COHESION AND CONFLICT

Introduction
One of the most striking characteristics of human beings is the diversities. Different ways of
being, thinking and existing, different needs, world views, ethical positions mark the
relationships between people. In this sense, interpersonal conflicts are understood as tension that
involves different interests or positions, are inherent to human relationships and are present in
various social organizations, among them, the school. The school as microcosms of society bring
together different views of the world, different ways of being, thinking and living, thus becoming
a space for representing social differences and being a place where different conflicts occur
daily. This study, therefore addresses the meaning of conflict and cohesion, reciprocity as a basis
of social conflict, class cohesion and conflict in the school.

CONFLICT
A conflict is a struggle and a clash of interest, opinion or principles. Conflict according to
Michael Nicholson is an activity which takes place when conscious beings (individuals or
groups) wish to carry out mutually inconsistent acts concerning their wants, needs or obligations.
It is an escalation of disagreement, which is its common prerequisite, and is characterized by the
existence of conflict behaviour, in which the beings are actively trying to damage one another
(Nicholson, 1992).
Conflict is a phenomenon of incompatibility between individuals or groups with irreconcilable
ends and/or values between them, considering it a social process (Jares, 2002). For this author,
four elements are present and must be addressed in all conflicts: the causes that give rise to it; the
conflict protagonists; the process and the way the protagonists face the conflict; and the context
in which it occurs. Chrispino (Chrispino, 2007) understands conflict as to any divergent opinion
or a different way of seeing or interpreting an event, that is, the conflict originates in the
difference of interest, desires, aspirations, or positions between individuals.

TYPES OF CONFLICT
In cases of intragroup conflict, there is a conflict between the overall goals of the general group,
and the goals of at least one person in the group (Sidorenkov, Borokhovski, Kovalenko, 2018).
The disagreements may also be examples of interpersonal conflict, a conflict between two or
more people. More specific types of conflict include;
1. Content conflict: this occurs when individuals disagree about how to deal with a certain
issue.
2. Relationship conflict: this occurs when individuals disagree about one another. This
relational conflict decreases performance, loyalty, satisfaction and commitment.
3. Process conflict: this refers to disagreement over the group’s approach to the task, its
method and its group process.
4. Cultural conflict: This is a type of conflict that occurs when the different cultural values
and beliefs clash among group members.

COHESION
The term cohesion is derived from the French word ‘cohésion’, in physics, cohesion means “the
force that unites the molecules of a liquid or of a solid”. Thereby, group cohesion can be defined
as task commitment and interpersonal attraction to the group. (Beal, Cohen, Burke, and
McLendon (2003; Carron, and Brawley, (2000). Cohesion can be more specifically defined as
the tendency for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal to satisfy the emotional
needs of its members (Carron and Brawley, 2000). This definition includes important aspects of
cohesiveness, including its multidimensionality, dynamic nature, instrumental basis, and
emotional dimension.
Its multidimensionality refers to how cohesion is based on many factors; its dynamic nature
refers to how it gradually changes over time in its strength and form from the time a group is
formed to when a group is disbanded. Its instrumental basis refers to how people cohere for some
purpose, whether it be for a task or social reasons. Its emotional dimension refers to how
cohesion is pleasing to its group members.
Components of Cohesion
The bonds between group members do not develop spontaneously, they develop from a number
of components such as attraction, coordination, sense of belonging and shared emotions. The
components can be known as antecedents of cohesion (Forsyth, (2009).
1. Attraction: Social attraction is a liking for other group members based on their status as
typical group members. Attraction is a basic ingredient for most groups, however, wehn
interpersonal relations between group members intensify, it can transform a conjoined
group into a cohesive one.
2. Sense of belonging: In a cohesive group, individuals tend to fuse together to form a
whole. Non-members who encounter a group will be convinced that it is a tightly bonded
group. group members express their sense of belonging to the group by being loyal to the
group, identifying with the group and classifying themselves as members. They would
also describe their unity by using terms such as family, us, community, team, etc.
3. Coordination: Cohesion is more about the willingness to work together to accomplish a
set of goals than the interpersonal relationships between group members.
4. Share emotions: One of the most obvious features of a cohesive group is a shared positive
emotion. Emotional cohesion is a multilevel proves as emotions can be collective. This is
possible when all the members of a group experience the same emotional reaction.

