CONF 730: STURCTUAL SOURCES OF CONFLICT

Professor Ho-Won Jeong
George Mason University
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Student Papers

Social Theories of Conflict Analysis
Stacy Stryjewski

In what ways are Weber's various concepts (e.g. social action, types and modes of social relations, legitimacy, rationality, etc.) important for understanding conflict analysis?

Unlike other social theorists who base their analyses of structure on class or institutions, Weber examines social relationships to understand the fundamentals of structure. He also believes conflict is inevitable and defines conflict as an intentional action to carry out one's own will against the resistance of another party.

In terms of conflict analysis, this is an important distinction because he also suggests that the motives of the actors in a social relationship, and the context in which their action occurs, are key components for understanding the behavior that follows. To understand this more fully, we must look at several concepts that Weber highlights.

First, social action is distinguished from other action in which an individual may be involved. It requires the meaningful (intentional) behavior oriented towards others, not unintentional interaction. An interesting element here for conflict analysis purposes is the implication that conflict is controllable. Social relationships can evolve, have varying degrees of permanence, but mutual consent between the actors defines the type of relationship.

Before noting a central concept to Weber's writings, it is important to review his ideas regarding motivation and observation as they relate to conflict. First, motives must be understood in terms of the context of action; motives and related behavior are situational. In addition, we can assess motives based on past history or the conflicting motives of the actors but we can never be certain and clear about the true motivation. Weber asserts that only the actual outcome in a conflict will unveil the true meaning of the intent. This assumption leaves conflict analysts with an interesting dilemma-how do we study the behavior, attitudes, and intentions in a conflict before an outcome is reached?

Central to Weber's analysis, are the distinctions of behavior in reference to order of legitimacy. Weber identifies legitimization based on three primary acceptance levels. First, a rational or legal structure where impartiality is important and people are willing to conform to rules. Second is a traditional leadership where the system is based on customs and a leader can attain total status (e.g. kings). In addition, there is no distinction between authority and an individual (the individual holds the ultimate authority). And finally, Weber identifies a charismatic based system where there is a personal loyalty to the leader who emits a moral authority.

Weber also recognizes four types of social action within these legitimized systems: traditional, affectual, absolute-value driven, and rational (goal-oriented). Traditional action is rooted in customary habits and thought. There is a degree of meaningful action but often the behavior is regarded as repeated behavior that we become accustomed to. Conflict in this category may be the sort we encounter everyday based on our socialized customs.
Affectual action is driven by emotions and reactions and may not necessarily be rational. Conflict is triggered by the need to vent emotions or frustration (for example fighting with someone because they stepped ahead of you in line) and may not have meaningful action.

Absolute-value driven is action that is carried out for its own sake, not necessarily for a higher or ultimate goal. The means for carrying out the action are rational in meaning but the goal may be elusive. For example, a conflict may arise from a group upholding religious beliefs against those who oppose their views.

Rational action is goal oriented and the means, the ends and consequences are all measured and considered. Weber distinguishes this rational behavior from the other notions of irrational behavior (emotional and reactive) in two categories. Formal rationality is considered a process that imparts fairness. It looks more like a competition where the rules are fair and the outcome is not troublesome. Formal rationality is the basis for how society as a whole operates. We may accept as a group (but perhaps not individually) that the law states that the minimum wage is five dollars per hour of work.

Substantial rationality can be counter to the established formal rationality. If enough people can justify that there is a flaw in the system, and ethically there is a need to change, substantial rationality can replace the formal. For example, from a social justice perspective, enough people realize the injustice of such a low minimum wage standard they can actively pursue a change. This change, perhaps six dollars an hour, becomes the new formal rationality.

These distinctions are very important when analyzing conflict. The level of intention and meaningful action as it relates to a particular outcome vary within different forms of social action. Weber believes that an important aspect of rationalization is the foregoing of tradition or custom and the adoption of manipulating situations in respect to self-interests and the use of coercion.

