7

Conflict Theory

The emergence of conflict theory in sociology, in a way, was in reaction to structural functionalism. The dominance of the functional theories during the 1950s and 1960s created an image of society which is stable and integrated. Any challenge to an existing order was viewed as an aberration or deviance. Value consensus was considered as the cornerstone of society, and hence, conflict used to be discarded as originating outside the social system. As against such a conservative bias in functional theories, many sociologists alternatively focused on the concept of power and distribution of power in social structure. Conflict theories emerged as a counter to the consensual view of society proposed by the functional theorists. The systemic exercise of power, the structural causation of conflict and inequality were the areas of new focus in sociological theories. Conflict theories basically emerged with these areas as the core concern. The growing unrest in socio-political world and a disenchantment with conservative position made conflict theory popular in the 1970s. But the groundwork was done much earlier. In fact, the roots of a conflict view of society can be traced back to the works of classical thinkers like Karl Marx, Max Weber and Georg Simmel.

KARL MARX

Marxian theory of society could be acknowledged as the timeless theory that would fuel any kind of conflict or critical approach to society. The cornerstone of Marx's theory was his attempt to make theory an accomplice in changing the world. As his famous phrase goes, philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world, the task however is to change it. Obviously, the concept of change is integral to Marx's analysis of society. And, for all conflict theorists of later years change is the key notion.

Using the materialist method of analysing the various stages of society, Marx primarily showed how contradictions are inherent in human social structure; that, such contradictions are systemic and are a result of the way a mode of production is organized in a society. He further showed the dialectical nature of the contradiction. To diagnose the root cause of the contradiction one needs to disentangle the production system and the relation of production in any society as such production is the primary life giving and sustaining force in all human societies.

Methodologically, Marx was thorough with his application of the dialectical-materialist method. He showed that history is not an automatic creation of great kings or any supernatural power or any mystical forces, but a result of creative human labour. Again, men make history not just as they please, but under certain constraints and situations given to them. Yet, human beings have the great creativity to effect change by altering the course of history. He showed how actually the human history has changed from a stage of primitive communism to ancient society, then to feudal society and finally to the capitalist one. The role of division of labour and the appropriation of the means of production played a major part in this course of history. The division of society along class lines and the emergence of private property are all attributed to the fundamental mode of production of any society. Class struggle is conceptualized as the motive force of any society. The class analysis of society recognizes that the interests of one class at any given time coincide with the development of the productive forces and their impulse towards new social structures. Ruling classes defend the established and the traditional because these correspond to their interests. Finally, the notion of two fundamentally opposing classes representing distinctively opposite interests is advanced. It ends with the conviction that the proletariat is the last of the classes and that its liberation demands the abolition of all classes for a classless society (Marx 1932[1848]).

Another dimension of Marx's theory that impressed the conflict theorists is that of the conditions of advanced division of labour which alienate human beings from their species — nature. Labour for Marx is a collective creative activity but as long as its differentiation leads to the enrichment of the few and poverty for the majority, it is dehumanizing. In its historical development labour then becomes the negation of its own principle. The condition reaches its peak under capitalist mode of production, where the actual social nature of production stands in direct conflict with the private nature of appropriation. This denies the producers any control over the movement of their products and subjects them to the autonomous power of the products. This confusion and transposition of human being's nature is historically conditioned and therefore, can for that reason be overcome (Marx 1844/1964). Such a dialectical and historical approach of Marx promises an understanding of the unified structure of reality in terms of an intricate relationship between the material and ideal/cultural factors. The centrality accorded to class conflict in this model survived time to provide the elementary premise of all conflict theories.

MAX WEBER

Max Weber expanded the understanding of social class by expanding its scope to include the entire life opportunities that individuals enjoy in a given society, i.e., social status or prestige as well as political influence is important constituents of a social class. Unlike Marx, Weber's sociology allows an understanding that irrespective of whether one is possessing economic power or not, one can still be empowered by social status and prestige. The very concept of power is central in Max Weber's sociological thought. Every human interaction is marked by power relationship and human society is a web of power relationship.

