Chapter 2 SOCIAL CONFLICT THEORY, CONTEXTUALIZATION FOR INDIAN SOCIETY AND THEORETICAL FORMULATION

Transcription

1 10 Chapter 2 SOCIAL CONFLICT THEORY, CONTEXTUALIZATION FOR INDIAN SOCIETY AND THEORETICAL FORMULATION 2.1 Introduction Since the focus of the study is water dispute, which is a social conflict, sociological perspective of social conflict is explored and evolved as the theoretical framework for the study. The term conflict is interchangeably used with the term dispute in this thesis, using the broader definition of conflict as explained later in this chapter under the subsection of defining conflict and conflicting units. There are different streams of social conflict theorizing in sociology. In fact, social conflict theorizing is older than sociology itself. Don Martindale has provided an excellent account of this historical background of conflict perspective. The researcher has selectively highlighted relevant points from that account to provide an understanding of the historical theoretical perceptions of social conflict. Modern sociological conflict perspective is a Western origin subsequent to the social conditions created by industrial capitalism initially. It resurged later as an intellectual response to the social disenchantment against the dominant functionalist perspective. Within the modern social conflict theoretical orientation, there are two divergent perspectives namely, the critical perspective which originated from the writings of Karl Marx and the conflict functionalism

2 11 perspective which has its roots in the writings of Georg Simmel. There is another neutral conflict theoretical and methodological orientation that has its origin in the works of Max Weber, which is called as the analytic conflict tradition by Ruth Wallace and Allison Wolf 14. Following these three traditions, the contemporary scholars like Ralf Dahrendorf, Lewis Coser and Randall Collins and many others, have specifically expanded sociological conflict theory. These and other authors, in their attempts to enhance the applicability of conflict perspective to explain contemporary social phenomena, have also attempted at fruitful synthesis of the early masters of conflict theory. The analytical conflict proposition of Max Weber and the functional conflict proposition of Georg Simmel were by themselves such a synthesis, which the later theorists have followed. This study, in the process of evolving the theoretical framework for studying water dispute, presents the above trends as a kind of lead for its synthesis of the various social conflict perspectives in order to have a broader analytical canvass to explain the social reality of water dispute. Although, sociology had Western origin for historical reasons, Indian sociologists have presented their own perspectives of social conflicts to contextualize or indigenize social conflict perspective for understanding social conflicts in the Indian society. The uniqueness of Indian society lies in its traditional and cultural diversity, unity and continuity, multi-functional social 14 Ruth Wallace and Alison Wolf Contemporary Sociological Theory: Continuing the Classical Tradition.

3 12 structural components, and the varied political, economic and cultural influences it has been encountered with by the alien invasions and colonization in the course of national formation and social transformation. Noting this, the Indian sociologists and others had worked towards a sociology for India with a continuous passion from 1920s onwards. 15 In sum, conflict theory as a general scheme for social analysis is Western, contributed by Karl Marx, Max Weber and Georg Simmel and developed by their successors. On the other hand, the indigenization of conflict perspective in India has been done for studying Indian society in its own historical and socio-cultural context by the pioneers and modernizers of Indian sociology 16. Therefore, both Western and Indian sociological perspectives of social conflict are considered for developing a theoretical framework for the study. The above shifts, however, shall not misguide the researcher to ignore common sense and other forms of non-scientific knowledge but to help him to provide a perspective to explore their validity impartially and objectively using scientific method and subsequently adding them to or deleting from the body of social-scientific knowledge, appropriately. Therefore, the matter of sociology could be values and other human elements but as a method, it needs to adhere to value-freedom. 15 See Yogendra Singh (1985) for an excellent account of this indigenization and contextualization endeavour towards sociology for India and other relevant developments in Indian Sociolgy. 16 See Yogendra Singh 1985

4 Social Conflict Perspective: The Historical Background Every society has its conflicts. No society can survive without individuals who face up to them. The relatively complete failure of early sociology 17 to recognize and explain the facts of conflict led to the notion that conflict and its resolution are a central fact of society and to search tradition for relevant materials (Don Martindale, 1960, p. 129). Social order is conspicuous at any point of time because of resolution or suppression of social conflicts rather than their absence or elimination. The following historical descriptions of social conflict that existed and methods of their resolution advocated for achieving social order 18 reveal this observation. Heraclitus ( BC) and the Sophists of ancient Greece whose doctrines were transmitted to Epicurus ( BC) of Rome, Kautilya (better known as Chanakya), the prime minister of the Maurya emperor Chandragupta ( BC) and Han Fei Tzu the teacher of Li Ssu, the Chinese dictator, conceptualized human struggle against nature and among fellow human beings and advocated that law created the necessary fear to keep men good and productive. These ancient scholars treated conflict as the primary social fact. Polybius ( BC), the son of an Achaean statesman and subsequently a surrendered life-time war hostage of the Roman government, considered conflict was the fundamental fact in the evolution of political 17 Positivistic Organicism 18 This is exclusively based on Don Martindale s (1960) account of historical antecedents of social conflict theorizing.

