Dahrendorf modern social conflict read online. Modern social conflict and its theory according to Dahrendorf. Conflict resolution methods

According to Dahrendorf, in modern societies (Europe and America) there is no class conflict in its classical sense. Today, in these societies, new social groups of haves and have-nots are being formed, new lines of confrontational demarcation, which have not yet manifested themselves in the form of large organized clashes.

Modern conflicts are not some completely new class of phenomena. They still contain elements of the previous ones. conflicts, manifesting themselves primarily as the struggle of the majority class for the redistribution of wealth and power. However, according to Dahrendorf, the relationship between the majority class and the lower class cannot and will not cause organized conflicts that would resemble the conflicts between the bourgeoisie and the working class. This statement is based on the fact that, firstly, the majority class has more weight in society in all aspects, and the lower class is not a socially cohesive and organized group, and secondly, there is an individualization of social conflict.

The concept " individualization of social conflict" means social conflict without classes. If organized groups are observed to act, they are special interest groups or social movements, not class parties. Moreover, they are differentiated and segmented as a result of social changes.

Today, the sociologist asserts, we are not talking about universal civil, political and social rights; The struggle is primarily for equal pay for male and female labor, against environmental pollution, against terrorism, for disarmament, etc. Such social movements do not differ in civic status. Why don't the lower class create parties to solve their social problems? According to Dahrendorf, the reason lies in the dominant ideology of individualism. Its spread forces people to move up the social ladder, relying on their own strength, and to refuse to pursue personal interests through the organized labor movement, since this path requires more time and effort. As a result, individual mobility becomes a way to prevent class struggle. Another reason why the lower class is not capable of organized defense of its interests is related to the phenomenon of alienation.

As a result, the scientist comes to the conclusion that a feature of modern social conflict (in comparison with the class struggle of the 19th century) is its diversity and variability of forms of manifestation (wars, demonstrations, violent strikes, terrorism, “showdowns” between shadow workers and mafia structures etc.), as well as its ubiquity.

The essence of modern social conflict, he believes, is no longer to eliminate differences, since the principle of citizenship has already destroyed such differences. Modern social conflict is associated with the effects of inequality, which limits the fullness of civil participation of people by social, economic and political means.

Basic civil rights are the key to the modern world. These include elements of the rule of law, equality before the law and a reliable process for seeking justice.

In conclusion, Dahrendorf writes that no comparative new conflict has arisen in modern society. It is unlikely that relations between the majority class and the underclassed will lead to social clashes. However, another problem has arisen: the majority class is not confident in the stability of its position and hesitates when it comes to observing the rules invented by itself. An even greater danger is that the state of anomie cannot last long. Its danger is that it can lead to tyranny (The concept of “anomie” was introduced into modern sociology by Emile Durkheim, who defined it as a temporary loss of effectiveness of social norms as a result of an economic or political crisis. Such a state in society deprives people of collective solidarity, a sense of connection with society, as a result of which for many the only way out of the situation is suicide. Robert Merton supplements the definition, interpreting it as a “conflict of norms in a culture”, when people are not able to obey the value-normative system of society).

Creating a holistic picture of modernity, understanding and predicting the movement of social processes, the functioning of social institutions and, in general, societies of the postmodern era are impossible without an in-depth analysis of the theory of social conflict and its further intensive development.

In confirmation of the significance of the development of modern sociological conflict theory, it is necessary to mention the Prince of Asturias award in the field of social sciences, awarded in 2007 to the German sociologist and political figure R. Dahrendorf for his significant contribution to the development of the theory of social conflict. The specifics of this theory depend entirely on the specifics of the 20th century societies themselves, on the emergence in them of new forms of conflict, inequality and social protest. Therefore, it seems quite relevant to study the scientific views of the modern social thinker and public figure Ralf Dahrendorf.

With the emergence of capitalist relations (late 19th-20th centuries), society underwent a significant structural transformation. Class society has become “post-class”; the new social structure gave rise to new social relations. These social changes entailed a transformation of the subject of the theory of social conflict.

