Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Contents Pages
1.0 Introduction 2
1.1 Aim 3
1.2 Scope 3
2.1 Theory 4
2.2 Conflict 4
5.0 Conclusion 17
References
1
1.0 Introduction
Conflict is a phenomenon that is an important part of human existence (Isard, 1992:1) and a
natural part of our daily lives. (Weeks, 1992: ix) Conflict that takes place within a society
may be the result of several factors. In the same way that it is difficult to point to a single
factor as being responsible for order within society, it is as difficult to point to a single
otherwise.
Conflict is mostly depicted as if it is totally negative. This is not always the case. Depending
There are suggestions that conflict could be used constructively to explore different solutions
way of bringing emotive and non-rational argument into the open while deconstructing long-
standing tension.
Conflict has become an issue over which scholars find themselves in sharp disagreement with
their colleges. Divided opinions on the nature, causes and impact of conflict are reflected in
the fact that there is no single widely accepted theory on which scholars agree, though, it is
also possible to explain this as being a result of the multi-disciplinary nature of conflict
research.
Even though the theories look many and different, each emphasizes a particular angle of
analysis, and they are not totally mutually exclusive. In fact, most of the theories overlap and
these categories provided are only for analytical arrangement rather than trying to draw steel
1.1 Aim
2
In this paper, we aim to capture some of the theories of conflict as expounded by conflict and
social scholars. We do so not in a critical way, but by simply presenting some of the key
tenets of each theory. The authors come from diverse backgrounds, and each background
1.2 Scope
The scope of this paper is restricted to highlighting the theories of social conflicts. These
theories are the lens which the various respective schools of thought view and analyze social
conflict. We explore into the nature, causes, and conditions under which conflicts occur with
respect to the various arguments and framework provided by different scholars for the
understanding of conflict. We would not try to take any position of preference or ratings
between these theories; neither would this paper try to make recommendations on how
This paper should be seen only to be an exposure to existing thoughts, and frameworks to aid
3
The key elements that make up the paper title are defined below. This would aid readers to
understand the concept of social conflict and its theories. These are;
2.1 Theory
A theory is a set of carefully and logically used laws that is used to classify, clarify,
explain, and predict phenomena. That is, a theory serves to order or give meaning to facts. A
theory is different from the law that has been carefully connected to make it. The laws cannot
be wrong, but how we interconnect them to produce a theory may be wrong. This is why one
A theory is also stated to be “an idea or belief about something arrived at through assumption
and in some cases a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one
In line with the above, Cohen (1968:2) observed that “the goal of any theory is to explain
something which has occurred with a view of dealing with problems which arose or may
arise as a result”.
2.2 Conflict
The term conflict represents antagonism, hostility, disharmony that is caused as a result of
4
Social conflict is defined as a struggle over values or claims to status, power, scares resources
in which the aim of the conflicting parties are not only to gain the desired values, but also to
neutralize, injure, or eliminate their rivals. Such conflicts may take place between individuals
5
The nature, causes and the impact of conflicts have been extensively written on by scholars.
Depending on the school of thought to which they represent, such explanations have tended
to place a lot of emphasis on one particular or a set of related theories while diminishing the
importance or explanatory relevance of other competing theories. The various social conflict
theories are attempts by scholars to provide frameworks for the understanding of conflict,
especially causes of conflict, the condition under which conflicts occur, and sometimes the
This theory has two main sub-orientations; the first is the radical structural theory represented
by the Marxist dialectical school with exponents like Mark and Engels, V.I Lenin etc, the
second is the liberal structuralism represent by Ross (1993), Scarborough (1998) and the
famous Johan Garltung (1990) on structural violence. Structuralists thus sees incompatible
interests based on competition for resources which in most cases are assumed to be scarce, as
The main argument of the structural conflict theory is that conflict is built into the particular
ways societies are structured and organized. Social problems like political and economic
exclusion, injustice, poverty, inequity etc are sources of conflict. Structuralists maintain that
conflicts occur because of the exploitative and unjust nature of human societies, domination
of one class by another etc. Radicals like Friedrich Engle, Karl Marx, Joseph Lenin and Mao
Tse Tung blame capitalism for being an exploitative system based on its relations of
production and the division of society into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The
exploitation of the proletariat and lower classes under capitalism creates conflict. The
solution to these types of conflict to the Marxists is that the contradictions will end in a
6
revolution-civil war, or some form of violence leading to the overthrow of the exploitation
system. Liberal structuralists call for the elimination of structural defects with policy reforms.
