Lewis Coser - Lecture notes 7 PDF

Preview

Summary

Lewis Coser (1913-2003), an eminent and internationally recognised American sociologist, died in 2003. His doctoral dissertation, "The Functions of social conflict" was published in 1956 and is regarded as one of the most widely read postwar sociological classics. He wrote a number of books on a var...

Description

LEWIS COSER INTRODUCTION

Lewis Coser (1913-2003), an eminent and internationally recognised American sociologist, died in 2003. His doctoral dissertation, "The Functions of social conflict" was published in 1956 and is regarded as one of the most widely read postwar sociological classics. He wrote a number of books on a variety of subjects, including social conflicts, the history of sociological theory, political sociology, the sociology of knowledge and intellectuals, literature and sociology, and the sociology of book publishing, to name a few. He was the first sociologist to attempt to bring structural functionalism and conflict theory together. His research centred on the functions of social conflict. He developed a theory of social conflict in which he examines Georg Simmel's ideas in his classic work Conflict and describes the relationship that exists in various aspects of the conflict. He depicts conflict as a form of socialisation and explains conflict in terms of interactive processes. He claims that no group can be completely harmonious because that would mean that it lacks process and structure. According to him, group formation occurs as a result of both association and dissociation, and both conflict and cooperation serve a social purpose. As a result, some level of conflict is necessary for group formation.

PROPOSITIONS OF CONFLICT PROCESS

Contemporary sociologists have concentrated on some aspects of social behaviour while ignoring others that are theoretically significant. According to Coser, one of the neglected aspects of sociological theory is the functions of social conflict. Coser developed a theory of social conflict by delving into Georg Simmel's ideas in his classic work Conflict. Conflict is depicted as "a form of socialisation" in this essay, which examines it in terms of interactive processes. In his book, Coser discusses the role of conflict in establishing and maintaining group identities. Conflict, according to Simmel, strengthens group consciousness and

awareness of separateness from other groups, thus establishing boundaries between them. Reciprocal antagonisms between groups result in the perpetuation of social divisions and stratification systems. These reciprocal "repulsions" help to maintain the overall social system by establishing the identity of the various groups within the system. He explains how the expression of hostility in conflict serves some beneficial purposes. According to Simmel, such expression helps to maintain relationships in stressful situations and thus prevents group dissolution. Conflict "clears the air" and allows hostile dispositions to be expressed freely in behaviour. This can be thought of as a "safety-valve theory" of conflict, in which hostilities are channelled through conflict so that antagonistic relationships can be maintained. (page 41) Simmel, on the other hand, fails to distinguish between conflict behaviour and hostile feelings in this case. While conflict can alter the terms of a relationship, mere hostility does not always do so. Furthermore, rather than the primary sources of opposition, hostility may be deflected onto "substitute objects" Finally, Simmel overlooks the possibility that modes of behaviour other than conflict can serve the same purpose of releasing tension. In other words, besides conflict, other avenues can serve as "safety-valve" Furthermore, whereas conflict alters the terms of social interaction, simply expressing hostile feelings does not. The relationship as a whole remains unchanged, despite the hostility. The need to adapt the system to changing conditions is lessened. Coser then goes on to explain the difference between "realistic" and "unrealistic" conflict. "realistic" conflicts arise from the frustration of specific demands and are pursued as a means to an end. Non-realistic conflicts, on the other hand, arise from the need for one antagonist to let off steam. Conflict is an end in itself in this case, and it does not need to be directed toward specific outcomes. Rather, it is primarily a reaction to frustrations in which the object appears to be appropriate for releasing aggression. Though the target of hostility can easily change, there are no alternatives to means. Realistic conflict, on the other hand, will come to an end if the actor can find other means of achieving his goal. There are alternatives to conflict that could be used. This distinction demonstrates why the social phenomenon of conflict should not be explained solely in terms of tension release.

Hostile impulses alone are insufficient to explain social conflict, and not all conflicts are accompanied by aggression. Conflict necessitates the existence of a relationship and social interaction. Realistic conflicts, on the other hand, are frequently accompanied by distorted emotions. On the one hand, there is a distinction to be made between realistic reasons for engaging in conflict and the emotional energies expended during the conflict. Conflict is frequently misunderstood to be driven by two distinct but intertwined factors: realistic conflict issues and parties' affective investment in the conflict. The mediator's main job is to remove non-realistic elements of aggressiveness so that opponents can deal with their competing claims more realistically. Both feelings of attraction and feelings of hostility are likely to arise in relationships in which individuals are very deeply involved. The greater the affective investment in a relationship, the greater the potential for ambivalence. Antagonism is a natural byproduct of cooperation and frequent interaction in intimate social relationships. As a result, it's fair to say that ambivalence is a necessary component of close social relationships. Coser goes on to say that the closer a couple is, the more intense the conflict will be. Given the ambivalence described above, it's understandable that conflict would elicit strong emotions and result in heated debate. Furthermore, the fear of intense conflict is likely to cause parties to suppress their hostile feelings, which will exacerbate the conflict once it breaks out. If both parties' entire personalities and identities are involved in the relationship, nonrealistic, hostile elements are more likely to emerge. Individuals who participate heavily in certain groups, for example, are usually concerned about the group's survival. If someone with whom they have shared group responsibilities wants to leave the group, they are likely to retaliate violently. Such disintegration jeopardises group unity and is frequently viewed as a symbolic threat to a close group's identity. Violent retaliation to disloyalty can lead to a lot of conflict. The more frequently you interact, the more likely you are to engage in hostile behaviour. However, frequent opportunities for conflict do not always imply frequent conflict. This is due to the closeness of the relationship and the strong bond between the parties, which may cause them to avoid conflict. As previously stated, when

