Which Of The Following Is Not Characteristic Of A Conflict Theory Understanding Of Social Change?

Conflict Theory

By Charlotte Nickerson, published October 21, 2021

Conflict theory is a general term coving a number of sociological approaches, which appose functionalism, and which share the thought that the basic feature of all societies was the struggle betwixt different groups for access to limited resources.

Conflict theories presume that all societies have structural power divisions and resources inequalities that lead to groups having alien interests (Wells, 1979).

For example, Marxism emphasizes class conflict over economical resources, but Weber suggests that disharmonize and inequality can be caused by ability and status independently of form structures.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Conflict theories emphasize looking at the history and events in a society in terms of structural ability divisions, such as social class.
Although few modern sociologists call themselves conflict theorists, scholars as notable equally Karl Marx (1818–1883), Max Weber (1864–1920), Talcott Parsons (1902–1979), and Ralf Dahrendorf (1929–2009) accept formulated theories as to what causes disharmonize, its normalcy, and the impact information technology has on societies.
A structural conflict approach, such as Marxism, believes that club is in conflict between the classes. They believe that the Bourgeoisie oppress the Proletariat through various social institutions without their total noesis.
Some sociologists, such every bit Crouch (2001), categorize conflict theories beyond ii axes: momentus vs. mundane and exceptional vs. owned. This categorization reflects when and the extent to which theorists believe that conflict is pathological in a club.
Sociologists take used conflict theory to frame and enhance discussions as far-ranging as historical events to individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures and gender discrimination in the workplace.

Evolution of Disharmonize Theory

Large-scale civil unrests and large demographic dislocations, extreme poverty, and a wide gap between the interests and wealth of workers and owners pb to the development of Marxist conflict theory, which emphasizes the attendance of the divides of social class.

Later, conflict theory manifested in World Wars and Civil Rights movements, empowerment movements and rebuttals of colonial rule (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Although people accept been spreading conflict from a folk knowledge context for millenia, the philosophy underlying disharmonize theory — and intentional thinking effectually how people empathize disharmonize and how they can resolve it in effective means — stems from the thinking of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and George Simmel.

Notwithstanding, sociologists such as Bartos and Wehr (2002) propose the definition that conflict is any situation where actors utilize disharmonize action against each other in order to accomplish incompatible goals or to express their hostility.

When two or more individuals pursue incompatible interests, they are in a human relationship of conflict. For example, if the workers in a factory wish to work every bit little as possible and exist paid equally much as possible, and the owners want the workers to work equally much as possible with as little pay as possible, then the workers and owners have incompatible interests (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Conflict can also manifest when groups do non necessarily have incompatible goals, simply they feel hostility toward each other. Hostility arises out of non-rational decision-making, which is impulsive and oftentimes at odds with the actions rational analysis (such as prospect or utility theory) may propose.

Because of this contradiction, conflict behavior heavily influenced past hostility can be dissentious to the actor's interest in the long term (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Finally, "disharmonize behavior" covers many types of behavior. Conflict behavior can consist in rational actions (deportment which consider and accurately judge all possible outcomes) and the expression of hostility, as well as behavior that is either coercive (such as causing corking physical damage to an opponent) or cooperative (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Understanding Conflict Theory

Functionalist Approaches to Conflict Theory

Functionalist theories, especially those of structural functionalism which dominated the US in the 1940s and 1950s, tend to see disharmonize equally momentous and exceptional (i.eastward. unusual). When conflict is momentous, information technology is likely to result in major upheavals and potentially momentous change.

Functionalism in sum is a theory based on the premise that every aspect of a society — such equally institutions, roles, and norms — serve some purpose to the order and that all of these systems work together with internal consistency (Wells, 1979).

Talcott Parsons (1964) is the most prominent structural functionalist who studied conflict. Parsons believed that conflict mostly did not overwhelm social relations, and thus, that overwhelming, momentus conflict was infrequent.

When disharmonize does happen in a social situation, information technology is considering there is something psychologically wrong with ane of these essential institutions, and thus, disharmonize is a harbinger of potentially major alter (Crouch, 2001).

Marxist Approach to Conflict Theory

Marx's version of conflict theory focused on the conflict betwixt two primary classes within backer guild: the ruling capitalist class (or suburbia) who own the ways of production, and the working course (or proletariat), whose alienated labor the bourgeoisie exploit to produce profit.

If the power of the ruling class is challenged, by, say strikes and protests, the ruling form tin use the law to criminalize those posing the threat, and media reporting volition be manipulated to requite the impression that the ruling class's interests are those of the whole nation.

For Marxists, the advent of consensus is an illusion; it conceals the reality of one class imposing its will on the rest of social club.