RECIPROCITY AS A BASIS OF SOCIAL CONFLICT

Reciprocity is a social norm of responding to a positive action with another positive action,
rewarding kind actions. (Fehr and Gachter, 2000). It is a process of exchanging things with other
people to gain a mutual benefit. The norm of reciprocity (sometimes referred to as the rule of
reciprocity) is a social norm where if someone does something for you, you then feel obligated to
return the favour. e.g. when a neighbour brings over a plate of food to welcome you to the
neighbourhood, one may feel obligated to return the favour.
Reciprocity makes it possible to build continuing relationships and exchanges. Reciprocal
actions differ from altruistic actions in that reciprocal actions only follow from others’ initial
actions, while altruism is the unconditional act of social gift-giving without any hope or
expectation of future positive responses.
Types of Reciprocity
Generalized reciprocity: This form often involves exchanges within families or friends. There
is no expectation of a returned favour; instead, people simply do something for another person
based on the assumption that the other person would do the same thing for them. This type of
reciprocity is related to altruism.
Balanced reciprocity: This type involves a calculation of the value of the exchange and an
expectation that the favour will be returned within a specified time frame. For example, someone
might exchange something they have, whether it is a skill or tangible item, for something of
perceived equal value.
Negative reciprocity: This form of reciprocity happens when one party involved in the exchange
is trying to get more than the other person. Selling a much-needed item at an inflated price is one
example of negative reciprocity.

The power of reciprocity

Reciprocity is not only a strong determining factor of human behaviou; it is a powerful method
for gaining one’s compliance with a request. The rule of reciprocity has the power to trigger
feelings of indebtedness even when facted with an uninvited favour (Paese and Gilin, 2000) and
irrespective of liking the person who executed the favour.
Reciprocity has a few obvious benefits. For instance, taking care of others helps the survival of
the species (Molm, 2010). Reciprocity allows people to get things done that they would not be
able to do on their own. By working together or exchanging services, people can accomplish
more than they would individually.
Politics is another area where the power of reciprocity is evident. While politicians often claim
autonomy from the feelings of obligation associated with gifts and favors that influence everyone
else, they are also susceptible. In the 2002 election, U.S. Congress Representatives who received
the most money from special interest groups were over seven times more likely to vote in favor
of the group that had contributed the most money to their campaigns. Fehr and Gächter (2000)
showed that, when acting within reciprocal frameworks, individuals are more likely to deviate
from purely self-interested behavior than when acting in other social contexts. Magnanimity is
often repaid with disproportionate amounts of kindness and cooperation, and treachery with
disproportionate amounts of hostility and vengeance, which can significantly surpass amounts
determined or predicted by conventional economic models of rational self-interest. Moreover,
reciprocal tendencies are frequently observed in situations wherein transaction costs associated
with specific reciprocal actions are high and present or future material rewards are not expected.
Whether self-interested or reciprocal action dominates the aggregate outcome is particularly
dependent on context; in markets or market-like scenarios characterized by competitiveness and
incomplete contracts, reciprocity tends to win out over self-interest (Fehr an Gachter, 2000).

THE FUNCTIONS OF CONFLICT IN THE CONTEXT OF SCHOOLING

Reflective people are often dismayed that the leaders of opposing factions profess the desire for
peace, even as they wage war. Union and school board leaders express severe misgivings about
closing down the schools as they wrangle themselves, inevitably, it seems, into a strike. To the
uninformed eye, this looks like blatant hypocrisy. It is not. Public expressions of desire are not
merely a method of disseminating information. "I sincerely wish to put an end to this conflict" is
not meant to inform the public about some leader's state of mind. Rather, it is a move in a
negotiation process that may well result in peace. But there is a hidden proviso. What "I
sincerely wish to put an end to this conflict" has to be understood as saying is "I sincerely wish
to put an end to this conflict provided that the costs of ending it do not outweigh its benefits."
Wars could be avoided if one side would agree to accept the aggression of the other. School
strikes could be avoided if teachers would uncomplainingly accept lowered salaries, staff cut-
backs, increased class sizes and arbitrary administrative decisions. But wise negotiators
understand that every unresisted encroachment on the prerogatives of a group invites additional
ones. Conflict cannot be avoided by capitulation renamed "cooperation."