For R. Dahrendorf, the specificity of the subject of study of the modern theory of social conflict lies in the consideration of primarily the legal and economic aspects of the interaction between society and the individual, social groups.

This is due to the formation of civil society in economically developed countries, which served as an impetus for the formation of a previously non-existent class - the “class of citizens”. Civil rights and real incomes open up different choices. The presence of different chances of choice in all spheres of society is one of the important problems of our time that requires special attention.

The chances of choice, income, citizens' rights and their provision, according to R. Dahrendorf, are directly related to the life chances of individuals. The uneven distribution of life chances, different role relationships and inequality of power positions, according to the sociologist, are the main sources of social conflicts. Suppressing social conflicts, according to R. Dahrendorf, will not lead to their elimination, therefore it is rational to regulate conflict situations. Once they are controlled, their power begins to contribute to the further development of social structures.

Since eliminating the causes of the development of social conflict is impossible, it is necessary to look for ways to transfer it to another plane. For R. Dahrendorf, this seems possible thanks to the implementation of uniform and parallel political and economic transformations, which should be aimed at creating conditions for increasing the life chances of citizens.

R. Dahrendorf considers transformation itself, as well as conflict, to be necessary conditions for freedom. At the same time, social organization and social mobility must be well developed in society and there must be a “constitution of freedom” containing rules that help control social conflicts. Providing protection to individuals and developing a sense of confidence in them is inextricably linked with the need to reconsider the content of both civil rights and life chances.

It is important to strive to create a culturally, nationally, and religiously diverse society, where each member will have broad life chances, and the conditions of social organization as a whole will contribute to the formation of collective solidarity.

In addition to all these factors, the resolution of a social conflict, according to R. Dahrendorf, can be achieved by the organization of the opposing parties, their thoughtfulness in each other’s arguments, agreement on the rules of the game, the institutionalization of social conflicts (the creation of committees, commissions, councils, etc.) , presence of a mediator, negotiations, arbitration. It is important to emphasize once again the point of view of R. Dahrendorf that conflicts do not disappear when using various methods of their regulation, but their form becomes softer. If the conflict is suppressed or absent in a certain social structure, then no changes will occur in it.

In conclusion, it is important to note that R. Dahrendorf considers social conflict at different social levels: from the individual and small social group to society as a whole. In his opinion, conflict contributes to the dynamic development of the social system if it is rationally regulated. Regulated conflict gives rise to changes that are the impetus for the evolution of social organization. The main goal of this progress, according to R. Dahrendorf, is the construction of a global civil society. Consequently, modern social conflict is one of the sources of strategic transformations of the social system, and the main task of a sociologist should be to search for methods of rational regulation of modern social conflict.

RALPH DAHRENDORF (b. 1929), German-British social thinker and public figure. Born in Hamburg. He studied philosophy and classical philology at the University of Hamburg, social sciences at the London School of Economics. Dahrendorf's first books were publications of his dissertations on social philosophy, devoted to the criticism of Marx and the Marxist theory of society. Dahrendorf's early publications are in one way or another connected with conflict theory. In contrast to prevailing concepts, he argued that conflict and change are the lifeblood of society. In his book on social classes, Dahrendorf developed in detail the methodological problems of analyzing conflicting societies and the theory of conflict of group interests, developing certain elements of the Marxist approach.

Dahrendorf saw his contribution in suggesting that power, rather than property, is the source of class conflict.

According to Dahrendorf, social conflict has always been and will be inherent in any society due to the inevitable difference of interests. However, in a post-industrial society, which Dahrendorf studied, the main contradiction of social systems moves, in his opinion, from the economic plane, from the sphere of property relations to the sphere of relations of dominance-subordination, and the main conflict turns out to be associated with the redistribution of power.

