Social conflicts are objectively inevitable in any social structure. Moreover, they are a necessary condition community development. The whole process of development of society consists of conflicts and consensuses, consent and confrontation. The very social structure of society, with its rigid differentiation of different classes, social strata, groups and individuals, is an inexhaustible source of conflicts. And the more complex the social structure, the more differentiated the society, the more freedom and pluralism it has, the more mismatched and sometimes mutually exclusive interests, goals, values ​​and, accordingly, the more sources for potential conflicts. However, in a complex social system, there are more opportunities and mechanisms for successfully resolving conflicts, for finding consensus. Therefore, the problem of any society, any social community is to prevent (maximally reduce) the negative consequences of the conflict, to use it for a positive solution to the problems that have arisen.

Conflict(from lat. sopflictus) means clash (of parties, opinions, forces). The causes of clashes can be a variety of problems in our lives (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, in including emotional and psychological differences, etc.). Thus, conflicts cover all spheres of people's life, the totality of social relations, social interaction. The conflict is essentially 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 confrontation parties, i.e. actions directed against each other.

The conflict is based on subjective-objective contradictions, but these two phenomena (contradictions and conflict) should not be identified. Contradictions can exist for quite a long period of time and not develop into a conflict. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that the conflict is based only on those contradictions caused by incompatible interests, needs and values. Such contradictions, as a rule, are transformed into an open struggle of the parties, into a real confrontation.

The confrontation can be more or less intense and more or less violent. Intensity, according to R. Dahrendorf, means "the energy invested by the participants, and at the same time the social importance of individual conflicts." The form of clashes - violent or non-violent - depends on many factors, including whether there are real conditions and opportunities (mechanisms) for non-violent conflict resolution and what goals the subjects of confrontation pursue.

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

Causes of social conflicts, their classification, functions.

Conflict is a complex multidimensional phenomenon. As a social phenomenon, it retains a tendency to complication, renewal of the structure, the factors that give rise to it. Different types of conflicts, interacting, complement each other, acquiring new features. This is due to the dynamization and complication of the system social relations. Conflicts differ in scale and type, causes and effects, composition of participants and duration, means of settlement, etc. According to the forms of manifestation, they distinguish: socio-economic, ethnic, interethnic, political, ideological, religious, family, military, legal, domestic and other types of conflicts.

According to the functions, positive (constructive) and negative (destructive) conflicts are distinguished.

According to the principle of expediency - inexpediency: natural (inevitable), necessary, forced, functionally unjustified.

Consideration of conflicts in dynamics makes it possible to determine their varieties:

At the stage of occurrence: spontaneous, planned, provoked, initiative;

At the stage of development: short-term, long-term, protracted;

At the stage of elimination: managed, limitedly managed, unmanaged;

At the stage of attenuation: spontaneously ending; terminated under the influence of means found by the warring parties; resolved through the intervention of external forces.

According to the composition of the conflicting parties, conflicts can be:

1. Intrapersonal. They are purely psychological, limited by the level of individual consciousness.

In the majority, this is an acute negative experience caused by the struggle of the structures of the inner world of the individual, which reflects its contradictory connections with the social environment. Such a conflict is accompanied by psycho-emotional stress, psychological stress, weakening of business and creative activity, negative emotional background of communication, low self-esteem.

In this context, there are:

Motivational (between "want" and "want"),

Moral (between "I want" and "I need"),

Unfulfilled desire (between "I want" and "I can"),

Role-playing (between "should" and "should"),

Adaptive (between "should" and "can"),

Inadequate self-esteem (between "I can" and "I can") types of conflicts.
As a rule, intrapersonal conflicts are the sphere of scientific interest of psychology.

1. Interpersonal and group. In any interpersonal conflict, at least two parties are involved. According to their content, such conflicts are:

resource

Valuable.

Resource conflicts are connected with the distribution of material goods, territory, time, etc.

