Theories of social conflict. Sociological theories of conflict

Basic sociological theories social conflict. The most famous concepts are the positive functional conflict of L. Coser (USA), the conflict model of society of R. Dahrendorf (Germany) and the general theory of conflict of K. Boulding (USA).

According to the concept of Lewis Coser, society is characterized by fatally inevitable social inequality, eternal psychological dissatisfaction of its members and the resulting tension between individuals and groups, caused by their sensory-emotional, mental disorder, which periodically finds a way out in their mutual conflicts. Therefore, Coser reduces social conflict to the tension between what is and what should be in accordance with the feelings of certain groups and individuals. By social conflict he understands the struggle for values ​​and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the opponents’ goals are to neutralize, damage or destroy the opponent. This is the most common definition of conflict in Western political science.

Coser closely links the form and intensity of conflict with the characteristics of the conflicting groups. Since conflict between groups contributes to the strengthening of intra-group solidarity and, consequently, the preservation of the group, the group leaders deliberately resort to searching for an external enemy and incite an imaginary conflict. There are also known tactics aimed at searching for an internal enemy (“traitor”), especially when leaders suffer failures and defeats. Coser justifies the dual role of conflict in the internal cohesion of a group: internal cohesion increases if the group is already sufficiently integrated and if an external danger threatens the entire group and is perceived by all group members as a common threat. At the same time, Coser notes, large groups with a high degree of complicity among their members can show a significant degree of flexibility. Small groups, as well as those that are not sufficiently integrated, can show cruelty and intolerance towards “evading” members.

Coser believed that his concept of social conflict, combined with the “equilibrium-integral” theory and the consensus principle of structural functionalism, would overcome the shortcomings of the latter and become something like a general sociological theory of society. However, the concept of positive functional conflict did not prevail for long.

Ralf Dahrendorf in the mid-1960s came up with a substantiation of a new theory of social conflict, known as the conflict model of society. His work “Classes and class conflict in industrial society”(Dahrendorf R. Classes and Class Conflict Society. 1965) has received wide recognition.

The essence of his concept is as follows: any society is constantly subject to change, social change omnipresent; at every moment society is experiencing social conflict, social conflict is omnipresent; every element of society contributes to its change; any society relies on coercion of some of its members by others. Therefore, society is characterized by inequality of social positions occupied by people in relation to the distribution of power, and from here arise differences in their interests and aspirations, which causes mutual friction, antagonism and, as a result, structural changes in society itself. He compares the suppressed conflict to the most dangerous malignant tumor on the body of the social organism.

Societies differ from each other not in the presence or absence of conflict, but only different attitude towards him from the authorities. Therefore, in a democratic society, conflicts do occur, but rational methods of regulation make them non-explosive. “He who knows how to cope with conflicts by recognizing them in regulation takes control of the rhythm of history,” writes R. Dahrendorf. “He who misses this opportunity receives this rhythm for himself.” opponents.” (Darendorf R. Society and Democracy in Germany. N.Y., 1969. P. 140).

The general theory of conflict by American sociologist Kenneth Boulding is outlined in his book “Conflict and Defense: A General Theory”(Boulding K. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. N.Y., 1963). All conflicts, in his opinion, have common elements and general patterns of development, and the study of both can present the phenomenon of conflict in any of its specific manifestations. Therefore, Boulding concludes, knowledge of the “general theory of conflict” will allow social forces to control conflicts, manage them, and predict their consequences.

Conflict, according to his concept, is inseparable from social life. In the very nature of man lies the desire for constant hostility and struggle with his own kind, for the escalation of violence. Boulding defines conflict as a situation in which the parties are aware of the incompatibility of their positions and each party seeks to take a position contrary to the interests of the other. At the same time, conflicts are a type of social interaction when the parties are aware of both their opposition and their attitude towards it. They consciously organize themselves, developing strategies and tactics of struggle. But all this does not exclude the fact that conflicts can and should be overcome or at least significantly limited.

The scientist considers two aspects of social conflict - static and dynamic. In the static aspect, the parties to the conflict and the relationships between them are analyzed. Since the opposing parties can be individuals, organizations, groups (ethnic, religious, professional, age, etc.), conflicts can be divided into personal, organizational and group. In the dynamic aspect, Boulding considers the interests of the parties as motivating forces in the conflict behavior of people. Based on the theory of behaviorism, he defines the dynamics of conflict as a process consisting of a set of reactions of the warring parties to external stimuli. All social conflicts are “reactive processes.” For example, “the phenomenon of the emergence and growth of love is completely analogous to the arms race, which, like war, is reactive process” .(Bouldtng K. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. N.Y., 1963. P. 25.) In other words, Boulding sees the essence of social conflict in certain stereotypical human reactions. In this regard, he believes that any conflict can be overcome and resolved by appropriately manipulating stimuli by changing the reactions, values ​​and drives of individuals, without resorting to a radical change in the social system itself.