conflict does arise, it is likely to be violent. Conflict, on the other hand, has the potential to re-establish unity. Much depends on the issues at hand in a conflict and the type of social structure in which it takes place. There is a distinction to be made between disagreements over fundamental principles and disagreements over less important issues. Conflict can help to integrate relationships by resolving tension between antagonists. Conflict, on the other hand, tends to serve this positive function only when it involves interests or values that do not contradict the relationship's fundamental assumptions. The most stable groups and societies are those with loosely structured groups and open societies that are capable of avoiding conflicts over core values. It cannot serve as an indicator of a relationship's underlying stability if there is no conflict. In fact, only when both parties feel secure and stable in the relationship are they more likely to express their hostile feelings. They are more likely to avoid expressing their hostile feelings because they are afraid of the relationship ending. The absence of conflict in a relationship does not necessarily imply the absence of potentially disruptive elements. In fact, if the parties' relationship is stable, conflicts are more likely to arise between them, so conflict can actually indicate the strength and stability of a relationship. Conflict can act as a counter-balance. Conflict, according to Coser, is only dysfunctional in social structures where there is insufficient tolerance or institutionalisation of conflict. Lewis Coser was primarily a conflict theorist, but he was unique in two ways. He described things in two ways. For starters, he defines social conflict as the result of more than just opposing group interests. Second, he is concerned about conflict's consequences. Emile Durkheim influenced him, and his conflict theory is evident in Coser's discussion of the functional aspect of conflict and the functional aspects of society. Coser defines and relates conflict to the social world in The Functions of Social Conflict (1956), delves into the nature of hostility, considers how conflict can lead to social change, and emphasises the importance of people's emotions. Conflict, according to him, is a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power, and resources, in which the opponent's goal is to neutralise, injure, or eliminate their opponents. Individuals and collectives may clash, according to Coser. Conflicts

between and within groups are a constant feature of social life. He defines power as the ability to influence others' behaviour in accordance with one's own desires. The level of power that any one group possesses is determined by its relationship to other groups. Agreeing with Simmel, he believes that people have aggressive or hostile impulses, and that love and hate exist in all close and intimate relationships. Love and hate are linked because close relationships require constant contact, which can lead to conflict and instability within the group structure. People have many opportunities to develop resentment due to their close proximity; as a result, conflict and arguments are natural parts of people's relationships and do not necessarily indicate instability or breakup. PROPOSITIONS OF CONFLICT PROCESS

He explains that the nature of hostility and conflict varies due to sociological factors such as financial stability, clearly defined societal roles, family love and nurture, and practical and emotional support from outside the nuclear family, among others. Coser attempted to explain how structural factors interact with people's underlying emotions in his research. He created a vision of society that emphasises: 1.The social world can be thought of as a collection of interconnected parts. 2. Every social system reveals inequalities, tensions, and conflicts of interest among its variously interconnected components. 3. To maintain change and increase or decrease a system's integration and adaptability, processes within and between the system's constituent parts operate under various conditions. 4. Many processes are typically viewed as disruptive to the system, such as violence, dissent, deviance, and conflict. It can also be viewed as strengthening the system's foundation of integration as well as its adaptability to the environment under specific conditions. Conflict is a key factor in establishing full ego identity, autonomy, and personality differentiation from the outside world. Conflict with other groups raises a group's consciousness and awareness of its separateness, as well as establishing group boundaries. Individual member similarities and the reinforcement of group awareness of such similarities bind a group together. The realisation of the group's uniqueness establishes and strengthens its identity. Conflict

aids in the formation and maintenance of group cohesion. When there's a lot of conflict, there's a lot of group cohesion. Each group relies on conflict to maintain its identity and the boundaries that separate it from the rest of society. As a result, conflict is necessary in society.

DURATION OF CONFLICT

The more limited the goals of the opposing parties in a conflict, the longer the conflict will last. The less agreement there is on the conflict's goals, the longer the conflict will last. The more difficult it is for parties in a conflict to interpret their adversary's symbolic points of victory and defeat, the longer the conflict will last. The less long a conflict lasts, the more leaders of opposing parties believe that complete achievement of goals is only possible at extremely high costs. The more power is shared between opposing groups, the more likely leaders are to see the high costs of achieving all goals. Leaders are more likely to perceive the high costs of complete goal attainment when the indicators of defeat or victory in a conflict are more clear. The greater the capacity of each conflict party's leaders to persuade followers to end the conflict, the shorter the conflict will last. The greater a leader's ability to persuade followers, the more centralised the conflict parties are. The fewer internal schisms within a conflict party, the greater a leader's ability to persuade his or her followers.

