Conflict theory
This theory holds that conflict is the factor of change in society. The supporters of this theory are Karl Marx, Ralph Dahrendorf, Georg-Simmel and Lewis Koser etc.
The biggest proponent of conflictist theory is Karl Marx. According to Marx, there was a condition of economic communism in the society in the beginning i.e. in this period there was no concept of private property and there was no concept of class. So there was no trace of exploitation in the society. But as the population increased, the concept of savings developed among the people. As a result, two classes arose in the society. First bourgeois (Haves) and second proletarian (Haves not).
According to Marx, the economy of any society is its basic structure which is made up of the mode of production and the relations of production. On this basic structure all other systems of society, religion, philosophy, thought, science, morality etc., which Marx called ‘superstructure’ depend. Clearly, according to Marx, a change in the economy leads to a change in the society.
According to Marx, this change can be understood from the levels of historical materialism, based on dialectical materialism.
materialistic interpretation of history
Karl Marx has given a materialistic interpretation of history on the basis of dialectical materialism. According to Marx, whatever has been written in history till date only has the saga of kings and maharajas or mentions some special dates, whereas the reality is that until we understand the history of the common man, the process of social development It is impossible to understand. Clarification: Marx has advocated for Dalits, backward and proletariat. In the famous book ‘Communist Manifesto’, he has mentioned that human history till now is the history of class struggle, since the evolutionary ideology prevailed at the time of Marx, hence it could not remain unaffected by evolutionaryism. This is the reason that in the materialistic interpretation of history, Marx has shown the entire history of society by dividing it into five stages in evolutionary order. However, the root cause of moving from one stage to another is conflict.
According to Marx, the initial stage of human society was a primitive-collective-economic system. During this period man lived like animals in the forest. They had no weapons or equipment to survive. He used to fulfill his stomach by picking fruits and flowers in the forests. In this way his life was completely dependent on nature. So there was no trace of class or exploitation in the society. But as the population increased, the needs of the people increased. Gradually, with the help of these weapons, the powerful people started exploiting the pure people. In this context, Marx says that weapons are the first capital of man in the field of exploitation. The increasing population and increasing needs gave birth to the concept of savings and in this stage the power of the means of production with some people in the form of weapons became centralized. Later on, it started being opposed in the society, as a result of which the society entered the second stage.
In his historical analysis, Mavers referred to the slave condition as the second stage. has accepted. In this stage two classes arose – the masters and the slaves. Marx says that in the primitive communist era, when man started animal husbandry instead of killing animals, since then the concept of private property developed in the society. Agriculture and animal husbandry. For this gradually man left his nomadic life and started living permanently. Thus the slave era started on the basis of changes in the means of production. In this age, powerful people used other weak people for animal husbandry and food collection. Started making slaves. Therefore, one class in society was those who had slaves as a means of production and the other class was the slaves, who were the property of their master. According to marks. In this stage, instead of wooden and stone tools, iron tools started being made. Irrigation was started for agriculture. There was division of labor in the society. Weaving cloth, making pottery etc. started, but in this whole process the master had complete control over his slaves. Slaves, which were the means of production, were given so much that they could survive physically. The number of slaves was an indicator of the social status of the owners and the owners could buy slaves of their own free will. could be sold or destroyed. clearly. . . For complete control over the slaves, the owners made rules that nurtured private property and exploitation. But, as the population increased, more production was needed. The owners started pushing for more production on the slaves, but on the other hand the slaves were not interested in production, because there was no change in their condition. As a result, the dissatisfaction between the master and the slave increased. As the tyranny and exploitation of the owners increased, the background of the struggle was prepared. Eventually the galams revolted but the owners won the battle in this struggle. Society has entered a different stage. Even in this stage, the class remained two, but the class character changed. Marx also says that the beginning of the slave-era started almost simultaneously in the world and started with agriculture.
The forests of Ralah started expanding, due to which, along with being in the field of agriculture, feudalism (feudalism) started to emerge.
