EVALUATE THE CONFLICT THEORIES OF KARL MARX, SIMMEL, DAHRENDOLF AND

LEWIS COSER: ACCESS WHICH THEORY POSITION IS THE BEST IN TERMS OF

ADEWUACY EXPLAINING CONTEMPORARY ISSUES AN ASSIGNMENT

WRITTEN BY

EKPEMA KINGSLEY

15/LA/1958

FACULTY OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF UYO, UYO

SUBMITTED TO

DR. S.A UKOMMI

COURSE LECTURER

SOC 421: CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF UYO, UYO

1
 SEPTEMBER, 2019

An examination of Karl Marx's and Georg Simmel's theories of conflict is undertaken with an eye

to- ward assessing what they offer contemporary theorizing. The contrasting purposes,

metaphysical assumptions, conceptualizations of variables, and propositions of Marx and

Simmel are presented and compared. While there is some overlap in their formulations, the

complementary differences in their schemes provide the broadest foundation for the sociology

of conflict.

2
INTRODUCTION

The conflict theory, suggested by Karl Marx, claims society is in a state of perpetual conflict

because of competition for limited resources. It holds that social order is maintained by

domination and power, rather than consensus and conformity. According to conflict theory,

those with wealth and power try to hold on to it by any means possible, chiefly by suppressing

the poor and powerless. A basic premise of conflict theory is that individuals and groups within

society will work to maximize their own benefits

The history of conflict theory can be traced back to thinkers such as Machiavelli or Thomas

Hobbes, both of whom viewed humanity cynically. In its current form, conflict theory attempts

to refute the functionalist approach, which considers that societies and organizations function

so that each individual and group plays a specific role, like organs in the body. There are radical

basic assumptions (society is eternally in conflict, which might explain social change), or

moderate ones (custom and conflict are always mixed). The moderate version allows for

functionalism to operate as an equally acceptable theory since it would accept that even

negative social institutions play a part in society's self-perpetuation.

The essence of conflict theory is best epitomized by the classic "pyramid structure" in which an

elite dictates terms to the larger masses. All major social structures, laws, and traditions in the

society are designed to support those who have traditionally been in power, or the groups that

3
are perceived to be superior in the society according to this theory. Conflict theorists would

argue that all groups in society are born from conflict. An example might be that of labor

unions, which are developed to fight for the interests of workers, whereas trade organizations

are made to fight for the interests of the moneyed classes. This theory of groups is opposed to

functionalism in which each of these groups would play a specific, set role in society. In

functionalism, these groups cooperate to benefit society whereas in conflict theory the groups

are in opposition to one another as they seek to better their masters.

"It is in the interests of those who have wealth to keep and extend what they own, whereas it is

in the interests of those who have little or no wealth to try to improve their lot in life."[1] This

can also be expanded to include any society's morality, and by extension their definition of

deviance. Anything that challenges the control of the elite will likely be considered "deviant" or

"morally reprehensible." The theory can be applied on both the macro level (like the U.S.

government or Soviet Russia, historically) or the micro level (a church organization or school

club). In summary, conflict theory seeks to catalog the ways in which those in power seek to stay

in power.

UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT THEORY

Conflict theory states that tensions and conflicts arise when resources, status, and power are

unevenly distributed between groups in society and that these conflicts become the engine for

social change. In this context, power can be understood as control of material resources and

accumulated wealth, control of politics and the institutions that make up society, and one's

4
social status relative to others (determined not just by class but by race, gender, sexuality,

culture, and religion, among other things).

KARL MARX AND THE CONFLICT THEORY

"A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies

all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and

the little house shrinks to a hut." Wage Labour and Capital (1847)

MARX'S CONFLICT THEORY

Conflict theory originated in the work of Karl Marx, who focused on the causes and

consequences of class conflict between the bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production

and the capitalists) and the proletariat (the working class and the poor). Focusing on the

economic, social, and political implications of the rise of capitalism in Europe, Marx theorized

that this system, premised on the existence of a powerful minority class (the bourgeoisie) and

an oppressed majority class (the proletariat), created class conflict because the interests of the

two were at odds, and resources were unjustly distributed among them.

Within this system an unequal social order was maintained through ideological coercion which

created consensus--and acceptance of the values, expectations, and conditions as determined

by the bourgeoisie. Marx theorized that the work of producing consensus was done in the

"superstructure" of society, which is composed of social institutions, political structures, and

5
culture, and what it produced consensus for was the "base," the economic relations of

production.

Marx reasoned that as the socio-economic conditions worsened for the proletariat, they would

develop a class consciousness that revealed their exploitation at the hands of the wealthy

capitalist class of bourgeoisie, and then they would revolt, demanding changes to smooth the

conflict. According to Marx, if the changes made to appease conflict maintained a capitalist

system, then the cycle of conflict would repeat. However, if the changes made created a new

system, like socialism, then peace and stability would be achieved.