Also important to note in Weber's writings is the identification of social relationships and their corresponding power structure. Weber identifies a difference between communal and associative relationships and open and closed communities. These distinctions help to identify boundaries between groups and the level of involvement of the individual's whole personality within a group. For example, a closed, associative group such as a religious organization establishes boundaries and legitimacy of order from a different perspective than an open relationship such as membership in a community club. Again, in conflict analysis, this categorization is important for understanding uniformities of action (and the meaningful intent) and the likelihood that certain actions from these groups will be repeated.

Finally, to relate the concepts discussed, it is also helpful to consider Weber's distinctions between voluntary and compulsory participation within corporate groups. The level of acceptance (legitimacy) may vary within each type, thus causing a majority rule/minority dissent dynamic. This again has implications for conflict analysis as it relates to how individuals apply rules, legitimize power and regard intentional actions. If people accept the system as legitimate, they won't question the system or the authority. The degree and type of legitimacy is directly related to conflict.

Explain how inter-group conflict affects intra-group dynamics and vice versa. Under what circumstances can conflict lead to the division (and eventual split) of groups? What are the social functions of conflict (e.g. rule making, recreation of new group boundaries, etc.)? How can we improve our understanding of conflict analysis and resolution by distinguishing realistic and non-realistic (or unrealistic) conflict?

Inter-group and intra-group conflicts are interrelated in many aspects. Conflict between groups helps to clarify group boundaries and the "us" v. "them" perspective actually enhances group cohesion. This is facilitated by an established common purpose (interests) and the identification of a common enemy. These commonalities enhance group relations and lead to a more structured, cohesive group. Interestingly, however, there are many other variables to consider. These variables include the nature of the conflict, the level of intensity of the conflict, the relationships and level of involvement of the parties, group cohesion, levels of outside hostility and the levels of interdependence between groups.

For example, when the level of hostility is increased between groups, the level of group cohesion within the group is increased because of this perception of threat. In addition, if the level of interdependence between groups is high, the threat of conflict between the groups may alternatively be lower. This affects intra-group relations by reinforcing a common purpose and need for survival, thus increasing group cohesion.

Another example related to group membership and the tolerance for the expression of dissent shows the correlation between inter- and intra- group dynamics. In groups where membership is large, there is freedom to express dissent or opposing views, and membership does not require total involvement, group cohesion is actually enhanced. Further, there is strength in this group in that it does not pursue an ongoing conflict because of these beneficial intra-group dynamics. Conversely, in small groups where involvement is high and the acceptance of dissent is low, there is a tendency to perpetuate more non-realistic conflict within the group because of a need to vent frustration. Because the group will not allow for this conflict, the group seeks outside enemies (a scapegoating function) to perpetuate its purpose and strengthen inner solidarity.

These examples are representative of the dynamics of inter- and intra-group functions. More variables will be highlighted in the subsequent discussions.

Circumstances That Can Lead to the Division of Groups

An important aspect to consider is the level of consensus that exists in a group prior to the outbreak of a conflict. If the level of consensus is low and an outside threat is imposed, the group will break down rather than become more cohesive.

Further, in other situations where parties no longer share the basic values upon which the legitimacy of the system was established, the system will collapse. This may occur when a group is divided around one central issue and the conflict that ensues may cause individuals to question the value system. The group is divided by this one single cleavage and involved fully in this interest, so there is more likelihood for the group to divide and collapse.

Also, when parties are involved in a relationship that requires their total involvement, more extreme emotion can exist. It is in these close relationships that hostile feelings may get repressed over time for fear of disrupting the relationship. The negative impact of this repression occurs when the conflict finally does erupt. The conflict will be much more intense and threaten the existence of the relationship.

This threat of division also exists in small groups where members are involved with their total personality and elements of non-realistic (affectual) conflict are increased. When a dissenter or heretic exists, the group's existence is severely threatened. If the group does not allow for this expression of dissent, the only alternative is to rid the group of the dissenter. This process of withdrawal can also serve to divide the original group.