5 14 institutions and visualized state as a kind of stabilized system of power. The human communities passed through in a cyclical fashion from monarchy, kingship, tyranny, aristocracy, and democracy. At the origin, the impulsive compulsion of weakness in human beings made them to live as communities with the strongest and bravest as their monarchs. Monarchy was the first form of human community and its virtue was power relations legitimatized by might. The second form, the kingship was based on justice and legitimate authority arising out of the sense of mutual obligation of the ruler to uphold justice and peace and of the majority to retain the ruler in power. When the descendants of the king turn the rule into tyranny forgetting their obligation to people, the most high-minded and noble of the people conspired and overthrew the tyrants with people s support and formed aristocracy. When aristocracy became hereditary and unendurable, democracy came in. Liberty and equality made people, as individuals and groups, to conspire for influence resulting in demagogues creating a state of anarchy, anomie and disorder. It was again time to revert to monarchy. The only way to bring this cycle to an end was to combine the best elements of kingship, aristocracy and democracy to develop a new kind of human governance. Such a mixed constitution was designed by Lycurgus of Sparta and also evolved in Rome, where the consuls represented kingship, the senate aristocracy and the people democracy. Lucretius, Horace and Livy of the later Epicurean school among the Romans added Polybius doctrines, taking conflict as critical and making the Roman expansion and centralization of power look legitimate as blessings of peace.

6 15 With the fall of Rome, conflict theories were dropped in the West since the theologians of the medieval world found them inconsistent with their ideas. Conflict theory then found expression in the Arab world mainly through Ibn Khaldun ( ) in his exposition on social solidarity as a distinctive determinant of a society s existence. According to him, the state and society are made of it. Solidarity makes a society strong to conquer the societies which are less strong in solidarity. He identified two types of it namely tribal solidarity in nomadic societies based on kinship and religious solidarity in sedentary societies based on centering emotion and thought in a common purpose. State and religion can establish themselves only by strife over another state and religion. The sweeping conquest of the Muslim Arabs in the seventh century was made possible by the fusion of tribal and religious solidarities. It is concluded that the sedentary societies soon fall prey to internal or external aggression due to loss of cohesion, estrangement between ruler and subject, growing luxury and heavier tax burden. The works of the French jurists and Nicollo Machiavelli ( ) of Italy made conflict again as the key to the interpretation of social and political events in the West after Roman times. Machiavelli s doctrines of evil nature of humans and the cyclical passage of forms of state from monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy and democracy follows Polybius and the later Epicurean school model. His best-known work, The Prince and his more profound Discourse on the First Ten Books of Livy have different view points. He

7 16 thought a unified state could be established only by a dictator but balancing the interests of the prince, nobles and people is essential for maximizing liberty. Jean Bodin ( ) adopted theory of historical stages as a means to analyze society and state. According to him, many social phenomena, such as class distinctions, can ultimately traced to the superiority-subordination relation of conquerors and conquered. A stable social structure consists in a process of continuing dissolution and reorganization in which conflict plays a part. Conflict builds the problemsolving capacity of people and lack of conflict is fatal. He wrote that sovereignty is the essential characteristic of civil society and state, every association from family to state in society involves superordination and subjection and revolutions are changes in the location of authority. Thomas Hobbes ( ) argued from a basic set of premises about human nature that all are in a state of restless desire to subjugate the other. The state originates in the context of natural condition of war, in the recognized need for self-preservation, as a powerful sovereign individual replacing or subordinating many in the interest of human life by the will of the conflicting people. David Hume ( ) concluded that all governments and all authority of the few over the many are founded upon three things namely public interest, right to power and right to property. The legitimate power of the state rests basically on force. He insisted that some combination of force

8 17 and consent are operative in social structure. Adam Ferguson ( ), a member of Scottish Enlightenment, an admirer of Montesquieu, along with David Hume thought that while man is born in society, some of his important institutions originate in force and conflict is necessary concomitant to progress. Out of the efforts of man to secure values arises the order and authority of society. The forms and powers of government are established by the incidents of struggle. Ferguson also believed that consent is only one component in the institutions of government and doubts that peace is the goal of society. Anne Robert Jacques Turgot ( ), following Montesquieu, developed the conception of a plurality of influences on mankind and as a rationalist assumed that human mind is basically same everywhere. These premises establish the value for social science of comparative social and historical evidence to reveal the laws of human mind and society. He concluded that conflict, the great liquidator of fixed elements of mediocrity is the source of all real progress. Thus, it is seen that the traditional conflict theory had state as the focus of analysis as the sociopolitical institution balancing the conflicts of individuals and groups for peace and progress. In the eighteenth century, some propositions central to conflict theory like universal competition were adapted to the explanation of economic phenomena which led to physiocracy that advocated the primacy of struggle