Every human interaction is a relationship of command and obedience and power is conceptualized as the capability of one to exercise such command over the other. Weber developed his notion of authority as a legitimate use of power. Weberian sociology provides an image of society where authority is a universal element of social structure. By implication it suggests that a society is made possible because of such functional role of authority. In his analytical discussion on the types of authority and sources of legitimacy, Weber exemplified how the interests of the ruling group work toward the maintenance of the existing order. This is so because the interests of the dominant group are the values that justify the exercise of the specific rule giving it the necessary legitimacy. As long as the dominated subordinates conform to the same values, the legitimacy of the rule is assured and in situations of defiance conflict is inevitable. The source of change is located at this question of conforming or defying an existing legitimate order. ‘According to the kind of legitimacy which is claimed, the type of obedience, the kind of administrative staff developed to guarantee it, all the mode of exercising authority, will all differ fundamentally’ (Weber 1978: 213).

Conflict theories gained crucial inputs from Weber's treatment of power as an essential ingredient of social relationships. Further, the wider social base of power as theorized by Weber influenced conflict theorists to move beyond the Marxian frame of analysis of conflict — that, any social order is built upon an exercise of power which is coercive, actual or otherwise, remained a running thread in all the works of conflict theorists.

GEORGE SIMMEL

Apart from the classical theories of Marx and Weber, Georg Simmel's sociological writings had a tremendous impact upon conflict theories. Simmel (1958–18) shared the same historical time and space with his fellow German classical thinker Max Weber as well as Emile Durkheim. Yet despite his seminal contribution to dialectical thinking on society he received less attention in the world of sociology. Although his works were in league with the other three great thinkers Marx, Durkheim and Weber, Simmel was eclipsed by the three. Possibly it was due to the fact that Simmel did not hold any regular academic position in sociology, neither did he write as much academically as the others. His incisive writings were mostly directed at a wider audience (Ritzer, 1983: 141–62). However, he had a remarkable influence on early American sociologists as a micro-sociologist.

Simmel's theory created an image of society which is three-tiered, where the higher levels emerge from the lower levels. These three levels of society provide three distinct areas of study for sociology. At the basic level he suggested the operation of ‘pure’ sociology, or formal sociology. At this level the psychological components of social life are to be accounted for through microscopic assumptions. Next emerges the scope for ‘general’ sociology which is the area for the study of the social and cultural products of human history. ‘Philosophical’ sociology which deals with the epistemological and metaphysical aspects of society constitutes the highest level.

With his focus on microscopic assumptions about human interactions, Simmel put much attention on the ‘lowest level’, i.e., the formal level, where he studied the societal forms of subordination, super ordination exchange and sociability. The task of sociology primarily is to explicate the forms of interaction of individuals, as society is made up of such interactions. Interaction is a matter of reciprocal human relationships. Simmel was interested in both sociation and forms. This becomes clear from his method to abstract the societal forms out of the diverse interaction of individuals. The diverse situations are marked by competition and subordination. He wrote:

It proceeds like grammar, which isolates the pure forms of language from their contents through which these forms, nevertheless, come to life. In a comparable manner, social groups which are the most diverse imaginable in purpose and general significance, may nevertheless show identical forms of behavior toward one another on the part of their individual members. We find superiority and subordination, competition, division of labor, formation of parties, representation, inner solidarity coupled with exclusiveness toward the outside, and innumerable similar features in the state, in a religious community, in a band of conspirators, in an economic association, in an art school, in the family. However diverse the interests are that give rise to these sociations, the forms in which the interests are realized may yet be identical. (Wolff 1959: 22)

By indicating that the three basic levels of social reality are interrelated Simmel advanced a dialectical approach. This dialectical thinking is multi-causal and multi-directional in the sense that he asserted that there are no strict divisions between social phenomena. Like Marx, Simmel, too, viewed society as held together by conflicting groups, but his view of the future is not so positive like Marx. Rather the image of society he foresaw was quite close to that of Max Weber — that is, one moves towards an ‘iron cage’, a shackling condition.

The sociation, critical for the continuance of social life is the reciprocal relationship between the superior and the subordinate. However, domination is not always unilateral. Mostly submission is also passive but an active group condition. These insights from Simmel greatly impacted upon conflict theorization of the later decades. Also, as Simmel moved from the lower level of social reality to the higher level, he showed in his analysis that the emergent large-scale structures tend to become separate from the constituent individuals and can even dominate them. This is the source of conflict and contradiction between the individual and all larger society. In fact, a deep conflict may arise between individual culture and the cultural level of social reality, i.e., the ‘objective culture’ according to Simmel.