Coercion – the use of the army, constabulary and other government agencies to force other classes to accept ruling class credo.

In contrast to functionalist theories of conflict, Marxist theories of conflict run across conflict as endemic and momentus (Marx, 2000). Endemic conflict theories see disharmonize as an inherent aspect of social relations, and likely to occur at many points over the course of a relationship.

Conflict is owned to social relations, according to Marxism, because of the belief that society is based upon class relations and that those from unlike class groups have opposing interests.

This disharmonize is implicit to every interaction, and disharmonize does not merely be when it overtly manifests itself in actions.

Indeed, co-ordinate to Marxists, weaker parties in the class conflict may be powerless or too fearful to express disharmonize openly (Rowthorn, 1980).

Marxist vs. Functionalist Approaches to Conflict

While a functionalist may view disharmonize between a supervisor and their employees equally a symptom of something being incorrect in the organisation, a Marxist sociologist may view this disharmonize as a reflection of the reality of the human relationship between the supervisor and his workers.

An absence of conflict would deny the inherent and fundamental divides underlying every structural divide in a Marxist society (Crouch, 2001).

Although both functionalism and Marxism disagree equally to whether or not disharmonize is inherent to social interactions, both approaches agree that conflict is probable to bring about disorder and potentially radical social modify.

In the case of Marxism, a momentous class disharmonize will pb to a catastrophic dissolution of class relations.

Indeed, in a mode some sociologists accept called ironic (Couch, 2001), the ongoing social society according to Marxism resembles that of the functionalist social order. All institutions tend to attempt to maintain the current social order.

Conflict every bit Mundane

Conflict can also be seen as mundane — unlikely to pb to an upheaval and radical social change. According to institutionalized conflict theory, for example, in cases where institutions are separated from each other, it is unlikely that conflict will spread between institutions.

This want to separate institutions emerged in response to the fascism and farthermost movements arising out of the early-mid 20th century. In particular, political sociologists were interested in how different identities in conflict could run together or cross-cut each other (Lipset, 1964; Crouch, 2001).

When groups tend to hold more identities in conflict with some other grouping, the conflict is more widespread and more intense.

For example, one would wait a guild where nearly blacks were working-class Catholics and well-nigh whites were conservative protestants to be in greater and more than intense disharmonize than one where a significant proportion of whites were working-class Catholics and so on.

Disharmonize, Micro-functionalism and Applied Sociology

Micro-functionalism, in short, is a course of functionalism that stresses the separateness of social institutions. Micro-functionalism and practical sociology see disharmonize equally mundane and exceptional.

Like functionalism, to micro functionalists, conflict is unusual and pathological, and events such as strikes, divorces, law-breaking and violence are seen as indicators of malfunctioning, but mundane malfunctioning.

Applied sociology, in its study of social problems such as marriage, poverty, and social movements, similarly sees conflict in these domains as pathological merely unlikely to crusade a great upheaval in greater society.

Critical Sociology and the Normalization of Disharmonize

To critical sociologists, such as feminist sociologists, see confllict as both endemic and mundane. Mostly, modernistic sociologists accept seen conflict as both endemic and mundane and thus regarded as normal, leading to the disappearance of a distinctive conflict folklore in contempo years (Hunker, 2001).

Some critical sociologists, such equally Ralf Dahrendorf, see disharmonize as not only owned and functional, but capable of sustaining the social order in itself.

People innovated and created institutions, in Dahrendof's approach (1972) by openly expressing and working out differences, difficulties, and contradictions.

This provides a radical contrast to structural functionalism in contending that the endemicity and mundanity — as opposed to the momentousness and exceptionality — of conflict preserves social structures rather than destroying them (Hunker, 2001).

Dahrendorf wrote from the cultural context of the conflicted history of Germany in the early-to-mid 20th century (Dahrendorf 1966). Postwar German sociologists, such as Habermas (1981) tended to stress open dialogue and communication in the working out of conflicts.

The works of Max Weber lead to an increasing view of conflict every bit normalized (Weber, 1978). Weber, unlike Marx, did not reduce social relations to material class interests.

For him, disharmonize could be about any number of factors, from idealistic beliefs to symbolic orders, and none were necessarily whatever more important than the others (Crouch, 2001).

Conflict, Hostility, and Rationality/Irrationality

One manner that sociologists' propose of reducing conflict is rational decision-making. Weber (1978) argued that there are 2 types of rationality involved in controlling processes.

The first, instrumental rationality, is directed at carrying out a specific goal, such every bit ownership the best machine with the money 1 has, or deciding which topics to revise in order to pass an exam the side by side twenty-four hours.

