The Functions of Social Conflict, Lewis Coser

The following lineaspodran find a summary of the book "The Functions of Social Conflict" by Lewis Coser, the Fondo de Cultura Economica, the idea is to deliver a small tool to understand a part of the conflict theory.

Anyway I recommend reading the entire book, which can be found in the library of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Chile

"The bad side is the one that produces the movement which makes history, generating a struggle"

Karl Marx: The Poverty of Philosophy

Proposition 1: Functions Connectives group, developed by the conflict.

The conflict is a very important agent to establish the full identity and autonomy of the ego, that is, for the full differentiation of personality from the outside world.

Simmel says that the conflict set the boundaries between internal groups in a social system, strengthening group consciousness and sense of detente, which establishes the identity of the groups within the system.

At the same time, the mutual "repulsion" maintains complete social system, it creates a balance between various groups.

The conflict with other groups helps to establish and reaffirm the identity of the group and maintains its own borders in relation to the social world around him

Enmities and mutual antagonisms consecrated retain social divisions and stratification systems. These traditional antagonisms prevent social disappearance, and determine the position of the various subsystems within a whole system.

In social structures that seek a wide range of mobility, it is very likely that there is attraction of high strata of the lower and mutual hostility between the layers. In this case it is often hostile feelings of the lower strata take the form of resentment, which is mixed with hostility

attraction. These structures tend to provide many conflicting opportunities, since, as veramas on, the frequency of the possibilities of conflict varies directly according to the intimacy of relationships.

Social conflict, always denotes a social interaction, while attitudes or feelings are predispositions to action, these biases do not necessarily lead to conflict, the degree of legitimacy and gender who have the power and the systems in place are critical variables affect the increase of conflict.

Proposition 2: Functions of the conflict in protecting the group, and meaning of the institutions that act as safety valves.

Conflict is not always dysfunctional, for relations within which happens; conflict is often necessary to maintain relationships. If you do not have the means to evacuate the hostility of one another, and to express their dissent, group members may feel completely overwhelmed and react to separation or apartment. The conflict serves to maintain relationships, to leave free the trapped feelings of hostility.

Social systems provide specific institutions that serve to output hostile and aggressive feelings. These institutions safety valve helps maintain the system, they prevent conflicts that otherwise would be likely or reduce its destructive effects. Provide substitutes moving targets that hostile feelings as well as means of abreaction. Through these safety valves prevents the hostility is directed against its original purpose; but these movements also entail a cost to both the social system and the individual: the pressure with the intention of changing the system and deal with changing conditions, and also builds the tension in the individual is reduced, and creates possibilities of an explosion catastrophic. The release of hostile feelings on a substitute target creates a new conflict with that object.

Proposition 3: The Real Conflict and Unreal

The real conflict and strife between unreal dispute involves a conceptual abstraction of concrete reality, the real conflict situations may be accompanied, especially when there are appropriate conditions of struggle, fictitious feelings that originally each show deviations.

Unreal conflicts but also involve interaction between two or more parties, are not caused by rival late antagonists, but by the needs of releasing tension at least one of them. In this case

the choice of antagonists depends on us determinants that are directly related to the matter in dispute, and is not oriented towards achieving specific results.

Proposition 4. The conflict and hostile impulses

Aggressive or hostile impulses are not sufficient to explain the social conflict. I Hate, like love, requires an object. The conflict can only arise in the interaction between object and subject, is always a relationship.

The real conflict is not necessarily accompanied by aggression or hostility, tensions in the psychological sense are not always associated with an antagonistic behavior still may be desirable to hate the opposite.

The propagandist is confident that such hatred strengthen the emotional involvement in the conflict, and therefore, strengthen the willingness to take it to its logical ..

Conversely, the main function of the mediator is to divest the conflicting situations of all the fictional elements of aggressiveness, so that the contestants can discuss, subject to divergent reality demands that occur in the dispute.

Proposition 5: The social hostility in intimate relationships

The antagonism generally is considered as an element of intimate relationships. Convergent and divergent motives can be so intertwined in the real relations, which can only be separated for analytical purposes and classification, while the actual relationships have a unitary character sui generis.

It can be argued that social relations of an intimate nature, characterized by frequent reciprocal action and full participation of the participants, included in the structure of an essential ambivalence motivated by the fact that they contain positive and negative aspects inextricably intertwined.

Proposition 6: The more intimate the relationship, the stronger the conflict

A conflict is more passionate and radical when it arises from intimate relationships. The coexistence of unity and opposition in such relationships contribute to the peculiar acrimony of conflict. The enmity reveals more deep and violent reactions, as is greater participation of partners from whom it arises.

In conflicts within a closed group, a sector more intensely hates the other to the extent that most considered the threat to the unity and identity of the group.

Greater participation in group life and a fuller contribution of personality of the members provide a greater opportunity to engage in an intensely contradictory behavior and therefore lead to more violent reactions against disloyalty. In that sense the intensity of the conflict and group loyalty are two facets of the same relationship.

Proposition 7: Impact and function of conflict in group structures

To the extent that the conflict means the relaxation of tension between antagonists, full stabilizing functions and becomes an integrated component of the relationship, only those concerning the goals, values or interests that do not contradict the basic assumptions on which the relationship is established.

The groups with a not very coherent structure and open societies, by allowing conflicts, establish safeguards against the kind of conflict likely to endanger the fundamental consensus and thus decrease the risk of differences affecting core values. The interdependence of opposing groups and inextricability of conflicts in such societies that contribute to the social cohesion system, reciprocal elimination of conflicts prevent the disintegration along a major fault line.