Realist theory originates from classical political theory and shares both theological and
biological doctrines about an apparent weakness and individual inherent in human nature. It
thus traces the roots of conflict to a flaw in human nature which is seen to be selfish and
Morgenthau (1973:4) and realist after him like Walt, argue that the imperfection in the world,
namely conflict, has its roots in forces that are inherent in human nature, that human nature is
selfish, individualistic and naturally conflictive, that states will always pursue their national
interests defined as power, and that such interest will come into conflict with those of others
Actors hence should prepare to deal with the outcome and consequences of conflict since it is
inevitable, rather than wish there were none. This theory greatly justified the militarization of
international relations and the arms race. The theory has been accused of elevating power and
the state to the status of an ideology, hence has had tremendous impact on conflict at the
international level.
Biological theories has given rise to what may be referred to as the innate theory of conflict
which contends that conflict is innate in all social interactions, and among all animals,
including human beings. It argue that humans are animals, albeit higher species of animals,
and would fight naturally over things they cherish. John Dollard (1939). The thinking is that
7
since our ancestors were instructively violent beings, and since we evolved from them, we
too must bear destructive impulses in our generic make up. Thomas Hobbes, St Augustine,
In other words, it is believed that conflict is inherent in man, and this can be explained from
man’s inner properties and attributes, hormonal composition. That aggressive instinct will be
dialectical struggle between the instincts associated with life and survival (Eros) and the
instinct associated with death (Thanatos), and suggests that societies had to learn to control
the expression of both the life and death instinct. In his view, both instincts are always
seeking release and it is the one that win the contest of domination that is released. Thus,
aggression against others is released whenever the Eros overcomes the Thanatos and as he
puts it, war and conflict is necessary periodic release that helps men preserve themselves by
Further alienation to biological theories are shown in the difference between “expected need
satisfaction “and “actual need satisfaction” (Davies,1962:6) , where expectation does not
meet attainment, the tendency is for people to confront those they hold responsible for
frustrating their ambition. This is the central argument that Ted Robert Gurr’s Relative
Deprivation thesis addressed stating that “the greater the discrepancy, however marginal
between what is sought and what seem attainable, the greater will be the chances that anger
The Frustration-Aggression theory which John Dollard and his research associates initially
developed in 1939 and has been expanded and modified by scholars like Leonard
Berkowitz(1962) and Aubrey Yates (1962) appears to be the most common explanation for
8
violent behavior stemming from inability to fulfill needs. A good example of the way which
frustration leads to aggression can be seen in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria. After waiting
and peacefully agitating for what the people of the region considered a fair share of the oil
wealth that is exploited from their land, youths now take the law into their own hands by
vandalizing oil pipelines, kidnapping oil workers for fat ransoms and generally creating
problems for those they believe are responsible for their predicaments
Physiologists share the biological and hormonal origins of aggression and conflict in
individuals with realists, but add by providing the conditions under which this happens. Scott
(1978) noted that the physiological sources of aggressive behavior are a function of several
Physiologist like Paul Maclean (1978) and Lorcuz (1966) have sought to understand how the
human brain reacts when people are under stress and threat. They noted that it is possible for
a person to experience conflict between what he is feeling and what he is thinking. This then
determines whether such a person feels strongly about something or not and whether they act
In essence, humans are naturally capable of being aggressive but do not display violent
behavior as an instinct. When violence occurs, there is the possibility that it is being
Economists largely assume people in conflict to be fighting over, not about, something that is
material. The question then becomes; is the conflict a result of greed (intention to ‘corner’
something) or of grievance (anger arising over feelings of injustice). Collier (2003:4) printed
9
out that some people (commonly referred to as “conflict entrepreneurs”) actually benefit from
chaos; while overwhelming majority of the population are affected by the negative impacts of
conflicts. He also pointed out that while the prospect of pecuniary gains is seldom the
principal incentive for rebellion, it can become for some insurgent groups, a preferred state of
affairs.
Economic theorist Bredal and Malone (2000:1) agree that social conflicts are generated by
many factors, some of which are deep – seated. For them, across the ages conflicts have come
to be seen as having a “functional utility “and are embedded in economic disparities. War, the
crisis stage of internal conflicts, has sometimes become a vast private and profit making
enterprise. They further contend that even though issues in conflict may later be packaged as
resulting from ideological, racial or even religious (value) differences; there represent at the
most basic level, a contest for control over economic assets resources or systems. Economic
theories highlight resources, and to that extent, are close to the radical structural theory of
conflict, except for emphasis of left wing structuralists on exploitative relationships between
parties.
