Causes of social conflicts. Social conflict

Sociology of conflict

Introduction........................................................ ........................................................ ........................... 3

The concept of conflict................................................... ........................................................ .......... 4

What is social conflict?........................................................ ...................................... 4

Subjects and participants in the conflict................................................................. ..................................... 4

Object of conflict................................................... ........................................................ ............. 6

Main types of social conflicts............................................................. ........................... 7

Conflict of needs................................................... ........................................................ .... 8

Conflict of interest................................................ ........................................................ ......... 9

Value conflict................................................... ........................................................ ... eleven

The main stages of conflict development.................................................................. ........................... 13

Pre-conflict stage................................................... ................................................. 13

Stage of development of the conflict................................................................... ............................................. 16

Conflict resolution stage......................................................... ........................................ 17

Post-conflict stage................................................... ............................................... 19

Functions of social conflict................................................................... ................................... 21

Types of social conflicts................................................................... .................................... 23

Intrapersonal conflicts................................................................... ........................................ 23

Interpersonal conflicts................................................................... ............................................... 29

Conflicts between individuals and groups.................................................... ........................... 34

Intergroup conflicts................................................................ ............................................... 39

CONCLUSION................................................. ........................................................ ...................... 41

Footnotes........................................................ ........................................................ ........................... 42

List of used literature:........................................................ ........................... 43

Introduction

We encounter conflicts everywhere in our lives. Starting from banal quarrels in transport to armed clashes - all these are conflicts; over time, there are more and more different types of conflicts, as the development of society causes the emergence of more and more new interests and values.

Conflicts have both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, conflicts do not allow society to ossify, they force it to rebuild and change, on the other hand, they become the causes of disagreements, quarrels, grievances and other clashes, even wars.

Throughout history, humanity has been unable to ensure that there are no more negative conflicts and more positive ones.

In this essay, I do not set myself the task of fully covering all possible types of conflicts - there are too many of them. And I do not have the opportunity to study each of them in detail. Political, interethnic, legal and economic conflicts are too broad concepts that deserve separate in-depth study and writing separate works.

In this essay I will try to reveal the very concept of conflict, describe the main types and some ways to resolve them. I will try to lay some foundation that can serve both to begin the study of conflicts and to subsequently write larger scientific works.

Concept of conflict

What is social conflict?

“The concept of “social conflict” unites those situations in which the interests of individuals do not coincide, and, while protecting these interests, they collide with each other” 1

The word “conflict” (from Latin - confliktus) means a clash (of parties, opinions, forces). The causes of collisions can be a variety of problems in our lives. For example, a conflict over material resources, values ​​and the most important attitudes in life, over power, over personal differences, etc. Thus, conflicts cover all spheres of people’s life, the entire set of social relations, social interaction. Conflict is essentially one of the types of social influence, the subjects and participants of which are individuals, large and small social groups and organizations. However, conflict interaction presupposes confrontation between the parties, i.e., actions directed against each other.

So, social conflict is an open confrontation, a collision of two or more subjects and participants in social interaction, the causes of which are incompatible needs, interests and values.

Subjects and participants of the conflict

The concepts of “subject” and “participant” of a conflict are not always identical. The subject is an “active party” capable of creating a conflict situation and influencing the course of the conflict in accordance with its interests. A participant in a conflict may consciously, or not fully aware of the goals and objectives of the confrontation, take part in the conflict, or may be accidentally or against his (the participant’s) will involved in the conflict. Consequently, the subject of the conflict, entering into confrontation, consciously pursues and defends his goals and interests. As the conflict develops, the statuses of “participants” and “subjects” may change places.

It is also necessary to distinguish between direct and indirect participants in the conflict. The latter represent certain forces pursuing their own personal interests in a supposed or real “alien” conflict. Indirect participants can:

1. provoke conflict and contribute to its development

2. contribute to reducing the intensity of the conflict or its complete cessation

3. support one or the other side of the conflict or both sides at the same time.

In the sociology of conflict, the concept of “party to the conflict” is often used. This concept can include both direct and indirect participants in the conflict. Sometimes indirect

The participants, for their special interest in the conflict, are called "third party" or "third party".

Situations often arise when it is quite difficult to identify the direct subjects of the conflict. A striking example is ethnopolitical conflicts (Chechen or Ossetian-Ingush), when it is not easy to answer the question of who represents the parties to the conflict: the leaders of the opposing sides, or those who are directly involved in power operations, or those who perceive each other as rivals and supports the positions of their leaders in the conflict? Or are they all together as representatives and participants of a certain social group?

Quite often, a conflict, having begun as interpersonal, with the appearance of active adherents on each of its sides, turns into intergroup conflict. Just as often one can observe the opposite picture: having become involved in a conflict as part of a certain group, a person begins to lead his own line in it, as a result of which it becomes a personal group one for her. In turn, a personal group conflict often transforms into an intergroup conflict if an individual manages to separate some of its members from the opposing group, make them his own adherents, or acquire the latter from somewhere else. All these “spillovers” change the course of the conflict and therefore require careful consideration when analyzing it.

Object of conflict

One of the indispensable elements of conflict is the object due to which a conflict situation is created. The object is the specific reason, motivation, driving forces of the conflict. All objects are divided into three main types:

1. Objects that cannot be divided into parts , and it is impossible to own them together with anyone.

2. Objects that can be divided in different proportions between the parties to the conflict.

3. Objects that both parties to the conflict can jointly own.

Identifying the target in each specific conflict is far from easy. Subjects and participants in the conflict, pursuing their real or imaginary goals, can hide, disguise, and replace the sought-after motives that prompted them to confrontation. For example, in political struggle, the object of the conflict is the real power in society, but each of the subjects of political confrontation tries to prove that the main motive of his specific conflict activity is the desire to achieve the maximum possible benefits for his voters.

Determining the main object is an indispensable condition for the successful resolution of any conflict. Otherwise, the conflict will either not be resolved in principle (a deadlock situation), or will not be resolved fully, and in the interaction of the subjects there will remain smoldering coals for new clashes.

The basis of a social conflict may be not one, but several controversial issues (problems). Each issue should be considered as a disagreement, a contradiction that requires its solution. Controversial issues must be identified and grouped in accordance with the reasons for their origin and the nature of perception.

Main types of social conflicts.

Depending on the motivation of the conflict, three blocks of social conflicts are distinguished:

Conflict of needs

The current situation in the world brings the problem of resources or vital needs to one of the first places.

Conflicts over needs can be divided into two types: first, conflict due to real or perceived resource limitations; secondly, due to the relationship between short-term and long-term needs.

Consideration of the conflict of needs in various spheres of human life and society shows that needs cannot be reduced only to the sum of external requirements arising from social and economic conditions. They represent certain core lines of organization of the entire system of interaction in society. They manifest themselves in mass habits and cultural skills that are acquired by people in the course of their socialization, individual development, and education.

At the same time, the problem of determining the priority of certain needs remains the most important problem of a socio-political nature. Not a single state, not a single political party, in its practical policy, can turn a blind eye to the need-based, essentially essential conflicts that are associated not only with certain options for the use of resources, but also with the choice of certain options for the development of culture itself.

Resources as an object of conflict are considered, perhaps most often, mainly in terms of their possession or the desire of subjects to acquire them in the interests of replenishing their resource potential. Resources include everything that can be effectively used, that is, usefully used to meet the needs of the subject, realize his interests and goals. From here it is clear that we are talking about certain means of ensuring needs, the interests and goals arising from them.

Resources - material (finance, equipment, technology, land, its subsoil, etc.) and spiritual (culture, science, education, etc.) - constitute a typical object of conflict. Especially when their distribution in society is uneven, disproportionate, unfair, facilitating access to them for some social subjects and making it difficult for others, or even providing some at the expense of others. The latter, experiencing infringement and difficulties in ensuring their own resource potential, have every reason to oppose this state of affairs, thus finding themselves in confrontation with those who are satisfied with it.

