14. SOCIAL CONFLICTS

Social heterogeneity of society, the difference in income levels, power, prestige, etc. often lead to conflicts. Conflicts are an integral part of public life. The modern life of Russian society is especially rich in conflicts. All this causes the close attention of sociologists to the study of conflicts.

A tradition has arisen in our country to explain social conflicts through an objective contradiction of the interests of large social groups, which dictate to the parties the logic, duration, degree of tension in the struggle to meet immediate needs. But it does not follow the objective contradictions of social groups to identify with conflicts. Conflict is always associated with people's subjective awareness of the contradictory nature of their interests as members of certain social groups. Aggravated contradictions give rise to open or closed conflicts only when they are deeply experienced by people, recognized as an incompatibility of interests and goals.

Contradictions permeate all spheres of life: socio-economic, political, spiritual. The simultaneous exacerbation of all these kinds of contradictions creates a social crisis. The crisis of society is the result of profound changes in the content and life forms of various social groups, a serious violation of the control mechanisms in the economy, politics and culture. A manifestation of the crisis of society is a sharp rise in social tensions. Social tension often develops into conflict. Conflict is the collision of opposing goals, attitudes, opinions and views of opponents or subjects of interaction. The English sociologist E. Giddens gave this definition of conflict: “By conflict, I mean the real struggle between active people or groups, regardless of what the origins of this struggle are, its methods and means mobilized by each of the parties.” Conflict is a universal phenomenon. Every society, every social group, social community in varying degrees, prone to conflict. The wide spread of this phenomenon and heightened attention of society and scientists to it contributed to the emergence of a special branch of sociological knowledge - conflictology .

Conflictology has many questions posed, but the most important of them - is the existence of a society without conflicts possible? Is conflict a manifestation of dysfunction of organizations, deviant behavior of individuals and groups, anomalies in public life, or is this a normal, necessary form of social interaction between people?

Some sociologists of Marxist and non-Marxist orientation are of the opinion that conflict is only a temporary state of society that can be overcome by rational means and, therefore, it is possible to achieve a level of social development when social conflicts disappear.

The majority of sociologists of a non-Marxist orientation tend to believe that the existence of a society without conflicts is impossible. They maintain a long philosophical tradition, according to which conflict is an integral part of being, the main engine of social development. And this means that conflict is not a dysfunction, not an anomaly, but the norm of relations between people, a necessary element of social life, which provides an outlet for social tension, energy of activity, generating social changes of various scales.

This position is most vividly represented in the works of the German sociologists G. Simmel, R. Dahrendorf and the American sociologist L. Coser. The main position of the theory of conflict G. Simmel is that the conflict, although it is one of the forms of disagreement, at the same time is a socializing force that unites the opposing parties and contributes to the stabilization of society. L. Coser in his classic work “The Functions of Social Conflict” emphasized that conflict carries not only a destructive (destructive force) function, it has a large positive potential. L. Kozer identifies the main functions of the conflict, which, in his opinion, have a beneficial effect on the current state of society and contribute to its development:

a) the formation of groups, the establishment and maintenance of the normative and physical boundaries of groups;
b) the establishment and maintenance of a relatively stable structure of intragroup and intergroup relations;
(c) socialization and adaptation of both individuals and social groups;
(d) Creating and maintaining a balance of power, and in particular power;
e) obtaining information about the environment (indicates those or other problems and shortcomings);
(f) Stimulating rulemaking and social control;
g) promoting the creation of new social institutions.

One of the most important problems of conflict management is to clarify the issue of the nature and the main participants of social conflict. And here also there are different approaches. The Marxist concept of conflict is based on the theory of social contradiction as the main driving force of social change , which in the conditions of antagonistic class formations in the socio-economic and political spheres are realized in the forms of class struggle. Classes in the Marxist doctrine is, first of all, an economic reality, since property relations are the class-forming feature. Consequently, the basis of social conflicts, according to Marxism, is the struggle for property . In Marxist literature, two types of struggle are distinguished, arising from the contradiction of economic interests. The first type is a social confrontation for changing the principles of distribution of material goods, the second is for changing the criteria for their distribution within the existing social system. The struggle to change the principles requires a transformation of the foundations of the social order and can only be resolved as a result of the social revolution. Changing distribution criteria is a reformist way to improve social relations.