The third stage, according to Marx, has been the feudal socio-economic. According to the number in this period, the third stage being feudalistic socio-economic and there were two classes in the society – land-feudal and semi-peasant. The society was completely based on agriculture and there were two classes in the society – landowners and in this period all the weapons and tools of man started to be made of iron, due to which agriculture developed rapidly. Fire in the society – The condition of the farmers also changed, just as they used to buy and sell, but their condition is not like that of slaves. The way slaves were bought and sold, the practice of killing the caste ended in this period.
At the same time, slaves were nothing to their masters, while the phi – the land owned by the peasants – were mat dupas on which they worked for themselves after working in the owners’ fields. These black land feudatories (Fudol Hordes) established feudal states and arranged an army for its protection. Many adventurous sailors and explorers were discovered in the world during this period, which not only expanded the waterways but also became the international market.
The fulfillment of the demands of these international islands could not be possible through the handicraft industry, as a result of which big industries were set up in which thousands of workers came and started working together. In this way, the establishment of industries paved the way for capitalism, but production required free labor for production, whereas the feudal system-bandi – tied the peasants to the land. The fixed method of work, cash payment, housing facilities and the glitz of the cities attracted many farmers. As a result, they started migrating from farm to field. As a result, the atrocities and exploitation of the land feudatories on the crop farmers started increasing. There was a struggle between the two, but the victory was of the land-feudal. The society entered a second stage where again the classes remained the same but their class character changed. Those two classes are known as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat respectively.
The fourth stage in the Marxist interpretation is the capitalist stage. In this stage, production started on a large scale by mass production. Along with this, a definite system of distribution and consumption was also made. But the full ownership of the property belonged to the capitalists i.e. the Wuzuya class. The workers or the proletariat had no capital other than their own labour. But the numbers say that for the first time in human history such a large number of workers have gathered together, as a result of which they will awaken and organize their class consciousness. In the struggle that will now take place, for the first time in human history, the victory will be of the proletariat and the defeat of the bourgeoisie. The reason for this is that there were slave and financial peasant classes but there was no organization in them due to lack of class consciousness. He called the slave and financial farmer a “class in itself”. According to the numbers, in this struggle the proletariat will lose nothing but the chain of its slavery while the bourgeoisie will lose everything. While discussing the causes of conflict, Marx says that in the capitalist society, capitalists have started to centralize capital in their hands, due to which impoverishment, polarization and separatism etc. As a result, the growing discontent between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will lead to conflict.
Marx has told in the course of his analysis that after this struggle there will be socialism in the society for a while. That is, the property will be controlled by the state and everyone will get money according to their need. But this stage will be short-lived because gradually all the people in the society will become equal. Therefore, the name of the state will automatically disappear and the society will reach the communist stage. According to Marx, to establish the communist era, the working class will destroy the capitalist class with the same weapon with which the capitalists destroyed feudalism. Therefore Marx has envisioned a communist society in which there will be neither class nor contradiction. There will be neither state nor exploitation, but all people will be equal.
Although Marx has given a consistent materialist interpretation of history on the basis of his theory of dialectical materialism, his theory is not free from criticism. While Marx has shown the explanation of society by dividing it into five stages, scholars say that it has no scientific basis in relation to these stages. August Kost has mentioned three, Darshim two and Morgan three states. The order of social development given by Marx in his discussion of dialectical and materialism is not universal. According to Marx, on the basis of the industrial revolution, capitalist society was discussed, according to him, the first revolution by workers should have taken place in England and on the basis of the power of the proletariat, communism should be established. Therefore, historical facts show that there is no need for capitalism to come after feudalism.
There are many contradictions in Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism. If every issue has a protest, how can it be assumed that communism will have no opposition? From this it appears that either kill
did not make a thorough study of these facts as to under what circumstances a protest to any cause arises or he is wrong to say that there will be no counter to communism. As far as class struggle is concerned, Marx has discussed the existence of only two classes in the society whereas Sorokin says that the largest section of the society is of middle class. Denying the role of the middle class in the explanation of social change is the biggest drawback of Marxist theory.
