Week 10 Social and Political Conflicts

The functionalists (the ones who usually see the political system working as an organism in
which each piece accomplished a certain function. When a piece starts working, the system
collapses) look at conflict as something that is pathological within a social and political
system. They say that society presumes a certain degree of integration and the existence of a
certain set of values. Whenever this conflict arises, the balance is endangered. A conflict is
like a disease for society and might be a disease for the political system.
A new current is the one that was started by Karl Marx. Also, Hannah Arendt says that this is
just the end of a cycle in the interest of conflicts. Starting from mid 17
th
century, there was an
interest in what political conflicts and revolutions were. Marx put on paper better than his
predecessors the idea of a relation between the society and politics. Hes saying that conflict
will ultimately transform society.
Georg Simmer also looked in the importance of social and political conflict, finding them a
positive aspect by saying that actually conflict helps preserving various social groups and
preserves the balance in society.

Lewis Ciser tries to have this combination of conflict theory and functionalist theory. Hes
saying that in complex pluralistic societies we have criss-cut conflicts that divide society
among dichotomous lines.

The star in the conflict theory is represented by Sir Radolph Dahremdorf, professor at the
London School of Economics. He was interested in conflicts and wrote about the revolutions
of 1989. He was however unable to predict the fall of communist, just like the others. He
proves that any type of social organization produces at the end of the day inequalities in
power and authority.
Dahremdorf says that in order to make an organization function, we need decision makers.
They are the few very well chosen. The majority will abide to these decisions. Social
organizations can be anything from society/community to small companies. He says that there
will always be a conflict between the powerful and the powered.


Just by socializing the means of production, one cannot eliminate conflict.
Marx was highly interested not only in the big social and economic field, but also the conflicts
between unions and management, producers and consumers. Dahrendorf says that what these
conflicts to is to prevent violence from erupting. If we have controlled conflicts between
employer and employee or between different races, we make the society better.

Conflict forces society to change, which is good according to Dahrendorf. Mahrendorf
manages to put on paper the functionalist approach and the conflict theory approach, by
drawing a distinct line between them.
He says that:
1. Every society is a relatively persistent stable structure of elements.
2. Every society is an integrated structure of elements.
3. Every element in a society has a function which means that it brings its contribution to
the maintainance of the system.
4. Every social structure is based on a consensus of values among its members


Dahrendorf states that:
1. Every society is at every point subject to the processes of change. Change is present
everywhere.
2. Every society displays at every point descent and conflict. According to this view,
social conflict is universal.
3. Every element in a society renders a contribution to its disintegration and change.
4. Every society is based on the coercion of some members by others.

Theodore Roosevelt came up with a solution for the Great Depression with The New Deal.
This is an example of a conflict that led to a change.

Functionalism cannot explain social change, as the conflict theory is the one that does it.

Another type of approach to conflict that is related to the conflict theory is the trend that goes
into philosophic psychology: we have a conflict when we encounter a gap between what
people want and what people get. A variable in this theory is time, because people might end
up getting what they want, but too late.

The gap between the value capability and the value expectations; if to this gap we add
collective violence, if we add social status and if we also put another important actor which is
represented by the political parties, we get a revolution.


Revolution is the most extreme type of political conflict. The term revolution comes from
astronomy, as Copernicus wrote about revolving to the initial state (revolutio).


Revolutions start from the bottom and people who werent involved into politics will become
involved.


Reforms are more peaceful, cover a