Toward a Theory of Social Conflict Ralf Dahrendorf …

Toward a Theory of Social Conflict Ralf Dahrendorf The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2, No. 2. (Jun., 1958), pp. 170-183.

Stable URL: The Journal of Conflict Resolution is currently published by Sage Publications, Inc..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@.

Fri Jul 13 13:50:49 2007

Toward a theory of social conflict1

RALF DAHRENDORF Akademie fiir Gemeinwirtschaft, Hamburg, Germ,

sons in 1937 established a certain conver-

After an interval of almost fifty years, a gence in the sociological theories of Alfrecl

theme has reappeared in sociology which hfarshall, fimile Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto,

has determined the origin of that discipline and Max Weher,* he no longer had in mind

more than any other subject area. Fronl an analysi~of social conflict; his was an at-

Mzrx and Cointe to Simmel and Sorel, social tempt to solve the problem of integration

conflict, especially revolutions, was one of of so-called "social systems" by an organon

the central themes in social research. The of interrelated categories. The new question

same is true of many early Anglo-Saxon was now "What holds societies together?"-

sociologists (although in their work the no longer "What drives them on?" The in-

problem of revolution has been character- fluence of the Parsonian posing of the ques-

istically somewhat neglected), for ex?mple, tion on the more recent sociology (and by the Webbs in England, Surnner in the no means only on American sociology) can United States. However, when Talcott Par- be hardly overrated. Thus it is possible that

the revival of the study of social conflict in

----..---....------------.....------...--~~.~.~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 This paper was translated by Anatol Rapa- the last decades appears to many not so port, Mental Health Research Unit, University much a continuation of traditional research

of hlichigan. The following presentation is an attempt to

depict in a systematic form ths fundamental ideas of nly book Soziale Klossen uncl Klassenconfilkt it1 der inclustriellen Gesellschaft (Stuttgrrt, 1957). Iiowever, the presentation departs

paths as a new thematic discovery-an instance of dialectic irony in the development of science.

At this time, approaches toward a ~77stematic study of social conflict are still rela-

significantly in its organization and thematic scope from that given in my book: ( 1 ) whereas the book binds together theoretical considerations and empirical analysis, the present exposition is essentially limited to the theoretical aspects; ( 2 ) whereas in the book I have developed

tively isolated, compared with the innumerable worlcs on social stratification or on st~uctureand fuilction of specific institutions, organizations, and societies. Still the thesis of a revival of the study of social conflict

the tlleoretical orientations in a critical dialogue with other authors, particularly with Marx, the prescrltation in the following exposition is systematic. It need hardly be elaborated that n ~ u c h

can be justified with regard to the works of Aion, Philip, Brinton, Kerr, Coser, Brinkmann, Geiger, Gluckmann, and others,"~

of what is expressly developed in the book could be only formally treated here and often with dogmatic brevity. Nevertheless, it may be noted

Wf. Structure of Social Action (New York, 1937; 2d ed., Glencoe, 1949).

tllat the present exposition, especially in the

"aymond Aron, "Social Structure and the

first and fourth sections, contains in certain re- Kuling Class," in Class Status and Power, ed.

spects formulations beyond the scope of the fieinhard Bendix and Seymour 'fartin Lipset

book.

( London, 1954); Andre Philip, L e Socialisme

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

V O L U M E 11 N U M B E R 2

T O W A R D A THEORY OF SOCIAL CONFLICT

171

well as an attempt to determine a systematic locus and a specific framework for a theory of conflict in sociological analysis.

TYPES AND VARIETIES O F

SOCIAL CONFLICT

To begin with a commonplace observation: The problem of conflict is no less coinplex than thzt of integriition of societies. We now know that the attempt to reduce all actually occurring conflicts among social groups to a common principle, say that of classes, is sterile. It leads either to empty gencralizatic~is(such as "Every society experie:lces social conflicts") or to empirically unjustifiable oversimplfications (such as "The history of all societies so far has been a history of class struggles"). It seems advisable, first, to sort out and to classify the problems which are conceived under the general heading of "social conflict." Even a superficial reflection leads to the distinction of a series of types.

