Key Takeaways
1. Conflict Forges Group Identity and Boundaries
Hostilities not only prevent boundaries within the group from gradually disappearing … often they provide classes and individuals with reciprocal positions which they would not find … if the causes of hostility were not accompanied by the feeling and the expression of hostility.
Defining ourselves. Conflict is not merely a destructive force; it actively shapes and maintains the identity of groups. By engaging in struggle with an "out-group," a group clarifies who it is and what it stands for, solidifying its internal structure and distinguishing itself from others. This process is fundamental to group formation, whether for nations, ethnic communities, or social classes.
Strengthening group consciousness. When groups face an external adversary, their members become more aware of their shared interests and common fate. This heightened awareness fosters a sense of solidarity and belonging, reinforcing the group's boundaries against the surrounding social world. For instance, Marx argued that classes only become self-conscious entities through their common struggle against another class.
Maintaining social divisions. Patterned enmities and reciprocal antagonisms also serve to preserve existing social divisions and stratification systems. In societies with rigid hierarchies, like the Indian caste system, mutual "repulsions" between castes help maintain their distinctiveness and assigned positions, contributing to the overall stability of the social structure. Without such antagonisms, boundaries might blur, leading to a loss of identity for the subgroups.
2. Conflict as a Vital Safety-Valve for Tensions
If we did not even have the power and the right to rebel against tyranny, arbitrariness, moodiness, tactlessness, we could not bear to have any relation to people from whose characters we thus suffer.
Releasing pent-up feelings. The expression of hostility through conflict can serve a crucial group-maintaining function by preventing the accumulation of unbearable tensions. When individuals or groups are denied an outlet for their grievances, these frustrations can fester, eventually leading to withdrawal or explosive, destructive actions. Conflict, in this sense, "clears the air," allowing relationships to endure under stress.
Preventing dissolution. By providing a channel for the release of hostile dispositions, conflict can actually preserve relationships that might otherwise dissolve. Simmel's "safety-valve theory" suggests that institutionalized outlets for aggression, like dueling in some societies or certain forms of ritualized revenge, allow hostilities to be expressed in a controlled manner, preventing them from tearing the social fabric apart.
Substitute mechanisms. However, not all tension release involves direct conflict. Hostile feelings can be deflected onto substitute objects (scapegoating) or find cathartic release through other activities, like humor or entertainment. While these "safety-valve institutions" can temporarily maintain relationships by diverting aggression, they may also prevent necessary adjustments to underlying problems, leading to rigidity and potential future explosions.
3. Distinguish Realistic from Non-Realistic Conflict
Where conflict is merely a means determined by a superior purpose, there is no reason to restrict or even avoid it, provided it can be replaced by other measures which have the same promise of success. Where, on the other hand, it is exclusively determined by subjective feelings, where there are inner energies which can be satisfied only through fight, its substitution by other means is impossible; it is its own purpose and content…
Purpose-driven vs. tension-driven. Not all conflicts are created equal. Realistic conflicts arise from clashes over specific demands, scarce resources, power, or values, where the struggle is a means to achieve a tangible outcome. Non-realistic conflicts, conversely, are primarily driven by the need for tension release, where the choice of antagonist is often incidental, and the aggressive act itself is the end.
Instrumental vs. expressive. Understanding this distinction is vital for effective social analysis and intervention. For example, a labor strike for higher wages is a realistic conflict, where alternative means like negotiation could achieve the same end. Anti-Semitism, however, often exemplifies non-realistic conflict, where aggression is displaced onto a convenient target to release accumulated frustrations, regardless of specific grievances.
Implications for resolution. Realistic conflicts are more amenable to compromise and alternative solutions because their goals are specific and measurable. Non-realistic conflicts, being rooted in diffuse emotional needs, are less flexible; satisfaction comes from the aggressive act itself, making substitution of means or objects difficult. Ignoring this difference can lead to misdiagnosing social problems, such as attributing all international conflicts to "tensions" rather than real power struggles.
4. Intimacy Fuels Intense, Suppressed Conflicts
The more we have in common with another as whole persons, however, the more easily will our totality be involved in every single relation to him. … Therefore, if a quarrel arises between persons in such an intimate relationship, it is often so passionately expansive.
Ambivalence in close ties. Intimate relationships, characterized by deep personal involvement and frequent interaction, are fertile ground for both intense affection and profound hostility. This "ambivalence," as Freud termed it, stems from the numerous occasions for conflict inherent in such closeness. The very strength of the bond can lead to the suppression of hostile feelings, as individuals fear that expressing them might jeopardize the relationship.
Accumulated grievances. When conflicts are suppressed in close relationships, hostile feelings tend to accumulate and intensify over time. If these pent-up emotions eventually erupt, the resulting conflict is often disproportionately passionate and radical, far exceeding the immediate issue at hand. All previously unaddressed grievances can surface, making the dispute deeply personal and potentially destructive.
Total personality involvement. In groups where members participate with their "total personality"—like families, religious sects, or radical political parties—conflicts are likely to be more violent than in groups with segmental ties, such as professional associations. The deep emotional investment means that any disagreement can feel like an attack on one's core identity, mobilizing all available affect and making compromise exceptionally difficult.