9 for the necessities of life, the value of agricultural production and the existence of natural social order. 18 Adam Smith, the great classical economist in The Wealth of Nations (1776) took over and modified the postulates of physiocracy as follows: (i) The source of all value is labour; (ii) Free competition in economic sphere maximizes productivity; (iii) Natural forces will reconcile both individual and group needs; and (iv) The sphere of government should be correspondingly reduced. Therefore, while Adam Smith advocated economic conflict as a great agency of efficiency in the production of the basic necessities of life. The conflict formula of classical economics was expanded by Thomas Robert Malthus ( ). When conflict is the basis for increasing productivity, it is positive but conflict can be negative when it becomes the struggle for scarce value which everyone cannot have. Comparing population growth and agricultural production, he explained that the conflict among the geometrically increasing population against the arithmetically increasing food production is negative in result. This conflict has negative consequences for the conduct of society, standard of living, condition of labour and social classes. He advocated preventive checks without loss of moral values and also conceived positive checks to control population growth to manage this conflict Malthus conclusions gave a severe blow to the rationalistic optimism and influenced evolutionary biology theory of Darwin, the struggle for survival and the survival of the fittest. Later, Darwin s biology inspired Darwinism in sociology.

10 Modern Social Conflict Perspectives Three major forms of conflict ideology arose in the nineteenth century, whose interests were interestingly exactly opposite. Marxian socialism, which attempted to explain every other social phenomena as class based and economically caused, represented a conflict ideology in the names and interests of the proletariat aimed at the worldwide union of the working class to create ultimately a utopian classless social order after overthrowing the capitalistic society. The other two were the two forms of social Darwinism, which represented a conflict ideology in the name of the business groups of modern society, the upper strata of bourgeois society, aimed at racism and imperialism. Apart from the difference between ideology and scientific theory, the major conflict ideologies of the nineteenth century raised many vital issues that social sciences eventually had to solve. The issues raised were: the problems of nationalism and imperialism, the problems of racial and other minority groups, the relevance of individual differences and biological limits of human society 20 Today, the conflict issues are ramified and manifold. However, the basic premise of universal competition remains the same (Martindale, 1960, pp ). In the words of Don Martindale: Marxism and Social Darwinism were conflict ideologies, vindicating particular social positions and spurring particular action programmes. The positivistic organicism proved to be inadequate as it closed its eyes 20 In today s context, it can be extended as the ecological limits.

11 20 to whole blocks of empirical facts namely conflict. Conflict sociology emerged as the second form of sociological theory (the first being positivistic organicism) precisely because while correcting positivistic organicism in a realistic manner it was conformable to the same ideological requirements, namely a combination of conservatism and scientific method. Though the occurrence of conflict is the most obvious fact, the normal task of on-going society is the resolution or suppression of conflict and to achieve equilibrium. The conservative wisdom along with the aid of scientific method seem to achieve this state of dynamic equilibrium. Wallace, Ruth A. and Alison Wolf (1986) writes: As an approach to analyze the structure of society, social conflict theory is the major alternative to functionalism. There are disagreements among its proponents but they share a number of basic assumptions which create a distinct way of looking at the social world. These are: Society is an arena in which groups fight (conflict) for power; The control of conflict means that one group is able to suppress its rivals temporarily; Civil law defines and upholds a particular order that benefits some groups at the expense of others; The focus is on the shifting balance of power among competing groups, not on the equilibrium of interdependence and cooperation; People have a number of basic interests, things they want and attempt

12 to acquire and which are not defined by societies, but rather common to them all; 21 Power is the core of social relationships. It is scarce, unequally distributed and coercive. It is a source of conflict and is dependent on possession of other resources that gives people less or more power; Values and ideas are weapons used by different groups to pursue their own interests rather than means of defining a whole society s identity and goals; (As discussed under ideas and legitimacy) They further establish that apart from the above common assumptions, conflict theory can be divided into two quite dissimilar traditions, namely the critical tradition and the analytic tradition. These differ above all in their view of social science (i.e., their methodology) and in whether they believe that conflict can ever be eradicated (i.e., their goal). The basic elements of conflict theory were set out by two of the greatest sociologists, Karl Marx and Max Weber. It is noted that much of Weber s work incorporates a debate with Marx and Marxist analysis and both these authors had the same two concerns: (1) the way the social position bestows more or less power on the incumbent ; and (2) the role of ideas in creating or undermining the legitimacy of a social position. (Wallace, Ruth A. and Alison Wolf, 1986)

13 The Critical Tradition This believes that the social scientists have a moral obligation to engage in a critique of society, that analysis and judgement of fact and value are inseparable and that conflict-free society is attainable. These theorists are frequently considered Utopian writers. The critical tradition began in the nineteenth century starting from the writings of Karl Marx. (Ruth A. Wallace and Alison Wolf 1986) Some believe that conflict theory in sociology is the creation of Karl Marx to the extent that Marxism and conflict theory are sometimes discussed synonymously. Marxism is also respected for its demonstrated close connection between a theorist s ideas and the events of the real world. To them, the basic elements of conflict theory are all apparent in Marx s works, which are: People have an essential nature and predefined interests; If people do not behave in accordance with these interests, it means they are deceived about their true interests by the social system that operates in others favour; Conflicts of interests exist between different social groups; Ideas or ideologies are linked with the interests of those who develop them; and The ideas of an age reflect the interests of the ruling class. It is notable that Marx emphasized the primacy of technology and