By inter-relating the cultural and individual levels Simmel used his micro-sociology to offer a conflict view of society. While his view gained attention in the American sociological world for some time, his lasting contribution was mainly in the subsequent development of conflict theories of society. The two German-born sociologists, Lewis Coser and Ralf Dahrendorf were the leading conflict theorists of the 1950s, while C. Wright Mills was the most prolific American sociologist to dominate world sociology.

LEWIS COSER (1913–2003)

At a time when functional theories held sway in American university departments of sociology, Lewis Coser emerged as one who looked at the unity of society entirely from a different angle. When conflict was seen as a destabilizing aspect of any social order, Coser introduced the idea of functional role of conflict in ensuring social order. Interestingly, he theorized on the role of conflict in society to solidify a loosely structured social group. Against totalizing tendencies of institutions he opted for a less integrated model of society.

Born in Berlin, Germany, in 1913, Lewis Coser had a typical life emerged in the American sociology as a name to reckon with. Hailing from a Jewish family he earned the wrath of the Nazi regime due to his socialist leanings. He had to leave for Paris after his schooling and had to struggle hard to pursue academics during the years of depression. He could enroll himself at the prestigious Sorbonne University with a scholarship.

At the Sorbonne, Coser had interesting shifts from studying literature to the study of social theory. Initially it was only the sociology of Emile Durkheim with whom he was acquainted with. The other exposure was to the classic works of Karl Marx. But he shunned Marxist orthodoxy and in his own words was an ‘unorthodox Marxist with strong admixtures of Durkheimian thought’ (Coser 1993: 3).

Coser finally was destined for America as he could leave France and found ground as an antifascist refugee. He got himself enrolled at Columbia University to study sociology in 1948. At Columbia he met Robert Merton who from then onwards remained as Coser's greatest influence. In 1954, he received his doctorate degree from Columbia.

Coser taught at various departments. Even before his doctorate, he taught at the University of Chicago. He then taught at Brandeis University before moving to the State University of New York at Stony Brook. After his retirement, he continued at the Stony Brook as an emeritus professor. He was also an adjunct professor of sociology at Boston College. Always in favour of an open society, Coser treaded a non-conventional path in academics. He, along with Irving Hose, co-founded the magazine Dissent in 1954. The objective of the magazine was to arouse and inspire intellectuals against the McCarthyist intolerance. He contributed to a wide range of journals with academic as well as not-so-academic writings and consistently promoted the idea of freedom from any totalizing regimes or power structures.

SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCES

It is quite obvious from his life history that Coser learnt the effect of conflict first hand. Born in Germany, he experienced the tyranny of the Nazi regime. Being a Jew he had to escape his homeland. Thus, the turbulent years of his growing up and the intolerance of the powerful had their imprints on Coser's subsequent academic interest.

Initially, Durkheim's functional view of society as a system of variously interrelated parts attracted Coser while he was in Sorbonne, Paris. It was here that, he learnt from Durkheim's great works that imbalances, tensions and conflict are integral to any social system, and that the different constituent parts of a society function under different conditions. Similarly, George Simmel's detailing of conflict at different levels of social reality and the notion of cross-cutting allegiances was used by Coser to seek the possibility that even antagonisms can also bind society together. At the same time Coser took interest in Marx's social theory but not in an orthodox way. He tried to combine all these great classicists’ works and develop a theory of conflict in terms of its intensity, duration and functions.

Coser was also impacted upon by his contemporaries like Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton. In fact Merton was his supervisor only at the Columbia University. Merton shared a very intimate relationship with him and was the man who inspired him to complete the great work Masters of Sociological Thought (1977), which stands as a brilliant review of social theory. Although Coser was strongly against Talcott Parson's model of equilibrium for all society, he held him in high regard. Finally, Coser credited his wife Rose Laub Coser for clarifying and formulating many of his own thoughts. In fact, Rose Laub herself was a graduate student of sociology at the Columbia University and she introduced Coser to Robert Merton.