There are wars, and there are conflicts zrnong political parties-evidently two different kinds of struggle. LVith regnrd to a given society, A, one could say there are exogenozrs conflicts brought upon or into A from the outside, and there arc enclogenous conflicts generated within A. Of these two categories, which, at least analytically, can be re1:itively precisely distinguished, there are agai~lseveral types. Let us confine our

trcdli (Paris, 1957);Crane Brinton, T l ~ Ae natomy of Rccolution (2d ed.; New York, 1952); Clark Kerr, ''Ind~lstrial Collflict and Its hlediatiotl," Anz~riconJ o ~ ~ T I ~ (oI f/ Sciciology, Vol. XL, No. 3 ( No\ ember, 1054) ; Lewis Coscr, T l ~ Fe unctions of Social Corlflict ( London, 1956), and "Social ConYict and Social Cilatlge," British Journal of Si:c;olog!l, i70i. 1'111, No. 3 (September, 1957); C:irl Ijri~ikm,lnn,Soziologische Tlceorie der R e ~ o llltioli (Tihingcn, 1948); Theodor Geiger, Klasse;~gcsclls~,hciijltl. Sci'cnteI~tie~e(lKoln-Hagen, 1949); hfvlax Gluckmann, C u . ~ t o maizd Conflict in Africa (London, 1957).

attention for the moment-for reasons which will presentl;~be given-to endogenous conflicts. Then further subdivisions are directly perceived: slaves versus freemen in Rome, Negroes versus whites in the United States, Protestants versus Catholics in the Netherlands, Flemings versus Walloons in Belgium, Conservatives versus Laborites in England, u!licns versus employers in many countries. All these are opposing groups in well-knovrm conflicts. Perhaps each of these examples does not fall into a separate category; but certainly they cannot all be subsumed under a single type of social conflict. Whatever criterion one chooses for classification-for exnniple, the objects of contention, the structural origin of the conflictiug groups, the forms of conflict-several distinct types result.

THE LIMITS AND GOALS O F A THEORY

O F SOCIAL CONFLICT

An ideal sociology cannot, in principle, exclude any of these categories and types of cor~fiictfrom analysis. Nevertheless, the types mentioned do not all have the same i~nporbancefor sociological analysis. A brief recollection of the intent of a sociological theory of conflict reveals that the contribution of sociology to the understailding of conflict (as \\-ell as the contribution of conflict to the social process) is in specific instances grcater in solne cases than in others.

The intent of a sociological theory of conflict is to overcome the predo~ninatingly nrbitr:.ry nature of unexplained historical events by deriving these events froin social

structu;.al elements-in other words, to ex-

pl.iiil certain processes by prognostic co:lnections. Certainly it is important to describe the cdilflict bet\i,ec,n workers and einplo?,ers purely as such; but it is more imporlunt to p:.oduce a proof that s ~ c ah conflict is b'lsed oil c?:.tain social structural arrangements and hence is bound to arise xvherever such

RALF DAHRENDORF

structural arrangements are given. Thus it is the task of sociology to derive conflicts from specific social structures and not to relegate these coilflicts to psychological variables ("aggressiveness") or to descriptive-historical ones (the influx of Negroes into the United States) or to chance.

In the sense of strict sociological analysis, conflicts can be considered explained if they can be shown to arise from the structure of social positions indepcvidently of the orientation of populations and of historical [lei ex nlacl~ina.This is necessarily a very abstract formulation; instead of elaborating it, it may be advisable to illustrate its meaning by the following treatment of a form of social conflict. First, however, let us draw a consequence of this foi~nulationwhich will help to make our problem more precise.

Since the recognition of the inadequacy of the Marxist-Leninist theory of imperialism, the explanation of exogenous conflicts on the basis of the structuie of a given society is once again an open problem, the treatment of which has scarcely begun. I t seems, moreover, that the explanation of exogenous conflicts4 by the tools of sociological structure analysis is possible only in a metaphorical sense-namely, only in case the entire societies (or less comprehensive "social systems") are taken to be the units of n new structure,Qhat is, when C is analyzed in te~nlsof the structure of its elements A and B without consideration of the inner structure of A and B. On these grouncis it seems sensible to exclude exogenous conflict for the tlnle being from a theory of social conflicts.