Dahrendorf analyzes in detail the conditions for the emergence of conflicts, the factors that determine their severity, real and possible consequences, etc. Dahrendorf's works rightfully allow us to consider him as one of the modern classics of conflictology. Dahrendorf attempts to apply his reasoning to a wide range of social conflicts; in his texts, the “conflict between entrepreneurs and trade unions” is adjacent to the conflict “between East and West.”

Dahrendorf writes that the delights of a multi-ethnic society were wasted on the majority, who were more concerned about maintaining racial barriers than achieving openness. This state of society is a step back in the history of the development of citizenship. Minority rights were initially misunderstood and consequently became minority rule.

The second danger is the danger of anomie (The concept of “anomie” was introduced into modern sociology by Emile Durkheim, who defined it as a temporary loss of effectiveness of social norms as a result of an economic or political crisis. Such a state in society deprives people of collective solidarity, a sense of connection with society, as a result of which for many The only way out of the situation is suicide).

Declassed people are almost not interested in the current problems of society. They seem to be in lethargy, so they do not resist society. Their intelligence is not enough for the organized defense of their interests, they are only capable of “rabid rebellion” (a possible reason why people who are unable to get out of poverty do not join forces and do not attack the capitals, demanding full citizenship for themselves).

In his work “Modern social conflict. Essay on the Politics of Freedom”, he proceeds from the fact that it is possible to answer the questions of processes developing over a long time only by focusing on the study of economically developed countries. The author reveals the meaning of democracy and civil society, the role of revolutions of the modern era, the differences between politics and economics, the “temptations of totalitarianism,” and the causes of class struggle. But most importantly, it raises one of the most pressing problems of our time: the problem of social conflict. According to the general theory of social conflict by R. Dahrendorf, certain conditions are necessary for the formation of a conflict and to determine its severity: technical, social, political. Technical conditions are material, personal, ideological, social - communications, social mobility, political - the presence of a coalition, the manifestation of a conflict, etc. But they are not constant and change over time. Thus, the conditions for the manifestation of modern social conflict differ from previous ones, and, consequently, its new forms arise, new legal issues require solutions.

According to R. Dahrendorf, in modern societies there are remnants of the previous conflict, but there is no class conflict in its classical form. Of course, new antagonisms arise, but it is unlikely that they will lead to organized clashes between the “new haves” and the “new have-nots.” Thus, the traditional form of class conflicts gave way to a new form, the reason for which was the emergence in society of a previously non-existent class - the “class of citizens”.

The concept of citizen first appears in the 4th century in the writings of Aristotle. The philosopher classifies as citizens those townspeople who not only live within state borders, but are also not foreigners or slaves. Citizens participate in the performance of administrative functions and resolution of legal issues. The modern concept of a citizen has partially retained its original meaning: a free, sovereign person, possessing civil and political rights, actively participating in government. Ralf Dahrendorf in his work defines a “class of citizens” as a social community of different property status and unequal income, but with equality of access.

In order to make it clear what we are talking about, it is necessary to introduce some concepts that are basic in the social theory of conflict by R. Dahrendorf. “Socially defined means of access” are rights. R. Dahrendorf also calls them “entrance tickets.” They include basic civil rights and real incomes, which open up different options, and the “fan” of these alternative options is the provision of rights.

In all spheres of society there must be many different chances of choice. But what are the odds? Chances, according to R. Dahrendorf, “are something greater than the prerequisites for action, and yet less than actual actions.” And it is with people’s life chances, or rather with their unequal distribution, that modern social conflicts are connected.

The concept of “life chances” was introduced into sociology by Max Weber. It does not have a generally accepted and established content. M. Weber, like K. Marx, associated the concept of “chances” mainly with the economic structure of capitalist society. He argued that the market provides life chances depending on the resources owned by the participant in the market exchange. Consequently, unequal access to different types of resources gives rise to material inequality, hence the conflict in the distribution of these resources.

But not all sociologists, like K. Marx and M. Weber, defined life chances as components of the economic structure of society. A. Giddens argued that the category of life chances is the possibility of survival of people in different forms of society.