Evaluating conflict theory.This theory serves as a good counterbalance to the functional approach. Indeed, since the advantages of one approach are the disadvantages of the other, the two complement each other in many ways. While functionalists have difficulty studying social change, conflict theorists have an advantage. And where conflict theorists have difficulties, for example when considering some aspects of consensus, integration and stability, the functional approach provides insight into the problem.

According to some representatives of both movements, the differences between them are so great that they see no basis for reconciliation. Meanwhile, many sociologists have taken up this task. For example, R. Dahrendorf and G.E. Lenski sees a “two-faced Janus” in society and argues that functionalists and conflictologists simply explore two aspects of the same reality. They note that both consensus and conflict are key features public life. In addition, both approaches traditionally have a holistic view of social life, which assumes that societies are systems of interconnected parts.

Other sociologists, such as L. Coser and J. Himes, based on the ideas of G. Simmel, believe that under some circumstances conflict can be functional for society. It then promotes commitment and loyalty to the group and thus plays an integrative role. Conflict can also prevent the ossification of social systems, forcing them to change and renew themselves.

Depending on what place sociological theories assign to conflict in the life of society, they can be divided into two groups: some recognize conflict as the starting point of social analysis, others rely on the idea of ​​the integral existence of society, from which they derive the mechanism of conflict. We will call the first theories of the “original” conflict, and the second theories of the “derived” conflict.

The difference between the two indicated types of theories is not difficult to see: in theories of the “initial” conflict, society at every point is riddled with conflicts, each of its elements is aimed at mismatch and disintegration, which gives rise to social changes and coercion of some members of society by others; in theories of “derived” conflict, society is a stable and well-integrated structure, where elements have a specific function and act in the direction of value agreement, stability and unification.

Social Darwinism. IN late XIX …
century, the works of an English sociologist appeared G. Spencer(1820-1903), in which conflict began to be seen as one of the main incentives for social development. Spencer argued that the struggle for survival, conflicts between individuals and groups contribute to balance in society, ensure the process social development. G. Spencer was a supporter of social Darwinism, which developed during this period. Social Darwinists argued that society can be identified with the organism. This makes it possible to explain social life by biological laws. The most ardent representatives of this teaching, along with Spencer, were W. Bagehot, W. Sumner, L. Gumplowicz, G. Ratzenhofer, A. Small, who, describing the manifestations of social struggle in the clash of interests, inherited norms and new ideas, attracted knowledge to the problem conflict.

Marxism. Special place in the theory of social conflict occupy works K. Marx(1818-1883), whose discovery of a materialistic understanding of history made it possible to take a new look at the development of social relations. According to K. Marx, in society people enter into necessary social relationships with each other that do not depend on their will and consciousness. This is the main condition for the formation of a social substance, society. Its development is carried out in accordance with the dialectical law of unity and struggle of opposites, which in this society are represented by large social groups or classes. The main problem in their relationship is the system of resource distribution.

Based on this, the main theses of Marx’s concept of conflict are formulated: the more unevenly scarce resources are distributed in the system, the deeper the conflict between the ruling and subordinate classes; the more deeply the subordinate classes begin to realize their true interests, the more likely they are to doubt the legitimacy of the existing form of resource distribution; the more the subordinate classes become conscious of their interests and begin to doubt the legitimacy of the existing distribution, the more likely it is that they will have to jointly enter into open conflict with the ruling classes; the higher the ideological unification of the members of the subordinate classes, the more developed their structure of political leadership, the stronger the polarization of the opposing classes; the greater the polarization between the dominant and the oppressed, the more violent the conflict will be; The more violent the conflict, the more structural changes to the system it will cause and the greater the redistribution of scarce resources that will result.

Researchers of the legacy of K. Marx drew attention to the fact that he considered class conflict without a theoretical analysis of its various behavioral forms. Indicates the absolutization of the role economic relations in the emergence of social conflict. Marx believed that each of the conflicting parties has only one goal - the desire to manage scarce resources, which was refuted by social practice.

Functional theory of conflict. A notable step in the study of conflict by Western sociology was the work of the German sociologist G. Simmel(1858-1918), who is rightfully considered the founder functional theory conflict. According to Simmel, conflict is a universal phenomenon; Moreover, a completely unified and harmonious group or society is generally unthinkable. Even if they existed, then, not having a mechanism for self-development and not being exposed to impulses that stimulate change, they would not be viable.