FUNCTIONAL-CONFLICT THEORY

The Functions of Social Contract (1956) is Coser's seminal work on functional-conflict theory. Simmel's treatment of contradictions as crucial dimension of social reality was adopted by Coser in his work. In this fundamental work on functional-conflict theory, Coser advanced 16 distinct propositions to substantiate his theory that conflict promotes cohesion. The Durkheimian understanding of the role of crime in stimulating a dramatic display of social solidarity appears to have been in the back of Coser's mind in such a formulation. Basically, he reformulated the idea of conflict which was present in the classical sociological theories by defining conflict as ‘a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals’ (Coser 1956: 8). In his scheme conflict is multidimensional, as it could be between individuals, between individuals and collectivities, and also between groups of individuals. The nature of relationship between the incumbents decides the exercise of power of one over the other to influence the behaviour in accordance with one's wishes.

Coser was close to Marx's theory of ‘being decides consciousness’ and attempted to explain how structural factors interact with people's underlying emotions. The role of values and emotions in generating conflict was crucial for Coser to analyse conflict in order to understand the nature, source and degree of conflict.

The revolutionary and activist Marxism first developed by Marx and Engels in the late 1840s found an echo among 20th century intellectuals…. Social existence determined social consciousness. The receptivity to variant Marxist doctrine was largely conditioned by the values and attitudes of men and women whose concrete social and historical existence was mirrored in their World view, whether as producers or as consumers of ideas. (Coser 1972: 200)

Moving beyond Marx, Coser indicated a wide range of factors which decide the nature of conflict, from those located at the emotional level of the family to the social structural factors. He was close to Simmel to reason that it is due to close contact between individuals that opportunities for hostility increases, as love and hate are the twin impulses in human nature. The closer the proximity the greater is the chance of conflict. He further suggested that, the root cause of all conflict is scarce resources — material as well as non-material. Conflict emerges as and when a deprived group starts questioning the legitimacy of an existing pattern of such distribution. More than absolute deprivation it is the relative deprivation between groups that triggers open conflict.

With the help of sixteen postulates in his The Functions of Social Conflict, Coser deliberated upon the exact nature of functions as performed by conflict. Conflict essentially binds people at the group level which is occasioned by a group's awareness of its differences with others. Conflict with others strengthens group consciousness and realization of its exclusivity — which result in stronger bondage within a group. The intensity of conflict is directly proportional to the intensity of group solidarity. Thus, in close social relationships, there is a greater possibility of hostility. However, close and intimate relationships have a tendency to contain and suppress conflict. Despite such suppression if conflict still breaks out then it attains a disruptive character. This is also aggravated by an accumulation of hostility. At the last instance, it is the inter-group conflict that fosters among individual group members to close their ranks. Loyalty and dedication to the group identity is enhanced as a result. Thus, in contrary to orthodox functional theory of dismissing conflict as damaging, Coser indicated that at different levels of social reality, the in-group and out-group feelings are actually strengthened by actual or threat of hostility.

BEYOND ORGANISMIC ANALOGY

Coser's contention of understanding conflict in social structure as functional for the continuance of the whole also carries with it the prospects of social change. He accomplished this by theorizing beyond the organismic analogy that governs orthodox functional theories of society. Society, unlike living organism does not die, neither does it has a starting point. Rather it continues to exist through continuous changes of its form.

Coser made a distinction between change within a system and change of a system. He put more emphasis on change of a system because change within is just a process of adjustment internal to an existing social structure. It is gradual and slow. It is mainly confined to individual efforts and as such it offers no institutional change. Whereas, change of the system is radical as it involves a break from an existing system in favour of new institutions. With a change in norms and expectations the system designated undergoes an actual change. The sources of such a change of the system may be external to the system as well as internal to the same. Such a process of change is intrinsic to any social structure and is indefinite. Thus, sociology needs to be alert to this aspect of social reality instead of remaining confined to the areas of regularity and patterns of social behaviour. Such patterns may be the visible dominant fact of society but a conflict approach must analyse why such a pattern of behaviour is dominant. Inevitably such alertness would direct one to the aspects of social reality which are being dominated upon. The subject of conflict and change are crucial areas of investigation, which need not only stand for disruption or disorder, but allows still better cohesion and are functional for a society,

C. WRIGHT MILLS (1916–62)

At a time when American sociology was under the grip and awe of the towering presence of Talcott Parsons, C. Wright Mills made a radical intervention in the academic and intellectual world in general. He went about to demystify the liberal democratic image of the US polity as such and critiqued the status-quoist sociology of Parsons. The system analysis school premised on vigorous functionalist concepts was questioned by Mills severely. Although he was not an orthodox Marxist he kept alive the Marxist tradition in American sociology almost single-handedly.