Ralf Dahrendorf has criticized Marx’s theory, saying that Marx’s theory, however true for traditional societies, is completely ineffective in modern industrial society. They say that in the modern industrial society there has never been a situation of direct conflict between the capitalist class and the working class. Because there is a managerial class as a link between the two. Therefore, the B manager of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat acts as a safety valve. Secondly, Detrendorf has said that the working class is divided into several levels, whose wages and facilities are different. Therefore, there is no possibility of union of workers.
In spite of all these criticisms, it is true that Marxism is a trending ideology of today’s era. This gives us a new perspective of looking at history and society. It is true that on the basis of Marxist ideology, no society in the world has changed till date, but from the point of view of theoretical analysis, it is definitely a perfect ideology.
L.A. Coser:
American sociologist Lewis A. Koser was influenced by the ideas of German sociologist Georg Simmel. Koser, in his book “Function of Social Conflict” (1955), made some proposals on various aspects of conflict. In fact, these proposals are hypothetical in nature. He has focused his proposals on five aspects of conflict.
1. resolutions relating to causes of conflict
2 . resolutions relating to the period of conflict
3. Violent conflict resolution
4. The usefulness of the struggle for the group
5. Functions of Conflict on the Whole Society
Proposals related to the causes of conflict: In response to why conflict occurs, Kozar has mainly made two proposals.
1. First, when a large number of subordinate members protest on the issue of inequality and if the inequality is not given legitimacy, then the struggle starts.
2. Second, when the limited lack of subordinates becomes the allegation of the absence of ordinary subordinates, the conflict becomes widespread. This means that when the poverty and tragedy of some people become the tragedy of common people’s life, then the conflict becomes relative.
Giving the definition of conflict, Koser has written “When there is some kind of authority, principle, means in the society and for this opposition they attack each other violently or both reach a conclusion.” Clearly conflict is a social process. Under which the person or group threatens the opponent with violence or takes actual violent action in order to fulfill his goal.
Functions of Conflict: The following is a discussion of the functions or changes of Kojar’s struggle.
1. If the groups are in conflict situation, the mutual relations of the members of each group increase and collective consciousness develops. As a result of this consciousness, the internal unity of the group increases and the organization gets stronger.
2. If two semi-groups are in conflict, the boundary between the two becomes clear.
3. If there is a lack of leader in the group or the leadership is weak, then in case of conflict with another group, change of leadership is done to strengthen the group and the leadership is made strong.
4. There is a change in the ideal model and values of both, due to which new ideal model comes which is beneficial for the group.
5. Due to the conflict between two groups, the conflicts within their group end, which has to change the probability distribution and the tasks are distributed in a new way. Therefore, a new structure emerges as a result of conflict, which encourages social change.
Criticism: L. Chonsky and Osipov have criticized Koser saying that conflict always proves to be destructive of the system.
George Simmel:
Georg Simmel and Karl Marx are prominent among the major conflict theorists of the 19th century. But there is a difference of opinion between these two. Where according to Simmel the struggle is for the social order. Not only disruptive but beneficial to the social system and strengthens the system. According to Karl Marx, struggle changes the society, Simmel says that not every struggle changes the society.
According to Simmel there are two causes of conflict.
1. Conflicting basic instincts of the individual and
2. Types of Social Relations.
Both these elements make conflict a necessary event.
Variations of Conflict:
1.Amount of regulation in the society
2. the amount of conflict directly and
3. Amount of Intensity in the Conflicting Sides
When the amount of regulation in the society is high, the conflict will become a competition and the organization will be strong.
Will it? If there is more violence in the society, then the organization will decrease.