5. External Threats Bolster Internal Cohesion
A state of conflict, however, pulls the members so tightly together and subjects them to such uniform impulse that they either must get completely along with, or completely repel, one another.
Rallying around the flag. When a group faces an external threat or engages in conflict with an out-group, its internal cohesion often dramatically increases. Members become more conscious of their shared identity and common purpose, leading to a "pulling together" effect. This phenomenon is widely observed in wartime, where national unity tends to strengthen in the face of a common enemy.
Centralization and discipline. External conflict can also lead to increased centralization of authority and greater discipline within the group. The need for concerted action against an adversary often necessitates a more unified command structure, as seen in the development of modern states and armies. However, this doesn't automatically lead to despotism; the outcome depends on the group's pre-existing cohesion and democratic traditions.
Conditions for cohesion. This integrative effect is not universal. For external conflict to strengthen internal cohesion, two conditions are crucial:
- The group must possess a minimal pre-existing consensus that its preservation is worthwhile.
- The threat must be perceived as menacing the group as a whole, not just a segment of it.
If these conditions are absent, external conflict can exacerbate internal divisions, leading to apathy or even disintegration, as seen in the contrasting responses of France and Britain to Nazi aggression in WWII.
6. Struggle Groups Actively Seek Enemies
Within certain groups, it may even be a piece of political wisdom to see to it that there be some enemies in order for the unity of the members to remain effective and for the group to remain conscious of this unity as its vital interest.
Functional autonomy of conflict. For groups whose very existence is defined by struggle, the conflict itself can become an end rather than merely a means. Once an original enemy is defeated or a founding purpose achieved, these "struggle groups" may actively seek new adversaries or exaggerate existing threats to maintain their internal unity and prevent dissolution. This is akin to the "functional autonomy of motives," where a behavior continues even after its initial cause is gone.
Maintaining group structure. The perpetual search for an enemy serves to keep members alert, reinforce their loyalty, and prevent internal dissension. By constantly emphasizing an external threat, leaders can mobilize group defenses and ensure that members remain committed to the collective cause. This mechanism is particularly evident in rigid, sect-like organizations that demand total personality involvement.
Inventing threats. In some cases, the external threat doesn't even need to be objectively real; a perceived or even invented enemy can serve the same group-integrating function. The "stab-in-the-back" myth after WWI or the scapegoating of minorities like Jews or Negroes illustrates how internal or external "enemies" can be conjured to deflect blame, reaffirm group righteousness, and solidify internal solidarity, especially in societies where realistic internal conflict is suppressed.
7. Ideology Intensifies and Depersonalizes Conflict
The parties’ consciousness of being mere representatives of supra-individual claims, of fighting not for themselves but only for a cause, can give the conflict a radicalism and mercilessness which find their analogy in the general behavior of certain very selfless and very idealistically inclined persons.
Fighting for a cause. When individuals engage in conflict not for personal gain but as representatives of a collective, super-individual cause or ideology, the struggle tends to become more radical and uncompromising. The belief in a higher "right" or a system of values imbues the fight with a moral righteousness that transcends personal interests, mobilizing energies that would otherwise remain untapped.
Depersonalization of the adversary. This objectification of conflict means that antagonists are viewed not as individuals, but as embodiments of opposing ideas or groups. Marx, for instance, insisted on depersonalizing the class struggle, portraying capitalists and workers as "personifications of economic categories." This approach, while potentially reducing personal animosity, paradoxically intensifies the conflict by removing the moderating influence of individual relationships and focusing solely on the clash of principles.
Role of intellectuals. Intellectuals often play a crucial role in this process by "objectifying" social movements, transforming conflicts of interest into conflicts of ideas. By systematizing ideologies and articulating "eternal truths," they can deepen and intensify struggles, making them more uncompromising. This is why some labor movement pragmatists have viewed intellectuals with suspicion, fearing their tendency to radicalize immediate issues into broader ideological battles.
8. Conflict Creates Shared Norms and Social Bonds
One unites in order to fight, and one fights under the mutually recognized control of norms and rules.
Establishing new relationships. Conflict, even between previously unrelated parties, can initiate new forms of interaction and establish relationships where none existed. Just as children might first quarrel over a toy before co-operatively playing, adversaries learn about each other through struggle, laying a foundation for future, more complex interactions. War, historically, has often been a brutal but effective means of establishing contact and cross-fertilization between cultures.
Framework of rules. Crucially, conflict rarely occurs in a vacuum; it typically takes place within a shared universe of norms and rules. Even in warfare, attempts to limit violence and establish conventions are as old as conflict itself. These rules, whether formal laws or informal customs, provide a common framework that makes the conflict predictable and manageable, preventing it from devolving into total annihilation.
Stimulus for norm creation. Conflict also acts as a powerful stimulus for the creation and modification of social norms and institutions. When existing rules prove inadequate to address new forms of contention, conflict forces conscious attention to the issues, leading to the development of new laws or the reinterpretation of old ones. This dynamic process ensures that social structures remain adaptable, allowing for continuous readjustment to changing conditions and reaffirming the shared moral universe of the contenders.