14 patterns of property ownership in determining the nature of people s lives and the course of social conflict. 23 To some other however, as stated earlier, Marxism is more an ideology that criticized the existing social order dominated by bourgeoisie which exploited and alienated the working class in a four dimensional way. The conflict between the ruling and the ruled classes caused historical social changes with the underlying economic foundation The Analytical Tradition This considers conflict as an inevitable and permanent aspect of social life and social science should be with the canon of objectivity like natural sciences. Max Weber writings are considered to be the starting point of this tradition, and the works of Ralf Dahrendorf, Lewis Coser and Randall Collins continued that although the influence of Karl Marx on these later theorists is quite apparent. Jonathan H Turner (1987) writes: Weber was devoted to historical analyses, especially the transition to industrial bureaucratic social orders. His implicit positivism is evident in his works on more enduring and invariant social processes namely stratification, conflict and change. In his seminal ideas on these topics, he developed a number of conflict principles, different

15 24 from Marx s in terms of points of emphasis. Much contemporary conflict theory uses these principles frequently without acknowledgement. These principles are found in his discussion of the transition from social order based on traditional authority to that based on rational-legal authority. It was noted that the early conflict theory came from men who were close to actual affairs and therefore got transformed into conflict ideology catering to the needs of specific groups. Conflict sociology, on the other hand, aspires to be an explanation rather than a social program. In this endeavour, while being more empirically positivistic, in somewhat more subtle fashion, it did not violate the need for conservative position by finding its lodestar in stability. Precisely because of its acceptance of the universality of conflict, the vindication of society is found in achieved order (Don Martindale, 1960, p.206). According to Don Martindale, the sociological gains as one moves from organismic positivism to conflict theory of this sort are immense. The analysis and conception of society shifts to: infinitely variable relations of groups, whole range of processes instead of grand schemes of evolution, stabilities of customs and disrupting factors, the problem of the interrelation of economic, political and social institutions, and

16 25 the problem of social class and social shaping of individual behaviour The modern Conflict Theoretical Perspective that was resynthesized from 1950s criticized that Functionalism, especially the Parsonian type, underemphasized the conflictual nature of social reality. David Lockwood (1956) argued that: 1. The functionalistic fantasy of social equilibrium restricted social analysis of the mechanisms that maintained order and permanence rather than those that systematically generated disorder and change; 2. By idealizing order and equilibrium, the ubiquitous phenomena of instability, disorder and conflict too easily got viewed as deviant, abnormal and pathological; 3. There are MECHANISMS IN SOCIETIES THAT MAKE CONFLICT INEVITABLE and inexorable such as: a. POWER DIFFERENTIALS assuring that some groups will exploit others and constituting a built-in source of tension and conflict in social systems; b. The existence of SCARCE RESOURCES in societies generating conflicts over the distribution of the resources; and c. Different INTEREST GROUPS pursuing different goals and vying with one another in society assure that conflict will erupt. 4. These CONFLICT MECHANISMS OR FORCES are as analytically

17 significant to the understanding of social systems as the functional mechanisms of socialization and social control. 26 (Cf. Jonathan H. Turner 1987: ) Ralf Dahrendorf crystallized this conflict criticism of functionalism by comparing functional theory to a utopia on the following grounds: 1. Having few historical antecedents; 2. Displaying universal consensus on prevailing values and institutional arrangements; and 3. Processes that maintain the existing order. Hence, functional theorizing supported an existing social order, ignoring history, dissension over values and conflict in institutional arrangements. (Jonathan H. Turner 1987:130) As mentioned earlier, the sources of inspiration for the emerging range of conflict alternatives to functionalism and positivistic organicism were Karl Marx, Max Weber and George Simmel 21, all from Germany. Out of this ferment among the three great German sociologists Marx, Weber and Simmel emerged a variety of approaches that share little else in common than their use of the works of Marx, Simmel and Weber to analyze elements of inequality, power, domination and conflict in human societies. (Jonathan H. Turner, 1987: ) 21 Georg Simmel inspired Conflict Functionalism.