R. Dahrendorf developed the concept of life chances in detail. In the work “Modern social conflict. Essay on the Politics of Freedom,” the author gives a clear definition: “life chances are a function of options and ligatures.” Options are individual combinations of rights and their security. Ligatures, that is, “deep cultural connections” (“ligare” - from Latin “to connect”), help make a choice in favor of one or another alternative action. But in our time, the ligatures of former times are rapidly disappearing. “A vacuum arises,” writes R. Dahrendorf. The author believes that civil society can fill this vacuum. Yes, it is the ligatures of civil society that life chances require. But what is it based on? Civil society is a society governed by law and morality. Its main features are the rule of law, pluralism, autonomy of organizations, equality of all before the law, and the formation of civic consciousness.

The modern world represents a huge variety and wealth of alternative activities. Civil rights provide the opportunity to make choices in this world. Modern social conflict is connected precisely with these rights, the presence or absence of which depends on the civil status of the individual. And the struggle for possession of this status has turned into one of the “greatest themes of conflict in modern societies. As an example, R. Dahrendorf cites the situation of the “ghetto” in the USA. He writes that, despite the breakthrough in the field of civil rights in the 60s of our century, this part of the population in many respects remained an “outsider.” In Great Britain, too, race plays a decisive role in the provision of social benefits to society, which is contrary to the nature of civil society. After all, its integral feature is equality in the rights of representatives of different ethnic groups, races, and cultural groups.

The desire for “homogeneity”, for fundamentalism, contradicts the main goal of the policy of freedom - giving more people more chances in life. At the same time, all conditions must be created for their full implementation. But, according to R. Dahrendorf, life chances are never distributed evenly, which is explained by the existence in any society of structures of domination and subordination, and, consequently, inequality. Only in modern society this is more likely an economic inequality, rather than a social one, and it is associated with the establishment of civil status. One of the factors determining this economic inequality is education. Income and life chances in the labor market depend on it and on professional activity. There are now problems related to the distribution of labor, which also create new rights issues.

But what is needed to move forward, to increase life chances? What can mitigate modern social conflict, which is “the antagonism of rights and their enforcement, politics and economics, civil rights and economic growth”? R. Dahrendorf believes that the formation of civil status is progress, as it helps to increase options. The process of expanding civil status depends on giving people more life chances. The volume of which can be increased by embarking “simultaneously and in parallel” on political and economic transformations. R. Dahrendorf thinks so, based on the point of view of the French sociologist R. Aron.

Why in parallel? The fact is that R. Dahrendorf defines politics and economics as two different forms of social processes. The basis of political processes is the actions of people, while economic processes occur naturally. And R. Dahrendorf doubts their causal connection. However, he points out that when modernizing, only one of the factors is often taken into account, although both should be taken into account: political and economic. R. Dahrendorf considers transformation itself, as well as conflict, to be necessary conditions for freedom. After all, any society is characterized by the presence of divergent interests. At the same time, social organization must be well developed, and a “constitution of freedom” must exist. It is necessary to develop rules according to which conflicts will be resolved.

However, it is common for modern people not to pay any attention to the norms and values established in society. R. Dahrendorf defines this behavior as “anomie.” This is a state of indifference, distrust of the normative and moral orders of society. The author mentions Robert Merton, who defined the concept of anomie as “the collapse of cultural structure that occurs when people, by virtue of their social position, are unable to follow the values of their society.” The great danger is that anomie leads to “many-faced tyranny,” says R. Dahrendorf. Since the state of uncertainty cannot last long, a person begins to need protection and confidence in the future, which is a sign of his craving for dogma.

The question again arises: what needs to be done to get out of this situation? R. Dahrendorf writes that for progression it is necessary to reconsider the content of both civil rights and life chances. In this case, the main rights should be the right to personal integrity, freedom of activity and movement. It is necessary to create a society that is culturally, nationally, and religiously diverse, where each member will have broad life chances. R. Dahrendorf believes that the organization of the opposing parties, their thoughtfulness in each other’s arguments, agreement on the rules of the game, the presence of a mediator and the institutionalization of social conflicts (the creation of committees, commissions, councils, etc.) will help resolve the conflict that has arisen.