The other type of rationality that Weber proposes is value rationality, when the objective is to conform to a vaguely defined set of values, such as when a religious person is trying to make up one's mind which among various ways of practice is most advisable (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Sociologists consider the implementation of so-called rational controlling to be effused with difficulties. Different individuals in unlike contexts can differ greatly in what they consider to be a rational choice.

However, sociologists hold that an action is rational if they consider the prepare of all relevant alternatives, and appraise every upshot correctly. Of course, this is unlikely in do, and thus few actors make decisions completely rationally.

One form of non-rational decision making that sociologists consider to drive disharmonize is hostility. Conflicts that kickoff rationally may end non-rationally. For case, a sit-in planned to let a group'south point of view be known may turn into a riot with rock throwing, the burning of cars, and annexation.

Disharmonize and hostility take a reciprocal relationship: hostility can add together fuel to and intensify disharmonize behavior, and conflict can intensify hostility. As conflicts keep and actors inflict harm on each other, participants may get motivated by desires beyond reaching their original goals, such as inflicting as much harm on the perceived enemy as possible (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Causes of Conflict

Generally, sociologists concur that conflict occurs due to groups having incompatible goals. However, these incompatible goals more often than not arise from several factors: including contested resources, incompatible roles, and incompatible values.

Contested Resource

Contested Resources draws 3 principal categories that contested resource fit into: wealth, power, and prestige. More often than not, wealth involves tangibles, such as money or land (Weber, 1978)

For example, children hearing the reading of the will of a deceased parent may suddenly come up into disharmonize every bit they each believe that they deserve more money than was allocated to them.

Land has likewise been the source of a number of historical and contemporary conflicts, such as the conflict over East Jerusalem and Golan Heights between State of israel, Palestine, and Syria (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

An actor, according to Bartos and Wehr (2002) is powerful if they tin coerce others into doing what they want past either promising to reward the action they want or by threatening to punish them for declining to exercise so.

Power is generally unequally distributed, and parties in a power relationship can either boss another, or when one political party has greater power potential than the other does.

For example, after WWI, the Treaty of Versailles allowed for the allied powers to boss Germany, requiring the country to pay heavy reparations to the allied forces.

However, with the rise of Hitler, Germany was rearmed, increasing the country's power potential. Thus, Germany was able to invade Republic of austria and Czechoslovakia with dispensation (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Prestige can also be a contested resource. Generally those held in high respect (high prestige) have power, and those who have ability are often held in high respect. Actors can have loftier prestige in sure situations and much lower prestige in others.

Incompatible Roles

Incompatible goals within an organisation may arise out of incompatible roles. In the study of disharmonize, sociologists have emphasized vertical part differentiation, which assigns different roles to different positions within the power bureaucracy.

Although many sociologists take studied the conflict arising from role differentiation, they take not mostly agreed on whether role differentiation causes conflict.

In dissimilarity, an organization can have role differentiation because members have partial and specific responsibilities, such every bit that of an engineer or a salesperson.

Although these roles are different in nature, those playing these rules exercise not refer to their relationships as those of superiors and subordinates (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Nonetheless, the roles of a horizontally integrated organisation can yet exist incompatible.

For example, while an engineer may need to design a building that has beams visible from the atrium for structural stability reasons, this may contradict an architect or interior designer'southward desire to have a clean, modernistic space without visible structure elements.

Incompatible Values

Groups separated from each other can also develop cultures that encourage incompatible values. This can happen due to separation, the values of communities and systems, or part differentiation.

Separation tin occur on either the private or grouping level. In either case, those separated from others develop unique sets of values, equally their interactions with those in their ingroups are more intense than those with the outgroup.

One extreme case of isolation is cults. Cults tin can range from religious cults that may, for case, worship an aboriginal god to secular cults such every bit militias that oppose the government.

These organizations are generally pocket-sized and take conspicuously defined beliefs, values, and norms that make them singled-out from both other cults and mainstream culture (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Those in groups besides tend to form their own grouping identities, where they tend to value themselves more highly than others value them (Where, 2002).

This "ethnocentric" view — manifested today in the grade of nationalism, for example (Chrristenson et al. 1975) — makes it easier for deportment inflicted by other groups, however unintentional, to be seen every bit slights on the ethnocentric group (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Community and System Values

The American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1951) noted that in the cosmos of a social arrangement, actors have to determine whether the relationships amidst themselves are: affective or affectively neutral; self or collectively oriented; universalistic or particularistic; specific or diffuse; ascription or accomplishment oriented.

In making these decisions, societies adopt a set of cultural values. Small tribal societies tend to adopt communal values, and big societies tend to adopt system values (Bartos and Wehr, 2002), which in themselves can atomic number 82 to goal incompatibility (disharmonize) betwixt societies.