Simmel's conclusions about the impact of conflict on internal structure groups. In extreme situations, for example in the event of war, the tendency towards centralization increases until the establishment of a despotic regime. Having emerged, a centralized structure strives for self-preservation and, for this purpose, tends to look for a new enemy to create new external conflicts. Simmel's contribution to conflict theory is the inclusion of the third party. Relationships in a dyad allow only the possibility of straightforward conflict. With the advent of the “third”, the possibility of multifaceted relationships, awareness of differences, the formation of coalitions, the formation of group solidarity opens up, i.e. possibility of complex social interaction.

Structural functionalism. In the first half of the 20th century. The problem of conflict in sociology developed within the framework of the systemic-functional school. Conflicts were viewed as negative processes that hinder the development of society. The attention of sociologists was occupied by strikes, protest demonstrations, military conflicts and other “anomalies” of social reality. This reorientation was justified by the American sociologist T. Parsons(1902-1979) in the work “The Structure of Social Action”. Analyzing the functional model of society, T. Parsons considered conflict as the cause of destabilization and disorganization of social life.

Main stream social life is thought of as a desire to harmonize relationships, restore balance according to the type of homeostasis. For Parsons, tension is an important category, but it is secondary and not necessarily destructive: “Tension is a tendency to disturb the balance of exchange between two or more components of a system.” The category of “tension” is also used by Parsons’ student N. Smelser.

According to Smelser, four levels of factors regulating human activity should be distinguished: the highest, generalized goals and values ​​(beliefs, beliefs); norms (general social rules); ways of organizing people (rules of action within a specific group); available options for action in a specific situation.

At the first two levels, a person’s social actions are determined by the fact that he acts as a member large group(church, state, nation, etc.), demonstrating adherence to faith, beliefs, generally accepted norms of behavior or disbelief and deviant behavior. At the third level, the main characteristic of social action is loyalty or disloyalty to one’s organization or small group. The fourth is confidence or uncertainty in the successful use of means to solve a situational problem.

The source of the conflict is the inconsistency between the levels of needs: the needs of the body collide with the needs of the individual, or both collide with the requirements of culture. A sociological parallel with psychological system, coming from James and Freud.

Tension, potentially containing conflict, arises as a consequence of inconsistency between levels or inconsistency of elements of the same level. The growth of tensions at various points in the system of social interactions leads to breaks in this system, which is expressed in riots, uprisings, religious and national clashes, etc. Therefore, the most important task for society is compensation and balancing of stresses. This is achieved by changing social orders, introducing innovations into them, opening the way to restoring the integration of society.

Parsons and Smelser describe seven stages through which the process of social change usually occurs: the emergence of a feeling of dissatisfaction with the achievements made; the emergence of anxiety symptoms (hostility, aggression, utopia); an attempt to resolve tensions based on state ideas with the mobilization of motivational resources; the emergence of tolerance for new ideas in the leadership echelon; analysis and specification of new ideas; willingness to take risks and apply innovation; the inclusion of innovation in the usual order, turning it into part of the economic structure.

Having defined conflict as a social anomaly, he saw the main task in maintaining conflict-free relations between various elements of society, which would ensure social balance, mutual understanding and cooperation. At the level of the social system, legal institutions, religion and customs perform an integrative function. As society develops, it increases its “generalized adaptive capacity” and becomes less conflict-ridden.

An important aspect of this theory is that the regulation of a social system takes into account not only rational aspects. Parsons already pointed out that social tensions give rise to fantasies, unrealistic hopes, and a tendency to mythologize. Smelser describes the emergence of mass hysteria this way: “In an environment of uncertainty, a person is in a state of excitement because he does not know what he should be afraid of; and when he becomes hysterical, he at least believes that he knows where the danger comes from.”

Among the measures to regulate tension and prevent the exacerbation of social conflicts, Smelser proposes: “informational and psychological preparation of the population; development of special programs that would prevent negative impact situations of uncertainty and would help streamline psychological reactions based on a deeper understanding of what is happening; increasing authority rational knowledge and the art of government - as opposed to explosions of hysteria, outbreaks of violence, reliance on a charismatic leader or on new ideological doctrines that inspire various kinds of utopian hopes."

The theory of "positive-functional conflict". The publication in 1956 of the work of an American sociologist L. Kozera"Functions of Social Conflict" laid the foundations modern sociology conflict. In the concept of “positive functional conflict” L. Coser substantiated positive role conflicts in ensuring the sustainability of social systems. Developing Simmel's ideas, Coser argued that there is not and cannot be social groups without conflict relationships.