LEWIS COSER AND THE CONFLICT THEORY

Coser argues that conflict is instinctual for us, so we find it everywhere in humansociety. There

is the conflict of war, but there is also the conflict that we find in ourdaily lives and relationships.

But Coser also argues that conflict is different for humans than for other animals in that our

conflicts can be goal related. There is generally something that we are trying to achieve through

conflict, and there aredifferent possible ways of reaching our goal. The existence of the

possibility of different paths opens up opportunities for negotiation and different types and

levelsof conflict. Because Coser sees conflict as a normal and functional part of human.

Coser makes the case for two kinds of functional consequences of conflict: conflict that occurs

within a group and conflict that occurs outside the group. An example of internal conflict is the

tension that can exist between indigenous populations or first nations and the national

6
government. Notice that this internal conflict is actually between or among groups that function

within the same social system.Examples of external group conflicts are the wars in which a

nation may involve itself. When considering the consequences for internal group conflict, Coser

is concerned with low-level and more frequent conflict. When explaining the consequences for

external conflict, he is thinking about more violent conflict. life, he can talk about its variation in

ways that others missed, such as the level of violence and functional consequences.

Summary of Cosers Conflict Theory

• Contrary to the claims of most previous theorists, Coser argues that conflict can have

integrating as well as disintegrating effects. Conflict functions differently whether it is between

unrelated groups (external) or inside a group, between factions (internal).

• For internal conflict, the question of functionality hinges on the conflict being less violent and

more frequent, not threatening the basic assumptions of the

group at large, and the group having low interactional network density. Under these conditions,

internal conflict will produce the following functional consequences: conflicts will serve to

release pent-up hostilities, create norms regulating conflict, and develop clear lines of authority

and jurisdiction (especially around the issues that conflict develops).

• External conflict that is more violent will tend to have the following functional consequences:

stronger group boundaries, higher social solidarity, and more efficient use of power and

authority. Conflict violence will tend to increase in the presence of high levels of emotional

involvement and transcendent goals.

7
DAHRENDOF AND THE CONFLICT THEORY

We move now to Ralf Dahrendorf’s theory of power and dialectical change. Like Coser,

Dahrendorf sees conflict as universally present in all human relations. But Dahrendorf doesn’t

see the inevitability of conflict as part of human nature; he sees it, rather, as a normal part of

how we structure society and create social order. In this sense, Dahrendorf is concerned with

the same issue as Talcott Parsons: How is social order achieved? However, rather than assuming

collective agreement about norms, values, and social positions, as Parsons does, Dahrendorf

argues that it is power that both defines and enforces the guiding principles of society.

Dahrendorf also follows Coser in talking about the level of violence and its effects, but

Dahrendorf adds a further variable: conflict intensity

Summary of Dahrendof Conflict Theory

• Dahrendorf argues that underlying all social order are imperatively coordinated associations

(ICA). ICAs are organizational groups based on differential power relations. These ICAs set up

latent power interests between those who hav it and those who don’t. These interests will tend

to become manifest when a group meets the technical, political, and social conditions of group

organization. Conflict generated between interest groups varies by intensity and violence.

• The intensity of conflict is a negative function of group organization and social mobility, and a

positive function of association among the scarce resources within a society. The more intense

conflicts are, the more profound are the structural changes.

8
• The violence of conflict is a negative function of the conditions of group organization and

already existing legitimate ways of resolving conflict, and a positive function of relative

deprivation. The more violent is the conflict, the quicker structural change occurs.

• Social change involves shifts in the personnel of ICAs. The new personnel impose their own

hierarchy of status positions, roles, norms, and values, which sets up another grouping of ICAs

and latent power interests.

GOERG SIMMEL AND THE CONFLICT THEORY

It is the argument of Simmel that conflict has sociological significance, inasmuch as it either

produces or modifies communities of interest, unifications, organizations, is in principle never

contested. On the other hand, it must appear paradoxical to the ordinary mode of thinking to

ask whether conflict itself, without reference to its consequences or its accompaniments, is not

a form of socialization. This seems, at first glance, to be merely a verbal question. If every

reaction among men is a socialization, of course conflict must count as such, since it is one of

the most intense reactions, and is logically impossible if restricted to a single element. The

actually dissociating elements are the causes of the conflict —hatred and envy, want and desire.

If, however, from these impulses conflict has once broken out, it is in reality the way to remove

the dualism and to arrive at some form of unity, even if through annihilation of one of the

parties. The case is, in a way, illustrated by the most violent symptoms of disease. They

frequently represent the efforts of the organism to free itself from disorders and injuries.