Born in 1916 in Waco, Texas, C. Wright Mills came from a conventional middle-class family. He obtained his graduation degree from the University of Texas by 1939. He left Texas to pursue his doctoral degree from the University of Wisconsin and even before his doctorate degree he taught for a while at the University of Maryland. After his doctorate he joined the Columbia University in 1945 continuing there until his death in 1962.

Mills was a radical for his days and contributed regularly for many left-wing publications. The world of sociology is indebted to Mills primarily because of his two works, The Power Elite (1956) and The Sociological Imagination (1959). His other works are New Men of Power (1948), White Collar (1951), The Causes of World War Three (1958) and The Marxists (1962). Although Mills had a critical look at the world around him and in fact, within the academic circles also he used to be fiercely combative challenging even his professors time to time. Although in his later years he was impressed with Marx's writings he never adopted a rigid position and did not hesitate even to take on the Soviet on the question of freedom and censorship even when he was honoured by the Soviet as a major critic of American democracy. He died early and led a tumultuous life of just 45 years. It was through him that radical sociology made an inroad into world sociology.

SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCE

Mills had a short but colourful career as a sociologist. Primarily he exhibited a combative character in challenging every dominant views and norms of American society. Many commentators on Mills have noted his out of the way attitude towards even his teachers and colleagues. As such he was greatly annoyed by the facade of liberalism that marked the American academic world. Possibly his rebel self was a reaction to the conservative climate of his time. He carried the tag of a Texas Cowboy throughout his career.

In reality Mills was a product of a time in American intellectual and social life which was marked by almost enforced conformity. Many academicians as well as intellectuals opted for a safer position and avoided criticism which would have earned the wrath of the government. Thus, Mills was occupying a very marginal position and opposed the policy of keeping silent severely. At the risk of being branded as subvert or a communist he did not soften his stand.

It is not that Mills was trained in Marxist social theories from the beginning. Only at a later stage, around 1950s he read a few of Marx's writings which were available in English. As such his works were not guided by any sophisticated Marxian theory. Overall, he was committed to the historical method, which one can claim as the influence of Marx on him. Primarily Mills’ sociology grew out of a severe criticism of the then trend of sociology in the United States as well as that of the American society. The positivist thinking in sociology he strongly opposed and he took on Talcott Parsons grand functional analysis of society. The system analysis he thought was a de facto justification of the existing social order. On one hand he criticized the abstract theories and on the other he opposed the crude empiricism of his colleague Paul Lazarsfeld of Columbia. Lazarsfeld was a leading empirical researcher, but Mills felt that such indiscriminate data collection cannot really explain society and its historical structures with a sound theory. In a way, Mills's understanding of social reality was close to Weber's analysis, which made a broader examination of the issue of inequality and power.

POWER

The concept of power is of critical importance in C. Wright Mills's sociology. In his very first major work, The New Men of Power (1948), he offered an understanding of the working class which was quite contrary to classical Marxist proposition. By focusing on the concept of political power he showed that in actuality the working class is denied of such power. They can only address to their day-to-day issues but cannot emerge as a revolutionary class. He blamed it mostly on the role of the trade union leaders who he thought were unable to work towards the best interests of the workers. Instead they were co-opted by the business class, who actually wield the power.

Subsequent to this quite pessimistic view of the possibility of militant working class movement, Mills engaged himself more with closer scrutiny of the concept of power. He examined all the different aspects of power — right from the nature of power to the myths and irrationality of power. An encompassing understanding of power was thus mooted by him:

Power has to do with whatever decisions men make about the arrangements under which they live, and about the events which make up the history of their homes. Events that are beyond human decisions do happen; social arrangements do change without the benefit of explicit decision. But in so far as such decisions are made, the problem of who is involved in making them is the basic problem of power. (Mills 1958: 29)

The liberal polity of the United States was always under scrutiny, as Mills thought that the legitimacy generated is essentially a manipulated one. The liberal democracy gives only an impression of consent-oriented but in actuality the powerful groups attain such consent through acts of manipulation. He moved beyond Weber's notion of authority as power backed by legitimacy to indicate the operation of two other types of power. One is done through manipulation, while the other is the extreme form of coercion. Given the institutionalization of power in the American polity, as understood by Mills, there is hardly any possibility for the general masses to have an access over power and take part in any effective decision-making process.

