Introduction
Conflict is part of human existence. Theories expounded by scholars and theorists state that conflicts are the result of human needs not being met, or as a result of competition. When these needs are addressed to, conflicts lose significance. There are a number of theories discussed in this essay and most delve on the interconnectivity of society and the individual members.
Paramount is the study of Lewis Coser which states that conflicts have a positive effect on society. Historical events relate that social groups are strengthened by conflict. Conflict and social upheaval are common in history. Oppression characterizes historical events. If there was no conflict, it would have been very difficult to write history because history is filled with conflicts of tribes and peoples, kings and their dominions, and nation states against nation states.
People and organizations deal with conflict day in and day out. Human nature is complicated; it is filled with emotions and feelings which can be the cause of conflicts. In an organization, there are complexities, errors, and successes, because organizations are manned by humans. We are not governed by theories but we formulate these theories out of our experiences and continued socialization. In the course of time, these theories seem to rule over our behavior and activities.
In our socializing activities, we commit errors which are a part of our behavior in making judgments, interpretations, assumptions, and beliefs about our social world, the people within it, and our place in it.
This essay will try to delve on the many aspects of conflict, but most especially on the theories of conflict, and on the why and the how of conflicts encountered by man.
The Theories
Human Needs Theory – John Burton (1990)
The theory states that conflicts are caused by human needs that are not met. These needs can be psychological, social, economic, political, etc. The needs and problems of the people involved in conflicts have to be understood and addressed so that the issues that preoccupy the groups and people lose significance and therefore conflict can be resolved.
Another argument by Burton and Dukes (1990 as cited in Anyanwu, 2009, p. 58) states that satisfying human needs seems to be present in all conflicts although there are many kinds of conflicts.
Common to the Human Needs theory are self-actualization and self-determination. Human needs are strong motivating factors which influence the way people behave and act in society. (Webster, 2006, p. 84)
The theory also asserts that people have urges relative to the three needs which are the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need for power (Firth, 2002, p. 86; Kopelman et al., 2006, p. 233). The need theory is focused on the acquired needs that people learn in the process of acquiring new life experiences over their lifetime. (Armstrong, 1998)
Justice was a human need for people during the time of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Justice should have been addressed to for the African Americans who sensed injustice. When this was met after years of demonstrations and rebellion by the coloured population, conflict seemed to die down.
According to Abraham Maslow (1943), our needs are arranged like a pyramid or ladder.
The physiological needs can be found at the bottom of the pyramid. This includes food, water, oxygen and sex. As one set is met, the need moves up the ladder to the next. Belongingness and love needs come next which include the need for recognition, acceptance and approval of others. Self-esteem needs include how we value ourselves and our love and respect for ourselves and for others. We also have the desire to know and understand. (Firth, 2002, p. 85)
It is the motivations that people have for certain attitudes towards their work and their relations with their employers. Affiliation is the need that people try to satisfy in the work place. Organizations must provide their employees with favorable conditions for professional and personal development in the work place and encourage growth and career advancement.
Realistic-group-conflict Theory (The Robbers Cave Experiment) – The Sherifs (Carolyn and Musafer Sherif)
This theory involves conflicts between groups which can be nations, tribes, ethnic groups, etc. Competition between different groups is a continuous phenomenon. The causes that the groups compete for may range from power and prestige to wealth or property. There is heightened animosity toward each other.
Muzafer Sherif (1961, as cited in Goldstein, 1994, p. 98) and his research team conducted studies on the causes of intergroup competition. The research was known as the summer camp studies. They recruited 24 12-year-old boys who came from middle-class families. The boys were not informed of the experiment; instead they were told that it was just a summer camp. The Researchers planned the experiment to be in three stages including group formation, conflict between the groups, and reduction of the conflict.
The first stage involved transporting the boys into two separate groups and classifying them according to their psychological and physical characteristics, and separating those who were friends. Inside the camp, the two groups were separated from each other in two distant locations, avoiding possible contact with each other. Activities for the boys involved athletics, hiking, camping, swimming, and developing group structure.