Theoretical formulas of struggle – The following are the theoretical formulas of Simmel’s struggle-
1. The more emotional attachment the conflicting parties have in the struggle, the more intense the struggle will be.
2 . The more organized the fighting parties are in the course of the struggle, the more passionately they will behave in the conflict.
3. The more the members of the fighting party sacrifice their personal interests, the more passionately they will behave in the struggle.
4. If the struggle is used as a means for the fulfillment of some objective, then the struggle will be less intense. Simmel’s theoretical explanation states that once the goal of the struggle is clear, the fighting parties see how the goal will be achieved at the least cost. At least the cost means that the alternative to violence and intensity will not be chosen through conflict.
Consequences or Functions of Conflict –
According to Simmel, the result of conflict falls on the conflicting party and the whole society. The results of the conflict can be summed up as follows.
1. As a result of the struggle, the unity of the conflicting parties increases.
2. When the struggling parties make efforts by getting organized, the amount of intense struggle decreases. This happens because only by the threat of the organized party, the goal would have been achieved more quickly. There is no conflict or violence, due to which social integration increases. Marx has more expression. The opinion is to the contrary that organizing parties leads to polarization of conflict and more violent expression.
3. The more intense the struggle of the conflicting parties, the more organized the organization and internal system of those parties will be.
4. The less organized the fighting parties are, and if the amount of conflict is intense then the tendency of dictatorship will increase among the parties.
5. If the conflict will be intense. And if there are struggling lotes or minorities, then internal unity will increase among them.
6. When the struggling party fights for self-defense, it will have organization and unity. It is clear to compare Simmel’s ideas with Marx’s ideas that Marx considers the inevitable phenomenon of social struggle, while Simmel gives importance to both cooperative and non-cooperative tendencies. According to Marx, society changes by struggle whereas Simmel says that every struggle does not bring change.
Change from Conflict:
1. Unity
2 . organized struggle
3. Intense conflict and
4. propensity for tyranny
Ralph Dehrendorf:
German sociologist Ralf Dehrendorf, born in 1929, is an indigenous of Marx. Like Marx, he also explains the conflict theory as the basis of the dialectical plan, but on other issues of struggle, there are deep differences in their views. He has explained conflict theory in his book “Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society” in 1959 and “Todis’ General Theory of Sociology”. He extended his theory to modern industrial societies of Europe and America. Dehrendorf has said that any social system has two aspects-
1.consensus and
2. Struggle.
Other functionalists, including Parsons, have shed much light on the consensual side, while the other side of society has neglected conflict.
In his theory, Dehrendorf has included the dialectical process from Marx and the concept of power and power from Weber. Turner named the dialectical conflict theory of Dehrendorff’s theory. Dialectical because in any society the conflict goes on continuously between two classes.
According to Dehrendorf, the basis of class formation is power and authority. Due to the unequal division of power and authority, there are two classes in the society-
1. The oppressive or powerful class and
2. Repressed or powerless class.
The oppressive class is those who hold power and want status quoism. The oppressed class is the one who lacks power and authority and those who are ruled. They are always trying to redistribute the power.
According to Dehrendorff, any small group may refer to a formal organization or a community or a society as a whole. He says that in any order-oriented integrated society, there is not only an unequal distribution of power and authority, but It keeps on going on it. As a result of this struggle, the powerless class defeats the powerful class and attains persecution. In this way social change takes place.
In his book “Class and Class Conflict”, he has given the following propositions about conflict:
1. The more consciousness the people of any orderly coordinated society have about the real society, the more likely they are to struggle.
2. The needs of more technical, political and social conditions. The fulfillment will be in the organization, the more intense the conflict will be.
3. The lesser the mobility among the oppressed and oppressed groups, the greater will be.
4. The deeper, intense and violent the conflict, the greater the social change will happen.
Criticism: RK Merton and Amitai Itzioni say that they have given too much importance to the process of struggle in society and the role of cooperation has been ignored.
Coser believes that he has not discussed the contributions of conflict that strengthen social status.