Conflict of interest.

What needs and interests have in common is that in both cases we are dealing with people's aspirations that directly affect their social and economic behavior. However, if needs orient people's behavior towards the possession of those goods that turn out to be vitally necessary or stimulate vital ways of human activity, then interests are those incentives for action that stem from the mutual attitude of people towards each other.

The immediate subject of social interest is not the good itself, but those positions of the individual or social layer that provide the opportunity to obtain this good. Both in everyday speech and in theoretical analysis, interests are much more often connected with social position, which fixes for a certain time the totality of opportunities provided to an actor by society. It is social position that outlines the boundaries of what is accessible and possible for an individual and a social group.

Status, being an object of struggle between certain social subjects, acts for them mainly not as a means, but as a condition for ensuring their normal life, which is also worth fighting for if the current state of affairs prompts it. After all, it depends on him what - equal or unequal - the position of the subject will be in society, among other social subjects, how free or forced his relationships with them will be, to what extent his self-esteem will be preserved or infringed, etc.

On the part of society, the formation of interests is most influenced by the institutions and systems of distribution of life goods that have developed in it. One way or another, through distribution systems, the most essential task of organizing any social community is solved: correlating the result of activity and recognizing this result through remuneration. At the same time, one should not keep in mind only material or financial reward. A very wide range of not only property, but also spiritual benefits can be used as reward, the provision of which means increasing the prestige of the rewarded person or social group for what is considered or recognized as useful for society.

Through certain types of combinations of benefit and reward, society organizes the interests of social groups, directing them along certain more or less stable channels. Interests are therefore directed not at abstract society in general, but at the system of social institutions and, above all, at the institutions of distribution, which turn out to be the main instruments for regulating social status.

Value conflict.

Modern culture presupposes a fairly broad framework of tolerance, that is, the possibility of communication and joint action of people or groups committed to different worldview systems and different value orientations. However, tolerance and mutual recognition are not yet the dominant modes of relationships between value systems. Quite often, value systems act as self-sufficient sources of motivation, operating on the basis of dividing human communities into “us and others.” It is in this case that we observe a value conflict. The differences between “us and others”, between “us and them” acquire decisive significance and become the dominant factor in individual and group motivation. Value confrontations and priorities - and this is their peculiarity - are based on faith. Knowledge is also built in accordance with faith, i.e. a system of rational arguments that explain and justify the original creeds - the postulates on the basis of which this system of values ​​is built.

Values, understood, of course, not in a broad sense - as everything that is positively significant from the point of view of satisfying human needs, but more narrowly - as something fundamentally important for a certain social subject and his life activity, very often act as an object of social conflicts, for which he is ready to fight decisively. They generally cannot act as a means to ensure one or another of his needs, interests, aspirations, as is the case with resources, but serve for him only as an end in itself, an expression of his understanding of himself, his own essence, with the loss of which he himself disappears as something independent, self-determining, worthy of recognition and respect from other entities. Conflicts based on values, also in contrast to conflicts based on resources, as a rule, arise due to their imposition by one social entity on another, forced inclusion in them, or due to a disdainful attitude towards them on the part of other entities.

Taking into account the motivation of the conflict and subjective perceptions of the conflict situation, the following types of conflicts are distinguished:

1. false conflict - the subject perceives the situation as a conflict, although there are no real reasons for the conflict;

2. potential conflict - there are real grounds for a conflict to arise, but one of the parties or both parties, for one reason or another (for example, due to lack of information) have not yet recognized the situation as a conflict;

3. true conflict - a real conflict between the parties. In turn, true conflict can be divided into the following subtypes:

· constructive conflict that arose on the basis of real contradictions between subjects

· accidental conflict - a conflict that arose due to a misunderstanding or an accidental coincidence;

· displaced conflict - a conflict that arose on a false basis, when the true cause of the conflict is hidden

· an incorrectly attributed conflict is a conflict in which the true culprit, the subject of the conflict, is behind the scenes of the confrontation, and the conflict involves participants who are not related to the conflict.

If the classification is based on the mental state of the parties and the behavior of people in conflict situations corresponding to this state, then conflicts are divided into rational and emotional. Depending on the goals of the conflict and its consequences, conflicts are divided into positive and negative, constructive and destructive. 2

Pre-conflict stage

A conflict is preceded by a pre-conflict situation. This is an increase in tension between potential subjects of conflict caused by certain contradictions. Only those contradictions that are perceived by potential subjects of conflict as incompatible opposites of interests, goals, values, etc., lead to an aggravation of social tension and conflicts.

Social tension is also not always a harbinger of conflict. This is a complex social phenomenon, the causes of which can be very different. Here are some of the most typical reasons causing the growth of social tension:

a) real “infringement” of people’s interests, needs and values;

b) inadequate perception of changes occurring in society or individual social communities;

c) incorrect or distorted information about certain (real or imaginary) facts, events, etc. 3

Social tension is essentially a psychological state of people and, before the start of a conflict, is of a latent (hidden) nature. The most characteristic manifestation of social tension during this period is group emotions.

One of the key concepts in social conflict is also “dissatisfaction”. The accumulation of dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs and the course of developments leads to increased social tension.

The pre-conflict stage can be divided into three phases of development, which are characterized by the following features in the relationship between the parties:

· the emergence of contradictions regarding a certain controversial object; growing mistrust and social tension; presentation of unilateral or mutual claims, reduction of contacts and accumulation of grievances;

· the desire to prove the legitimacy of one’s claims and accusing the enemy of unwillingness to resolve controversial issues using “fair” methods; being locked into one's own stereotypes; the emergence of prejudice and hostility in the emotional sphere;

· destruction of interaction structures; transition from mutual accusations to threats; increase in aggressiveness; formation of the image of the “enemy” and the attitude to fight.

Thus, the conflict situation is gradually transformed into an open conflict. But the conflict situation itself can exist for a long period of time and not develop into a conflict. For a conflict to become real, an incident is necessary.

An incident is a formal reason for the start of a direct clash between the parties.

An incident can happen by accident, or it can be provoked by the subject(s) of the conflict. The incident may also result from the natural course of events. It happens that an incident is prepared and provoked by some “third force”, pursuing its own interests in a supposed “foreign” conflict.

The incident marks the transition of the conflict to a new quality. In the current situation, there are three main options for the behavior of the conflicting parties.

The parties (sides) strive to resolve the contradictions that have arisen and find a compromise;

One of the parties pretends that “nothing special happened” (avoiding the conflict);

The incident becomes a signal for the start of open confrontation. The choice of one option or another largely depends on the conflicting attitude (goals, expectations) of the parties.

Stage of development of the conflict

The beginning of open confrontation between the parties is the result of conflict behavior, which is understood as actions aimed at the opposing side with the aim of capturing, holding a disputed object or forcing the opponent to abandon his goals or change them. There are several forms of conflict behavior:

a) active conflict behavior (challenge);

b) passive-conflict behavior (response to a challenge);

c) conflict-compromise behavior;

d) compromising behavior. 4

Depending on the conflict setting and the form of conflict behavior of the parties, the conflict acquires its own logic of development. A developing conflict tends to create additional reasons for its deepening and expansion.

Three main phases can be distinguished in the development of the conflict at its second stage.

1. Transition of the conflict from a latent state into open confrontation between the parties. The fight is still being carried out with limited resources and is local in nature. The first test of strength occurs. At this phase, there are still real opportunities to stop the open struggle and resolve the conflict by other methods.

2. Further escalation of confrontation. To achieve their goals and block the enemy’s actions, more and more new resources of the parties are introduced. Almost all opportunities to find a compromise are missed. The conflict is becoming increasingly unmanageable and unpredictable.