Toward the end of the first week, the two groups realized that they were sharing the same facilities and were beginning to exhibit a different kind of behaviour against the rival group. The two groups were now aiming for competition. The Researchers staged the games of baseball, tug-of-war and other contests, increasing the tension among the boys, until it escalated into verbal insults and other hostilities.
Throughout the period, the attitudes of the two groups became more hostile but were cohesive towards their own team. More activities or experiments, disguised as games, were conducted by the Researchers, and each time the boys showed bias toward their own group.
When they were asked to indicate their best friends, they chose their co-members of the group when in reality their best friends before they were brought to the camp were those from the opposite group.
The experimenters created instances where the two groups could cooperate with each other and this was when they had to pool their money for a movie that they all wanted to see. Another was for all to help in rescuing the water truck when it got stuck. All other activities involved interdependency for the two groups. The result was that there was a reduction in hostility. (Goldstein, 1994, pp. 98-9)
Team development is designed to improve the effectiveness of team members with interdependent jobs, where effectiveness refers to managing problems and accomplishing group goals. The experiment proved that behaviour of groups could escalate conflict and how easily hostilities can form. The experimenters designed tasks wherein the two groups had no other recourse except to help each other.
Functionalism – Emily Durkheim and Talcott Parsons (1902-1979)
This is sometimes known as ‘the society perspective’ or the ‘social-system perspective’. The original work of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim links this theory to the existing system at the time, but it was provided further study by the American sociologist Talcott Parsons.
This theory was dominant in the United States during the period 1940s to the 1960s. It gained wide prominence but soon waned down although insights for this theory are linked to the existing social issues. According to this theory, human nature is irrational and self-centred. (Willis, 1996, p. 117)
Society has a great influence to the order of things and can prevent the escalation of conflict and war.
Willis (1996, p. 117) describes the tension between society and the individual members:
‘… the civilizing influence of society keeps irrationality in check, and individuals do not actively create social lives but are products of the external society. Individuals can be free and happy only within the confines set up by society.’
In this theory, society has a great influence on the individual members. It can be said that society comes first and the interest of the majority is ahead of the interest of the individual members.
The studies of Frederick Taylor are somehow linked to the society-individual interaction in the functionalism theory. He defined work in terms of the specified tasks designed for the workers to follow, and with no chance of freedom or judgment left on the part of the workers. There is no motivation during those early years of industrialization, which is the basis of Taylor’s theory. (Luecke & Hall, 2006, p. 18)
Another is that of the social scientist Douglas McGregor who formulated the Theory X and Theory Y approach to management. Managers who embrace Theory X have two motivational tools: the carrot and stick – greed and fear. Theory X sees the boss as prodding the employees, exerting too much control in the workplace. Theory Y assumes that when people are motivated, they accomplish goals. Workers become productive when they are motivated: to be a part of the team, or to be a part-owner of the organisation, and to be creative in their work. (Fournies, 1999, p. 34)
Social Conflict Theory – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
An important figure in conflict theory is Karl Marx whose work remains important to the understanding of how capitalist and modern society works. Marx’s ideas were revolutionary and a source of great change in a rapidly changing social order. It was known as a revolution within a revolution.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels focused their theory of the social conflict on the worker and the owner of production, and the so-called class struggle. They both popularized their theory at the height of the industrial revolution. During this time, there were two groups emerging in society – the moneyed class or the bourgeoisie and the workers or the proletariat. (Sociology Guide, 2010)
Karl Marx wrote that the worker was used for production, to make goods or commodities and profits. But as his production increased, his being and humanity were disregarded. He became poorer and also was transformed into a commodity, a cheap commodity.
As this commodity increased in value, he became devalued in the process. The worker worked for the goods which had more value than him. As the worker continued to struggle, society broke up into classes which were hostile to one another, and the creation of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. (Randall, 1964)
Marx’s focus on class struggles states that the worker has become ‘objectified’. He is made a tool to produce more goods or commodities, and the more he produces commodities, the more he is reduced or lowered. He becomes an instrument for profit; the capitalist rejoices over his job. The worker is reduced to the lowest serf, only being used for the advancement of money, capital, and more profits. (Marx and Engels Internet Archive, n.d.)