The role of culturally induced conflict is emphasized by this theory. It contends, therefore
that even though there are different forms of identities, the one that is based on people’s
ethnic origin and the culture that is learned on the basis of that ethnic origin is one of the
most important ways of explaining violent conflict. Identity is thus seen to be the reason for
social conflicts that take long to resolve despite the belief that ethnicity is the biggest source
of identity-based conflicts , this school of thought agree that this does not mean that conflict
10
Theorist from this school of thought argue that social conflicts that take long to resolve
become a possibility when some groups are discrimination against or deprived of satisfaction
of their basic (material) and psychological (non material) needs on the basic of their identity.
These needs are identified in Maslow’s theory of motivation (1970) and Burton’s (1990)
“Human Needs “theory, both of which describe the process by which an individual or group
seeks to satisfy a range of needs moving from the basic ones such as foods and sex to the
highest needs that they described as ‘self-actualization ‘- the fulfillment of one’s greatest
human potential.
dying off’ thesis, and Rothschild’s ‘fear of the future’s thesis’, noted that social conflicts that
take long to resolve are identity-driven and grow out of the feelings of powerlessness and
memories of past persecution. These experiences which wear away a person’s dignity, self-
esteem, and lead people to resort to vengeance, constitute part of what has been referred to as
The position of human needs theory is similar to that of Frustration-Aggression and Relative
deprivation theory. Its main assumption is that all humans have basic human needs which
they seek to fulfill, and that the denial and frustration of these needs by other groups or
individuals could affect them immediately or later, thereby leading to conflict (Rosati et al.
1990). ‘Basic human needs” in this sense comprise physical, psychological, social and
spiritual needs. In essence, to provide access to one (e.g. food) and deny or hinder access to
another (e.g. freedom of worship) will amount to denial and could make people to resort to
11
Burton identified a link between frustration which forces humans into acts of aggression and
the need on the part of such individuals to satisfy their basic needs. According to him,
individuals cannot be taught to accept practices that destroy their identity and other goals that
are attached to their needs and because of this, they are forced to react against the factors,
groups and institutions that they see as being responsible for threatening such needs.
Burton also stated that human needs have components (needs for recognition, identity,
security, autonomy, and bonding with others) that are not easy to give up. No matter how
much a political or social system tries to frustrate or suppress these needs, it will either fail or
Even though needs scholars identity a wide range of human needs, some of which they
consider to be basic human needs, they are agreed on the fact that the frustration of these
needs hampers the actualization of the potentials of groups and individuals, subsequently
leading to conflict.
Systemic theories provide a socio-structural explanation for the emergence of violent social
conflicts. The position of this theory is that reason(s) for any social conflict lie in the social
context within which it occurs. As Johnson (1966:12-13) noted in the case of political
violence’ must utilize as its tool a conception of the social context in which it occurs.” This
paradigm turns our focus to social factors and the effects of large scale (usually sudden)
changes in social, political and economic processes that would usually guide against
instability.
12
Systemic theories also seek to explain the relationship between modernization and political
disorder and see movements between different periods of economic and political history as
containing large amounts of “pull factors”, tension and crisis that create conditions of internal
In trying to cope with the different challenges and crises of modernization, most governments
that find it difficult to gain the legitimacy needed to attract support from the people usually
resort to unconstitutional means and force rather than processes that are in line with the rule
of law, in an effort to surpass the legitimate demands of the people, prevent opposition and
civil society groups from criticizing policies that they do not agree with, and generally
Relational Theories attempt to provide explanations for the violent conflicts between groups
groups. Thus, the belief here is that cultural and value differences are as well as group
interests all influence relationships between individuals and groups in different ways.
A number of conflicts grow out of a past history of conflict between groups that has led to the
negative exchanges between groups may make it difficult for efforts to integrate different
ethnic and religious groups within the society to succeed because their past interactions make
it difficult for them to trust one another. Within the West African sub-region for instance, it
has been difficult to get groups like the Hausa/Fulani, Igbo and the Yoruba in Nigeria; the
Krio and Mende in Sierra Leone; the Bassa, Gio, Mano, Krahn and Kpelle in Liberia; the
Akan, Ewe, Fante, Ashanti, etc in Ghana; to see themselves as partners in progress because
13
they have a past history of conflict woven around control of resources (including political
The fact that ‘others’ are perceived as different make us feel they are entitled to less or are
inferior by reason of cultural values or skin colour. This disrupts the flow of communication
between us and them and to that extent, twist perceptions that we have about each other.
Having looked through each tenet of the theories of social conflict, it is of importance to draw
The Structural conflict theory and Economic theory share the same view about the nature of
conflict as being rooted in the competition of fight over scarce resources. They however
14
deviate in their notion on the causes of conflict. The structural theory hold the notion that
conflict is built into the particular way societies are structured, domination of one class by
another. The economic theorists hold the notion that some people whom they call ‘conflict
entrepreneurs’ packages, and propagates conflict because they profit from a state of chaos.