The methods of resolving existing social contradictions reflect R. Dahrendorf's affiliation with a liberal political party. In his point of view, conflicts cannot always be resolved by government methods. Increasing life chances will be more effective if this task is carried out by voluntary helpers such as charities, church groups, etc. It is also important to guarantee citizens an unconditional minimum income. We, the author believes, need strategic changes that will help expand life chances, which are incomplete if they are security without rights.

Thus, R. Dahrendorf comes to the conclusion that global civil society, the construction of which is the main goal of progress, should be based on the principles of the rule of law, equality of all before it, pluralism, and providing everyone with great life chances. The modern social conflict, in which “the activities of political parties, the electoral system, and parliament ensure conflicts without revolutions,” is the main impetus to the beginning.

German-British sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf (b. 1929) already towards the end 50s XX century developed and substantiated his theory of the conflict model of society. Conflict is the central category of all his sociological activities. It is presented in his book "Social Classes and Class Conflict in Industrial Society" (1957) and more mature publication "Modern Social Conflict" (1992). The sociologist's views on the conflict echo his earlier dissertation research devoted to criticism of the theory Marx. Therefore, the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is recognized Dahrendorf as the main conflict, but does not explain the conflicts of modern society.

Society, by Dahrendorf, presented as an ever-changing system of relationships between conflicting social groups or classes. Social conflicts are inevitable and necessary. The absence of conflict is considered abnormal for society.

Dahrendorf identifies different levels at which conflict can occur:

1) between inconsistent expectations that are presented to a person playing a particular role;

2) between the social roles that we must play simultaneously;

3) intragroup conflicts;

4) between social groups;

5) conflicts at the level of society as a whole;

6) interstate conflicts.

Dahrendorf builds a hierarchy of conflicts that differ in the level of action - from the micro level to the macro level, numbering 15 types of conflicts. Class conflict as the central conflict of society depends on the nature of the power prevailing at a particular historical stage. In modern society, this conflict is defined as a conflict between industrial and post-industrial society. The conflicts of industrial society are losing their severity and significance. New conflicts are emerging, generated by a change in the nature of power and relations in society. For example, a conflict between image and lifestyle. Influence on such conflicts, according to Dahrendorf, meaningless and impractical, since they are formed by the natural evolutionary path of the development of society.

One of the directions of conflict theory Dahrendorf dedicated to the development of liberalism in society, encouraging reforms and other changes in society, revealed in books "Life Perspectives" (1979), "Law and Order" (1985).

Another important direction of his theory was the analysis of historical events that turned out to be turning points for society XX century A sociologist studies global changes taking place in Europe in general and in Britain in particular, looking for the causes of social conflicts and transformations in society under the influence of revolutions.