Sociologist Charles H. Cooley (Social Process New York: Scribner's Sons, 1918 p.39. Quoted in
Coser p.18) comments, The more one thinks of it, the more he will see that conflict and co-
operation are not separable things, but phases of one process which always involves something
of both. If a person sees the school in the image of a moral community, a Temple, conflict seems
to be an indication of something wrong. Similarly, the image of the school as Factory tolerates
little conflict. But this is primarily because under both images, the school is seen as monocratic,
ruled by a single person, or group of people. Consequently, it is the perceptions of the
powerholders that become the norm for the entire organization. The principal as moral leader
speaks for the school. How subversive, how immoral, to suggest his interests might be narrower
than those of the entire community! As director of production in the school factory, the principal
looks at conflict as "inefficient", impeding production. Again, to suggest that he might favor
personal goals is to attack his competence or sincerity! So it is that our fixation with either image
of the school blinds us to the way conflict serves to maintain and enhance groups.

1. Connection. Conflict makes connection. It is a basic form of exchange and interaction. It

is a negotiation. Nine-year old boys and girls, teachers complain, seldom interact except
when they quarrel or fight. The people who everyone describes as "not getting along" are
doing just that, but in a way that is often considered socially undesirable. No one has to
fight. They can just walk away. But what do they lose if they do? Conflict provides a
basic way of asserting one's relationship with another person. Among groups conflict
maintains a form of negotiation. Within groups it does so, by releasing tensions among
members that might harm the group. One of the hallmarks of professional conduct is that
persons who do not like one another personally can nonetheless work together.
2. Definition. Conflict among groups sharpens their exterior boundaries. It heightens the
sense of "us" versus "them." Within groups conflict focuses the differences between
ranks and social levels. The teacher demonstrates his or her rank and authority in the
process of ordering students what to do.
3. Reconnaissance. information gathering, reconnaissance, is a function of conflict. Small-
scale conflicts often determine whether large-scale conflicts are worth the trouble. New
teachers face "testing" by their students to see how serious the teachers are about school
 rules and procedures.. Students will deliberately break small rules to see how safe it
would be to break bigger ones. Among groups conflict serves this information-gathering
purpose. Within groups reconnaissance often serves to determine whether some members
will accommodate or reject a deviant member. Kids who are seen as "different" often
become "troublemakers" in the eyes of adults. This reputation gives them leverage in
their personal negotiations with "normal" kids.
4. Replication. Groups that are potential adversaries often reflect (replicate) each other's
complexity. Among groups, conflict causes replication. One does not find, for example,
teachers in a large school district represented by several small unions. Rather, one large,
complexly organized union serves the function. Since conflict among groups serves to
revitalize mores and traditions, we can expect to observe a greater conformity in the
behavior within the group. Each person replicates, in some way, the next. In many
schools, the big Thanksgiving day game is preceded by a "school spirit week" during
which students and staff are expected to wear school colors. Also, many schools promote
contests among classes over attendance and grades with the intention that group pressure
will bring individual students within a class to perform up to the level of the group.

CONFLICT IN THE CLASSROOM

The school builds a social interface favorable to involvement, where conflicts proliferate in the
educational process complexity, being common and daily in classes. Thus, in the classroom
different types of conflict occur, being a challenge for most teachers to know how to face,
manage and resolve these conflicts (Perez-de-Guzman, Vargas and Amador, 2011).
Teachers often perceive conflicts as indiscipline, violence, disrespect, and like all situations
threatening his authority, and inexperienced and experienced teachers emphasize the teacher-
student conflict as a frequent situation in difficult classes. In this context, Silva and Flores (Silva
and Flores, 2014) refer to the negative effect that these situations have on attainment and student
motivation, so it is urgent to find solutions to avoid or mitigate such effects.
Given the increase in the classroom conflicts, multiple causes, which include a combination of
external and internal factors in the school environment, are indicated, such as the increase in
compulsory education, the increase in students per class, the progressive decline in the teacher’s
authority about students, and students are less likely to comply with rules and limits, which
results in conflict (Ibarra, 2002). The increase in the year of schooling also leads to greater
difficulties in living and learning in the classroom, and older age student’s groups consider
themselves inserted in an educational system that sometimes does not respond to their needs and
some of them consider not be essential to your life. So, the increase in compulsory education
leads to a greater number of dissatisfied, unmotivated, and undisciplined students. Likewise, the
increase in students per class, without increasing the facilities or associated conditions,
negatively affects the psychological environment in overcrowded classrooms, with a lack of
space for practical and collaborative activities. In turn, the progressive decline in teacher
authority in relation to students and students are less likely to comply with certain rules and
limits, results in conflicts in the classroom.
There are many and diverse classroom conflict situations that disturb the class dynamics. And in
situations where the conflict remains latent, the result of the diversity of class interests, if the
teacher does not create a good environment, acting positively about communication, the use of
legitimate authority, and the conflict management, he will see conflicts increase exponentially
within the classes (Valente and Lourenco, 2020). Thus, regardless of the classroom conflicts
type, if they are not managed, they accumulate, which makes them more cohesive and
complicated, triggering negative feelings in those involved, and negatively affecting the
educational quality (Valente and Lourenco, 2020).