Coser distinguishes two types of society - closed (rigid, unitary) and open (pluralistic). Societies of the first type are split into two hostile classes, the conflict between which undermines social harmony and threatens to destroy the social order through revolutionary violence. In societies of the second type, there are many conflicts between different layers and groups, but there are social institutions, protecting social harmony and turning the energy of conflicts to the benefit of society. This is possible because social conflicts can perform two types of functions - negative (destructive) and positive (constructive). The task is to limit the negative and use the positive functions.

According to Coser, the struggle between social groups and individuals for the redistribution of wealth and power performs the following positive functions:

§ By defusing tense relations between the participants and giving vent to negative emotions, the completed conflict allows maintaining the relationship between the conflicting parties, i.e. return them to their original state.

§ During conflict interaction, people get to know each other more, since conflict performs a testing function. Mutual cognition facilitates the transformation of adversarial relationships into cooperative relationships.

§ Coser also believed that a positive function of social conflict is that it stimulates social change, the emergence of new social orders, norms and relationships.

"Conflict model of society." At the end of the 50s, a German sociologist R. Dahrendorf(b. 1929) substantiated a new theory of social conflict, which was called the “conflict model of society” (“Classes and class conflict in industrial society,” 1957).

Human society in Dahrendorf's concept is depicted as a system of interactions between conflicting social groups (classes). Conflicts are inevitable and necessary. Their absence is a “surprising and abnormal” phenomenon. Dahrendorf highlights conflicts different levels; between inconsistent expectations that are presented to the bearer of any social role; between social roles; intragroup; between social groups; conflicts at the level of society as a whole: interstate conflicts. The result is a hierarchy of conflicts, in which there are 15 types. Dahrendorf recognizes as correct the Marxist idea of ​​class antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but believes that this antagonism was the main conflict only in European history XIX century. The transition to a post-industrial society taking place in the 20th century is associated with a decrease in the severity of inter-class contradictions. Conflicts in post-industrial society are becoming more diverse. And at the same time, in this society the principles of pluralism and democracy are affirmed, on the basis of which mechanisms are created for “channeling” social conflicts and resolving them in line with conciliation procedures. Dahrendorf emphasizes that it is better to talk about “settlement” rather than “resolution” of conflicts, because social conflicts are usually only limited, localized, transformed into other, more acceptable forms, while the term “resolution” focuses on their complete elimination.

General theory of conflict. In the early 60s, the American sociologist K. Boulding made an attempt to create a universal doctrine of conflict - “ general theory conflict" ("Conflict and Defense: A General Theory", 1963). In accordance with it, conflict is a universal category inherent in the living and inanimate world, which serves as a basic concept for analyzing the processes of the social, physical, chemical and biological environment. All conflicts have common functions, properties and tendencies of occurrence, course and resolution. According to Boulding, it is human nature to strive for constant struggle with one’s own kind, for the escalation of violence. However, conflicts need to be overcome and significantly limited.

The theory considers two models of conflict - static and dynamic. In the static model, Boulding analyzes the “parties to the conflict” and the system of relations between them. These relationships are built on the principle of competition. In the dynamic model, Boulding considers the interests of the parties as motivating forces in people's conflict behavior. Using the ideas of behaviorism, he defines the dynamics of conflict as a process consisting of the reactions of the opposing parties to external stimuli. Therefore, social conflicts are “reactive processes.”

Social conflict theory was created on the basis of criticism of the metaphysical elements of Parsons' structural functionalism.

The origins of the theory of “social conflict” were the American sociologist Charles Wright Mills (1916 – 1962). Based on the ideas of K. Marx,
T. Veblen, M. Weber, V. Pareto and G. Moschi, Mills argued that any macrosociological analysis is significant if it concerns the problems of the struggle for power between conflicting social groups. In The Power Elite, Mills notes that in the United States the country is governed by a small group of politicians, businessmen and military personnel. In 2001, the work of C.R. was published in Russia. Mills, The Sociological Imagination. According to C.R. Mills, the sociological imagination is a fertile form of intellectual self-awareness through which the capacity for wonder comes to life. People become reasonable - they begin to understand that they are now capable of correct generalizations and consistent assessments, which makes it possible to clarify the reasons for people’s anxieties and society’s indifference. Liberty , according to Mills, is not a “recognized necessity” and not a “possibility of choice”, but opportunity to identify options, discuss and make decisions . There can be no freedom without increasing the role of reason in human affairs.