This is by no means equivalent merely to the triviality, si vis pacem pares bellum, but it is the

wide generalization of which that special case is a particular. Conflict itself is the resolution of

9
the tension between the contraries. That it eventuates in peace is only a single, specially

obvious and evident, expression of the fact that it is a conjunction of elements, an opposition,

which belongs with the combination under one higher conception, "This conception is

characterized by the common contrast between both forms of relationship and the mere

reciprocal indifference between elements. Repudiation and dissolution of social relation are also

negatives, but conflict shows itself to be the positive factor in this very contrast with them; viz.,

shows negative factors in a unity which, in idea only, not at all in reality, is disjunctive. It is (491)

practically more correct to say, however, that every historically actual unification contains, along

with the factors that are unifying in the narrower sense, others which primarily make against

unity.

As the individual achieves the unity of his personality not in such fashion that its contents

invariably harmonize according to logical or material, religious or ethical, standards, but rather

as contradiction and strife not merely precede that unity, but are operative in it at every

moment of life; so it is hardly to be expected that there should be any social unity in which the

converging tendencies of the elements are not incessantly shot through with elements of

divergence. A group which was entirely centripetal and harmonious—that is, "unification"

merely—is not only impossible empirically, but it would also display no essential life-process

and no stable structure. As the cosmos requires "Liebe and Hass," attraction and repulsion, in

order to have a form, society likewise requires some quantitative relation of harmony and

disharmony, association and dissociation, liking and disliking, in order to attain to a definite

formation. Moreover, these enmities are by no means mere sociological passivities, negative

factors, in the sense that actual society comes into existence only through the working of the

10
other and positive social forces, and this, too, only in so far as the negative forces are powerless

to hinder the process. This ordinary conception is entirely superficial. Society, as it is given in

fact, is the result of both categories of reactions, and in so far both act in a completely positive

way.

KARL MAX CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE AS THE MOST SUITABLE

The extent to which the propositions of both Marx and Simmel underlie many current at-

tempts at building conflict theory becomes most evident when they are stated abstractly and

thereby divorced from either their polemic or discursive context. While much of the sub-

stantive flavor of each author's discussion is lost in such an exercise, the theoretical signifi-

cance of their more abstract ideas for a soci- ology of conflict can be made more explicit. For the

Marxian scheme in particular, I think it advisable to abstract above Marx's polemics and pull out

only the most basic propositions. While this approach may offend Marxian scholars, it is

necessary to supplement their exhaustive and fascinating scholarship with a more succinct

summary of Marx's con- tribution to the theory-as opposed to philos- ophy and polemics-of

conflict. Thus, the first basic proposition in his scheme can be briefly stated as follows:

1. The more unequal the distribution of scarce resources in a system, the greater will be the

conflict of interest between dominant and subordinate segments in a system.

2. The more subordinate segments become aware of their true collective interests, the more

likely they are to question the legiti- mnacy of the unequal distribution of scarce resources.

11
In these basic propositions, Marx indicated that the more dominant groups disrupt the existing

relations of subordinates, thereby breaking down the very patterns of social organization which

have limited the vision of subordinates, the more likely are subordinates to perceive objectively

their actual situation and alternatives to their continued subordina- tion. For as long as social

relations remain stable, it is difficult for subordinates to see beyond the immediate exigencies of

their existence. Disruption of life situations is likely to lead to increased awareness, especially

when the activities of subordinates are highly alienat- ing, allowing little emotional involvement

and satisfaction. However, disruptive change in, and alienation from, current social relations are

insufficient to cause widespread awareness.

CONCLUSION

It's is evident from the foregoing discourse that though the conflict theories of the sociologists

discussed above are similar in so many respects, they have marked difference which are

obviously inherent in the body of the work. It is also axiomatic and not up for debate that the

conflict theory of Karl Marx is the most appropriate and suitable in tackling modern societal

problems, not because the entire concept of conflict theory evolved from his sociology but

because of the major contributions to the conflict theory ( this contributions are stated in this

work) and their effectiveness in the resolution of societal conflict. The present writer, judging

from the contributions of Karl Marx to the conflict theory nay his contributions to sociology,

submits that the conflict theory of Karl Marx serves our present needs.

12
REFERENCES

Coser LA (1956) The Functions of Social Conflict.London: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Dahrendorf R (1959) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Della Porta D, Diani M (1999) Social Movements: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Deutsch M, Coleman PT, and Marcus EC (eds) (2000) Handbook of Conflict Resolution. San

Francisco:

13
Jossey-Bass.Frazer N, Honneth A (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical

Exchange.

and Paris: Verso. Gambetta D (2009) How Criminals Communicate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Gouldner AW (1970) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.

Habermas J (2003) L’Ethique de la discussion et la question de la vérité. Paris: Grasset.

(Transcription and translation of a public debate and lectures given in Paris, February, 2001.)

Horowitz D (1985) Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jankowsky MS (1991) Islands in the Street. Berkeley: University of California Press.

14