School conflicts management

The school is a space for socialization par excellence and, precisely, due to the variety of styles,
cultures, and values, it becomes an environment rich in conflicts. Conflict, commonly seen as
something negative, destructive, and generating violence, is, in fact, extremely necessary for
individual evolution. It should be noted that the conflict itself does not generate violence; this
comes when there is a lack of peaceful solutions to conflict resolution, when there is no conflict
constructive management.
Among the conflict management methodologies used in the school, the following stand out:
arbitration, conciliation, negotiation, and mediation. School arbitration is a dialog process that
takes place between the involved in the conflict with the presence of a third party that determines
the conflict resolution based on the benefits of the parties with their authority and knowledge
(37). The school conciliation is a dialog process carried out between the involved in the conflict,
with the support of a conciliator, who helps them decide, based on their interests and needs. This
may present proposals for solutions that the parties can accept or not. The decision-making
power belongs to the parties, even if the solution comes from the conciliator (Munne, 2006). In
turn, the school negotiation is a dialog process focused on conflict resolution between the
involved in the conflict, which either meet face to face to work together unassisted to conflict
resolution. Negotiation is one of the most used conflict management mechanisms in the
classroom. The school mediation, this is a dialog process carried out between the parties in
conflict, assisted by a third party, the mediator, who should not influence the conflict resolution,
acting as a communication facilitator. Inserted in a socio-constructivist paradigm, it is considered
not only as of the most current and flexible instrument for peaceful conflict resolution at the
educational level, and promote a new culture for conflict management. Arising not only to solve
school problems, but equally as a feasible way for creative conflict modification (Cuhna and
Monteiro, 2016).
A more detailed approach to school negotiation is presented as it is considered the most
appropriate method for resolving classroom conflicts, in teacher-student relationships.
Negotiation includes a set of behavioral skills that teachers must master. It is essentially a well-
structured process and based on some tacit behavior, being understood as a process of
communicative interaction in which two parties seek to resolve a conflict of interest, use dialog,
and progress gradually through mutual concessions. The negotiation process implies several
skills, which stand out, effective communication, considered the main tool of the negotiation
process.

Functions of conflict
Conflict within a group, may help to establish unity or to re-establish unity and cohesion where it
has been threatened by hostile and antagonistic feelings among the members. Yet, not every type
of conflict is likely to benefit group structure, nor that conflict can subserve such functions for all
groups. Whether social conflict is beneficial to internal adaptation or not depends on the type of
issues over which it is fought as well as on the type of social structure within which it occurs.

Internal social conflicts which concern goals, values or interests that do not contradict the basic
assumptions upon which the relationship is founded tend to be positively functional for the social
structure. Such conflicts tend to make possible the readjustment of norms and power relations
within groups in accordance with the felt needs of its individual members or subgroups.

conflict within a group frequently helps to revitalize existent norms; or it contributes to the
emergence of new norms. ln this sense, social conflict is a mechanism for adjustment of norms
adequate to new conditions. A flexible society benefits from conflict because such behavior, by
helping to create and modify norms, assures its continuance under changed conditions. Such
mechanism for readjustment of norms is hardly available to rigid systems: by suppressing
conflict, the latter smother a useful warning signal, thereby maximizing the danger of
catastrophic breakdown.