On the other hand, the powerful and the moneyed class impose their will on the proletariat purposely to preserve everything they have – their power, wealth and even their culture. But Marx says the workers can make themselves powerful if they unite. Marx’s theory is still applicable today. The rich and powerful use their money and power to impose their will upon the poverty-stricken majority, and to preserve their wealth.
In the modern world, society is always in a state of conflict because various groups or nation states keep on imposing their will on other groups or states. The powers that be impose their will on the majority, purposely to preserve their wealth and power. (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, pp. 164-5)
Nevertheless, conflict can offer a positive experience. This was explained by Lewis Coser (cited in Melchin & Picard, p. 29) who linked his arguments to the works of Hegel and Marx.
Coser was interested in the change that society was undergoing and how conflict affected the change. He had broader ideas on social health; he explained that conflict had a lot to do with social change and indeed it had a positive effect on society, i.e. social groups were strengthened by conflict.
Conflict balanced the equilibrium. Hegel and Marx developed the theories on conflict as it affects society. Conflict and upheaval are common in history and they are not destructive but the source of strength or vitality. The positive thing about conflict is that history is not all about harmony but about oppression and the forces and activities to counter oppression. (Melchin & Picard, 2008, pp. 29-30)
Social Darwinism – Charles Darwin
It is said that when psychology was still at its early stage, three theorists dominated the scene of debates and discussion – Darwin, Marx, and Freud. These three intelligent personalities influenced the thinking and writings of the early social psychologists.
Darwin popularized the concept of “survival of the fittest”: that living things and everything in nature is at war, organisms fight against each other or against the rest of nature and the strongest can survive. (Deutsch, 2006, p. 13)
Darwin’s theory focuses on the evolution of the species but the term evolution itself connotes conflict: there is a continuing conflict in living organisms that it seems evolution is all about conflict.
Social Darwinism, on the other hand, is more of a vulgarization of the original theory of Darwin’s because it provided reason for other terms to evolve, such as racism, sexism, superiority of another group or class, and conflicts. The ideas of “survival of the fittest” and those of evolution are now misapplied to social groups which explain the vulgarization part. (Deutsch, 2006, p. 14)
Imperialism has been rationalized with this concept. The powerful continue to oppress the less fortunate, or perhaps the working class. But Marx says that the working class can always unite and become powerful. This is the reason why he formulated the concept of communism – to help the class struggle of the working class.
Social Darwinism started to emerge in the mid 1920s. But it declined during the popularity of the concepts of Marx’s class struggle. From the waning of the concept of Social Darwinism, emerged the phenomena of war and inter-group hostility.
Postmodern Social Theory – George Ritzer and Douglas Goodman
The heart of the modern theory is the belief that society can become a better group of people through a revelation of the hidden processes of the past. According to this theory society is a product of past events which can be said as historical accidents and not intentioned activities by personalities or heroes. This theory has two approaches, the modern and the postmodern. (Turner, 2006, p. 151)
Postmodern focuses on contingency, for instance, scepticism or rejection of universality; rhetoric and a focus on what is irrational. These are emphasized so that it can lead to something which is the contrary, or to lead to some alternatives, and not the usual or traditional methods.
Game Theory and Economic Behavior – Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944, as cited in Deutsch, 2006, p. 16)
The Game Theory, as explained by von Neumann and Morgenstern, emphasized on the interdependence of interests of the opposing parties. The theory also formulated mathematical solutions to conflicts through the zero-sum games, but it also emphasized that cooperative and competitive interests are interwoven in conflict.
Deutsch (2006) states that conflicts were a mix of cooperative and competitive processes. The cooperative factors were opposed to the common idea at that time that conflicts were purely competitive struggle.