Communal values emerge from face-to-face interactions and tend to be effective, collectivistic, particularistic, ascriptive and diffuse, while system values tend to exist the opposite.

Habermas (1987) considers these opposing communal and system values to be a potential source of social disharmonize. Advanced industrial societies, in Habermas' view, tend to "colonize" and "deform" communal life.

Role Differentiation

Finally, part differentiation can direct create incompatible goals past ways of nudging those with different goals to act in incompatible ways.

Roles can emphasize, as discussed previously, communal or system values.

For example, a pastor may emphasize love (an affective communal value) while a businessman may value efficiency — a system value — as more important than love in a business context (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Examples of Conflict

The Cuban Missile Crisis

During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the Usa and the Soviet Spousal relationship became shut to nuclear war (Downing, 1992). The Soviet leader Kruschev installed medium-range missiles in Republic of cuba.

The president of the United States had to negotiate the risks of reacting too strongly (nuclear war) with the drawbacks of responding weakly (increasing the influence of the Soviet Wedlock).

That is to say, the United states of america and the Soviet Union had securely conflicting interests: the Soviet Union wanted to increase its missile supremacy, and the Us wanted to curtail it (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Conflict and Individualism

Although some societies (such as Nippon) can preserve some features of small groups, nearly wealthy, industrialized western societies tend to encourage individualism, which encourages members of a society to formulate and develop their own values rather than accepting those of the larger groups (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).

Private personality differences — such as extraversion, aggression, talkativity, and problem-solving style — may pb to the development of incompatible values.

I'southward alignment with individualism or collectivism tin can too take a dandy touch on on styles of conclusion-making in conflicts.

According to LeFebvre and Franke (2013), for instance, participants with higher levels of individualism tended to favor rational approaches to decision making, while those with higher levels of collectivism tended to value staying loyal to the interests of their ingroups.

A Disharmonize Theory of Sexual Stratification

Collins (1971) attempts to explicate employment discrimination against women as the outcome of a sexual stratification arrangement constructed from the perspectives of Freud and Weber.

In brusque, Weber argued that conflict emerges over a struggle for as much dominance over other groups as resources allow. In the early 1970s, women tended to contain a low number of professional and transmission labor positions relative to men.

For example, in 1971, xviii% of college professors were female and 3.3% of lawyers and judges. Historically, explanations for this imbalance involved a perceived lack of training and a low-commitment to professional piece of work in favor of child rearing (Collins, 1971).

However, as Collins demonstrates, neither of these are necessarily true. Rather, Collins suggests that women belong to a lower class in a sexual stratification organization. This is evidenced past how women in the 1970s who took on managerial roles tended to do and so generally in professions dominated by women (such as nursing).

Collins so goes on to theorize that men's large size and high sexual and ambitious drives has led to the historic subjugation of women by men.

In this system, according to Collins (1971), women can be acquired as sexual belongings and thus subjugated to the role of "menial servants" (Levi-Strauss, 1949).

About the Author

Charlotte Nickerson is a member of the Course of 2024 at Harvard University. Coming from a research background in biology and archeology, Charlotte currently studies how digital and concrete space shapes homo beliefs, norms, and behaviors and how this tin can be used to create businesses with greater social touch.

How to reference this article:

Nickerson, C. (2021, Oct 21). Conflict theory. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/conflict-theory.html

References

Bartos, O. J., & Wehr, P. (2002). Using disharmonize theory: Cambridge University Press.

Binns, D. (1977). Across the sociology of disharmonize. New York: St. Martin'due south.

Collins, R. (2014). A Conflict Theory of Sexual Stratification1. Social Problems, 19(1), three-21. doi:10.2307/799936

Hunker, C. J. (2001). Conflict Sociology. In Northward. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 2554-2559). Oxford: Pergamon.

Downing, B. (1992). The armed services revolution and political alter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Printing.

Habermas, J. (1987). 8. The Tasks of a Critical Theory of Social club. In Modern German Folklore (pp. 187-212): Columbia Academy Press.

LeFebvre, R., & Franke, Five. (2013). Civilization Matters: Individualism vs. Collectivism in Conflict Decision-making. Societies, 3(ane), 128-146. Retrieved from https://world wide web.mdpi.com/2075-4698/3/1/128

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1949). L'efficacité symbolique. Revue de fifty'histoire des religions, 5-27.

Marx, K. (2000). Selected writings (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and lodge: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.

Wells, A. (1979). Conflict theory and functionalism: Introductory sociology textbooks, 1928-1976. Educational activity Sociology, 429-437.

Home | About Us | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us

But Psychology's content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to exist a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Ezoic