Proposition 8: Conflict as an index of stability of a relationship

The absence of conflicts should not be taken as an indicator of the strength and stability of relationships. Stable relationships may be characterized by disruptive behavior. Intimacy gives rise to frequent cases of conflict, but as long as these relationships are tenuous, participants will avoid, fearful of endangering the continuity of relationships.

When intimate relationships are characterized by frequent disputes rather than by accumulation of hostile and ambivalent way, we can find a justification provided that such conflicts do not affect the basic consensus, considering these frequent conflicts as an index of the stability of relations.

Proposition 9: Conflicts with foreign groups increase internal cohesion

The conflict with other groups leading the mobilization of energies, among members of the group itself, and therefore the strengthening of the cohesion of the same.

The trend towards centralization accompany a strengthening of cohesion, depends both on the nature of the conflict as the type of group, centralization appears as more likely in the case of a war and in different structures that require a marked division of labor .

Despotism seems to be related to a lack of coherence; It is required to conduct hostilities where group solidarity is insufficient to mobilize the energies of members.

In groups engaged in the fight against the foreign enemy, the emergence of both centralization and despotism, depends on the system of common values and group structure, prior to the initiation of the conflict.

Proposition 10: The conflict with other groups defines the group structure and the consequent reaction to internal conflict

The groups dedicated to an ongoing struggle with the outside tend to be intolerant inside. But not limited deviations allow its members. Such groups tend to acquire a sectarian character, its members are selected because of special characteristics, they tend to be very limited in number and calling for the full participation of its members. Social cohesion depends on the participation of their members integrated in all aspects of the life of the group and is reinforced by the affirmation of the unity of this in their struggle against dissident, the only way to solve the problems created by Dissent is the voluntary or forced exclusion of dissident.

Proposition 11: The search for enemies

Rigidly structured militant groups may seek real enemies with the deliberate purpose or unconscious result of maintaining the unity and internal cohesion of the group. Such groups may actually perceive an external threat but this is not obvious. Under certain conditions that still need to be exploited, the imaginary threats serve the same integrative function of the actual group.

The invention of such an enemy strengthens social cohesion is threatened in the group. Likewise search or an internal dissident Invesiones can serve to maintain a structure which is threatened from outside. Such mechanisms like "Scapegoat" appear particularly those groups whose structure prevents the outbreak of the real conflict within the group. There shifting nuances between the exaggeration of a real danger, the attraction of a real enemy and the complete invention of a threatening agent.

Proposition 12: Ideologies and Conflict

The conflicts in which the contenders feel they only participate as representatives of communities and groups, who do not fight for themselves, but only by the ideas of the group they represent, likely to be more radical and ruthless than others whose animosity moves for personal reasons.

Element removal tends to sharpen the conflict, the absence of modifying elements that usually introduce personal factors. The modern Marxist labor movement radicalizadores exemplifies the effects of objectification of the conflict. Strict ideological alignments tend to occur rather than in rigid structures flexible.

The objectification of the conflict is likely to be a unifying element for the contending parties as both serve the same purpose: for example in scientific controversies, in which the matter discussed is the establishment of the truth.

Proposition 13: The conflict league contenders

Conflict can initiate other types of interactions between the conflicting parties, although they have not previously existed relationships between them. It also occurs within a set of rules that prescribe the ways in which the conflict is usually solved. The conflict acts as a stimulus for the establishment of new rules, regulations and institutions, becoming an agent of

socialization between the two contending parties. Besides reaffirming the latent conflict rules, and thus enhances the participation of social life.

As an incentive for the creation and modification of rules makes the adjustment of relations with the changed conditions.

Proposition 14: Interest in the unification of the enemy

Given the advantages of a unified organization, in order to succeed in the conflict, it should be assumed that each party wants the disunity of his antagonist. However, this is not always true. If there is a relative balance of power between contenders, the unified party will prefer a unified adversary.

Continued participation in conflict tends to facilitate the acceptance by both parties of common rules governing its development. Now we can add that, under the conditions described, the conflict also requires an organizational structure to facilitate the acceptance and observance of common rules.

Proposition 15: The conflict sets and maintains the balance of power

The conflict is a test potential between antagonistic parties. The arrangement is only possible if each of the contenders is conscious of their relative strength. But paradoxically, this knowledge, very often, can only be achieved through conflict, when are apparently non-existent, other mechanisms to test the respective strength of the contenders.

Consequently, the struggle can be an important way to prevent unbalance conditions, changing the basis of the relationship of forces.

The conflict far from destructive and disruptive, may in fact be a means to balance, and therefore maintain a society.

The conflict sets links between the contenders, 1) creates and modifies common measures for the readjustment of relations, 2) leads to each of the parties to the conflict, given a certain equality of force, to prefer the other copy your own organizational structure to equalize the

fighting techniques, 3) allows for more precise relative strength, and thus serves as a balancing mechanism that helps maintain and strengthen societies.

Proposition 16: The conflict creates partnerships and coalitions

The struggle may result in the union of individuals or groups that otherwise would remain unconnected. Of the conflicts that play a major role pragmatic interests of the participants, are temporary associations and coalitions, and no more permanent and more cohesive groups. Is more likely to occur in such structures are rigid flexible societies, because in these repressed conflicts erupt, they tend to take a more intense character and, consequently, more ideological. Coalitions and partnerships structured individualist society and prevent its disintegration spray. Most coalitions between previously existing groups are formed exclusively defensive purposes, this fact leads to the creation of new partnerships and coalitions, stimulating, well, greater social participation.