18 27 Karl Marx s three works namely The German Ideology, Capital and The Communist Manifesto have been the most influential in the development of critical theory that stresses the emancipatory themes and dialectical method. In The German Ideology Marx made his first call to make social theory critical of oppressive arrangements and propose emancipatory alternatives. Marx s emphasis on the relation between consciousness and selfreflection, on the one hand, and social reality on the other is central to contemporary conflict theory. He saw humans as being unique by virtue of their conscious awareness of themselves and their situation. They are capable of self-reflection and hence, assessments of their positions in society. Such consciousness arises out of people s daily existence and is not a realm of ideas that is somewhat independent of the material world, as German philosophy (Hegelian) has argued. Turning Hegel upside down, for Marx people produce their ideas and conception based on their social reality than ideas producing their social reality. In addition, Marx argued that the human capacity to use language, thinking and analysis allows them to alter their environment (social reality). People do not have to merely react mechanically to their material conditions but use their capacities to construct new material conditions and corresponding social relations. Indeed the course of history involved such processes of social reconstruction. The goal of social theory is then is to expose the oppressive social relations and to propose alternatives. Marx began with a simple assumption that economic organisation

19 28 determines social organisation. The social structure, institutional arrangements, cultural values, beliefs, religious dogmas, and other idea systems are ultimately a reflection of the economic base of a society. The second assumption is that inherent in the economic organisation are forces generating revolutionary class conflict. The third assumption is that conflict is bipolar. Although these assumptions are seriously criticised, Marx s formulations had served as an intellectual springboard for conflict theorizing in sociology with the following set of assumptions: 1. Systemic social relationships are rife with conflicting interests; 2. Conflict most frequently occurs over the distribution of scarce resources, most notably power and material wealth; and 3. Conflict is a major source of change in social systems. (Jonathan H. Turner 1987:132-34) Jonathan H. Turner (1987) has summarized Karl Marx s key social conflict propositions as follows: 1. Unequal distribution of scarce resources; 2. Consciousness of that by the subordinate groups; 3. Communication of their subordinate position; 4. Unifying ideologies;

20 29 5. Overt conflict and relative deprivation 6. Polarization and political leadership 7. Violence and change. Georg Simmel was oriented towards describing the form of basic social processes (hence his terminology formal sociology). His method was to observe and abstract the essential properties from processes and events in a wide variety of empirical contexts with a hope to develop abstract statements that depicted the most fundamental social processes of social organisation. This is very well illustrated in his short essay on social conflict 22 which serves as a major source of insight for contemporary conflict theory in sociology. (Jonathan H. Turner, 1987, p.138) Although like Marx, Simmel viewed conflict as ubiquitous and inevitable in society, unlike the former, he did not view social structure as domination and subjugation, but rather as an inseparable mingling associative and dissociative processes. The influence of the prevailing organismic doctrines led Simmel to seek out the consequences of conflict for social continuity rather than change. In his own words, Conflict is thus designed to resolve dualisms; it is a way of achieving some kind of unity (Jonathan H. Turner 1987:139) Simmel viewed conflict as a reflection of not only of conflicts of interests but also of hostile instincts. He viewed one of the ultimate sources 22 Georg Simmel, 1956, Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliation.

21 30 of conflict to lie in the innate biological makeup of human actors. The innate conflict instinct (hate) in humans can be exacerbated by conflicts of interest or mitigated by harmonious relations as well as by instincts for love. Simmel saw conflict as one of the social processes that contribute to maintain the body social by ultimately promoting solidarity and unification. Simmel s view of social organisation can be distilled as follows: 1. Social relationships occur within systemic contexts that can only be typified as an organic intermingling of associative and dissociative processes; 2. Such processes are a reflection of both the instinctual impulses of actors and the imperatives dictated by various types of social relationships; 3. Conflict processes are therefore a ubiquitous feature of social systems, but they do not necessarily, in all cases, lead to breakdown of the system and/or to social change. 4. Conflict, in fact, is one of the principal processes operating to preserve the social whole and/or some of its subparts. (Jonathan H. Turner 1987:139-40) Simmel conceptualized conflict as a variable, with competition (the more regulated and parallel strivings of parties toward a mutually

22 31 exclusive end) and fight (the less regulated and more direct combative activities of parties against each other) as the two polar ends of that variable continuum. Therefore, unlike Marx who saw conflict resulting in revolutionary structural changes, Simmel focussed on less intense and less violent conflict forms that promoted the solidarity, integration and orderly change of the system. Simmel s propositions of conflict intensity directly relates emotional involvement (resulting through solidarity and harmony among members), group goals transcending individual goals and ambiguity of ends to violence. (Jonathan H. Turner 1987:141) For Simmel, unlike Marx, the increased level of organization within conflict groups enables them to realize many of their goals without overt violence, and such realization of clearly defined goals cuts down internal system tension and hence promotes integration. Marx visualized mild conflicts as intensifying as the parties become increasingly polarized and finally the resulting violent conflict would lead to radical social change. In contrast, Simmel observed that conflicts of low intensity and high frequency in systems of high degrees of interdependence release tensions and become normatively regulated, thereby promoting stability in social systems. Violence potential of conflicts is reduced due to increasing organisation of the groups and better articulation of their interests which initiate milder forms of conflict involving competition, bargaining and compromise. Thus Simmel s analysis provides more options on conflict outcomes and their underlying processes and conditions than Marx s emancipatory analysis.

