Conflict Theory Essay

Karl Marx, the German economist and his Marxist theory lays the foundation of inequality observed within the society and how class differentiation provides the basis on which the society is divided economically. There are several theories which allows interpretation of the practices within the society which thrives on creating a sustaining condition for all the conflicts in the society. Th theory was proposed in The Communist Manifesto in 1848. The conflict theory defines conflict in the form of differences which arises due to unequal distribution of resources. Hence, the limited sources become the centre of conflict which is aimed to be attained.

The theory propose that the society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to the competition to attain the limited resources. Conflict theory holds that social order is maintained by domination and power, rather than by consensus and conformity. According to conflict theory, those with wealth and power try to hold on to it by any means possible, chiefly by suppressing the poor and powerless. A basic premise of conflict theory is that individuals and groups within society will work to try to maximize their own wealth and power.

Get Essay Experts

Marx points towards the concern with unequal distribution and connects with a group’s sense of deprivation caused by class division within the society. This sense of deprivation is what leads a group to class consciousness and produces conflict and social change. Marx was primarily concerned with explaining the structural changes or processes that would bring the working class to this realization, such things as rising levels of education and worker concentration that are both structurally demanded by capitalism. The deprivation is associated and used to explain various social occurrences which changes the course of history such as wars and violence and the connected poverty which emerges.

Internal conflict

Internal conflict in the larger social system, as between different groups within the United States, releases hostilities, creates norms for dealing with conflict, and develops lines of authority and judiciary systems. Remember that Coser sees conflict as instinctual for humans. Thus, a society must always contend with the psychological need of individuals to engage in conflict. Coser appears to argue that this need can build up over time and become explosive. Low-level, frequent conflict tends to release hostilities and thus keep conflict from building and becoming disintegrative for the system.

Internal conflicts create pressures for society to produce norms governing conflict. For example, most of the formal norms (laws) governing labour in Western capitalist countries came about because of the conflict between labour and management. One can see the same dynamic operating at the dyad level as well. For example, when a couple in a long-term relationship experiences repeated episodes of conflict, such as arguing, they will attempt to come up with norms for handling the tension in a way that preserves the integrity of the relationship. The same is true for the social system, but the social system will go a step further and develop formal authorities and systems of judgment to handle conflict. Thus, frequent, low-level conflict creates moral and social structures that facilitate social integration.

External Conflict

As a group experiences conflict, the boundaries surrounding the group become stronger and better guarded. For example, during WWII the United States incarcerated those Americans of Japanese descent. Today we may look back at that incident with shame, but at the time it made the United States stronger as a collective; it more clearly demarcated “us” from “them,” which is a necessary function for any group to exist. Conflict makes this function more robust: “conflict sets boundaries between groups within a social system by strengthening group consciousness and awareness of separateness, thus establishing the identity of groups within the system”

With the rise of capitalism, Marx theorized that the bourgeoisie, a minority within the population, would use their influence to oppress the proletariat, the majority class. This way of thinking is tied to a common image associated with conflict theory-based models of society; adherents to this philosophy tend to believe in a pyramid arrangement in terms of how goods and services are distributed in society; at the top of the pyramid is a small group of elites that dictate the terms and conditions to the larger portion of society because they have an out-sized amount of control over resources and power.

Along with stronger external boundaries, conflict enables the group to also experience higher levels of internal solidarity. When a group engages in conflict, the members will tend to feel a greater sense of camaraderie than during peaceful times. They will see themselves as more alike, more part of the same family, existing for the same reason. Group-specific behaviours and symbols will be more closely guarded and celebrated. Group rituals will be engaged in more often and with greater fervency, thus producing greater emotional ties between members and creating a sense of sacredness about the group.

In addition, a group experiencing conflict will tend to produce a more centralized power structure. A centralized government is more efficient in terms of response time to danger, regulating internal stresses and needs, negotiating external relations, and so on. Violent conflict also tends to produce coalitions with previously neutral parties. Again, WWII is a clear example. The story of WWII is one of increasing violence with more and more parties being drawn in. Violent conflict produces alliances that would have previously been thought unlikely, such as the United States being allied with Russia.

For internal conflict, the question of functionality hinges on the conflict being less violent and more frequent, not threatening the basic assumptions of the group at large, and the group having low interactional network density. Under these conditions, internal conflict will produce the following functional consequences: conflicts will serve to release pent-up hostilities, create norms regulating conflict, and develop clear lines of authority and jurisdiction (especially around the issues that conflict develops). External conflict that is more violent will tend to have the following functional consequences: stronger group boundaries, higher social solidarity, and more efficient use of power and authority. Conflict violence will tend to increase in the presence of high levels of emotional involvement and transcendent goals.