Symbolic Interactionism – Sheldon Stryker
Symbolic Interactionism is important in sociology as it connotes functions and roles of individuals in society. The theory was developed in the 18th to mid-20th century and its emphasis is on the role theory. This is somehow linked to Functionalism as individual roles are linked to society. (Stryker, 2006, p. 211)
Individual members of society have particular roles or functions and if something goes wrong, conflict occurs and can be interpreted as poor role performance. Stryker (2006, p. 211) correlates the traditional symbolic interactionism to the role theory where everyone in society has a filling role to play, for instance as child, parent, teacher, politician, etc.
Functionalism and symbolic interactionism have synonymous meanings.
Conclusion
Conflict theories link society and individual members. As stated in the introduction, conflict is a part of human existence, and history could not have been written without conflicts. There are conflicts within us or inside us, our relations and interactions with others and the society as a whole, and, above all, war or conflicts between nation states, ethnic or tribal wars, etc.
Conflict is a human phenomenon. This is how we are made – our innate personality and, to speak religiously, the seeming ‘restlessness’ of the human soul. Conflict begins inside us because of our unique personalities. It springs to our early relationship with family members, the basic unit of society, then onto society.
But conflict is not at all ‘bad’ for us and our interaction with society. Since conflict and social upheaval are a part of history, history could not have been written without conflict. Our conclusion goes back to Lewis Coser (in the introduction) who states that conflicts have a positive effect on society. Laws and policies of groups, tribes, nation states and governments have been written and imposed because of conflicts – and to avoid conflicts.
. Functions and roles of individuals in society are emphasized in some theoretical perspective, for example in functionalism. We are linked to the community where we assume different roles. At home or at school, in the office or organization, we play different roles. Some are children, others are parents, some play the role of teachers, supervisors, employers or managers. Conflict occurs if we don’t play our roles accordingly.
Conflicts help individuals find solutions. Managers realize the importance of conflict and competition; it helps them find ways to improve their business, although in a larger sense they tend to avoid conflict and competition.
When the level of conflict is too low, which means the people in an organization tend to avoid conflict – they are content with how things are going on and how they appear to be. This should not be so because conflicts lead people to finding new ways and be creative.
References
Anyanwu, C. N. (2009). Creative strategies for conflict management & community building. Indiana, U.S.A.: Authorhouse. P. 58.
Armstrong, M. (1998). Managing people: a practical guide for line managers. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Deutsch, M. (2006). Introduction. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.). The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice, second edition. San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 1-4.
Firth, D. (2002). Life and work express. United Kingdom: Capstone Publishing. pp. 85-6.
Fournies, F. (1999). Coaching for improved work performance. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 34.
Goldstein, A. P. (1994). The ecology of aggression. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 97-9.
Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., Thompson, C. A., & Jahn, E. W. (2006). A Multilevel Examination of Work-Life Practices: Is More Always Better? Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), p. 233.
Luecke, R. & Hall, B. (2006). Performance management: measure and improve the effectiveness of your employees. United States of America: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. p. 18.
Marx and Engels Internet Archive (n.d.). Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx: Estranged Labour XXII. Web.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. In G. Goble, The third force: the psychology of Abraham Maslow, pp. 233-6. USA: Zorba Press.
Melchin, K. R. & Picard, C. (2008). Transforming conflict through insight. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. pp. 29-30.
Randall, F. B. (1964). The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Siegel, L. J. & Welsh, B. C. (2009). Juvenile delinquency: theory, practice and law. Belmont, California: Cengage Learning. pp. 164-5.
Sociology Guide (2010). Conflict theories. Web.
Stryker, S. (2006). Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory, and structural symbolic interactionism: the road to identity theory. In: J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory, p. 211. United States of America: Springer.
Turner, J. H. (2006). Handbook of sociological theory. United States of America: Springer. p. 151.
Webster, R. E. (2006). CLEP introduction to educational psychology. New Jersey, United States of America: Research & Education Association. p. 84.
Willis, E. (1996). The sociological quest: an introduction to the study of social life. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. p. 117.