23 32 Turner notes that sufficient synthesis of Marx s and Simmel s propositions has led to avoidance of extremes in their respective analyses, namely organization and polarization for Marx and unmitigated functionalism and analysis of positive consequences for Simmel (Jonathan H. Turner 1987: ) Simmel s early conflict functionalism implicitly attacks Marx s emancipatory mission by viewing capitalism as liberating people from their traditional constraints instead of oppressing or alienating as viewed by Marx. Therefore, the early critical theories who followed Marxian viewpoint found Weber s highly pessimistic view of the constraints of modern society acceptable and rejected Simmel s more benign views. In an attempt to reconstruct Marx s vision of humans capacity to make history, the critical theorists viewed the liberating force as somehow springing from human nature and its capacity for conscious reflection against the constraining modern society. Max Weber in addition to being a critical link in the reinterpretation of Marx for the critical theorists of this century, also presents an important corrective to Marx s more formal theory of revolutionary conflict. Weber s analysis of stratification, conflict and social change provided the guidance for the development of positivistically oriented conflict theory. According to Weber, in traditional authority societies, the sanctity of traditions legitimates political and social activity. In such societies, three conditions lead to the emergence of charismatic leaders who organize

24 33 conflict groups and challenge traditional authority: 1. A high degree of correlation among POWER (incumbency in positions of political power i.e. party), WEALTH (occupancy in advanced economic positions i.e. class, and PRESTIGE (membership in high-ranking social circles i.e. status groups). That is, for example, when economic elites are also political and social elites and vice versa, then those who are excluded from power, wealth and prestige become resentful and receptive to conflict alternatives; 2. A dramatic discontinuity in the distribution of rewards, or the existence of divisions in social hierarchies that give privilege to some and very little to others; and 3. Low chance and low rate of social mobility. According to Weber, the critical force that galvanizes the resentments inhering in these three conditions is charisma. Charismatic leaders, when they emerge due to historical circumstances in the background of these three conditions, challenge traditional authority and mobilize resentments over the hoarding of resources by elites and the lack of opportunities to gain access to wealth, power, or prestige by others and force structural changes to occur. When successful, such leaders confront organizational problems of consolidating their gains. One result is that charisma becomes routinized, as leaders create formal rules, procedures and structures for organising followers

25 34 after their successful mobilization to pursue conflict. If routinization takes a traditional form, thus creating a new system of traditional authority, renewed conflict can be expected as membership in class, status and party becomes highly correlated; as the new elites hoard resources; and as mobility is blocked. However, if rational-legal routinization occurs, then authority is based upon equally applied laws and rules; and performance and ability become the basis for recruitment and promotion in bureaucratic structures. Under these conditions, conflict potential will be mitigated. The unique characteristic of Weber s analysis that surpasses Marx s analysis lies in the former s recognition that inequality exists along several dimensions, that the level of correlation among incumbents along these dimensions is critical and that the degree of discontinuity in the distribution of resources and the opportunities/rates of social mobility are also crucial. Marx propositions tended to overemphasize the economic basis of inequality and visualize simple polarization of societies into propertied (exploiting) and non-propertied (exploited) classes. Weber s propositions, on the other hand, look into the variations along three dimensions namely in the distribution of (political) power, (economic) wealth and (social) prestige, the extent to which holders of one resource control the other resources, the extent to which they clearly demarcate privileged and deprived and the extent of denial of social mobility in order to understand the resentments and tensions that make people prone to conflict. Similarly, while for Marx political leadership for change was inevitable and lead to

26 35 progress, for Weber leadership is not inevitable, nor is it necessarily liberating. Indeed, it can restore a new system of inequality and privilege thus escalating resentments and potential conflict. Weber was concerned with the historical transition from traditional societies to modern capitalist societies and he did not see any possibility for the transition to utopian communist societies as envisaged by Marx 23. Weber s argument for capitalism and bureaucracy is based on the concept of rationalization. He argued that the rationality that defines modern societies is means-ends rationality which involves selecting the best means to achieve a defined end. The process of rationalization involves the increasing penetration of the means-ends rationality into ever more spheres of life and the consequent destruction of traditions. For as bureaucracies expand in the economic and governmental sphere and as markets allow individuals to pursue their personal ends rationally, then the traditional moral fabric is broken. Weber agreed with Simmel that this rationalization of life brings individuals a new freedom from domination by religious dogmatism, community, class and other traditional forces; but in their place, it creates a new kind of domination by impersonal economic forces, such as markets and corporate bureaucracies, and by the vast administrative apparatus of the ever-expanding state. Human options 23 Weber s description and explanation of this transition, as it occurred in the Western European nations, is a devastating critique of Marx s optimism that the conditions for the revolutionary transition to a new utopian society were being created. Weber s analysis is complex, and the historical detail that he presents to document his case is impressive, but his argument is captured by the word rationalization.