Group survival also depends on the flexibility of a system. If a structure is too rigid, conflict or change will not lead to modification and growth, but to a possible division or breakdown of the current system.

Social Functions of Conflict

Group stability may actually be enhanced by conflict. According to Coser, the presence or absence of conflict is not in itself an indicator of group stability. Contrary to the single cleavage example discussed earlier, when a system allows for many differing views and the expression of various conflicts, the threat of system failure is decreased. This is because the conflict does not accumulate around one single issue. This crisscrossing of conflicts (multiplicity) prevents the system from breaking down because of one dominant area of struggle. Individuals are not involved wholly in just one conflict; they are segmentally involved in a number of potential areas of conflict. Thus, if a conflict arises in one area (for example in hobby group) the system does not collapse because there are marginal consequences. The individuals have many other areas of focus and will not engage with their whole selves in that one conflict. (Coser also discusses the benefit of safety-valve institutions but because of both the positive and negative aspects of these institutions, it is omitted from this discussion.)

Conflict also established relationships between groups that may not have existed in the past. This relationship may lead to subsequent less hostile confrontations. These newly established associations and coalitions unify otherwise isolated individuals and can become permanent groups with a common cause against "the others." In this sense, conflict actually serves as a form of structure.

Conflict also raises awareness of existing norms and rules. It forces people to examine their current conditions which, without the conflict, may have been forgotten. In fact, the existing rules and norms may be the source of the conflict. This analysis may also lead to the establishment of new rules and structures or processes of enforcement. In a flexible structure, these changed conditions help maintain the existence of a society/group and encourage growth, evolution and perhaps a new hierarchy in which the cycle of conflict will most likely continue.

Another social function of conflict according to Coser, is the establishment and maintenance of power balances. Power is difficult to assess without the existence of a current or past conflict. Once parties have knowledge of their relative strength, this allows parties to measure their risks of engagement and may actually deter future conflict. Knowledge of a power imbalance can conversely serve as a method to balance power by changing structures, rules or engaging in a conflict. For conflict resolution purposes, it is important to remember that power is relative to each conflict and should be considered holistically and at each stage of the conflict.

Important Distinctions between Realistic and Non-Realistic Conflict

In order to improve our understanding of conflict analysis and resolution, the distinction between realistic and non-realistic conflict must be made. Realistic conflict is that in which the actor has an object to place the source of his anger. Realistic conflict will end once the aggressor has confronted the source and satisfied his need in approaching the object of his hostility. Non-realistic conflict is less stable and is not directly bound to an object of hostility. It is a way to alternatively express frustration or anger through the means of that expression, not particularly aimed at the source.

In addition, realistic and non-realistic conflict can simultaneously exist in institutions, between individuals, and in other social relationships. Coser also suggests that there is a greater likelihood of non-realistic conflict in those relationships where members are involved with their total personalities. Thus, for the conflict resolution process to begin, it is important to separate the two types of conflict and allow for the expression of hostility in order to approach the root causes.

For example, in a community conflict where clashes have been occurring between white and Hispanic populations over increased housing development, there may be much venting of hostility, perhaps racially-oriented. However, the object of the anger may not necessarily be the other group, but instead the emergence of increased housing in the area. The non-realistic conflict (anger and hostility directed toward each other) needs to be separated and aired out because this aspect of the conflict is not the true source of frustration. The groups may come to learn that they share a common goal in working with the developers to streamline the housing according to their common interests. The housing development is the object of the realist conflict in this scenario and the resolution will be based on this issue in order for the conflict to end.

Concluding Comments

Based on these dynamics that Coser highlights, we can see that conflict has both positive and negative impacts on group dynamics. It is important, however, to recognize that group structure also determines the frequency and intensity of conflict. If a group is structured such that it can tolerate and benefit from conflict, the likelihood of its survival is greater. Coser helps us to understand the positive relationship between conflict and group structure.