conflict serves the function of establishing and maintaining group identities. According to
Simmel, conflict sets boundaries between groups by strengthening group consciousness and
awareness of separateness from other groups. Reciprocal antagonisms between groups preserve
social divisions and systems of stratification. These reciprocal "repulsions" both establish the
identity of the various groups within the system and also help to maintain the overall social
system. For example, conflict between Indian castes both establish the distinctiveness of the
various groups and insure the stability of the overall social structure. The distinction between
one's own group and "outsiders" is established in and through conflict. This includes conflicts
between classes, nations, ethnic groups, and political parties. In social structures where there is a
substantial amount of mobility, the mutual hostility among groups is accompanied by the lower
strata's attraction to the higher strata. Such structures tend to provide many occasions for conflict.

Conflict also leads to the formation of coalitions and associations between previously unrelated
parties. If several parties face a common opponent, bonds tend to develop between them. This
can lead to the formation of new groups or result in instrumental associations in the face of a
common threat. In short, conflicts with some produce associations with others. However, the
unification that results when coalitions are formed simply for the purpose of defense need not be
very thoroughgoing. Alliance can simply be an expression of groups' desire for self-preservation.
Of course, such alliances may be perceived by other groups as threatening and unfriendly. This
may lead to the creation of new associations and coalition, thus drawing groups into new social
relations.

Conclusion
In summary, it is important to face conflict and resolve it with skills to manage it properly and
constructively, establishing cooperative relationships, and producing integrative solutions.
Harmony and appreciation should coexist in a classroom environment and conflict should not
interfere, negatively, in the teaching and learning process.

References
Clabaugh and Rozycki (2018). The functions of social conflict. (ed., 1990). Chapter 4.
Understanding Schooling. New York Press: Harper.
Fehr, E. and Gachter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity. Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 14(3):159-182.

John H. (2001). The functions of social conflict. In: Lewis Coser (1956). Socialogial theory.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press, pp.151-157.
Molm, L.D. (2010). The structure of reciprocity. Social psychology Quarterly. 2010;73(2): 119-
131.
Nicholson, M. (1992). Rationality and the analysis of international conflict. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-39125-3.
Paese, P.W. and Gilin, D.A. (2000). When an adversary is caught telling the truth: Reciprocal
cooperation versus self interest in distributive bargaining. Personality and social psychology
bulletin, 26(1):79-90.
Sidorenkov, A.V; Borokhovski, E.F; Kovalenko, V.A. (2018). Group size and composition of
work groups as precursors of intragroup conflicts. Psychology research and behaviour
management. 11:51-523

Beal, D.J.; Cohen, R.; Burke, M.J.; and McLendon, C.L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in
groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relation. Journal of applied psychology. 88(6):
989-1004.

Carron, A.V. and Brawley, L.R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues.small
group research. 31(1): 89-106.

Jares X. R. Educação e conflito: Guia de educação para a convivência. Porto: Edições Asa; 2002

Pérez-de-Guzmán MV, Vargas M, Amador Munõz LV. Resolución de conflictos en las aulas: un
análisis desde la Investigación-Acción. Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria. 2011; 18:
99-114. DOI: 10.7179/PSRI_2011.18.08

Chrispino A. Gestão do conflito escolar: da classificação dos conflitos à mediação. Ensaio:

Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação. 2007; 15(54): 11-28. DOI: 10.1590/S0104-
40362007000100002
Ibarra L. Los conflictos escolares: un problema de todos. Universidade De la Habana: Ciudad de
la Habana, 2002

Silva F, Flores P. O conflito em contexto escolar: transformar barreiras em oportunidade. In:

Atas do XII Congresso da Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências da Educação: espaços de
investigação, reflexão e ação interdisciplinar; 11-13 setembro 2014; Vila Real: De Facto
Editores; 2014. p. 253-268

Valente S, Lourenço AA. Conflict in the classroom: how teachers’ emotional intelligence
influences conflict management. Frontiers in Education. 2020; 5(5). DOI:
10.3389/feduc.2020.00005

Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group Dynamics (5 ed.). New York: Wadsworth. Pp.119-122.

Munné M., Mac-Cragh P. Los 10 principios de la cultura de mediación. Barcelona: Editorial

Graó; 2006

Cunha P, Monteiro AP. Uma reflexão sobre a mediação escolar. Ciências & Cognição. 2016;
21(1): 112-123