On the other hand, the above-mentioned examples of endogenous conflict, if consid-

W e recall here that a conflict which, from the point of view of Society A, appears as exogenous is represented froxn another point of view as a conflict between two societies or systems, A and B.

ered from the point of view of their structural significance, fall into two groups. On the one hand, they point to conflicts which arise only in specific societies on the basis of special historical conditions (Negroes or whites in the United States, Protestants versus Catholics in the Netherlands; Flemings versus Walloons in Belgium); on the other hand, however, there are conflicts which can be understood as expressions of general structural features of societies, or of societies in the same stage of development (Conservatives versus Laborites in England; unioiis versus employers' associations) . W e r tainly in both cases an analysis leading to generalization is possible: a theory of minority or religious conflict is as meaningful as that of class conflict. Nevertheless, their respective weights within a general theory of society are evidently distinguishable. It is not surprising that the "classical" theory of conflict-I mean here primarily the class theory of conflict-has, above all, called attention to such social frictions which can be derived from the structure of societies independently of stlvcturally incidental historical data.

The follo\ving approaches toward a theory of conflict also relate themselves to conflicts based on structure. So far, we are by no means considering a general theory of

V a l c o t t Parsons and the political scientist David Easton ( T h e Political System [New York, 19531) are currently working on an attempt to analyze international conflicts by means of a inodel in which entire societies, such as the United States and the U.S.S.K., appear as elenleuts and are treated as if they had no inner structure. This procedure is methodologically entirely legitimate. It remains to be seen what results it can achieve and how it may he connected to the analysis of intrasocietal conflicts.

G 'rile conf1ic.t between free men ancl slaves in ancient Ilome possibly belongs to this second group, although not on the same level of generality.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

V O L U M E II N U M B E R 2

TOWARD A THEORY O F SOCIAL CONFLICT

173

social conflict, although I would undertake to defend the assertion that we are dealing here with one of the most important, if not the most important, type of social conflict. However important as problems of social conflict St. Bartholome~v's Night, Crvseal Night, and Little Rock may be, the French Revolution and the British General Sirike of 1926 and June 17, 1953, seem to me more germane for structural analjsis. To put it less dramatically, the sociological theory of conflict would do well to confine itself for the time being to an explanation of the irictions between the rulers and the mled in given social structural organizations.

The explanation of motion requires two separate attacks. We must know the point of departure and the direction of motion or, better yet, the moving force. No theory of social change or of conflict can forego the description of the structural entity which undergoes change or within which conflicts occur. Such a description is offered by the integration theory of society. However, it is erroneous to assume that a description of how the elements of a structure are put together into a stable whole offers, as such, a point of departure for a structural analysis of conflict and change. So far, the claim of the so-called "structural-functional" theory of modern sociology to the status of a general theory of society is demonstrably unjustified.

TOWARD A CRITIQUE O F A STRUC-

TURAL-FUNCTIONAL THEORY

This critique has been led in recent times repeatedly, most effectively by D. Lockwood.7 It is based on a relatively simple argument. As long as we orient our analysis tox~ardthe question as to how the elements of a society are combined into a co-ordinated functioning whole, then the

representation of society as a social system is the last point of reference. W e are therefore faced with the task of determining certain associations, institutions, or processes within this balanced ~vhole,that is -in Merton's definition-of determining the intentional or uiliilte~ltionalconsequences of these associations for the functioning and the preservation of the system. In this way, we come to contentions such as "the educational system functioils as a mechanism of assigning social positions," or "religion functions as an agent of integrating dominant values." The majority of sociological investigations in the last years moves in this area of analysis.

However, such an approach leads to difficulties, if we put a question of a different sort. What was the function of the English trade unions in the General Strike of 1926? What was the function of the construction worker in Stalin Allee on June 17, 1953? Without doubt, it can be argued in many cases that militant trade unions or opposition political groups and parties also contribute to the functioning of the existing system.5 But even when this is the caseand in the two cases cited it would b e difficult to establish this-such a conclusion viould say little about the role of the group in question. Moreover, it is clear that the intentional, as well as the unintentional, effects of such oppositioilal groups are in the contribution toward an abolition or destruction of the existing system. The structural-functional position has n comfortable

7 David Lockwood, "Sorne Notes on 'The Social System,' " British Joo~izalof Sociology, Vol. VII, No. 2 ( 1956). Altllough Lockwood's argument leads to the same conclusion, it proceeds somewhat differently (cf. my Social Classes and the Class Conflict, pp. 159 ff. ).

8 This aspect of social conflict is, in fact, central in the analysis of Lewis Coser (continuing that of Simmel) in his work on the functions of social conflict (cf. n. 3 ) .

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download