The theory of “social conflict” was developed by R. Dahrendorf, T. Bottomore, L. Coser. Ralph Dahrendorf (1929) argues that all complex organizations are based on the redistribution of power. R. Dahrendorf tried to overcome the structural-functional theories of social equilibrium
and Marx's theory of class struggle. People's behavior is norm-oriented. True, norms are not only followed, but also produced and interpreted. Those who obediently follow established norms have the best chance of social advancement. Classes are conflicting groups fighting for dominance within any sphere. Thus, it becomes possible to apply political and legal terms to all spheres of social life. According to Dahrendorf, wherever there are relations of domination and subordination, there are classes. Since some people are excluded from the dominant groups, there is always conflict between classes. Society, unlike the way the “equilibrium” theorists described it, is in a state of permanent conflict. The more difficult social mobility, the stronger the tension between classes. A society without an unequal distribution of powers would be stagnant and non-developing. Inequality is a condition of freedom. This results in a liberal program for a highly mobile society that recognizes and regulates conflicts. “Sociological man” – conforming to norms – is a scientific and heuristic fiction. A real person is able to distance himself from institutions and norms. Its capacity for practical self-determination is the basis of liberalism.

People with power use various means, and most importantly, coercion, to achieve benefits from people with less power. The possibilities for distributing power and authority are extremely limited, and therefore members of any society struggle to redistribute them. According to Dahrendorf, the basis of conflicts is not economic contradictions, but the desire of people to redistribute power. Since one redistribution entails another, conflicts are inherent in any society.

Social systems theories– synthesis of structural and functional models equilibrium and models social conflict – became a general theory of social systems. Social relations and structures are interpreted in concepts close to the natural science approach; they are considered independent of people, their intentions and aspirations. People's behavior is determined by the "imperative of the system." Reducing the characteristics of a person to a single quality, for example, needs, motivations or attitudes, makes theoretical models simpler, but these models no longer correspond to real social processes. It is impossible to verify theoretical positions with empirical research. The question arose about the qualitative specifics of the object sociological research. In the works
J. Gurvich, T. Adorno, H. Schelsky, M. Polanyi, representatives of the philosophy of science searched for the causes of failures, both in empirical sociology and the macrotheory of society, based on the assumptions inherent natural sciences. Such reasons were, first of all, ignoring the conscious creative activity of the individual in the creation and development of the social process, giving broad ideological functions to unusual methods of natural science knowledge.

Structuralism. In France, the role of structural-functional analysis was played by structuralism. An attempt to build a new model social reality associated with language as an initially and transparently structured formation. Structuralists of France are followers of linguistic structuralism and semiotics. "Hyperrationalistic" approach
to social reality consists in the presence of a “collective unconscious” in all human manifestations - social institutions, cultural creativity.

Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908– 1990) - a cultural anthropologist, studying the structure of thinking and life of primitive peoples, concludes that the historical approach (“diachronic section”) only facilitates the understanding of how certain social institutions arise. The main goal scientific research society - a “synchronous section”, identifying how the “collective unconscious” forms the symbolic structures of a given society - its rituals, cultural traditions, speech forms. Studying historical and ethnic facts is only a step towards understanding the collective unconscious. Fundamental ethnological works
Lévi-Strauss have significant heuristic value.

Structuralist constructivism by P. Bourdieu (1930–2002) . The main task of sociology, Bourdieu believes, is to identify the latent structures of various social worlds that influence
on individuals, and on the other hand, to explore, within the framework of the hermeneutic tradition, the selective ability of people, their predisposition to certain actions in specific social fields.

Bourdieu's theory: an attempt to synthesize structuralism and phenomenology. – Structuralist constructivism. The principle of double structuring of social reality: a) in social system exist objective structures, independent of the consciousness and will of people, who are capable of stimulating certain actions and aspirations of people; b) the structures themselves are created social practices of agents.

The second is constructivism, which assumes that people’s actions are determined by life experience, the process of socialization and acquired predispositions to act one way or another, are a kind of matrices of social action that “form the social agent as a truly practical operator of constructing objects.”

Specified methodological approaches, according to Bourdieu, allow us to establish cause-and-effect relationships between social phenomena in conditions uneven distribution of social realities in space and time. Thus, social relations are distributed unevenly.
In a certain place and at a specific time they can be very intense and vice versa. Likewise, agents enter into social relationships unevenly. Finally, people have uneven access to capital, which also affects the nature of their social actions.

The main theorem of structuralist constructivism The theorem allows us to study the nature of social practices in the context of an integral account of very different factors of social life. In its most general form, Bourdieu himself presents it as follows:

<(габитус) X (capital)> + field = practices

The concept of habitus. Habitus is one of Bourdieu’s central categories. The objective social environment produces habitus - “a system of strong acquired predispositions”, which are subsequently used by individuals as an active ability to make changes to existing structures, as initial settings that generate and organize the practices of individuals. As a rule, these predispositions do not imply a conscious focus on achieving certain goals, because over a long period of time they are formed by possibilities and impossibilities, freedoms and necessities, permissions and prohibitions. Naturally, in specific life situations people exclude the most incredible practices.