3. The conflict reaches its climax and takes the form of a total war using all possible forces and means. At this phase, the conflicting parties seem to forget the true causes and goals of the conflict. The main goal of the confrontation is to inflict maximum damage on the enemy.

Conflict resolution stage

The duration and intensity of the conflict depend on many factors: on the goals and attitudes of the parties, on the resources at their disposal, on the means and methods of fighting, on the reaction to the environmental conflict, on the symbols of victory and defeat, on available and possible methods (mechanisms) finding consensus, etc.

At a certain stage in the development of the conflict, the conflicting parties’ ideas about their capabilities and the capabilities of the enemy may change significantly. There comes a moment of “reassessment of values”, caused by new relationships that have arisen as a result of the conflict, a new balance of power, the awareness of the impossibility of achieving goals or the exorbitant price of success. All this stimulates a change in tactics and strategies of conflict behavior. In this situation, one or both conflicting parties begin to look for ways out of the conflict and the intensity of the struggle, as a rule, subsides. From this moment the process of ending the conflict actually begins, which does not exclude new aggravations.

At the conflict resolution stage, the following scenarios are possible:

1) the obvious superiority of one of the parties allows it to impose its conditions for ending the conflict on the weaker opponent;

2) the fight continues until one of the parties is completely defeated;

3) due to a lack of resources, the struggle becomes protracted and sluggish;

4) having exhausted resources and not identifying a clear (potential) winner, the parties make mutual concessions in the conflict;

5) the conflict can also be stopped under pressure from a third force. 5

The social conflict will continue until obvious, clear conditions for its termination appear. In a fully institutionalized conflict, such conditions can be determined before the start of the confrontation (for example, as in a game where there are rules for its completion), or they can be developed and mutually agreed upon during the development of the conflict. If the conflict is partially institutionalized or not institutionalized at all, then additional problems of its completion arise. There are also absolute conflicts, in which the struggle is waged until the complete destruction of one or both rivals.

There are many ways to end a conflict. Basically, they are aimed at changing the conflict situation itself, either by influencing the parties to the conflict, or by changing the characteristics of the object of the conflict, or by other means.

The final stage of the conflict resolution stage involves negotiations and legal formalization of available agreements. In interpersonal and intergroup conflicts, the results of negotiations can take the form of oral agreements and mutual obligations of the parties. Usually one of the conditions for starting the negotiation process is a temporary truce. But options are possible when, at the stage of preliminary agreements, the parties not only do not stop “fighting”, but escalate the conflict, trying to strengthen their positions in the negotiations. Negotiations involve a mutual search for compromise by the conflicting parties and include the following possible procedures:

Recognizing the existence of a conflict;

Approval of procedural rules and regulations;

Identification of the main controversial issues (drawing out a protocol of disagreements);

Research possible solutions to problems;

Search for agreements on each controversial issue and conflict resolution in general;

Documentation of all agreements reached;

Fulfillment of all accepted mutual obligations. 6

Negotiations may differ from each other both in the level of the contracting parties and in the differences existing between them. But the basic procedures (elements) of negotiations remain unchanged.

Post-conflict stage

The end of direct confrontation between the parties does not always mean that the conflict is completely resolved. The degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the parties with the concluded peace agreements will largely depend on the following provisions:

To what extent was it possible to achieve the pursued goal during the conflict and subsequent negotiations;

What methods and methods were used to fight;

How great are the losses of the parties (human, material, territorial, etc.);

How great is the degree of infringement on the self-esteem of one or another party;

Was it possible to relieve the emotional tension of the parties as a result of the conclusion of peace;

What methods were used as the basis for the negotiation process;

To what extent was it possible to balance the interests of the parties;

Was the compromise imposed under forceful pressure (by one of the parties or some “third force”), or was it the result of a mutual search for ways to resolve the conflict;

What is the reaction of the surrounding social environment to the results of the conflict.

If one or both parties believe that the signed peace agreements infringe on their interests, then tensions between the parties will continue, and the end of the conflict may be perceived as a temporary respite. Peace concluded as a result of mutual depletion of resources is also not always able to resolve the main controversial issues that caused the conflict. The most durable peace is one concluded on the basis of consensus, when the parties consider the conflict to be completely resolved and build their relations on the basis of trust and cooperation.

Types of social conflicts.

Intrapersonal conflicts

The resolution of intrapersonal conflicts primarily depends on the person himself, on the ability and opportunity to live in harmony (in harmony) with himself and the environment. Such conflicts can be conditionally described as conflicts “between what we have and what we would like to have.” Other variants of such conflicts: “between what you want and what you don’t want”, “between who you are and who you would like to be”, etc. From an evaluative point of view, intrapersonal conflicts can be represented as a struggle between two positive or two negative tendencies or as a struggle between a positive and a negative tendency in the psyche of one subject. There are options when trends contain both positive and negative aspects at the same time (for example, a proposed promotion involves an undesirable move to a new place of residence).

Personality is a stable system of socially significant traits determined by the existing system of social relations, culture and biological characteristics of the individual. Intrapersonal conflict, like any other social conflict, involves conflict interaction between two or more parties. Several mutually exclusive needs, goals, values, and interests can simultaneously exist in one person. All of them are socially conditioned, even if they are purely biological in nature, since their satisfaction is associated with a whole system of certain social relations. Therefore, intrapersonal conflict is also a social conflict.

Any human action represents both interaction with the Other within himself, and opposition to the Other as a participant in the dialogue. But conflict is caused only by mutually exclusive tendencies of equal importance, when a person seems to be bifurcated in making a decision, when the choice of one or another tendency presupposes forceful pressure from One on the Other, i.e., confrontation and violence.

There is a psychological conflict when the barrier to certain actions lies within ourselves. These are problems of choosing between two different aspirations:

a) conflict of needs (you want to eat and need to be treated);

b) conflict between social norm and need (love and norm);

c) conflict of social norms (duel and church). 7

One type of intrapersonal conflict is unconscious internal conflict. It is based on any conflict situations that were not fully resolved in the past, which we have already forgotten. But on an unconscious level, we continue to carry the burden of unresolved problems in the past and involuntarily reproduce old conflict situations, as if trying to solve them again. The reason for the resumption of an unconscious internal conflict may be circumstances similar to the previous unresolved situation.

Competition and rivalry permeate all areas of our lives, and often excellence for one means failure for another. Potential hostile tension creates fear. The source of fear can also be the prospect of failure and the threat of losing a sense of self-esteem. Market relations presuppose aggressively competitive interaction, and Christian morality preaches the brotherly love of people for each other. Advertising stimulates our needs, and real life becomes an obstacle to their satisfaction. In such conditions, the environment around a person becomes one of the main sources of intrapersonal conflicts.

It is easy to notice that in approximately the same conflict situations, different people behave far from the same. Social psychology identifies the four most common types of behavior of people in conflict situations: “The first type is aggressive behavior that contributes to the development of conflict; the second is behavior indicating a tendency to compromise; the third is associated with a tendency to submit, that is, to accept the decision of the opposite side; the fourth type shows a tendency to avoid conflict.” 8 In real life, each of these types does not occur in its pure form, but most people, with certain reservations, can be classified as one or another type of conflict behavior.

Interpersonal conflicts

Interpersonal conflicts can be considered as a clash of personalities in the process of their relationships. Such clashes can occur in a variety of spheres and areas (economic, political, industrial, sociocultural, everyday, etc.). The reasons for such clashes are infinitely diverse - from a convenient seat in public transport to the presidential seat in government agencies.

Interpersonal conflicts arise both between people meeting for the first time and between people who are constantly communicating. In both cases, the personal perception of the partner or opponent plays an important role in the relationship. An obstacle to finding agreement between individuals can be a negative attitude formed by one opponent towards another. An attitude represents the readiness, predisposition of a subject to act in a certain way. This is a certain direction of the manifestation of the psyche and behavior of the subject, readiness to perceive future events. It is formed under the influence of rumors, opinions, judgments about a given individual (group, phenomenon, etc.).