CAUSES OF CONFLICT

He explains that social conflict is explained by a pattern of interaction rather than by drive, impulses, and isolated instances of behaviour. Aggressive behaviour is linked to the structure of a group's interactive relationships. The degree of group cohesion is a structural variable linked to direct aggression. Direct aggression, according to Coser, is "aggression expressed towards member of the group" There are many instances of

aggression in unorganised groups. As a result, a high level of group cohesion leads to a high level of aggression. In two ways, he explains the causes of conflict. The more subordinate members of an inequitable system question the legitimacy of the current distribution of scarce resources, the more likely they are to start a conflict. a) The fewer avenues for redressing grievances about subordinates' distribution of scarce resources, the more likely they are to question legitimacy. The fewer internal organisations segmenting subordinates' emotional energies, the more likely they are to be without a grievance option and, as a result, question legitimacy. Furthermore, the more ego deprivations those without grievance channels face, the more likely they are to doubt legitimacy. Subordinates are more likely to withdraw legitimacy if they are seeking membership in privileged groups and have limited mobility. The greater the sense of injustice felt by subordinates as absolute deprivations are transformed into relative deprivations, the more likely they are to initiate conflict. The less internal ego constraints subordinates experience as a result of their socialisation, the more likely they are to experience relative deprivation. Subordinates who are subjected to fewer external constraints are more likely to suffer from relative deprivation.

FUNCTIONS OF CONFLICT

Functions of conflict for the respective parties and for the social whole were proposed by Coser in two ways. The more violent or intense the conflict, the more clearly defined the conflict parties' boundaries are. The more violent or intense the conflict is, and the more internally differentiated the conflict parties are, the more likely it is that each conflict party will centralise its decision-making structure. Conflict promotes structural and ideological solidarity among members of each conflict party the more violent or intense the conflict is and the more it is perceived to affect the welfare of all segments of the conflict parties.

The more violent or intense the conflict, the more dissent and deviance within each conflict party is suppressed, as well as forced conformity to norms and values. The more conflict between parties leads to forced conformity, the more hostilities build up, and the more likely internal group conflict emerges in the long run. For the social whole, under conflict functions: The more differentiated and functionally interdependent the units in a system are, the more likely conflict will occur on a regular basis with low levels of intensity and violence. The more frequent conflicts occur, the lower their intensity, and the lower their level of violence, the more likely conflict in a system is to a) Increase system unit levels of innovation and creativity. b) Allow hostilities to end before they polarise system units, and c) encourage normative conflict resolution. Increase the number of associative coalitions among social units and raise awareness of realistic issues. The greater the level of internal social integration of the system and its capacity to adapt to its external environment, the more the conflict promotes a, b, c, d, and e above. When there is conflict between groups, he explains, the members of each group become more cohesive. In order for the group to emerge victorious from the conflict, they must rely on each other's loyalty and dedication. Individual members of such conflicting groups expect to be fully involved. When a threat from the outside threatens the family's very survival, for example, there is unity among bickering family members. Individual deviations within a group are often intolerable to a group that is constantly at odds with other groups. A member of a threatened group may also be permitted only limited deviations from the group's unity. Those who choose to depart from the group must either volunteer or be forced to leave. Coser's future ideas on greedy institutions and their demand for total involvement were shaped by this type of proposition. Social conflicts result in the formation of boundaries between different groups, which, in turn, creates a strand of unity among the group's individual members. Social

conflict not only promotes cohesion within individual groups, but it also promotes coalitions and alliances with other groups. Several groups may be threatened by a single other group, prompting them to band together to combat the single threat. As a result, social conflicts increase cohesion within a group and among several groups that would not normally unite if they were not in conflict.

CRITICISMS

Criticisms of Coser's Social Conflict Theory: Coser's definition of conflict and view of conflict's origins have been criticised as superficial. Because Coser maintains a functionalist viewpoint, he is subject to many of the same criticisms as other functionalists. Coser's approach is to heavily borrow from Simmel and add a few ideas about how conflict can promote cohesion and progress. The issue isn't that Coser is incorrect; it's that he exaggerates his case. He gives a few descriptive examples but doesn't go into much detail about the analysis. His illustrations are insightful, but there is something missing: no real explanation of the underlying causes of conflict. At times, Coser appears to be celebrating, but not analysing, the good, liberal society.

LET US SUM UP

The theory of social conflict proposed by Coser is intriguing. He maintains duality, i.e., the themes of social order and social conflict are present at the same time in his work. Conflict is viewed as a power struggle in which groups of people who share similar values compete for wealth, status, and power. Coser's perspective allows us to better appreciate the many ways that conflictual behaviour can lead to social adjustment and progress. However, class, gender, and racial/ethnic inequality are not directly addressed.

The social structure is thought to be fundamentally sound, capable of resolving any issues that arise. Lewis Coser, on the other hand, emphasised the integrative and adaptability functions of conflict in social systems. He saw conflict as a process that, under certain circumstances, serves to keep the body social or some of its vital parts in working order....