Habitus is fundamentally different from scientific assessments. If science, after research has been carried out, involves constant correction of data, clarification of hypotheses, etc., then people who have perfectly adapted to past realities begin to act at random in new realities, not noticing that the previous conditions do not exist.

Habitus allows in social practices to connect together the past, present and future. Whatever our politicians promise, the future of Russia will one way or another be formed by reproducing past structured practices, their inclusion in the present, regardless of whether we like them or not today.

This is exactly how, according to the structural-constructivist paradigm, history is made. “Habitus,” notes Bourdieu, “is a product of history, producing individual and collective practices—history again—according to the patterns generated by history. It determines the active presence of past experience, which, existing in every organism in the form of patterns of perception, thoughts and actions, guarantees the “correctness” of practices, their constancy over time more reliably than all formal rules and explicit norms. Such a system of predispositions, i.e. present
in the present, the past, rushing into the future, by reproducing uniformly structured practices... is the principle of continuity and regularity that is noted in social practices.”

The concept of habitus substantiates the methodological principles of predicting the future through overcoming the antinomy - determinism and freedom, conscious and unconscious, individual and society. The principles of the habitus concept guide researchers to a more objective analysis of “subjective expectations”. In this regard, Bourdieu criticizes those political and economic theories, which recognize only “rational” actions. The nature of the action depends on the specific chances that individuals have; differences between individual habituses determine unevenness their social aspirations. People form their expectations in accordance with specific indicators of what is available and what is not available, what is “for us” and “not for us,” thereby adapting themselves to the probable future that they foresee and plan to realize.

As you can see, the concept of habitus allows us to debunk illusions about equal “potential opportunities”, whether in economics or politics, which only theoretically exist on paper for everyone.

Capital and its types. An agent's predisposition to a particular action largely depends on funds, which they have. In order to provide the means by which agents can satisfy their interests, Bourdieu introduces the concept capital. Capital can be represented as the equivalent of the concept resources, used by Giddens.

So, capitals act as “ structures of domination”, allowing individuals to achieve their goals. The larger the volume of capital, the more diverse they are, the easier it is for their owners to achieve certain goals. Bourdieu identifies four groups of capitals. This economic capital, cultural capital, social capital and symbolic capital.

Economic capital represents a variety of economic resources that can be used by an agent - money, goods, etc.

Cultural capital includes resources of a cultural nature. This is, first of all, education, authority educational institution which the individual graduated from, the demand for his certificates and diplomas
in the job market. A component of cultural capital is the actual structural level of the individual himself.

Social capital– means associated with an individual’s membership in a specific social group. It is clear that belonging to the upper class gives an individual more power opportunities and life chances.

Symbolic capital– this is what is usually called name, prestige, reputation. A person recognizable on television has large resources to achieve their goals than those individuals who are not popular. Almost all capital has the ability convert into each other. Thus, having symbolic capital, one can climb up the social ladder, thereby acquiring social capital. Only cultural capital can have relative independence. Even with a large amount of economic capital,
It is not easy to acquire cultural capital.

Capital conversion is carried out according to exchange qualification, which depends on the culture of society, the state of the market, and the demand for this or that type of capital.

Capital gives agents power over those who have less or no capital. Naturally, the nature of actions of individuals with a large amount of capital will be different compared to those with less capital.

The volume and structure of capital is not so difficult to calculate empirically. This fact gives the theory of structuralist constructivism a practical orientation.

Field concept. According to Bourdieu, a social field is a logically conceivable structure, a kind of environment in which social relations are carried out. But at the same time, the social field is real social, economic, political and other institutions, for example, the state or political parties. Bourdieu is not interested in institutional structures in themselves, but in objective connections between various positions, interests, people involved in them, their entry into confrontation or cooperation with each other for the acquisition of specific benefits of the field. The benefits of the field can be very different - possession of power, economic and social resources, occupation of dominant positions.

The entire social space consists of several fields - the political field, the economic field, the religious field, the scientific field, the cultural field. Each social field cannot exist without the practice of agents adequate to the field: not everyone falls into the political field, but only those individuals who, in one way or another, are related to politics; Believers fall into the religious field.

By introducing the concept of agent as opposed to subject, Bourdieu distances himself from traditional structuralism, according to which social structure completely determines and social status person and his behavior. Agents are predisposed to their own activity. In order for a field to function, it is necessary not just an attitude towards the field,
but formal activity. What is also needed is a predisposition to act according to his rules, the presence of a certain habitus, which includes knowledge of the rules of the field, willingness to accept them and act appropriately.

