Coser-Functions of Social Conflict PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary Soc Sci 101...

Description

FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL CONFLICT by Lewis Coser

·

●

In groups wherein ties are diffuse and affective, engaging the total personality of the members → bonds between members are much stronger

Simmel: "conflict is a form of socialization."

→ nonrealistic elements enter into realistic conflict situation > suppress conflict > concerned with the group's continuance

-no group can entirely be harmonious, for it would then be devoid of process and structure -Groups require disharmony and harmony, dissociation and association; conflicts are not disruptive factors. -Conflict is an essential element in group formation and persistence of group life.

→ conflicts become intense and passionate Unity of group members is pivotal to defend themselves from internal as well as external threats

IN-GROUP CONFLICT AND GROUP STRUCTURE Renegades (Desserters) ● PROPOSITIONS: ● 1. The closer the relationship, the more intense the conflict.

●

>firm loyalty to the new group than those who have belonged to it all along

People who are more familiar with each other experience more hostility in relationships ● ●

Familiarity=>personal relationships Dealing with strangers=>objective relationships

Simmel: "close ties and great involvement make for much intense conflict"

Members of the group who had deserted those standards of the group considered vital to its actual existence They threaten to break down the boundary lines of the established group contribute to the strength of the out-group to which he transfers his allegiance.

●

the attack on the values of his previous group does not cease with departure

>>perceived by a close group as a threat to its unity. Heretics

→ suppression of hostile feelings, for fear of disruptive effects of such conflicts. → accumulation of hostile feelings intensify the conflict once it breaks out

>

Closer and integrated members > suppression > intensification of conflict ●

●

● ●

In groups in which relations are functionally specific and affectively neutral → conflicts are apt to be less sharp and violent

●

They uphold the group's central values and goals, then threaten to split it into factions which differ as to the means for implementing its goal. Propose alternatives where the group wants no alternative to exist. Call forth the more hostility ○ Form their own rival group ○ Continue to compete for the loyalty of the members of their former group Create confusion > actions are perceived as an attempt to break down boundaries

Mobiliztion of group defenses are brought by danger signals > it ties the members more closely to each other Greater participation and greater personality involvement > greater opportunity to engage in intense conflicting behavior > more violent reactions against disloyalty "Greater participation in the group and greater personality involvement of the members provide greater opportunity to engage in intense conflicting behavior and hence more violent reactions against disloyalty" (don't include this kryzz) 2. Impact and function of conflict in group structures · More frequent the interactions= more occasions for hostile interaction. (BUT, frequent occasions for conflict do not necessarily result in frequent conflicts)

Conflict can be violent, and Coser gives us two factors that can produce violent conflict: emotional involvement and transcendent goals. In order to become violent, people must be emotionally engaged. The more involved we are with a group, the greater is our emotional involvement and the greater the likelihood of violent conflict if our group is threatened. Example: terrorists, communists

· COMMUNAL VS. NON-COMMUNAL CONFLICT (McIver and Simpson) -COMMUNAL: based on a common acceptance of basic ends, settling differences on the basis of unity (integrative) -NON-COMMUNAL: when parties believe that no common ends can be discovered to reach a compromise (disruptive and dissociative)

· Closer and integrated members > suppression > intensification of conflict

· There is a distinction between conflicts over basic matters of principle (which is more intense) and conflicts over less central issues. Conflict tends to serve this positive function only when it concerns interests or values that do not contradict the basic assumptions upon which the relation is founded. Ex. Marriage: Sexual infidelity (a dysfunctional conflict) vs. conflict over household chores, family budget (can be a functional conflict); but it could occur the other way around and it could still depend on basic assumptions upon which the relation is founded. People engage in exchange in order to achieve a goal, and that desired end directs most other factors. Another example is worker strike. Workers generally go on strike to achieve clearly articulated goals and the strikers usually do not want the struggle to become violent – the violence can detract from achieving their goals.

·

INTERDEPENDENCE OF GROUPS The more interdependent a group, the greater tendencies for intense conflicts. Conflict parties engage in an expressed struggle and interfere with one another because they are interdependent. "A

person who is not dependent upon another – that is, who has no special interest in what the other does – has no conflict with that other person. Society is sewn together by its inner conflicts. STABILITY OF A SOCIETY: -Loose-structured society that has crosscutting cleavage -affiliation with a multiplicity of groups(racial,religious political) -segmental participation -pluralistic societies Kapag affiliated ka sa mas maraming

groups or tinatawag na segmental participation mas less likely na stronger yung identification mo or allegiance mo sa iisang group lang. So maiiwasan ang instensified conflict na dala compared to single cleavage na may nafoform na unified front.

·

RIGID VS FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS

-FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS : allow occurrences of conflict, minimizing the chances of consensual agreement breakdown Avoiding

conflict

weakens

Conflict with another group defines group structure and consequent reaction to internal conflict -

-RIGID SYSTEMS: lack of mechanisms for adjustment to changes permits conflict and hostility which then threatens consensual agreement ex. Totalitarian society

Example: cohesion.

· Conflict with another group-> internal cohesion. (if the group was stable in the first place)

There are several ways for groups to handle inner hostility in relation to a group's framework when an outer threat makes itself known ● ●

internal

The Philippines avoiding conflict with China, because some people think that conflict ultimately leads to war.

· Feelings of enmity and expression of discontentment helps bind the society · Ambivalence on the other hand threatens its foundation · Conflict: re-establishes unity, resolution of tension between antagonistic groups but not all are functional(only those that do not contradict the basic assumption on which it is founded) · Loose structured, open societies which are capable of avoiding conflicts over core values will tend to be most stable.

1. 2.

of

group

structures

must

the numerical size of the group the degree of involvement of members

be

group

There are some groups formed not for the greater chunk of peoplebut for the "elite" members of society ●

A smaller number of people is required in order to achieve 'purity' within the group's members

There are groups that exist for the masses ●

Large number of people are accepted into the group regardless of other roles or values they uphold

Once a group has established how to deal with outer conflict, the group also establishes how to deal with inner disputes ●

· Interdependence of antagonistic groups and crisscrossing conflicts with societies sew the social system together—cancelling each other out then preventing disintegration within only one cleavage.

Too much rigidity>>splits and withdrawals Too much flexibility>>blurring of boundaries and dissolution in the surrounding environment

Two aspects distinguished:

No *readjustment of structure=more adept to handling internal conflict

smaller group > periphery is closer to the center > uncertainty of a member > threatens cohesion of the whole

●

Exclusive groups are forced to always react harshly to inner threat as they need to maintain purity. Larger groups can allow for smaller issues as they are structurally manageable

Dissenter

An unpredictable member of the group Claims to be part of the group and agrees with its values but is also dissatisfied

· Safety-Valve Institutions- are needed for rigid systems, to allow direct expression of antagonistic claims

Groups that expect external conflict are those that are smaller in number and more insistent to uniformity and control of members

· REALISTIC CONFLICTS VS NONREALISTIC

-

· REALISTIC: arise from frustration of specific demands · NONREALISTIC: result from one antagonist's need to release tension

https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/ coser-functions

Ideology and conflict

·

Subjective and personal

·

Objective and impersonal Objective conflict is likely to be more severe, merciless and radical Eliminating personal reasons makes the conflict more intense. Impersonal conflict and “those not motivated by self-interest”= seem righteous and respectable Here, people see themselves as representatives of their groups, introjecting and investing in this identity. Objectified conflict= stricter and rigid ideologies But it can be a unifying element if the group pursue the same purpose

· Group consciousness- transforming individuals within their own specific circumstances into conscious representatives of the group...