9. Unified Adversaries Enable Stable Resolution
The centralized form into which the party is pushed by the situation of conflict grows beyond the party itself and causes it to prefer that the opponent, too, take on this form.
Preference for organized opponents. Paradoxically, a strongly organized party in a conflict may prefer to face an equally unified opponent. This is because dealing with a cohesive, centralized adversary allows for more predictable interactions and more stable resolutions. A modern army prefers to fight another organized army rather than dispersed guerrilla bands; a unified trade union prefers to bargain with an employers' association rather than numerous individual firms.
Common rules, common structure. When both sides are organized, they can more effectively adhere to a common universe of rules governing the conflict. This mutual adherence facilitates negotiation and the enforcement of agreements once a resolution is reached. For instance, early labor leaders like Samuel Gompers often welcomed the organization of employers, recognizing that it created a more stable and predictable bargaining environment.
Stability through parity. This preference for a unified opponent typically arises when a relative balance of power exists between the parties. If one side is significantly weaker, the stronger party is more likely to exploit the opponent's disunity (divide and conquer). However, once a rough parity is achieved, both sides benefit from the stability and reliability that come from dealing with a disciplined, representative organization capable of controlling its own members and honoring agreements.
10. Conflict Reveals and Balances Power Dynamics
The most effective prerequisite for preventing struggle, the exact knowledge of the comparative strength of the two parties, is very often attainable only by the actual’ fighting out of the conflict.
Power in action. Conflict is fundamentally a test of power. While societies have mechanisms for adjudicating claims and allocating resources, these often fall short when groups feel their current share of power, status, or wealth is unjust. In such cases, the true measure of relative strength can often only be ascertained through direct struggle, as power is frequently revealed only in its exercise.
Trial by ordeal. Without a common, objective measure for non-economic power, groups often resort to "trial by ordeal"—actual conflict—to assess their comparative strength. Mediators and arbitrators face significant challenges if the parties' relative power has not been established, as any proposed settlement must align with the underlying power realities. Conflict, therefore, becomes a necessary, albeit costly, means of gaining this crucial knowledge.
Establishing new equilibrium. When a conflict erupts because a previous accommodation no longer reflects the actual power relations, the struggle serves to redefine these dynamics. Once the respective strengths of the contenders are revealed through conflict, a new equilibrium can be established, allowing the relationship to proceed on a more stable and realistic basis. Thus, conflict acts as a vital balancing mechanism, preventing prolonged disequilibrium and fostering necessary societal adjustments.
11. Alliances Emerge from Common Antagonism
Unification for the purpose of fighting is a process which is experienced so often that sometimes the mere collation of elements, even when it occurs for no purpose of aggression or other conflict, appears in the eyes of others as a threatening and hostile act.
Uniting against a common foe. Conflict with one party often leads to the formation of associations and coalitions among others who share a common adversary. This "antagonistic cooperation" brings together individuals or groups that might otherwise be unrelated or even antagonistic, uniting them for a specific, often defensive, purpose. The shared threat creates a minimal bond, even if other interests diverge.
Overcoming isolation. In individualistic societies, these conflict-driven associations play a crucial role in combating social isolation and atomization. By drawing individuals into collective action, they provide structure and order, teaching members the rules of social engagement. The multitude of voluntary associations and "pressure groups" in American society, often formed to pursue specific conflicts, exemplify this process.
From temporary to permanent. While many such alliances are temporary, formed for instrumental ends, they can sometimes evolve into more enduring groups. Increased interaction and the gradual adjustment of interests within a coalition can foster common values and loyalties, paving the way for more permanent forms of unification. The history of farmers' alliances or trade unions, initially formed for specific defensive purposes, often shows this transformation into more cohesive, ideologically driven organizations.
12. Flexible Systems Thrive on Institutionalized Conflict
A flexible society benefits from conflict because such behavior, by helping to create and modify norms, assures its continuance under changed conditions.
Adaptation through conflict. Flexible social systems, characterized by a tolerance and institutionalization of conflict, possess a crucial mechanism for adaptation and survival. By allowing the open expression of antagonistic claims, these systems can continuously readjust their norms and power relations to meet changing conditions and address sources of dissatisfaction. This prevents the accumulation of grievances that could lead to catastrophic breakdowns.
Multiplicity of conflicts. In open, pluralistic societies, multiple conflicts often crisscross each other, preventing deep cleavages along a single axis. Individuals, with their diverse group affiliations, participate segmentally in various conflicts, ensuring that their total personalities are not consumed by any one dispute. This multiplicity of non-cumulative conflicts acts as a balancing mechanism, "sewing the social system together" and reinforcing overall stability.
Rigidity's peril. Conversely, rigid social systems that suppress conflict stifle a vital warning signal. By disallowing direct expression of antagonistic claims, they prevent necessary adjustments, allowing hostilities to accumulate. When conflict inevitably erupts in such systems, it tends to be intensely disruptive, threatening the very consensual basis of the social order. Thus, the capacity to tolerate and channel conflict is a hallmark of a healthy, adaptable society.