The field always appears to the agent as already existing, given,
and specifically individual practice can only reproduce and transform the field. For example, specific people who are ready and able to engage in entrepreneurship are included in economic field. Their entrepreneurial actions in a given economic field both reproduce and, to a certain extent, transform the field. Then the already reproduced new the field, for its part, provides the opportunity and means for the innovative economic practice of agents, while at the same time giving their behavior a normative setting. And then the process repeats again and again. On the one hand, the field rules presuppose at least minimal rationality(setting goals, choosing means and achievements), and on the other – spontaneous orientation. The field appears as a space of struggle and compromise, as well as a union of a variety of forces that are expressed in specific social practices. To a large extent, the relations of struggle and alliances, their nature depends on the differences in the agents’ own characteristics. Every competence is capital(economic, social, intellectual), use the rules that exist for everyone.

Bourdieu's formula - <(габитус) X (capital)> + field = practices reflects the essence methodological strategy, proposed by Bourdieu. If we have data on the agent’s habitus, the volume and structure of his capital, we know
in which specific social field the agent acts, we can get what we want - knowledge of character his social practices, abilities to construct certain structures.

MICROSOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES.

Background to the emergence and genesis of the theory of social conflicts

Long before the official birth of sociology, there were theories that considered society as an organized conflict or struggle between individuals and social groups, between different social strata of society, between different countries, religions, generations, genders, etc. Thus, the famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his views admits a large element of conflict in all social relations, he has no doubt that “man is a wolf to man,” and in society the natural state is “a war of all against all.” At the end of the 19th century. Herbert Spencer concluded that society selects in the process natural selection the best of the best. Spencer's contemporary Karl Marx formulated a different view of this problem. He suggested that social behavior could best be explained as a process of conflict. Marx focused on the struggle of different classes in society.

The differences in the theories put forward by Hobbes, Spencer and Marx point to the decisive influence of the original units of analysis on the course of research. While economic classes were primarily Marx's units of analysis, Hobbes and Spencer placed more emphasis on the relationship between individuals and society. However, the conflict paradigm is not limited to economic analysis. The eminent German theorist Georg Simmel was particularly interested in studying conflict in small groups. He observed that conflicts among members of one closely related group tend to be more intense than conflicts among people who do not share a common sense of belonging to the same group.

Basic concepts of the theory of social conflict

• Lewis Coser's concept of positive functional conflict;
• Ralf Dahrendorf's conflict model of society;
• Kenneth Boulding's general theory of conflict.

Concepts of L. Coser

• society is characterized by inevitable social inequality = constant psychological dissatisfaction of its members = tension in relations between individuals and groups (emotional, mental disorder) = social conflict;
• social conflict as tension between what is and what should be in accordance with the ideas of certain social groups or individuals;
• social conflict as a struggle for values ​​and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the opponents’ goals are to neutralize, damage or destroy the opponent.

R. Dahrendorf's conflict model of society

• constant social changes in society, experiencing social conflict;
• any society relies on coercion of some of its members by others = inequality of social positions in relation to the distribution of power;
• the difference in the social status of various social groups and individuals causes mutual friction, contradictions = as a result - change social structure society itself.

Kenneth Boulding's General Theory of Conflict

• all conflicts have common patterns of development = their detailed study and analysis provides the opportunity to create a generalizing theory - a “general theory of conflict”, which will allow society to control conflicts, manage them, and predict their consequences;
• Boulding argues that conflict is inseparable from social life (it is in human nature to strive to fight against one’s own kind);
• Conflict is a situation in which each party seeks to take a position that is incompatible and opposite to the interests of the other party;
• 2 aspects of social conflict: static and dynamic. Static - analysis of the parties (subjects) of the conflict (individuals, organizations, groups) and the relationship between them = classification: ethnic, religious, professional. Dynamic - studies the interests of the parties as motivating forces in the conflict behavior of people = determination of the dynamics of the conflict = there is a set of responses of the parties to external stimuli.

Wikimedia Foundation.

2010.

See what “Theory of Social Conflict” is in other dictionaries: Paradigm of social conflict, - a theory according to which society is perceived as an arena of inequality, giving rise to conflict and change...

Dictionary-reference book for social work CONFLICT THEORY - one of the main directions in macrosociology, which puts at the center of analysis social processes conflict as a phenomenon inherent in nature human society . In the 50s and 60s. XX century develops as a counterweight to structural functionalism...

Modern philosophical dictionary Conflict theory - a set of theoretical concepts, methodological techniques and directions for studying phenomena that have a direct or indirect relationship to the conflict in its various manifestations. Scientists different countries have done a lot to reveal the general... ...

