Forms of the word conflict

Conflict: Definition, Characteristics, Forms and Other Details about Conflict!

Georg Simmel (1955) writes: ‘There probably exists no social unit in which convergent and divergent currents among its members are not inseparably interwoven. An absolutely centripetal and harmonious group, a pure ‘unifica­tion’, not only is unreal, it could should have no real life process … society, too, in order to attain a determinate shape, needs some quantitative ratio of harmony and disharmony, of association and competition, of favourable and unfavourable tendencies.’

In simple words, social conflict is always present in social life. It is a fundamental feature of human society. It does not occur because people are unreasonable or unco-operative or because they are unwilling to live properly and decently with others.

It is rooted in social differences of class and status, of wealth and opportunity, of material interests, where scarce resources are unequally shared. Psychologists regard conflict as an instinctual response in humans, in the face of stressful situations.

This response can be in the form of:

(1) fight,

(2) flee,

(3) simply freeze, or

(4) turning sideways into the conflict.

It is said that human beings are for the most part quite selfish and that chaos and strife are both common and natural. This is why conflict is the fundamental form of dis-associative interaction or oppositional-oriented relationship.

It is inherent in all social relationships and is also inevitable and universal. Bottomore (1962) observed: ‘Conflict is an intrinsic part of our social life, sustaining, modifying or destroying the social groups in which it takes place.’

Whenever and wherever there is a difference in the motives and interests (desire for prestige, economic benefit, power and defeat or destruction of the enemy) of different persons, there is bound to be some kind of conflict. It may be destructively or constructively directed.

It may be between individuals, groups of individuals or two societies (or nations) depending whether the contradictory interests involved are personal or of group or of the whole community or nation. Thus, merely to deplore that it is destructive, it is to miss its significance as a force for social change.

Definitions:

An analysis of the literature reveals that the term ‘conflict’ is defined in a number of ways. Followers of Georg Simmel, like R.E. Park, have seen conflict as one of the central forms of interaction. Simmel (1955) writes: ‘If every interaction among men is a sociation, conflict must certainly be considered as sociation.’

Park and Burgess (1921), likewise, treat conflict as a distinct form of competition. They wrote: ‘Both are forms of interaction but competition is a struggle between individuals or groups of individuals who are not necessarily in contact and communication while conflict is a contest in which contact is an indispensable condition.’

According to Max Weber (1968), ‘a social relationship will be referred to as conflict in so far as action within it is oriented intentional to carrying out the actor’s own will against the resistance of the other party or parties’. Thus, the social interaction of conflict is defined by the desire of each participant to impose his will upon the other’s resistance.

These sentiments are well echoed in the words of A.W. Green (1956) who defined it as ‘the deliberate attempt to oppose, resist or coerce the will of another or others’. As a process, it is the antithesis of cooperation in which a deliberate attempt is made to thwart die will of others. Gillin and Gillin (1948) wrote: ‘Conflict is the social process in which individuals or groups seek their ends by directly challenging the antagonist by violence or threat of violence.’ To sum up, it may be said that conflict refers to the struggle in which competing parties, attempting to reach a goal, strive to eliminate an opponent by making the other party ineffectual or by annihilation.

Characteristics:

On the basis of foregoing discussion, the following characteristics (nature) of conflict, in brief, may be cited:

1. It is a universal process found in every society.

2. It is the result of deliberate and conscious efforts of individuals or the groups.

3. The nature of the conflict is personal and direct. In conflict the incumbents or participants know each other personally.

4. It is basically an individual’s process. Its aim is not directly connected with the achievement of the goal or an objective but is rather directed to dominate others or to eliminate the opponent.

5. Conflict is of brief duration, temporary and intermittent in character. But, once begun, the conflict process is hard to stop. It tends to grow more and more bitter as it proceeds. Being temporary, it gives way to some form of accommodation.

6. It is a process loaded with impulsiveness of human emotions and violent passions. It gains force and then bursts open. Unlike fighting of animals, generally in human groups, the spontaneous fighting is inhibited. It is often avoided through the process of accommodation and assimilation.

7. It may be latent or overt. In the latent form, it may exist in the form of tension, dissatisfaction, contravention and rivalry. It becomes overt when an issue is declared and a hostile action is taken.