27 36 were, in Weber s view, becoming ever more constrained by the iron cage of rational-legal systems. And unlike Marx, he did not see such a situation as rife with revolutionary potential; on the contrary, he saw the social world as ever more administered by impersonal bureaucratic forces. This pessimistic view of Weber seemed, by the early 1930s, to be a far more reasonable assessment of modern society than Marx s utopian dream 24. Aside from self-conscious conflict theories, the basic tenets of conflict sociology inequality, tension and conflict are now incorporated into many other theoretical orientations in sociology. Following the three great traditions of Marx, Weber and Simmel, there are three very significant but different conflict theories that have sprung: the dialectical approach of Ralf Dahrendorf, the conflict functionalism of Lewis Coser and the critical theory of Jurgen Habermas 25 (Jonathan H. Turner 1987: ) Ralf Dahrendorf s Dialectical Conflict Theory In the late 1950s, Ralf Dahrendorf persistently argued that the Parsonian scheme and functionalism in general presents an overly consensual, integrated and static vision of society. In his view, society has two faces one of consensus, the other of conflict. Since functionalism had focused only 24 The communist revolution in Russia had degenerated into Stalinism and bureaucratic totalitarianism by the party. In the West, particularly the United States, workers seemed ever more willing to sell themselves in markets and work in large scale organizations. Political fascism in Germany and Italy seemed to be increasing as dictators created large authoritarian bureaucracies. 25 Just as Weber s ideas forced revision of Marx s more formal propositions among modern positivists, so his analysis of the process of rationalization required critical theorists to reformulate the emancipatory dream of Marx.

28 37 on the former face, Dahrendorf choose to focus on the other face as follows: Concentrate in the future not only on concrete problems but on such problems as involve explanations in terms of constraint, conflict and change. This second face of society may aesthetically be rather less pleasing than the social system but if all sociology had to offer were an easy escape to Utopian tranquility, it would hardly be worth our efforts 26 (Jonathan H. Turner 1987:151) The model that emerges from this theoretical calling is a dialectical conflict perspective, which represents one of the best efforts to incorporate the insights of Marx and, to a lesser extent, Weber into a coherent set of theoretical propositions. In his analysis, Dahrendorf is careful to note that processes other than conflict are evident in social systems and that even the conflict phenomena he examines are not the only kinds of conflict in societies. However, he seems to put forward his model as a more comprehensive theory of society that provides a more adequate base for theorizing about human social organization. Dahrendorf s Image of Social Order For Dahrendorf, the process of institutionalization involves the creation of imperatively coordinated associations (hereinafter referred to as ICAs). ICAs represent a distinguishable organisation of roles. This organisation is characterised by power relationships, with some roles having power to extract conformity from others. Any social unit from a small group or formal 26 Ralf Dahrendorf, Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociological Analysis, American Journal of Sociology 64 (September 1958), p.127.

29 38 organization to a community or an entire society can be seen as an ICA if roles are organized with power differentials. The coercive power relations in ICAs are legitimated as authority relations in which some positions have the legal right to dominate others. Social order is maintained by processes creating authority relations in the various types of ICAs existing throughout all layers of social systems 27 (Jonathan H. Turner 1987:152) Power and authority are the scarce resources over which subgroups within a designated ICA compete and fight. They are thus the major sources of conflict and change in these institutionalized patterns. Even though the roles in ICAs possess varying degrees of authority, any particular ICA can be typified in terms of just two basic types of roles (or more clearly clusters of roles), ruling and ruled. The ruling cluster of roles has an interest in preserving the status quo, and the ruled cluster has an interest in redistributing power / authority. Awareness of these contradictory interests under certain conditions lead to polarization into two conflicting groups and the conflict resolution through the redistribution of authority in the ICA. The redistribution represents the institutionalization of a new clusters of ruling and ruled roles, which in turn under certain conditions polarize and conflict for another change. Thus social reality holds an unending cycle of conflict over authority within the various types of ICAs which comprise the social world. Sometimes the conflicts within diverse ICAs in a society overlap, leading to major conflicts cutting across large segments of the society, otherwise the 27 Ralf Dahrendorf 1958, 1959, 1961 & 1967.

30 39 conflicts are confined to particular ICAs. Much like Marx, the image of institutionalization as a cyclical or dialectic process limits Dahrendorf s analysis only to certain key causal relations: 1. Conflict as a result of social structure; 2. Intervening structural conditions that accelerate or retard such conflicts; and 3. Conflict resolution leading to new structural arrangements which lead to newer conflicts. However, Dahrendorf drifted away from Marx in identifying the institutionalized authority relations of ICAs as the source of conflict instead of property relations. The authority role relations (the institutional substructure) that are initially supposed to integrate an ICA later become the source of conflict under different conditions. Dahrendorf s dialectical causal imagery is same as that of Marx, starting from social organization with relations of domination and subjugation, existence of objective opposition of interests, consciousness of that by the subjugated, polarization and politicization of opposing groups, overt conflict and finally resulting in social reorganization However, Turner cautions that the (Dahrendorf s) view of power only in terms of authority has limited analytical options just like Marx s limiting to property relations (Jonathan H. Turner 1987:154)

