Conflict theories are perspectives in social science which emphasize the social, political or material inequality of a social group, which critique the broad socio-political system, or which otherwise detract from structural functionalism and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies.
Certain conflict theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold parallels, conflict theory does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance, peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict.
In classical sociology
Of the classical founders of social science, conflict theory is most commonly associated with Karl Marx (1818-1883). Based on a dialectical materialist account history, Marxism posited that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions leading to its own destruction. Marx ushered in radical change, advocating proletarian revolution and freedom from the ruling classes.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
— Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels The Communist Manifesto 1848,
Two early conflict theorists were the Polish-Austrian sociologist and political theorist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909) and the American sociologist and paleontologist Lester F. Ward (1841-1913). Although Ward and Gumplowicz developed their theories independently they had much in common and approached conflict from a comprehensive anthropological and evolutionary point-of-view as opposed to Marx’s rather exclusive focus on economic factors.
Gumplowicz, in “Outlines of Sociology” (1884), describes how civilization has been shaped by conflict between cultures and ethnic groups. Gumplowicz theorized that large complex human societies evolved from the war and conquest. States become organized around the domination of one group by another: masters and slaves. Eventually a complex caste system develops. Horowitz says that Gumplowicz understood conflict in all it’s forms: “class conflict, race conflict and ethnic conflict”, and calls him one of the fathers of Conflict Theory.
What happened in India, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome may sometime happen in modern Europe. European civilization may perish, over flooded by barbaric tribes. But if any one believes that we are safe from such catastrophes he is perhaps yielding to an all too optimistic delusion. There are no barbaric tribes in our neighborhood to be sure — but let no one be deceived, their instincts lie latent in the populace of European states.
— Gumplowicz (1884),
Ward directly attacked and attempted to systematically refute the elite business class’s laissez faire philosophy as espoused by the hugely popular social philosopher Herbert Spencer. Ward’s “Dynamic Sociology” (1883) was an extended thesis on how to reduce conflict and competition in society and thus optimize human progress. At the most basic level Ward saw human nature itself to be deeply conflicted between self-aggrandizement and altruism, between emotion and intellect, and between male and female. These conflicts would be then reflected in society and Ward assumed there had been a “perpetual and vigorous struggle” among various “social forces” that shaped civilization. Ward was more optimistic than Marx and Gumplowicz and believed that it was possible to build on and reform present social structures with the help of sociological analysis.
Durkheim (1858-1917) saw society as a functioning organism. Functionalism concerns “the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system”, The chief form of social conflict that Durkheim addressed was crime. Durkheim saw crime as “a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies.” The collective conscience defines certain acts as “criminal.” Crime thus plays a role in the evolution of morality and law: “[it] implies not only that the way remains open to necessary changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes.”
Weber’s (1864-1920) approach to conflict is contrasted with that of Marx. While Marx focused on the way individual behavior is conditioned by social structure, Weber emphasized the importance of “social action,” i.e., the ability of individuals to affect their social relationships.
Modern approaches
C. Wright Mills has been called the founder of modern conflict theory. In Mills’s view, social structures are created through conflict between people with differing interests and resources. Individuals and resources, in turn, are influenced by these structures and by the “unequal distribution of power and resources in the society.” The power elite of American society, (i.e., the military-industrial complex) had “emerged from the fusion of the corporate elite, the Pentagon, and the executive branch of government.” Mills argued that the interests of this elite were opposed to those of the people. He theorized that the policies of the power elite would result in “increased escalation of conflict, production of weapons of mass destruction, and possibly the annihilation of the human race.”
Gene Sharp (born 21 January 1928) is a Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and Nobel Peace Prize nominee. He is known for his extensive writings on nonviolent struggle, which have influenced numerous anti-government resistance movements around the world. In 1983 he founded the Albert Einstein Institution, a non-profit organization devoted to studies and promotion of the use of nonviolent action in conflicts worldwide. Sharp’s key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state – regardless of its particular structural organization – ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects’ obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power. Sharp has been called both the “Machiavelli of nonviolence” and the “Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare.”Sharp’s scholarship has influenced resistance organizations around the world. Most recently the protest movement that toppled President Mubarak of Egypt drew extensively on his ideas, as well as the youth movement in Tunisia and the earlier ones in the Eastern European color revolutions that had previously been inspired by Sharp’s work.
A recent articulation of conflict theory is found in Alan Sears’ (Canadian sociologist) book A Good Book, in Theory: A Guide to Theoretical Thinking (2008):
- Societies are defined by inequality that produces conflict, rather than which produces order and consensus. This conflict based on inequality can only be overcome through a fundamental transformation of the existing relations in the society, and is productive of new social relations.
- The disadvantaged have structural interests that run counter to the status quo, which, once they are assumed, will lead to social change. Thus, they are viewed as agents of change rather than objects one should feel sympathy for.
- Human potential (e.g., capacity for creativity) is suppressed by conditions of exploitation and oppression, which are necessary in any society with an unequal division of labour. These and other qualities do not necessarily have to be stunted due to the requirements of the so-called “civilizing process,” or “functional necessity”: creativity is actually an engine for economic development and change.
- The role of theory is in realizing human potential and transforming society, rather than maintaining the power structure. The opposite aim of theory would be the objectivity and detachment associated with positivism, where theory is a neutral, explanatory tool.
- Consensus is a euphemism for ideology. Genuine consensus is not achieved, rather the more powerful in societies are able to impose their conceptions on others and have them accept their discourses. Consensus does not preserve social order, it entrenches stratification, e.g., the American dream.
- The State serves the particular interests of the most powerful while claiming to represent the interests of all. Representation of disadvantaged groups in State processes may cultivate the notion of full participation, but this is an illusion/ideology.
- Inequality on a global level is characterized by the purposeful underdevelopment of Third World countries, both during colonization and after national independence. The global system (i.e., development agencies such as World Bank and IMF) benefits the most powerful countries and multi-national corporations, rather than the subjects of development, through economic, political, and military actions.
Although Sears associates the conflict theory approach with Marxism, he argues that it is the foundation for much “feminist, post-modernist, anti-racist, and lesbian-gay liberationist theories.”