When interacting with other people, a person primarily protects his personal interests, and this is normal. The conflicts that arise are a reaction to obstacles to achieving goals. And how significant the subject of the conflict seems to be for a particular individual will largely depend on his conflict attitude.

Individuals encounter interpersonal conflicts, protecting not only their personal interests. They can also represent the interests of individual groups, institutions, organizations, labor collectives, and society as a whole. In such interpersonal conflicts, the intensity of the struggle and the possibility of finding compromises are largely determined by the conflict attitudes of those social groups whose representatives the opponents are.

All interpersonal conflicts that arise due to clashes of goals and interests can be divided into three main types.

The first one presupposes a fundamental clash in which the realization of the goals and interests of one opponent can only be achieved by infringing on the interests of the other.

The second one affects only the form of relations between people, but does not infringe on their spiritual, moral and material needs and interests.

The third represents imaginary contradictions that can be provoked either by false (distorted) information or by incorrect interpretation of events and facts.

Interpersonal conflicts can also be divided into the following types:

a) rivalry - the desire for dominance;

b) dispute - disagreements about finding the best solution to joint problems;

c) discussion - discussion of a controversial issue.

Social conflict(from lat. conflictus- collision) is the highest stage of development of contradictions in relations between people, social groups, and society as a whole, which is characterized by a clash of opposing interests, goals, and positions of the subjects of interaction. Conflicts can be hidden or overt, but they are always based on a lack of agreement between two or more parties.

Concept of social conflict

It is one of the types of social conflict.

The word "" (from lat. conflictus) means a clash (of parties, opinions, forces). The concept of social conflict as a collision of two or more subjects of social interaction is widely interpreted by representatives of various directions of the conflictological paradigm. Thus, in K. Marx’s view, in a class society, the main social conflict manifests itself in the form of an antagonistic class struggle, the culmination of which is a social revolution. According to L. Coser, conflict is one of the types of social interaction, during which there is a “struggle for values ​​and claims to status, power and resources, during which opponents neutralize, damage or eliminate their rivals.” In R. Dahrendorf's interpretation, social conflict represents types of clashes of varying intensity between conflicting groups, in which class struggle is one of the types of confrontation.

It is an open confrontation, a collision of two or more subjects (parties) of social interaction, the reasons for which are incompatible needs, interests and values.

The conflict is based on subjective-objective contradictions. However, not every contradiction develops into a conflict. The concept of contradiction is broader in content than the concept of conflict. Social contradictions are the main determining factors of social development. They “permeate” all spheres of social relations and for the most part do not develop into conflict. In order for objectively existing (periodically arising) contradictions to be transformed into a social conflict, it is necessary that the subjects (subject) of interaction realize that this or that contradiction is an obstacle to the achievement of their vital goals and interests. According to K. Boulding, a conflict arises when “ripe” contradictions are recognized by the parties as incompatible and each party seeks to take possession of a position that excludes the intentions of the other party. Therefore, conflict contradictions are of a subjective-objective nature.

Objective contradictions are considered to be those that actually exist in society, regardless of the will and desire of the subjects. For example, the contradictions between labor and capital, between managers and the governed, the contradictions between “fathers” and “children,” etc.

In addition to objectively existing (emerging) contradictions, imaginary contradictions may arise in the subject’s imagination when there are no objective reasons for a conflict, but the subject recognizes (perceives) the situation as a conflict. In this case, we can talk about subjective-subjective contradictions. Another situation is also possible, when conflicting contradictions actually exist, but the subject believes that there are no sufficient reasons for the conflict.

Contradictions can exist for quite a long period of time and not develop into a conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to keep in mind that the basis of the conflict are only those contradictions that are caused by incompatible interests, needs and values. Such contradictions, as a rule, give rise to open struggle between the parties, confrontation.

The causes of the conflict can be a variety of problems, for example, a conflict over material resources, over values ​​and the most important life attitudes, over power (domination problems), over status-role differences in the social structure, over personal issues (including emotional -psychological) differences, etc. Thus, conflicts cover all spheres of people’s life, the entire set of social relations, social interaction. Conflict, in essence, is one of the types of social interaction, the subjects and participants of which are individuals, large and small social groups and organizations. However, conflict interaction presupposes confrontation between the parties, i.e. actions of subjects directed against each other.

The form of clashes - violent or non-violent - depends on many factors, including whether there are real conditions and possibilities (mechanisms) for non-violent resolution of the conflict, what goals are pursued by the subjects of the confrontation, what attitudes are “guided” by the conflicting parties, etc.

So, social conflict is an open confrontation, a collision of two or more subjects (parties) of social interaction, the causes of which are incompatible needs, interests and values.

Structure of social conflict

In a simplified form, the structure of social conflict consists of the following elements:

• object - the specific reason for the collision of subjects;
• two or more subjects conflicting over some object;
• incident - a formal reason for the start of open confrontation.

The conflict is preceded by the emergence conflict situation. These are contradictions that arise between subjects regarding an object.

Under the influence of growing social tension, the conflict situation is gradually transforming into open social conflict. But tension itself can exist for a long time and not develop into conflict. In order for a conflict to become real, an incident is necessary - a formal reason for the start of the conflict.

However, the real conflict has a more complex structure. For example, in addition to the subjects, it involves participants (direct and indirect), supporters, sympathizers, instigators, mediators, arbitrators, etc. Each of the participants in the conflict has its own qualitative and quantitative characteristics. An object may also have its own characteristics. In addition, real conflict develops in a certain social and physical environment, which also influences it. Therefore, a more complete structure of social (political) conflict will be discussed below.

The essence of social conflict

Sociological comprehension and modern understanding of social conflict was first laid down by the German sociologist G. Simmel. In progress "Social Conflict" he notes that the process of development of society goes through social conflict, when outdated cultural forms become obsolete, “demolished” and new ones are born. Today, a whole branch of sociology is engaged in the theory and practice of regulating social conflicts - conflictology. The most famous representatives of this trend are R. Dahrendorf and L. Koser. K. Bouldinghydr.

German sociologist R. Dahrendorf created theory of the conflict model of society. According to the scientist, in any society, social conflicts can arise at any moment, based on a conflict of interests. Dahrendorf views conflicts as an essential element of social life, which, being sources of innovation, contribute to the constant development of society. The main task is to learn to control them.

American sociologist L. Coser developed the theory of positive functional conflict. By social conflict he understood the struggle for values ​​and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the opponents' goals are to neutralize, damage or eliminate the enemy.

According to this theory, social inequality, which inevitably exists in every society and causes natural social dissatisfaction of people, often leads to social conflicts. L. Coser sees the positive functions of conflicts in the fact that they contribute to the renewal of society and stimulate social and economic progress.

General theory of conflict belongs to American sociologist K. Boulding. In his understanding, a conflict is a situation in which the parties realize the incompatibility of their positions and at the same time strive to get ahead of the opponent and beat him. In modern society, according to Boulding, conflicts are inevitable, so it is necessary to control and manage them. Main signs of conflict are:

• the presence of a situation that is perceived by the opposing parties as a conflict;
• the presence of conflicting participants in conflicting goals, needs, interests and methods of achieving them;
• interaction between conflicting parties;
• results of conflict interaction;
• using pressure and even force.