The central theme of Mills’ most powerful book, The Power Elite (1956), was that the polity of the United States is basically governed by a unique integration and cooperation between the industrial, political and military structures. These three institutional structures are almost rolled into one in terms of interests. Those who occupy the highest positions in these three structures form a clique; they are interchangeable and it is this group who actually form the power elite. Thus, it is a combined group of military elite, business elite and political elite. It is a sort of tripartite elite. He heavily substantiated this analysis by drawing upon events from the concurrent American socio-political history.

The power elite composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women; they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences. Whether they do or do not make such decisions is less important than the fact that they do occupy such pivotal positions: their failure to act, their failure to make decisions, is itself an act that is often of greater consequence than the decisions they do make. For they are in command of the major hierarchies and organization of modern society. … They occupy the strategic command posts of the social structure, in which are now centered the effective means of the power and the wealth and the celebrity which they enjoy. (Mills 1956: 3–4)

The unity of the members of the power elite group is accounted for by Mills as having similar socio-economic background. They share similar tastes, lifestyles and goals as they come from similar back grounds; their commonality facilitates smooth and easy intermixing and interchangeability of the elite posts between the three powerful groups. Those who are placed immediately below the power elites are the advisers, opinion makers or the spokespersons. They assist the power elites in maintaining the status quo. The status quo is in the best interests of the powerful. The result is the dispossession of power from the common citizens. The potential for conflict is rooted at this asymmetry of power.

Mills did not contend that the rise of a new middle class would in reality be a challenge to the power elites. The new middle class comprised mostly of service personnel, civil servants, technicians, managers and low level supervisors. They are the white collar workers who essentially cater to the power elites as they enjoy some advantageous positions in the society. Also, the top occupants of the white collar jobs are none other than the old captains of industries. Principally, with the increase in professional specialization the white collar sections enlarge in size but such specialization actually make individuals more concerned with personal needs than collective. As such, Mills saw no collective revolt against the powerful capitalist rule in the American polity.

INTELLECTUAL CRAFTSMANSHIP

Finally, Mills proposed a radical view of conducting sociological studies. In his The Sociological Imagination (1959), he imagined a sociologist as an intellectual craftsman. In order to develop a critical view of society methodologically one needs to free oneself from the conservative hold of positivism as the method of sociological study. Principally, Mills directed his attack on Parson's abstract theoretical schemes which used concepts far removed from ground reality. Such system analysis only justified a conservative society. Mills dismissed such status-quoist sociology. Again, he was equally skeptical about the other extreme which was represented by Paul Lazarsfeld. The disparate collection of data based on techniques of questionnaire and interview could not account for sound theories of society which can take account of its historically evolved structures. A sociologist needs to be aware of the historical social context in which one is conducting a study and its interface with one's own personal biography. Such a reflective mode of research is the promise of conflict theory. Conflict theories of society can only be advanced with sociological imagination.

The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meanings for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals. It enables him to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their daily experience, often become falsely conscious of their social positions. Within that welter, the framework of modern society is sought and within that framework the psychologies of a variety of men and women are formulated. By such means the personal uneasiness of individuals is focused upon explicit troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into involvement with public. (Mills, 1959: 5)

RALPH DAHRENDORF

As a conflict theorist, Ralph Dahrendort is unique to propose that a society has both the aspects of consensus as well as conflict. He is also clear in his understanding that no single sociological theory can encompass both these aspects and processes of a society. Thus, there is a requirement for types of sociological theories. This is premised on his thinking that there cannot be conflict unless some degree of consensus has already emerged in a society.

Prior to the emergence of the Nazi rule in Germany, Dahrendort was born in Hamburg in 1929. He had to pass through the strife-torn period in Germany as his father was a Social Democratic politician. His father lost his job and was even arrested once the Nazis came to power is 1933. Daherendorf was himself hounded by the Nazis because of his political activism being directed against the Nazi rule. He was arrested too and sent to concentration camp. However, he escaped in 1945 with the intervention of the Russian force.