8. It is mostly violent but it may take the form of negotiations, party politics, disputes or rivalry.

9. It is cumulative; each act of aggression usually promotes a more aggressive rebuttal. Thus, termination of conflict is not easy.

10. It tends to be more intense when individuals and groups who have close relationships with one another are involved.

11. Groups previously in conflict may co-operate to achieve a goal considered important enough for them to unite despite their differences.

12. It may emerge as a result of opposing interests. It is layered in a history of binary perceptions: exile/homeland, outsider/insider, us/them, patriotic/unpatriotic.

13. It has both disintegrative and integrative effects. It disrupts unity in a society and is a disturbing way of setting issues. A certain account of internal conflict, however, may serve indirectly to stimulate group inter­action. External conflict can have positive effects by unifying the group.

Conflict and Contravention:

Contravention is the mild form of conflict in which contending parties (groups or individuals) strive to prevent each other from achieving the objective through indirect attacks on the opposite party.

It does contain antagonism and hostility like conflict. The establishment and fostering to temporary political parties during national elections with the express purpose of dispersing votes and confusing the electorate is an illustration of contravention.

Forms:

Conflict can be distinguished in so many ways. It may take place between persons or individuals and groups. Conflict between persons is the most direct and immediate form of conflict. It may involve intense personal animosities. It may take the form of a brute struggle on the physical level to destroy or eliminate the opponent.

Personal conflicts arise on account of various motives—envy, hostility, betrayal of trust being the most predominant. In all societies there are at least two forms of conflict. First, there is conflict between men contending for positions of power. Second, there is conflict between the powerful and the powerless.

Group or corporate conflict:

It takes place between two societies or groups within a society. When group loyalties and needs take precedence over personal individual feelings, it is group conflict. In such conflict, individual feelings become irrelevant.

Groups attempt to impose their will on other groups in order to gain power, prestige, wealth and commodities of value. Such conflict is impersonal. Communal or race riots, religious persecution, labour-management disputes, and wars between two or more nations are some of the examples of corporate or group conflict.

Greek philosopher Heracltitus once said: ‘All is incessantly changing and war is the father of all things.’ War is the most characteristic and spectacular form of group conflict. In the first instance, it grows out of a clash of interests such as to destroy or weaken the competitor group, to snatch the land or to steal the women or the property.

Primitive warfare was often operated selec­tively between the occupying peoples and the invading hordes. In later years, culture development over population has often been at the base of national conflict, although the direct and inciting causes often seem for removed.

Simmel (1955) has distinguished four types of conflict:

(i) War; (ii) feud or fictional strife; (iii) litigation; and (iv) conflict of impersonal ideals. Simmel attributed war to a deep-seated antagonistic impulse in man. For him, antago­nistic impulse is a foundation of all conflicts.

Feud is an intra-group form of war which may arise because of injustice alleged to have been done by one group to the other. Litigation is a judicial form of conflict when an individual or group asserts its claims to certain rights on the basis of objective factors. Conflict of impersonal ideals is a conflict carried on by the individuals not for themselves but for an ideal. In such a conflict, each party attempts to justify truthfulness of its own ideals.

Direct and indirect conflict:

Direct conflict occurs where individuals or groups thwart or impede or restrain or injure or destroy one another in the effort to attain the goal. Indirect conflict occurs where individuals or groups do not actually impede the efforts of one another but nevertheless try to attain their ends in ways which obstruct the attainment of the same end by others.

Gillin and Gillin (1948) have classified conflict in five groups:

(i) Personal conflict,

(ii) racial conflict,

(iii) class conflict,

(iv) political conflict, and

(v) international conflict.

Causes:

Earlier scientists like Charles Darwin saw conflict as inherent in the principles of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest, while for Thomas Malthus, the champion of population theory, reduced supply of the means of subsis­tence is the cause of conflict.

Some sociologists like Gustav Ratzenhofer and Ludwig Gumplowicz regard it as underlying social evolution and progress. According to Ratzenhofer, the struggle for life takes the form of conflict in interests. For Gumplowicz, it represents a primordial feeling of ‘syngenism’—a feeling of belonging together.

There are two main approaches which have analysed the causes of conflict in their own way:

1. Psychological approach:

This approach tries to look for the causes of conflict in human nature and posits a ‘fighting instinct’. This is exemplified in the views of Simmel, Freud and Lorenz. According to Freud, there is an innate instinct for aggression in man which is respon­sible for conflict in human society.