Of great importance for the sociological analysis of social conflicts is the identification of the main types. There are the following types of conflicts:

1. by the number of participants in conflict interaction:

• intrapersonal- a state of a person’s dissatisfaction with any circumstances of his life that are associated with the presence of conflicting needs and interests. aspirations and can cause affects;
• interpersonal - disagreement between two or more members of one group or more groups;
• intergroup - occur between social groups that pursue incompatible goals and interfere with each other through their practical actions;

2. according to the direction of conflict interaction:

• horizontal - between people who are not subordinate to each other;
• vertical - between people who are subordinate to each other;
• mixed - in which both are represented. The most common are vertical and mixed conflicts, accounting for an average of 70-80% of all conflicts;

3. by source of occurrence:

• objectively determined- caused by objective reasons, which can be eliminated only by changing the objective situation;
• subjectively determined - associated with the personal characteristics of conflicting people, as well as with situations that create obstacles to the satisfaction of their desires, aspirations, interests;

4. according to its functions:

• creative (integrative) - promoting renewal, introduction of new structures, policies, leadership;
• destructive (disintegrative) - destabilizing social systems;

5. according to the duration of the course:

• short-term - caused by mutual misunderstanding or mistakes of the parties that are quickly realized;
• protracted - associated with deep moral and psychological trauma or objective difficulties. The duration of the conflict depends both on the subject of the contradiction and on the character traits of the people involved;

6. in terms of its internal content:

• rational- covering the sphere of reasonable, business-like competition, redistribution of resources;
• emotional - in which participants act on the basis of personal animosity;

7. According to the methods and means of resolving conflicts, there are peaceful and armed:

8. taking into account the content of the problems that caused conflict actions, economic, political, family, everyday, industrial, spiritual and moral, legal, environmental, ideological and other conflicts are distinguished.

The analysis of the course of a conflict is carried out in accordance with its three main stages: the pre-conflict situation, the conflict itself and the resolution stage.

Pre-conflict situation- this is the period when the conflicting parties evaluate their resources, strengths and consolidate into opposing groups. At this same stage, each side forms its own strategy of behavior and chooses a method of influencing the enemy.

The conflict itself is this is an active part of the conflict, characterized by the presence of an incident, i.e. social actions aimed at changing the opponent’s command. The actions themselves are of two types:

• actions of rivals that are open in nature (verbal debates, physical pressure, economic sanctions, etc.);
• hidden actions of rivals (associated with the desire to deceive, confuse the opponent, and impose on him an unfavorable course of action).

The main course of action in case of hidden internal conflict is reflexive management, meaning that one of the opponents, through “deceptive movements,” is trying to force the other person to act this way. how beneficial it is for him.

Conflict resolution is possible only by eliminating the conflict situation, and not just by exhausting the incident. Resolution of the conflict can also occur as a result of the depletion of the resources of the parties or the intervention of a third party, which creates an advantage for one of the parties, and, finally, as a result of the complete exhaustion of the opponent.

To successfully resolve a conflict, the following conditions are necessary:

• timely identification of the causes of the conflict;
• definition business conflict zone— reasons, contradictions, interests, goals of the conflicting parties:
• mutual desire of the parties to overcome contradictions;
• joint search for ways to overcome the conflict.

There are various conflict resolution methods:

• avoiding conflict - leaving the “scene” of conflict interaction physically or psychologically, but the conflict itself in this case is not eliminated, since the reason that gave rise to it remains;
• negotiation - allow you to avoid the use of violence, achieve mutual understanding and find a path to cooperation;
• use of intermediaries - conciliation procedure. An experienced mediator, who can be an organization or an individual, will help quickly resolve the conflict there. where without his participation this would not have been possible;
• postponing - in essence, this is a surrender of its position, but only temporary, since as the party accumulates strength, it will most likely try to regain what it has lost;
• arbitration proceedings or arbitration, is a method in which the rules of law and law are strictly followed.

The consequences of the conflict can be:

1. positive:

• resolution of accumulated contradictions;
• stimulation of the process of social change;
• bringing conflicting groups closer together;
• strengthening the cohesion of each of the rival camps;

2. negative:

• tension;
• destabilization;
• disintegration.

Conflict resolution can be:

• full - the conflict ends completely;
• partial— conflict changes its external form, but retains motivation.

Of course, it is difficult to foresee all the variety of conflict situations that life creates for us. Therefore, in conflict resolution, much must be resolved on the spot based on the specific situation, as well as the individual psychological characteristics of the participants in the conflict.

Subjective causes of social conflicts lie in certain features of worldview, mentality, character (psychology), and level of intelligence of social subjects (Fig. 8.1). More specifically, these subjective characteristics of subjects manifest themselves in certain feelings, beliefs, interests, ideas, under the influence of which subjects act and social conflict begins.

Feelings, beliefs, interests, ideas as causes of social conflicts
Mental motivations of subjects to activity are feelings, beliefs, interests, ideas, in which emotions and goals are combined in unity. A goal is an idea of ​​the intended result of an action, indicating why it is being performed. A goal always presupposes a plan (program) for its implementation. Emotion is mental (mental) and physical energy with the help of which the subject carries out actions.

Feelings represent the psychological states of the subject, in which the goal-setting and emotional components of social action are fused together. The subject carries out actions under the influence of emotions of envy, fear, aggressiveness, revenge, to some extent irrationally, thoughtlessly, and thoughtlessly. A sensual impulse to social action, caused by resentment, fear, envy, revenge, hatred, often becomes the cause of social tension and social conflict. Southern peoples, due to their emotionality, are more conflict-prone than northern peoples. Subjective causes of social conflicts can be a feeling of fear, love, indignation, hatred, pride, etc.

Beliefs represent the ideological and psychological state of the subject, including: 1) knowledge about something that the subject considers true (correct); 2) knowledge that the subject can argue to himself and others; 3) knowledge that evokes positive emotions (and thereby turns into a form of faith), which guides the subject in his activities.

Social conflict often arises due to the clash of different beliefs of subjects, different views (knowledge) on the same problem: industrial, economic, political, territorial, religious, etc. For example, there is still a conflict between the Catholic and Orthodox churches on the issue of God, rituals, etc., a conflict between communists and liberals on the issue of justice, democracy, and political structure.

Interest is the intellectual and mental desire (attraction) of a subject to objects that are values ​​(benefits) for him. Depending on these benefits, interests are material (food, clothing, housing, etc.), economic (money, jewelry, shares, etc.), political (power, status, official position, etc.), religious (God, communist idea, etc.), moral (good, duty, honor, justice, etc.), aesthetic (beauty, comic, tragic, etc.).

Interests include: 1) the purpose of the activity, i.e. the idea of ​​the good necessary for the subject (material, economic, political, etc.) in the consciousness of the subject; 2) a plan (program) of actions and operations aimed at achieving it (realization of the goal); 3) the emotional-volitional desire (attraction) of the subject to the subject of interest. In general, the interest is in the functional, dynamic, organizational, psychological system of regulation of the subject’s activity, but not in this activity itself.

It is obvious that material, aesthetic and other interests differ in the nature of goals, activity programs, and emotional-volitional aspirations. But at the same time, there is much in common between interests in their psychological, organizational, dynamic form, which allows them to be identified as specific regulatory mechanisms of the activities of subjects (individuals, organizations, communities).

Common interests for many individuals that characterize social organizations (parties, states, unions, etc.), social institutions (family, educational, economic, etc.) and social communities (professional, political, territorial), historical communities ( ethnic groups, nations, civilizations) appear in the form of ideas: national self-determination, world domination, communist equality, God, etc. These ideas are associated with the interests of individuals, and through them - with the emotions of people and become regulators (motives) of their activities. Therefore, Marx emphasized that an idea always loses its motivating power when it is separated from the interest of individuals.

Subjective causes of social conflicts may include:
1) contradictions between the interests of people and the norms of behavior in society, which Parsons drew attention to.
For example, the norm requires caring for others, and economic interest pushes for profit. This always causes social conflict both within the subject and between subjects;
2) the contradiction between the same interests of different subjects aimed at the same subject (power, oil, territory, sovereignty, etc.);
3) opposing interests of different subjects (for example, Chechen extremists strive for sovereignty, and Russia - for territorial integrity);
4) misunderstanding of interests, intentions, actions by subjects who begin to see them as a threat to themselves. These include economic difficulties, national self-determination, national pride, the desire for leadership, etc.