Man and Society: Culturology. Dictionary-reference book CONFLICT THEORY - (CONFLICT THEORY) Social conflict takes. The concept of competition refers to a conflict regarding control over certain resources or advantages, in which actual physical violence is not used.... ... Sociological Dictionary

Social Representation Theory- analysis of how scientific. knowledge is appropriated by everyday consciousness and used in everyday practice, was formulated in fr. social psychologist S. Moscovici. Creation of T.s. p. was a response to the process of individualization of social... ... Psychology of communication. encyclopedic Dictionary

Social identification theory- The main postulate of this theory states that by dividing people into categories, we develop the concepts of the co-solidified group and others (“they” group). This leads to social comparison with others, and due to our need to create positive... ... Great psychological encyclopedia

That. represents the main direction of theory. work in sociology and social psychology, emphasizing the importance of the relationship between rewards and costs of group members in shaping their social patterns. interactions and their psychol... ... Psychological Encyclopedia

STIGMA THEORY- (labelling theory) analysis of the social processes involved in the social attribution (labeling) of positive or (most often) negative characteristics to actions, individuals or groups. This approach is particularly influential in the sociology of deviance. He… … Large explanatory sociological dictionary

- (W.L. Warner) sociol. theory that synthesizes and creatively reworks the ideas of French. sociol. school (Durkheim), symbolic. interactionism (J.G. Mead), psychoanalysis (Freud), behaviorist psychology, semantics, etc. Under… … Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

Branch of mathematics that studies formal models of acceptance optimal solutions in conditions of conflict. At the same time, conflict is understood as a phenomenon in which various parties are involved, endowed with different interests and opportunities to choose... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Books

• Sociology of conflict. Textbook for academic bachelor's degree, Solomatina E.N.. V textbook The main issues of the sociology of conflict are considered. The sociology of conflict is presented as a special sociological theory that studies the connections and relationships of social...

The English philosopher and sociologist G. Spencer (1820–1903) considered conflict “an inevitable phenomenon in the history of human society and a stimulus for social development.”

Conflict is most often associated with aggression, threats, disputes, and hostility. As a result, there is an opinion that conflict is always undesirable, that it should be avoided whenever possible, and that it should be resolved immediately as soon as it arises. K. Marx's concept of social class conflict examines the contradictions between the level of productive forces and the nature of production relations, which are the source of social conflict. Their discrepancy turns production relations at a certain stage into a brake on the development of productive forces, which leads to conflict. The solution to the conflict is contained in social revolution, the classic formulation of which was given by K. Marx: “At a certain stage of their development, the productive material forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production within which they have hitherto developed. From forms of development of productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then comes the era of social revolution. With a change in the economic basis, a revolution occurs more or less quickly in the entire enormous superstructure.” Ralf Dahrendorf's dialectical concept of conflict seems to follow the Marxist concept, but differs significantly from the latter. The basis for dividing people into classes, according to Dahrendorf, is

is their participation or non-participation in the exercise of power. It is not only the power of employers over workers that creates the basis for conflict. Conflict can arise in any organization (hospital, university, etc.) where there are managers and subordinates. To designate these organizations, Dahrendorf uses Weber's concept of an imperative-coordinated association (ICA), which is a well-organized system of roles. Resolving the conflict in the ICA is aimed at redistributing authority and power within it. Conflicts are becoming more diverse. Instead of a society that was sharply polarized, a pluralistic society with overlapping interests and therefore various conflicts emerges. In Western post-capitalist society, great opportunities arise for regulating class conflict, which is not eliminated, but is localized within the enterprise. For successful conflict management, according to Dahrendorf, three circumstances are important:

1) recognition of different points of view;

2) high level of organization of the conflicting parties;

3) the presence of game rules.

One of the founders of the Chicago school, R. Park, included conflict among the four main types of social interaction, along with competition, adaptation and assimilation. From his point of view, competition, which is social form the struggle for existence, being conscious, turns into a conflict, which, thanks to assimilation, is intended to lead to strong mutual contacts, to cooperation and to promote better adaptation.

Social conflict can become both a means of stabilizing intragroup relations and is fraught with a social explosion. This depends on the nature of the social structure under the influence of which the conflict develops. The following functions of conflict are distinguished:

1) the release of tension, i.e. conflict, serves as an “exhaust valve” of tension;

2) communicative and informational, i.e., as a result of collisions, people check each other, receive new information about the environment and learn about their balance of power;

3) creation, i.e. confrontation helps the group unite and not collapse in difficult times;

4) integration of social structure, i.e. conflict does not destroy integrity, but supports it;

5) rule-making, i.e. conflict contributes to the creation of new forms and social institutions.