31 40 Turner further notes that Dahrendorf s implicit propositions are selectively congruent with the propositions of Marx, Simmel and Weber (although Marxian legacy seems more prominent) thus synthesizing to a significant extent the traditionally different streams of conflict theory. Deriving from Marx, Dahrendorf views conflict as related to subordinates growing awareness of their interests and formation into conflict groups and defines such awareness and group formation as a positive function of the degree to which (a) the technical conditions (leadership and unifying ideology), (b) the political conditions (capacity to organize), and (c) the social conditions (ability to communicate) are met. However, borrowing from Simmel and contradicting Marx, he emphasizes that if groups are not well organized that is, if the technical, political and social conditions are not met then conflict is likely to be emotionally involving (intense and violent). Dahrendorf then borrows from Weber in stressing that the superimposition of rewards that is, the degree of correlation among those who enjoy privilege with respect to power, wealth and prestige also increases the conflict emotionality of the subordinates. The proposition that the lack of mobility into positions of authority escalates subordinates emotionality is derived from both Marx and Weber. The proposition that the violence of conflict is related to the lack of organization and clear articulation of interests is from Simmel and is a contradiction to Marx. The proposition that the subordinates perception of relative deprivation increases the likelihood of violent conflict is again based on Marx s theory. The proposition that violence in conflict is inversely proportional to the system s capacity to develop regulatory procedures to deal

32 41 with grievances and tensions is from Simmel. And finally, Marxian influence is clear in explaining how conflict produces varying rates and degrees of structural change in a social system (Jonathan H. Turner 1987:155-60) Turner argues that Dahrendorf conveniently assumes that authority implies domination and subjugation, and conflict of interest. These concepts are taken as constants. In reality, they are to be analyzed as variables, clarifies Turner (1987:160). Further, Turner suggests that the vagueness in Dahrendorf s analysis can be solved by conceptualizing ICAs, legitimacy, authority, domination-subjugation and interests as variable phenomena and to attempt a statement of the intervening empirical conditions that influence their variability (p.161). Such an alteration, Turner hopes, would address a theoretical question: under what conditions do ICAs create legitimated authority relations that generate clear relations of domination and subjugation leading to strongly opposed interests? Criticising Dahrendorf s conflict theoretical scheme on several grounds such as assumptions, definitions, dialectical process of change and methodology used / suggested, Turner concludes that Dahrendorf s propositions will not be as fundamental to understanding the nature of social reality as he seems to imply but will be useful for helping to increase the knowledge of conflict processes in social systems. However, there is more to social reality than dialectical conflict. (Jonathan H. Turner 1987: ).

33 Lewis Coser s Conflict Functionalism 29 Although Coser consistently criticized Parsonian functionalism for its failure to address the issue of conflict, he was also critical of Dahrendorf and other dialectical theorists for underemphasizing the positive functions of conflict for maintaining social systems. Coser launched in his first major work on conflict, what became the standard polemic against functionalism: 1. Conflict is not given sufficient attention, with related phenomena such as deviance and dissent too easily viewed as pathological for the equilibrium of the social system. 2. Parsons, in his concern for developing a system of concepts denoting the process of institutionalization, underemphasized conflict in his formal analytical works, seemingly viewing conflict as a disease that needs to be treated by the mechanisms of the body social. While Coser has consistently maintained that functional theorizing has too often neglected the dimensions of power and interest, he does not follow either Marx or Dahrendorf to emphasize the disruptive characteristics of violent conflict. On the contrary he seeks to emphasize the integrative and adaptability functions of social conflict for social systems. He criticized functionalism for ignoring conflict and conflict theory for underemphasizing the 29 Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (London: Free Press of Glencoe, 1956) (Excerpted from Turner 1987: )

34 43 functions of conflict. Coser rejected Emile Durkheim s view of violence and dissent as deviant and pathological to the social equilibrium and instead embraced Georg Simmel s organicism and viewed conflict as a process that, under certain conditions, functions to maintain the body social or some of its vital parts. The image of society for Coser is as follows: 1. Society is a system of variously interrelated parts; 2. All social systems reveal imbalances, tensions and conflicts of interests among the variously interrelated parts; 3. Processes within and between the system s constituent parts operate under different conditions to maintain, change, and increase or decrease a system s integration and adaptability; 4. Many processes, such as violence, dissent, deviance and conflict which are typically viewed as disruptive to the system, can also be viewed, under specifiable conditions, as strengthening the system s basis of integration as well as its adaptability to the environment. Coser s main thrust was to show how conflict maintains or reestablishes internal integration and external adaptability. His main inspiration was from Simmel but nevertheless he incorporates propositions from Marx, Weber and the contemporary conflict literature. His scheme is quite comprehensive as it covers: (1) the causes of conflict; (2) the violence of