Need as a cause of social conflict
The deep basis of social conflict is the needs of social actors. They form the essence of emotions, beliefs, interests, ideas and other subjective motivations of social conflicts. Social conflicts are ultimately the result of dissatisfaction or infringement (partial satisfaction) of some basic needs of social subjects for security, well-being, self-affirmation, and identity.

Need, need, satisfaction form the cycle of functioning of a social subject. Need is a contradiction between the necessary and actual state of the subject’s “body,” reflected in the form of emotions, feelings, judgments of dissatisfaction (“I’m hungry,” “I have no rights,” etc.). Satisfaction is the unity of the necessary and actual state of the “body” of the subject, reflected in emotions, feelings, judgments of satisfaction (“I am full”, “I am full”, etc.). These are passive states of the subject under the influence of the interaction of the internal (body) and external environment.

Need is a need-driven desire for satisfaction, which represents a powerful conscious - psychological mechanism for regulating human activity. This is not an activity, but rather a mechanism for regulating activity in which the need is realized.

The need includes: 1) an idea - a goal about the social good that it needs to satisfy; 2) a set of interests-goals that act as means of realizing the need-goal; 3) a program of evaluative and cognitive actions of environmental objects to select the desired good among them; 4) a program of consumer actions and operations that transform an object of consumption into an object of satisfaction and the “body” of a social subject.

All people’s needs can be divided into material (food, clothing, housing, etc.), social (safety, respect, self-affirmation, etc.), spiritual (goodness, justice, beauty, God, etc.). They differ in their subjects and conscious-psychological mechanisms of implementation. A need, when realized, does not always lead to a state of satisfaction for the subject. Then the need either intensifies, is replaced, or disappears. The latter leads to the transformation of the subject, since needs form his essence.

Intelligence and social ideal as causes of social conflicts
The most important subjective cause of social conflicts is the level of intelligence. Lack of intelligence often becomes a subjective cause of social conflicts, when the organizing and aggressive party cannot “calculate” the balance of their own and others’ forces, the cost of victory and defeat, and gets involved in a conflict in the hope of an easy victory, when there are corresponding needs, interests, beliefs, etc. P. This happened to the Russian leadership led by Yeltsin during the first Chechen war. One of the main subjective reasons for the collapse of the USSR and the collapse of the proletarian-socialist formation was the lack of sufficient intelligence and dogmatism of the then political leadership of the country.

The rational activity of a social subject represents the unity of the social ideal and intellect. Only in relation to our existing social ideal can we evaluate our actions as right or wrong. The social ideal is different for different social subjects, and therefore forms the most important subjective cause of social conflicts. For the sake of the ideal of social equality, the Bolsheviks unleashed a nightmarish social conflict in Russia, which ended in civil war, collectivization, industrialization, the elimination of religion, the expulsion of the Russian intelligentsia and unanimity. The presence of a liberal or socialist ideal is the most important subjective condition of social conflict in modern society.

Objective causes of social conflicts
Subjective causes of social conflicts are an expression of objective causes and their interpretations by subjects. Objective reasons are those that are outside the consciousness and will of people, social communities, institutions, and organizations. The many objective causes of social conflicts can be grouped into several general series (Fig. 8.2).

Disorganization of society as a cause of social conflict
First of all, such an objective cause of social conflicts is, according to the famous Polish sociologist J. Szczepanski, the disorganization of society, i.e. output of production (production stoppage and unemployment), economic (inflation, non-payment of wages, etc.), social (inequality between different social groups), political (collapse of the USSR, war in Chechnya, etc.), ideological (struggle liberalism and communism in post-Soviet Russia) processes beyond the limits of existing norms in society and threatening the interests of individuals, social groups, organizations.

This, for example, happened after the collapse of the USSR, when instead of the state distribution of goods and money, a market one was introduced, instead of social equality of people, a pronounced division between the poor and the rich arose, when the leading role of the party disappeared, and the judicial and legal systems had not yet emerged, when the communist the ideology was recognized as utopian, and no other ideology was proposed except for the ideology of enrichment.

The disorganization of society is associated with the disintegration of state and public (family, school, trade union, etc.) institutions (organizations) that are unable to keep environmental, production, economic, political, ideological processes within normal limits for a given (in our case, post-Soviet) society . This also includes natural (earthquakes, floods, tsunamis), man-made (Chernobyl), economic (depreciation of deposits, privatization, financial disasters, etc.), political (shooting of the Russian parliament building in October 1993, reform of the vertical of power, started by President V. Putin, etc.), military (Chechen war) disasters and events.

The state of disorganization and disintegration of society causes many social conflicts, which outwardly manifest themselves in the spread of alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, an increase in crime, an increase in mental illness, the spread of suicide, etc.

Inequality of opportunities for social actors
Inequalities in the capabilities of social actors in the everyday, economic, political, national, educational, and religious spheres are often cited as objective causes of social conflicts. This inequality relates to the resources, statuses, and values ​​of subjects. There are subjects with the same interests who lack resources. For example, there is a shortage (shortage) of housing, work, security, power, etc. So, now a significant part of people do not have enough money to live, pay for housing, buy medicine, maintain safety, etc. The most important objective cause of social conflicts is the clash of different interests. For example, liberals are focused on a market economy at the expense of the interests of the common people. But ordinary people do not want to sacrifice their lives, habits, beliefs for the sake of liberal ideas, plans, and reforms. It is obvious that with the development of humanity, the shortage of many goods will deepen, becoming an objective cause of social conflicts, as well as the opposition of interests of different social actors.

The desire to eliminate these causes and thereby social conflicts, especially class ones (between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat), gave rise to socialist projects for eliminating one or another type of inequality in general, especially class inequality. And this was done in the USSR and other countries of proletarian socialism. The foundations of many social conflicts were not essentially eliminated, but were driven deeper, as happened with conflicts between the intelligentsia and the proletariat and interethnic ones. As a result, negative consequences emerged: the achievement of social equality in the political, social, and economic spheres led the USSR to totalitarianism, stagnation in the economy and living standards of the population, loss of incentives for work and self-development, and aggravation of interethnic relations. As a result, the USSR lost its motives for self-propulsion and found itself in a state of stagnation during the Brezhnev period, which ultimately led the country to collapse.

This once again demonstrates that every inequality is an incentive for self-development of people and society. Inequality cannot be completely eliminated, it only needs to be mitigated to a certain extent. Social inequality also exists in countries of liberal (USA, etc.) and democratic (Germany, etc.) capitalism; for example, in the USA to a greater extent, and in Germany to a lesser extent.

Scientists have long discovered a connection between social inequality (equality) and the efficiency of social production: the higher the social inequality, the greater the efficiency of social production, the pace of social development and social instability. In market countries there is a universal mechanism for finding balance (unity) of these two sides. This is a mechanism of political democracy, the presence of right, center and left parties in the political superstructure of society. When right-wing parties are in power, society is focused primarily on production efficiency. The fair distribution of produced goods is gradually being disrupted, workers' indignation and political instability arise. As a result, left-wing parties come to power, focused on a more equitable redistribution of produced goods. There is a decrease in the efficiency of social production. Post-Soviet Russia still has a very long way to go in this direction.

Objective factors motivators of subjective reasons
Objective reasons - subjective reasons - social conflict - this is the cause-and-effect chain connecting the conflict with its causes.

Can subjective factors without objective prerequisites, i.e. themselves, cause social conflict? Yes. In this case, intrapersonal or interpersonal conflicts, which, by our definition, are not social, will become the causes of social conflict, as may have been the case in the relationship between Yeltsin and Dudayev before the start of the first Chechen war.