Dahrendorf has two doctorate degrees to his credit. He earned his doctorate in philosophy in the year 1952 from Hamburg. Later on he earned his doctorate in sociology from the London School of Economics. He served the position of director of the London School of Economics from 1974 to 1984. Widely respected for his thorough sociological arguments, he held academic positions not only in Europe, but also in the United States.

Initially, Dahrendorf was influenced by structural functionalism and admitted to the fact that a social system is held together by voluntary cooperation or a shared normative order, or both. Subsequently, Marx and Simmel's writings prompted him to recognize the other face of society, i.e., society being held together as a result of ‘enforced constraint’. While adopting the conflict perspective he believed that tension is constant in society because the order of society is a result of coercion. Given the social milieu of his early life and the dramatic socio-political changes in Germany — the rise and the fall of the Nazis — he was enthusiastic about the prospects of change in society. This is infused in his sociological theory of conflict which entertains the possibility of radical change of society at any given point of time. However, he was not the theorist to consider the economic structures of society as the sole determinant of conflict. In this sense he was not a naïve Marxist to opt for any reductionist theory.

AGAINST THE EQUILIBRIUM MODEL

Dahrendorf strongly felt that the dominant theoretical approaches in sociology during the 1960s tried to analyse the social structure in terms of elements characteristic of immobile societies. The result is a utopian image of society. He equated the equilibrium model of society with the moral and metaphysical view that would be found in Plato's Republic. According to the Republic, justice means that everybody does what is proper for him to do. On the other hand, the equilibrium model holds that every member of the society plays his role towards a common goal. Both the views converge to project the image of an ideal and perfect society. Such a perfect society according to Dahrendorf is a utopia as neither it explains familial reality nor has grown out of such reality (Dahrendorf 1968).

Daharendorf held structural functional theory utopian not because some of the assumptions it makes are unrealistic but because it is exclusively concerned with spelling out the conditions of the functioning of a utopian social system. It is clearly in contradiction with empirical evidence that, society is held together as a result of value consensus. It is hard to see how a social system based on universal consensus could explain structurally generated conflicts.

Instead, Dahrendorf opined that all units of social organization are continuously changing unless some force intervenes to arrest this change. Thus, while adopting a conflict perspective one must identify the factors that interfere with the normal process of change, rather than to look for variables involved in bringing about change. The desire to solve the riddles of experience is the starting point of conflict theory, whereas structural functionalism introduces unrealistic concepts, not to explain a real problem but to defend a social system that never existed. Conflict theory asks for a critical involvement with reality.

Dahrendorf considered that change is ubiquitous in time and space and there is no use of making a distinction between ‘change within’ and ‘change of’. As a great creative force there are variations in forms of conflict which always need not be violent or uncontrolled. Only temporarily conflict can be suppressed, regulated or channelized but cannot be abolished at all. The most important notion of conflict is that of constraint-that, society and social organizations are held together not by consensus but by constraint, i.e., by coercion of some by others. If we say ‘value’ system of a society, then it is the value of the ruling class and not of the common mass. Hence, any notion of shared value system is the enforced value system of the ruling class.

IMPERATIVELY COORDINATED ASSOCIATIONS AND CONFLICT

Dahrendorf argued that in all human societies there are positions that enable their bearers to exercise power. These positions are endowed with sovereignty and obedience is enforced. The most important single aspect of power is the control of sanctions. Be it direct or applied, and even a mere anticipation of the effect of sanction may suffice to guarantee compliance with the law. This also implies that, there is always resistance to the exercise of power. Legitimacy is a precarious issue here, as those who are in power manage to stay in power because of their strength and society being held together by the exercise of their strength. As he puts it, ‘some positions are entrusted with a right to exercise control over other positions in order to ensure effective coercion; it means, in other words, that there is a differential distribution of power and authority’ (Dahrendorf 1959: 165). Thus, the differential distribution of power and authority is the basis of conflict. Conflict analysis then needs to identify the variously equipped authority roles. Only then can one examine further the differential distribution of power and authority. Dahrendorf adhered largely to the Weberian notion of authority to recognize that in organizations and institutions power held by people is backed by legitimate authority. Thus, class conflict occurs more as a result of dispute over the distribution of authority in a given authority structure.