Recent biological and anthropological studies have generally supported the notion that there is an ‘aggressive instinct’, resulting from natural selection. This theory has been criticized on various grounds. It is said that the theory which depends upon a permanent and constant aggressive instinct cannot explain the cycle of conflict and absence of conflict. It only explains the propensity to engage in aggressive behaviour.

2. Sociological approach:

This approach is based on a theory of interests, i.e., conflict occurs, for example, when territory is invaded or property is looted or attacked. This approach has its roots in the Marxist tradition. This tradition assumes that social life is shaped by groups and individuals who struggle or compete with one another over various resources and rewards.

These shape not only the patterns of everyday life and interaction, but also large patterns such as racial, ethnic and class-caste relations. Marx argues that most conflict is economic and rests on the unequal ownership and control of property.

There are many other causes of conflict, which may be briefly stated as under:

1. Individual differences:

No two men are alike in their nature, attitudes, ideals, opinions and interests. These differences lead them to some or the other sort of conflict to fulfill their individual interest. Because of these differences, they fail to accommodate themselves with each other.

2. Cultural differences:

Culture differs from society to society and also from group to group. These differences sometimes cause tension and lead to conflict. The religious differences have often led to wars and persecution in history. In India, often, communal conflicts broke out as the results of religious differences.

3. Clash of interests:

The interests of different people or groups (such as political parties) occasionally clash. For example, the interests of workers clash with those of the employers which lead to conflict in the form of strike, bandh or dharana, etc., among them.

4. Social change:

All parts of society do not change with the same speed. This causes ‘lag’ in the parts which may cause conflict between different parts of the society. Conflict of generations (parent-youth) is the result of such social changes.

In the struggle to change the structure of society, or to resist such a change, conflict takes various shapes.

Some common types of social conflicts are:

1. Social movement:

A strong sense of unjust suffering readily provides the rationale for a social movement, such as Gujjars’ Andolan (2007 and 2008) for reservation in ST category in Rajasthan or Namak Andolan of Gandhiji.

2. Riots and rebellions:

Riot is a situation in which a large crowd of people behave in a violent and uncontrolled manner, especially when they protest about something. Rebellion is an organized attempt to change the government/leader of a country using violent methods.

3. Civil politics:

In modem democratic societies there is an effort to bring conflict into the political institution, to get people to work ‘inside’ the system instead of ‘outside’. It is a principle of liberal politics that all classes and groups should have access to the political process and be encouraged to pursue their goals through conventional political means.

4. Revolution:

A revolution is the ultimate form of struggle against the prevailing social structure, in which the intent is to alter the society’s institutions and create a whole new social order based on a radically different set of principles. It is a sweeping, sudden and comprehensive change in the basic practices and ideas of an institution or society.

Nature of Conflict in India:

In India, the following main forms of conflict are found:

1. Communal conflict (communalism)

2. Caste conflict (casteism)

3. Regional conflict (regionalism)

4. Rural-urban conflict

5. Class conflict

6. Value conflict

7. Inter-group conflict

8. Inter-generation conflict

9. Reservation conflict

10. Gender conflict

Role (Functions) of Conflict:

Conflict has always captured the attention of people and the society. As other forms of social interaction, it has both positive and negative effects. Conflict both terminates and commences to serve the interests of man in society.

Cooley (1902) maintained: ‘Conflict of some sort is the life of society, and progress emerges from a struggle in which each individual, class or institution seeks to realise its own ideals of good.’ Simmel (1955) observed that a conflict-free harmonious group is practically an impossibility. There is no denying the fact that society requires for its formation and growth both harmony and disharmony, association and disassociation.

Sorel (1908) felt that a social system was in need of conflict only to renew its energies and revitalize its creative forces. His arguments that violent confrontations can be noble and civilizing and that there is nothing to suggest civilized men and women will ever wholly renounce violence to advance estimable causes. Young and Mack (1959) write. ‘At its most rudimentary level, conflicts result in the elimination or annihilation of the opponent.

In human society, however, most conflicts end in some sort of agreement or accommodation or in the fusion of the two opposing elements.’ It is said that the origins of the state, social organization and many social institutions are the result of war and struggle.

