during the last fifty years.

KARL MARX AND CONFLICT THEORY

We will encounter Marx's work in analyzing several theoretical perspectives in present-day sociology; here, it is not necessary to present his entire theoretical corpus here. For the present, the goal is to describe the more general,abstracted model of conflict that is packaged between the polemics of the Marxian scheme. Table 10.1 summarizes Marx's assumptions about the social world and the key forces behind conflict and change in societies.

Table 10.1 Marx's Abstracted Propositions on Conflict Processes

Ⅰ. The more unequal is the distribution of scarce resources in a society, the greater is the basic conflict of interest between its dominant and subordinate segments,

Ⅱ. The more subordinate segments become aware of their true collective interests,the more likely they are to question the legitimacy of the existing pattern of distribution of scarce resources.

Ⅲ Subordinates are more likely to become aware of their true collective interests when

A, Changes wrought by dominant segments disrupt existing relations among subordinates.

B. Practices of dominant segments create alienative dispositions.

C. Members of subordinate segments can communicate their grievances to one another, which, in turn, is facilitated by

1. The ecological concentration among members of subordinate groups.

2. The expansion of educational opportunities for members of subordinate groups.

D. Subordinate segments can develop unifying ideologies, which, in turn, is facilitated by

1. The capacity to recruit or generate ideological spokespeople.

2. The inability of dominant groups to regulate socialization processes and communication networks among subordinates.

Ⅳ, The more that subordinate segments of a system become aware of their collective interests and question the legitimacy of the distribution of scarce resource. the more likely they are to join in overt conflict against dominant segments of a system, especially when

A. Dominant groups cannot clearly articulate, nor act in, their collective interests,

B, Deprivations of subordinates move from an absolute to a relative basis, or escalate rapidly,

C, Subordinate groups can develop a political leadership structure.

Ⅴ. The greater is the ideological unification of members of subordinate segments of a system and the more developed is their political leadership structure, the more likely are the interests and relations between dominant and subjugated segments of a society to become polarized and irreconcilable.

Ⅵ.The more polarized are the dominant and subjugated, the more will the conflict be violent.

Ⅶ.The more violent is the conflict, the greater is the amount of the structural change within a society and the greater is the redistribution of scarce resources.

As shown in Proposition I, Marx argued that the degree of inequality in the distribution of resources generates inherent conflicts of interest between those who have and those who do not have valued resources. PropositionⅡthen emphasizes that when members of subordinate segments of the society become aware of their true interests in redistributing resources and, thereby, reducing inequality, they will begin to question the legitimacy of the system. Next. Proposition 1II specifies the conditions that facilitate subordinates' awareness of their true conflict of interest. PropositionsⅢ-A, B, C, and D deal, respectively, with the disruption in the social situation of deprived populations, the amount of alienation people feel as a result of their situation, the capacity of members of deprived segments to communicate with one another, and their ability to develop a unifying ideology that codifies their true interests. Marx saw these conditions as factors that increase and heighten awareness of subordinates' collective interests and, hence, decrease their willingness to accept as legitimate the right of superordinates to command a disproportionate share of resources.

In turn, some of these forces heightening awareness are influenced by such structural conditions as ecological concentration (Ⅲ-C-1), educational opportunities (Ⅲ-C-2), the availability o~ ideological spokespeople Ⅲ-D-1), and the control of socialization processes and communication networks by superordinates (Ⅲ-D-2). Marx hypothesized (shown in Proposition IV) that the increasing awareness by deprived classes of their true interests and the resulting questioning of the legitimacy of resource distribution increases the likelihood that the disadvantaged strata will begin to organize collectively their opposition against the dominant segments of a system. This organization is seen as especially likely under several conditions: disorganization among the dominant segments with respect to articulating their true interests (IV-A), sudden escalation of subordinates' sense of deprivation as they begin to compare their situation with that of the privileged (IV-B), and mobilization of political leadership to carry out the organizational tasks of pursuing conflict (IV-C).Marx emphasized (shown in Proposition V) that, once deprived groups possess a unifying ideology and political leadership, their true interests begin to take on clear focus and their opposition to superordinates begins to increase-polarizing the interests and goals of superordinates and subordinates. As polarization increases, the possibilities for reconciliation, compromise, or mild conflict decrease because the deprived are sufficiently alienated, organized, and unified to press for a complete change in the pattern of resource distribution.As Proposition VI underscores, subordinates begin to see violent confrontation as the only way to overcome the inevitable resistance of superordinates. Finally, Marx noted (shown in Proposition Ⅶ) that violent conflict will cause great changes in patterns of social organization, especially its distribution of scarce resources. The propositions in Table 10.1 are stated much more abstractly than Marx would have considered appropriate, but his ideas began to tilter back into contemporary sociology in tiffs form. As theorists sought explanations for the forces generating conflict and change, they implicitly drew from Marx this image of society as filled with conflicts of interests in the distribution of scarce resources, with inequality in the distribution of valued resources setting into motion the mobilization of the subordinates to pursue conflict against superordinates. Yet, few borrowed only from Marx; as conflict theories came to the forefront in sociology during the 1950s and 1960s, both Max Weber and Georg Simmel were also consulted.