In bringing to the fore the economic factors of social conflict, Marxist sociology believes that political factors are their effect and manifestation. But one of the founders of modern conflictology, the West German sociologist R. Dahrendorf, put political factors at the heart of social conflicts: the struggle for power, prestige, and authority. Conflict, according to Dahrendorf, can arise in any community, in any social group where there are dominant and subordinate. The cause of the conflict, according to R. Dahrendorf and his followers, is the desire for dominance . Such an interpretation is usually given to this position: human beings are naturally inclined to form hierarchies of social dominance and fight for acquired positions in a group, community, etc. The hierarchy of social dominance, including a certain degree of achievement of social dominance, under certain assumptions can lead to conflict. The immediate causes of conflicts can be a shortage of resources, ideological differences, etc. However, the tendency to dominate, the social claims of people should not be interpreted as their natural, eternal instincts. They are formed on the basis of comparing the position of some people with the position of others. Consequently, social conflict is always a consequence of social inequality . Inequality of social positions means unequal access to the development resources of individuals, social groups or communities of people. Therefore, in the study of conflicts by R. Dahrendorf and his followers a significant place is given to the problems of ownership, possession and distribution of resources. However, the central issue of the conflict is who and how manages the resources. The answer to this question again refers us to the question of power, which, according to R. Dahrendorf, is a set of social positions that allow one group to manage the results of the activities of other groups of people.

P.A. Sorokin pointed to the connection of the conflict with the satisfaction of people's needs. In his opinion, the source of conflicts lies in the suppression of basic human needs, without the satisfaction of which he cannot exist: first of all, the need for food, clothing, housing, self-preservation. It is not the needs themselves that are important, but also the means of meeting them, access to the relevant activities, which is determined by the social organization of society. It is in this connection that the question arises not only about equality and inequality in welfare, but also comparing the life chances of various social groups.

So, the main subjects of the conflict are large social groups . Their needs, interests, goals, claims can be realized only through the use of power, since political organizations such as the state apparatus, parties, parliamentary factions, “suppression groups”, etc., take direct part in conflicts. They are the spokesmen of the will of large social groups and the main carriers of social interests. Ultimately, a social conflict usually takes the form not of a conflict of large social groups (the masses take to the streets only in rare moments of the highest exacerbation of the situation), but conflicts of political, ethnic, and other leaders who act on the basis of mechanisms established in a given society.

At the same time, it should be noted that social conflict is always a struggle generated by the confrontation of social and group, but not individual interests. Major conflictologist R. Dahrendorf to the subjects of the conflict includes three types of social groups:

1) primary groups - direct participants in the conflict, who are in a state of interaction regarding the achievement of objectively or subjectively incompatible goals;

2) secondary groups that seek to be unmasked directly into the conflict, but contribute to fueling the conflict. At the stage of exacerbation of the conflict, they can become the primary party;

3) third forces interested in resolving the conflict.

Conflictology has developed a number of recommendations, following which speeds up the process of conflict resolution:

1) during the negotiations, priority should be given to the discussion of substantive issues;

2) the parties should strive to relieve psychological and social tensions;

3) the parties must demonstrate mutual respect for each other;

4) negotiators should strive to turn a significant and hidden part of a conflict situation into an open one, publicly and conclusively revealing each other’s positions and consciously creating an atmosphere of public equal exchange of opinions;

5) all negotiators should be inclined to compromise.

Compromise is a way of resolving a conflict when the conflicting parties realize their interests and goals by either giving or taking to the weaker side, or to the party that has managed to prove the validity of their claims to those who voluntarily gave up part of their claims.

Of great importance is the final post-conflict stage. At this stage, efforts should be made to finally eliminate the contradictions of interests, goals, attitudes, eliminate socio-psychological tensions, and stop any struggle. Resolved conflict contributes to the improvement of the socio-psychological characteristics of both individual groups and intergroup interaction. It promotes group cohesion, increases the level of identification of its members with common goals and group satisfaction. At the same time, he develops a respectful attitude towards former opponents, allows for a better understanding of their interests, goals and motivations.