To explain the authority structure in any society, Dahrendorf used the concept of imperatively coordinated associations. Authority is only restricted to the position that one holds, as it is position specific. One who loses the position loses the authority automatically. Similarly, one who is in a position of authority in one structure can be in a subordinate position in some other structure. Every society is marked by a distinguishable organization of roles endowed with different authority. The imperatively controlled associations are associations of people controlled by a hierarchy or authority positions. Further these associations are coordinated as organized aggregates of roles and authority, which within each association is dichotomous — that of domination and subjection. Those in positions of domination seek to maintain the status quo while those in positions of subjection seek to change it. Conflict is thereby an inevitable structural feature of any society (Dahendorf 1959).

At the root of any social change is social conflict. Referring to Lewis Coser, Dahrendorf held that the conservative function of conflict is only one side of social reality. Conflict also leads to fundamental change and development of society. He disagreed with Marx on the question of class conflict as he did not accept the two-class polarization indicated by Marx. He felt that the proletariat class cannot ultimately form the conflict group. But at the same time he thought that to ignore Marx would be irresponsible because it was Marx who first made a systematic analysis of the structural causation of conflict. Dahrendorf promoted an alternate class theory:

The systematic explanation of that particular form of structure-changing conflict which is carried on by aggregates or groups growing out of the authority structure of social organizations. The general theory of class precedes the empirical analysis of given societies in terms of class in that it states the underlying regularities of class conflict in a form that in principle allows application to all societies. But the following formulation of the theory of class does not claim universal applicability, for such applicability is always subject to the test of empirical research; it is confined, instead, to that type of society which we have described as industrial society. (Dahrendort 1959: 152)

With the coming of the industrial society Dahrendorf indicated the formation of a new type of conflict. With industrial society there is a clear correlation between the distribution of authority and social stratification. Here, the authority is more specific and one can no longer talk about an aggregate roles endowed with authority are in conflict with another set of roles dispossessed of such authority. Instead, authority is restricted to people as incumbents in given, limited roles. Although an industrial enterprise is also an imperatively coordinated association but the interests of the workers is generally in conflict with the interest of the management.

SUMMARY

At a time when structural functionalism was holding a complete sway in sociological thinking, conflict theory made a significant intervention in sociology to challenge the conservative mould of theorization of society. Structural functionalism had its contribution to sociology by emphasizing on the interrelatedness of society and focusing on large-scale structural studies. But conflict theories of the 1950s and 1960s made a case for altering the focus of study not by rejecting the study of large scale structures, but by questioning the very premise of the functional view. Value consensus is an unrealistic view of society; instead, it is a question of power and interests of the powerful which decides value for a society. Order of society is a desired goal but at the same time one needs to probe the aspects of asymmetry of power and inequality inherent in any social structure. It is essential to understand any order as an enforced one and recognizing conflict as inevitable feature of society. Conflict theory of different varieties basically offers a dynamic view of society — that, a society is constantly under tension to undergo change. The differential distribution of power in society is a primary cause of conflict. The different causes of conflict and the different nature of social change are theorized by different thinkers. Greatly influenced by classical thinkers like Marx, Weber and Simmel, the contributors of conflict theory tried to come up with significant propositions which enriched sociology. As such, conflict theory was a great turn-around for sociology to take account of new and newer challenges of a fast changing social world.

Key Words

• Conflict
• Constraint
• Functional Conflict
• Imperatively-coordinated Associations
• Power
• Power Elite
• Sociation

Glossary

Class Struggle: An active expression of conflict of interests between contending social classes.

Conflict Theory: As against a consensual view of society, it draws attention to power differential in any society. It does so by emphasizing the social, political or material inequality of a social group.

Functional Conflict: As against disintegrative consequences of conflict, it suggests greater group cohesion and interaction under hostile situations, which in turn promotes higher level of integration.

Legitimacy: The popular acceptance of exercise of power, whereby it becomes an authority.

Power Elite: A closely knit alliance of military, government and corporate officials perceived as the centre of wealth and political power in the US.

Discussion Points

• Theoretical influences on Conflict Theory.
• Functional Conflict Theory.
• The importance of power in Conflict Theory.
• Dahrendorf's Model of Conflict.