R. Dahrendorf MODERN SOCIAL CONFLICT

Ralf Dahrendorf defines modern conflict as a conflict between resources and claims.
Economic progress by itself will not eliminate either unemployment or poverty. The majority class has found a relatively comfortable existence, protects its interests in the same way as other ruling classes did, and does not seek to break the circle of deprivations of people who have sunk to the position of the declassed. On the contrary, in times of troubles, he actively pushes some of his fellow citizens beyond the threshold of society and keeps them there, protecting the position of those inside. Like the former ruling classes, they find enough reasons for the need for such boundaries and are ready to “let in” those who accept their values. At the same time, they prove that there should be no boundaries between classes. They want to remove the barriers that divide society, but are completely unwilling to do anything about it.
The majority class draws boundaries not only horizontally, but also vertically (racial-ethnic problem). Dahrendorf writes that the delights of a multi-ethnic society were wasted on the majority, who were more concerned about maintaining racial barriers than achieving openness. This state of society is a step back in the history of the development of citizenship. Affirmative action is needed: providing minorities and other disadvantaged people with some social benefits in education and employment. A new type of “undermined” liberalism has emerged, abandoning great gains in the field of universal civil rights and norms in order to satisfy the separatist demands of national minorities. Minority rights were initially misunderstood and consequently became minority rule.
The second danger is the danger of anomie (The concept of “anomie” was introduced into modern sociology by Emile Durkheim, who defined it as a temporary loss of effectiveness of social norms as a result of an economic or political crisis. Such a state in society deprives people of collective solidarity, a sense of connection with society, as a result of which for many the only way out of the situation is suicide.Robert Merton supplements the definition, interpreting it as a “conflict of norms in a culture”, when people are not able to obey the value-normative system of society).
Declassed people are almost not interested in the current problems of society. They seem to be in lethargy, so they do not resist society. Their intelligence is not enough for the organized defense of their interests, they are only capable of “rabid rebellion” (a possible reason why people who are unable to get out of poverty do not join forces and do not attack the capitals, demanding full citizenship for themselves, notes in “ Manifesto of the Communist Party." Marx and Engels give a negative assessment of those whom they called the “lumpen proletariat.” According to them, these “scum of society” are “the passive product of the rotting of the lowest strata of the old society.” They are unsuitable material for revolution.) .
Declassed elements are strangers in society. This is not only their position in society, but also their worldview. Society is out of reach for them. For them it comes down to the police, the courts and, to a lesser extent, government agencies and employees. This attitude has become typical not only of the unemployed and the poor. For example, young people also tend to borrow values from the lower classes.
In conclusion, Dahrendorf writes that no comparative new conflict has arisen in modern society. It is unlikely that relations between the majority class and the underclassed will lead to social clashes. However, another problem has arisen: the majority class is not confident in the stability of its position and hesitates when it comes to observing the rules invented by itself. An even greater danger is that the state of anomie cannot last long. Its danger is that it can lead to tyranny.

R. Dahrendorf “ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY OF SOCIAL CONFLICT”

Social conflict is any relationship between elements that can be characterized through objective (“latent”) or subjective (“explicit”) opposites.
Stage I of the conflict - the initial state of the structure. Two sides of the conflict are identified - quasi-groups - the similarity of positions that do not need awareness.
Stage II - crystallization, awareness of interests, organization of quasi-groups into actual groupings. Crystallization under certain conditions.
Stage III - formed conflict. Elements (parties to the conflict) are characterized by identity. Otherwise, it is an incomplete conflict.

Conflicts can vary in violence and intensity. Not every violent conflict is necessarily intense.
Factors influencing violence and intensity:
1) conditions for organizing conflict groups. The highest degree of violence, if one of the groups is capable of organization. (Organization prohibited - lack of political conditions);
2) factors of social mobility. With mobility, the intensity of the conflict decreases. (mobility - moving from one social group to another vertically or horizontally)
3) social pluralism. If the structure is pluralistic, i.e. Autonomous areas are discovered - the intensity decreases (not the same group sets the tone in all areas).

Conflict resolution:
1) violent suppression of the conflict - cannot be preferred for a long period exceeding several years.
2) “cancelling” conflicts - eliminating contradictions - cannot be successful.
Conflict resolution is impossible, only their regulation is possible. For this it is necessary: - the conflict is recognized by both parties as inevitable, moreover, expediently justified;
- manifestation - creation of conflict groups. We need “rules of the game” - standard agreements, constitution, charters.

Procedure for conflict resolution:
1) negotiations to create a body to resolve the conflict. If to no avail, involve a third party;
2) the mildest form of third party participation is mediation. Proposing a solution to the conflict is not mandatory;
3) arbitration - execution of the decision is voluntary. Mandatory - invitation of a third party (arbitration);
4) compulsory arbitration - is on the border between regulation and suppression (necessary to maintain government rule, ensure peace). A decision is required.
Conflicts do not disappear by regulating them. Wherever society exists, conflicts exist.