Generally, conflict is regarded as disintegrative and its dysfunctions are highlighted but conflict plays constructive role also and it has positive functions for the individual and society both. For instance, inter-group conflict is a patent source of inter-group co-operation.

It helps in unifying a society or a group when some external aggression occurs. Conflict prevents the ossifi­cation of the social system by exerting pressure for innovation and creativity.

Horton and Hunt (1964) have distinguished the effects of conflict as under:

As a form of interaction, sociologically significant both from the point of view of personality (individual level) and from that of social organization, both self-consciousness and group consciousness are the result of conflict. At the individual level, every problem in the life of a person is a conflict (struggle). Conflict plays a corresponding role in group organization.

Groups reach the maximum of unity and solidarity in overt conflict. External conflict (conflict with another group) tends to integrate the group. On the one hand, it provides the members with an external outlet for their hostilities and resent­ments and thus removes a lot of internal tensions. On the other hand, it compels each member to co-operate and forge unity to face the external threat.

While external conflict separates a group from its enemies, it also promotes alliances with other groups. Simmel (1955) writes: ‘A state of conflict pulls the members so tightly together and subjects them to such a uniform impulse that the most completely get along with or completely repel one another.’ Coser (1956) has also analysed in detail the role of conflict in promoting unity.

Thus, the above discussion about the role (functions) of conflict may be summed up as under:

1. Conflict determines the status of the individual in the social organization. Rivalry, war and other forms of personal struggle determine superiority and subordination of men and groups.

2. Conflict is not always an unmitigated evil everywhere as it is generally assumed. It is a chief means of group contact, and it has played an important role in the development and spread of culture.

3. Conflict may eventuate in peace through victory of one contestant over others.

4. Conflict helps to define social issues and brings about a new equilibrium of contending forces. It may lead to the working out of non-violent techniques for resolving crises. The end result of conflict is that the issues are resolved at least for a time.

5. Conflict tends to stiffen the morale, promotes unity and cohesion within the group and may lead to expanding alliances with other groups.

6. Conflict keeps groups alert to members’ interests.

7. Conflict generates new norms and new institutions. It happens mostly in economic and technological realms. Economic historians often have pointed out that much technological improvement has resulted from the conflict activity of trade unions. It leads to redefinition of value systems.

8. Conflict within and between bureaucratic structures provides means of avoiding the ossification and ritualism which threatens their form of organization.

9. According to Marxists, conflict leads not only to ever-changing relations within the existing social structure, but the total system undergoes trans­formation through conflict.

10. Conflict between vested interests and new strata and groups demanding share of power, wealth and status have proved to be productive of vitality.

11. Conflict may lead to a new consensus.

12. Conflict theorists (e.g., Coser, 1956) believe that conflict is necessary for progress. They contend that societies progress to a higher order only if oppressed groups improve their lot.

Dysfunctions of Conflict:

Conflicts, as we know, disrupts social unity. It is highly disturbing way of settling issues. Conflict within a group makes it hard for members to agree on group goals or to co-operate in pursuit of them.

It often results in group tension. It increases bitterness and leads to destruction and bloodshed. Conflict disrupts normal channels of co-operation. It diverts members’ attention from group objectives.

Conflict of Values:

The conflict of values is a struggle of a different order and on a different plane from either the personal or the group conflict. It is an aspect of conflict that is purely objective and impersonal. In its simplest manifestation, conflict is merely a physical struggle between individuals or groups.

But back of these physical facts is the social and psychological situation, i.e., the clash of interests and attitudes that leads the groups to physical struggles. The wars of nations may arise out of clash of attitudes and values. Value conflict between husband and wife sometimes results into mental stress which eventually may lead to divorce.

The values involved may be material or immaterial realities. Men and nations fight for food and lands and markets but they also fight for sentiments, beliefs and ideals. Some degree of actual or potential conflict between younger and older generations is inevitable in a changing world.

But above and beyond the physical struggles of individuals and groups and apart from the interests and attitudes that motivate or accompany them is the conflict of values. Many of the ideas and ideals prevailing among human beings are opposed and mutually exclusive such as democracy vs. aristocracy, privatization vs. state ownership, globalization vs. nationalism, etc.

Evolution and fundamentalism are contradictory interpretation of reality. There is no resolution of conflict between such logically incompatible ideas and beliefs. The only resolution of such a conflict is the disappearance of one or the other from the realm of human values.