If we consider that it is the infringement (dissatisfaction or partial satisfaction) of the needs of a social subject that is the final cause of social conflict, then the approach to its resolution also changes. To do this, it is necessary, first of all, to eliminate the objective reasons for the infringement of the needs of social subjects, to mitigate social inequality, to establish democratic order in society, and not to infringe on one social subject’s needs by another.

The resolution of a social contradiction over a social good should always be guided by the needs of the subjects. It is possible to fairly divide the subject of the conflict only when the needs of potential or actual opponents are fair. Therefore, a genuine resolution of social conflict is possible only with a deep analysis by the opposing subjects of their needs, interests, and claims. It is no coincidence that J. Barton, the leader of a team of researchers working on the problem of resolving social conflict, believes:

Only organizational efforts that fully satisfy basic human needs can bring true closure to conflict, i.e. such a resolution that fully affects the subject of the dispute and establishes new, self-sufficient relations between opponents.

History says that human civilization has always been accompanied by hostility. Some types of social conflicts affected an individual people, a city, a country, or even a continent. Disagreements between people were smaller in scale, but each type was a national problem. Thus, already ancient people sought to live in a world where such concepts as social conflict, their types and causes, would be unknown. The people did everything to realize the dreams of a society without conflicts.

As a result of painstaking and time-consuming work, a state began to be created, which was supposed to extinguish various types of social conflicts. A large number of regulatory laws have been issued for this purpose. Years passed, and scientists continued to come up with models of an ideal society without conflicts. Of course, all these discoveries were only a theory, because all attempts were doomed to failure, and sometimes became the reasons for even greater aggressions.

Social conflict as part of the teaching

Disagreements between people, as part of social relations, were highlighted by Adam Smith. In his opinion, it was social conflict that was the reason why the population began to be divided into social classes. But there was also a positive side. Indeed, thanks to the conflicts that arose, the population could discover a lot of new things and find ways that would help get out of the situation.

German sociologists were confident that conflicts are characteristic of all peoples and nationalities. After all, in every society there are individuals who want to elevate themselves and their interests above their social environment. Therefore, there is a division in the level of human interest in a particular issue, and class inequality also arises.

But American sociologists in their works mentioned that without conflicts, social life will be monotonous, devoid of interpersonal interaction. At the same time, only the participants in society themselves are able to incite hostility, control it and, in the same way, extinguish it.

Conflict and the modern world

Today, not a single day of human life goes by without a conflict of interests. Such clashes can affect absolutely any area of ​​life. As a result, various types and forms of social conflict arise.

Thus, social conflict is the last stage of the collision of different views on one situation. Social conflict, the types of which will be discussed below, can become a large-scale problem. Thus, due to non-sharing of interests or the opinions of others, family and even national contradictions arise. As a result, the type of conflict may change, depending on the scale of the action.

If you try to decipher the concept and types of social conflicts, you can clearly see that the meaning of this term is much broader than it initially seems. There are many interpretations of one term, because each nationality understands it in its own way. But the basis is the same meaning, namely the clash of interests, opinions and even goals of people. For a better understanding, we can consider that any types of social conflicts - This is another form of human relations in society.

Functions of social conflict

As we see, the concept of social conflict and its components were defined long before modern times. It was then that the conflict was endowed with certain functions, thanks to which its significance for social society is clearly visible.

So there are several important functions:

1. Signal.
2. Informational.
3. Differentiating.
4. Dynamic.

The meaning of the first is immediately indicated by its name. Therefore, it is clear that due to the nature of the conflict, it is possible to determine what state society is in and what it wants. Sociologists are sure that if people start a conflict, it means that there are certain reasons and unresolved problems. Therefore, it is regarded as a kind of signal that it is urgent to act and do something.

Informational - has a meaning similar to the previous function. Information about the conflict is of great importance on the way to determining the causes of its occurrence. By processing such data, the government studies the essence of all events occurring in society.

Thanks to the third function, society acquires a certain structure. Thus, when a conflict arises that affects public interests, even those who would previously prefer not to interfere take part in it. The population is divided into certain social groups.

The fourth function was discovered during the worship of the teachings of Marxism. It is believed that it plays the role of the engine in all social processes.

Reasons why conflicts arise

The reasons are quite obvious and understandable, even if we consider only the definition of social conflicts. Everything is hidden in different views on actions. After all, they are often the only ones who try to impose their ideas at any cost, even if they cause harm to others. This happens when there are several options for using one item.

The types of social conflicts vary, depending on many factors such as magnitude, theme, nature and more. Thus, even family disagreements have the nature of social conflict. After all, when a husband and wife share a TV and try to watch different channels, a dispute arises based on a conflict of interests. To solve such a problem, you need two TVs, then there might not be a conflict.

According to sociologists, conflicts in society cannot be avoided, because proving one’s point of view is a natural desire of a person, which means nothing can change this. They also concluded that social conflict, the types of which are not dangerous, can even be useful for society. After all, this is how people learn not to perceive others as enemies, become closer and begin to respect each other’s interests.

Components of the conflict

Any conflict includes two mandatory components:

• the reason for which the disagreement arose is called the object;
• people whose interests collide in a dispute are also subjects.

There are no restrictions on the number of participants in the dispute;

The reason for which the conflict arose may be listed in the literature as an incident.

By the way, the conflict that arises does not always have an open form. It also happens that the clash of different ideas causes grievances that are part of what is happening. This is how various types of socio-psychological conflicts arise, which have a hidden form and can be called “frozen” conflicts.

Types of social conflicts

Knowing what a conflict is, what its causes and components are, we can identify the main types of social conflicts. They are determined by:

1. Duration and nature of development:

• temporary;
• long-term;
• accidentally arising;
• specially organized.

2. Capture scale:

• global - affecting the whole world;
• local - affecting a separate part of the world;
• regional - between neighboring countries;
• group - between certain groups;
• personal - family conflict, dispute with neighbors or friends.

3. The goals of the conflict and methods of resolution:

• a brutal street fight, an obscene scandal;
• fight according to the rules, cultural conversation.

4. Number of participants:

• personal (occurs in mentally ill people);
• interpersonal (collision of interests of different people, for example, brother and sister);
• intergroup (contradiction in the interests of different social associations);

• people of the same level;
• people of different social levels and positions;
• both of them.

There are many different classifications and divisions that are considered conditional. Thus, the first 3 types of social conflicts can be considered key.

Solving problems that cause social conflict

Reconciliation of hostile parties is the main task of the state legislature. It is clear that it is impossible to avoid all conflicts, but it is necessary to try to avoid at least the most serious ones: global, local and regional. Given the types of conflicts, social relations between warring parties can be improved in several ways.

Ways to resolve conflict situations:

1. An attempt to escape from the scandal - one of the participants can isolate himself from the conflict, transferring it to a “frozen” state.

2. Conversation - it is necessary to discuss the problem that has arisen and jointly find a solution.

3. Involve a third party.

4. Postpone the dispute for a while. Most often this is done when the facts run out. The enemy yields to interests temporarily in order to collect more evidence that he is right. Most likely, the conflict will resume.

5. Resolution of conflicts that have arisen through the courts, in accordance with the legislative framework.

To reconcile the parties to the conflict, it is necessary to find out the cause, purpose and interest of the parties. Also important is the mutual desire of the parties to reach a peaceful resolution of the situation. Then you can look for ways to overcome the conflict.

Stages of conflicts

Like any other process, conflict has certain stages of development. The first stage is considered to be the time immediately before the conflict. It is at this moment that a clash of subjects occurs. Disputes arise due to different opinions about one subject or situation, but at this stage it is possible to prevent immediate conflict from igniting.

If one of the parties does not give in to the opponent, then the second stage will follow, which has the nature of a debate. Here, each side is furiously trying to prove that they are right. Due to the high tension, the situation becomes tense and after a certain time passes into the stage of direct conflict.