The Realist and Biological theory share the same view about the nature of conflict as being
inherent in human nature. They both concur to the individualism inherent in human nature;
hence human beings would fight to protect their interests or what they cherish. They both
believe that conflict is inevitable in all social interactions. They however deviate in their
notions on the conditions which this conflict thrives and/or violence displayed. Realists hold
that people and states would strive to protect their selfish personal and national interest which
is defined by power, and would fight all perceived threats to it. The Biological theorists hold
that the destructive impulses in man’s genetic make up would trigger his aggressive instinct
The Physiological theory and Psycho-cultural theory share the same view about the nature of
conflict being psychological and hence, it is as a choice that people display violence. They
both agree that even though humans are naturally capable of being aggressive, they do not
display violence as an instinct. They have and make the choice on whether or not to display
violence. Conflict hence could be avoidable. They do differ however on their causes and
conditions under which long lasting conflict thrives when it occurs. Physiological theory hold
that lasting conflict and violence occurs due to manipulation of factors within and outside the
individuals control, while Psycho-cultural theory hold that lasting conflict and violence is
The Systemic theory and Relational theory stand isolated, and have no clear-cut similarities
15
5.0 Conclusion
It should be noted that these theories of conflict are not without their shortcomings. Despite
the shortcomings in each of these theories however, they offer some useful perspective to the
understanding of conflict. Those who wish to go deeper into the theories of conflict are
encouraged to do so.
16
The overlapping nature of the theories of conflict is further emphasized by Ross (1993:194)
who pointed out in his assessment of the structural theory and its explanatory value that
“although the identification of structural factors in severe conflicts is rarely wrong, Mono-
causal explanations based on these considerations alone are incomplete, and (to that extent)
misleading”.
In explaining a social reality like conflict, structural(objective) factors that lead to differences
in access to power and threaten the ability of people to satisfy their basic needs do not tell the
whole story; neither do cultural (subjective) factors which show that people and nations bring
different values which determine how they interpret their daily interactions with others.
Deutsch (1991:28) also observed that “any comprehensive approach to understanding conflict
will necessarily include consideration of both objective and subjective factors”. In other
words, while competition for the so-called “real interest” (resource) serves to explain most
conflicts, other non-objective factors, such as psychological needs, values, and issues of
perception, systemic factors, the link between formal and informal relationships, or the nature
of changes taking place within the political system are all equally important.
Despite the strong arguments of those who developed the different theories with which we try
to make sense of conflict as a multi-dimension fact of life, the ways of explaining it are also
in several dimensions.
There are however similarities among the social theories which the various theorists agree.
One of such areas is that all of them recommend approaches that recognize the needs and
interests of both sides, hence strategies that are non-confrontational and those that remove
nations.
17
In conclusion, Kelman (1993:3) shows the way forward in his observation that each
perspective only adds to the pool of available knowledge on conflict resolution processes:
“Although (they are) analytically distinct as static points of departure, there is sufficient
Conflict scholars can thus combine one or more points of view in the process of analyzing
social conflicts or helping political leaders to develop the right policies for dealing with them.
References
Azar, E ‘Protracted International Conflicts: Ten Propositions’. Quoted in Rabie M. (1994),
Conflict Resolution and Ethnicity, London: Prager.
Berdal, Mats and David Malone (2000), Greed or Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil
Wars. Boulder: Lynne Rienner publishers.
18
Boulding, Kenneth E. (1977) ‘The Power of Non-conflict’, Journal of Social Issues,
Vol.33(1), 1977.
Brown, M. (1993) ‘Causes and Implications of Ethic Conflict’, in M. Brown ed (1993) Ethic
Conflicts ad International Security. Princeton University Press.
Burton, John (1979). Deviance, Terrorism and War: The Process of Solving Unsolved Social
and Political Problems. London: Macmillan.
Collier, Paul (2003), Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy.
Washington: The World Bank,
Coser, Lewis : The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press.
Cuny, Federick (1991) Displaced Persons in Civil Conflicts, United Nations Development
Programme
Deutsch, Morton (1973) The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Process.
Connecticut and London: Yale University Press.
Galtung, Johan (1990) ‘Cultural Violence’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol 27:3
Gurr, Ted R. (1970). ‘Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Maslow, Abraham (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd Ed). New York: Macmillan.
Morgenthau, Hans (1973) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th
Edition. New York: Alfred A.Knopf.
20