Examples of social conflicts in world history

The main three types of social conflicts can be demonstrated using examples of long-standing events that left their mark on the life of the population then and influenced modern life.

Thus, the First and Second World Wars are considered one of the most striking and famous examples of global social conflict. Almost all existing countries took part in this conflict; in history, these events remained the largest military-political clashes of interests. Because the war was fought on three continents and four oceans. Only in this conflict were the most terrible nuclear weapons used.

This is the most powerful, and most importantly, well-known example of global social conflicts. After all, in it peoples who were previously considered fraternal fought against each other. No other such terrible examples have been recorded in world history.

Much more information is available directly about interregional and group conflicts. Thus, during the transition of power to the kings, the living conditions of the population also changed. Every year, public discontent grew more and more, protests and political tension appeared. People were not satisfied with many points, without clarification of which it was impossible to strangle the popular uprising. The more the authorities in Tsarist Russia tried to suppress the interests of the population, the more conflict situations intensified on the part of dissatisfied residents of the country.

Over time, more and more people became convinced that their interests were being infringed upon, so the social conflict gained momentum and changed the opinions of others. The more people became disillusioned with the authorities, the closer a mass conflict came. It was with such actions that most of the civil wars against the political interests of the country's leadership began.

Already during the reign of the kings, there were preconditions for the outbreak of social conflicts based on dissatisfaction with political work. It is precisely such situations that confirm the existence of problems that were caused by dissatisfaction with existing living standards. And it was precisely the social conflict that was the reason to move on, develop and improve policies, laws and governing abilities.

Let's sum it up

Social conflicts are an integral part of modern society. The disagreements that arose during the reign of the Tsar are a necessary part of our current life, because, perhaps, it is thanks to those events that we have the opportunity, maybe not enough, but still, to live better. Only thanks to our ancestors did society move from slavery to democracy.

Today, it is better to take as a basis personal and group types of social conflicts, examples of which we often encounter in life. We encounter contradictions in family life, looking at simple everyday issues from different points of view, defending our opinions, and all these events seem to be simple, everyday things. This is why social conflict is so multifaceted. Therefore, everything that concerns it needs to be studied more and more in detail.

Of course, everyone says that conflict is bad, that you cannot compete and live by your own rules. But, on the other hand, disagreements are not so bad, especially if they are resolved in the initial stages. After all, it is precisely because of the emergence of conflicts that society develops, moves forward and strives to change the existing order. Even if the result leads to material and moral losses.

Typology of conflicts

Factors of interethnic regional conflicts

Conditions and factors of social conflict

Conditions and factors of conflicts

Sources of conflicts

Causes of social conflict

Causes and sources of social conflict

Determinants and typology of social conflicts

Issues for discussion

1. What is conflict and what is its structure?

2. Which elements of the conflict structure are objective and which are subjective?

3. What are the main approaches to understanding the dynamics of conflict?

4. What is the essence of the latent period in the dynamics of the conflict?

5. Prove that conflict is a multidimensional dynamic phenomenon.

6. Graphically depict the structure of the conflict, the dynamics of the conflict.

In general philosophical terms, the concept "cause" means a phenomenon whose action causes or produces some other phenomenon, which is called a consequence. In society, as in nature, there is an infinite number of cause-and-effect relationships and dependencies. And conflicts here are no exception; they can also be generated by a variety of reasons: external and internal, universal and individual, material and ideal, objective and subjective, etc.

Causes of the conflict- these are problems, phenomena, events that precede a conflict and, in certain situations that arise in the process of the activities of subjects of social interaction, cause it.

It should also be noted that it is necessary to distinguish the cause of the conflict from its cause. The reason for the conflict serves as a phenomenon that contributes to its occurrence, but does not determine the emergence of a conflict with necessity. Unlike a reason, a reason arises by chance and can be created completely artificially, as they say, “from scratch.” The reason reflects the natural connection of things. Thus, the reason for a family conflict may be an under-salted (over-salted) dish, while the real reason may be the lack of love between spouses.

Among the huge variety of causes of conflicts, general and specific causes can be distinguished. General groups of reasons:

1) socio-political and economic reasons related to the socio-political and economic situation in the country;

2) socio-demographic reasons, reflecting differences in people’s attitudes and motives due to their gender, age, ethnic groups, etc.;

3) socio-psychological reasons, reflecting socio-psychological phenomena in social groups: relationships, leadership, group motives, collective opinions, moods, etc.;

4) individual psychological reasons, reflecting the individual psychological characteristics of the individual: abilities, temperament, character, motives, etc.

Among most common reasons social conflicts can be distinguished:

Different or completely opposite perceptions of people's goals, values, interests and behavior;

The unequal position of people in imperatively coordinated associations (some control, others obey);

Discord between people's expectations and actions;

Misunderstandings, logical errors and generally semantic difficulties in the communication process;

Lack and poor quality of information;

The imperfection of the human psyche, the discrepancy between reality and ideas about it.

Private reasons directly related to the specifics of a particular type of conflict. For example, dissatisfaction with the conditions of labor relations, violation of work ethics, non-compliance with labor laws, limited resources, differences in goals and means of achieving them, etc.

Let us dwell on the causes of conflicts determined by the labor process. Indeed, for many work collectives they are the leading source of conflict situations.

There are several ways or methods to determine the causes of conflict behavior. As an example, consider one of them - conflict mapping method. Its essence consists in a graphical display of the components of the conflict, in a consistent analysis of the behavior of the participants in the conflict interaction, in the formulation of the main problem, the needs and fears of the participants, and ways to eliminate the causes that led to the conflict.

The work consists of several stages.

At the first stage, the problem is described in general terms. If, for example, we are talking about inconsistency in work, about the fact that someone does not “pull the strap” along with everyone else, then the problem can be displayed as “load distribution.” If the conflict arises from a lack of trust between an individual and a group, then the problem can be expressed as “communication.” At this stage, it is important to determine the very nature of the conflict, and for now it does not matter that this does not fully reflect the essence of the problem. The problem should not be defined in the form of a binary choice of opposites “yes or no”; it is advisable to leave the possibility of finding new and original solutions.

At the second stage, the main participants in the conflict are identified. You can enter individuals or entire teams, departments, groups, or organizations into the list. To the extent that the people involved in a conflict have common needs in relation to a given conflict, they can be grouped together. A combination of group and personal categories is also allowed.

For example, if a conflict map is drawn up between two employees in an organization, then these employees can be included in the map, and the remaining specialists can be combined into one group, or the head of this department can also be identified separately.

The third stage involves listing the basic needs and concerns associated with them of all the main participants in the conflict interaction. It is necessary to find out the motives of behavior behind the participants’ positions on this issue. People's actions and their attitudes are determined by their desires, needs, and motives that need to be established.

The term “fear” means concern, anxiety of an individual when it is impossible to realize some of his needs. In this case, you should not discuss with the parties to the conflict how justified their fears and concerns are until they are included in the map. For example, one of the participants in the conflict had a concern about something that seemed unlikely when drawing up a map. At the same time, fear exists and it must be included in the map, its presence must be acknowledged. The advantage of the cartography method is that it is possible to speak out during the process of drawing up a map and reflect irrational fears on it. Fears may include the following: failure and humiliation, fear of making a mistake, financial ruin, the possibility of rejection, loss of control over the situation, loneliness, the possibility of being criticized or judged, job loss, low wages, fear of being bossed around that everything will have to start all over again. Using the concept of “fears”, it is possible to identify motives that are not mentioned out loud by the participants in the conflict. For example, some people find it easier to say that they do not tolerate disrespect than to admit that they need respect.

As a result of drawing up a map, the points of convergence of interests of the conflicting parties are clarified, the fears and concerns of each party are more clearly manifested, and possible ways out of the current situation are determined.