Valuable conflicts unfold in the plane of mutually exclusive cultural traditions, stereotypes, beliefs (between parents and children). Their reasons are varied. Sociologists have reduced their entire set into several groups:

Limited resources;

Different aspects of interdependence;

difference in goals;

Difference of ideas and values;

Difference in life experience and behavior;

Dissatisfaction with communication;

Personality traits of conflictants.

Interpersonal conflicts are classified:

By areas of their deployment (business, family, domestic, military, etc.);

According to the results (constructive and destructive);

According to the criterion of reality, they are divided into:

Real (the conflict exists objectively and is perceived in hell
quat);

Conditional (conflict depends on external circumstances, which are easy
change);

Displaced (another conflict is hidden behind the obvious);

Latent (there is a conflict situation, but the conflict does not occur)
walks);

Erroneous (there are no objective grounds for conflict. He
occurs only in connection with errors of perception and understanding).

3. Conflicts in organizations. According to the composition of the participants, they are divided into the following categories:

Personality - personality (interpersonal),

Group - group (intergroup),

The individual is the group.

According to the sources of conflict energy (reasons), conflicts are divided into:

Structural(they are connected by disagreements regarding the tasks that the parties decide, for example, between accounting and other departments).

innovative(any innovation raises the lost rhythm, traditions, habits, to a certain extent affects the interests of many employees, which can provoke a conflict).

positional(concerning the definition of primacy, significance, leadership, outsiderness). Localized in the sphere of symbolic recognition (who is the most important?).

Justice(they arise on the basis of discrepancies regarding the estimates of the labor contribution, the distribution of material and moral rewards, etc.).

Competition for resources(traditional for organizations; it develops into a conflict when the performers, among whom a certain resource is distributed, make it dependent on the performance of their own official duties);

Dynamic(have a socio-psychological nature, often arise in new teams where there is no clear informal structure, where the leader has not yet been determined).

Organizational conflicts tend to be facilitated by flaws in the organization. labor activity, managerial errors, unfavorable socio-psychological climate in the team.

Intergroup conflicts. They can occur between groups of different size and composition. Most often they are generated by: unsatisfied need, social inequality, varying degrees of participation in power, mismatch of interests and goals.

Sociology is primarily interested in social conflicts, to which it refers conflicts between society and nature.

Economic and labor,

social planning,

domestic political,

military,

Intercultural and international,

ethnic,

Interstate, etc.

Intergroup conflicts are mostly caused by:

- intergroup hostility. So 3. Freud argued that it exists in any interaction of groups. Its main function is to unite the group;

- objective conflict of interest, the inevitability of which is due to the natural interests of its subjects;

- group favoritism, the essence of which is to try to assist members of one's own group against the interests of those who belong to other groups.

One of the most common types of intergroup conflict is labor dispute, which is based on: working conditions, system of distribution of resources, adopted agreements.

It is provoked mainly by the inaction and bureaucracy of the administration, ignoring or ignorance by the employer of the norms labor law and labor. It is also associated with low social guarantees for employees, low wages, late payment, etc.

More complex and difficult to regulate are ethnic conflicts, which, as a rule, have a long history, are generated by a complex of socio-economic, political, cultural, ethno-psychological problems.

Political conflicts divided into interstate and domestic political. Their feature is the struggle for political influence in society or in the international arena.

Among the internal political conflicts are:

class,

Between political parties and movements,

Between the branches of government

The struggle for leadership in the state, party, movement.

Interstate conflicts give rise to a complex of causes. Their basis is the clash of national-state interests. The subjects of conflicts are states or coalitions. Such conflicts are a continuation of the external and sometimes internal policies of the participating states. They carry the threat of mass death, locally and globally affect international relations. They are divided into:

Conflicts of ideologies:

Conflicts aimed at political domination, protection of economic interests, territorial integrity, etc.

Conflict functions.

By its nature, the conflict can be a carrier of both constructive and destructive tendencies that predetermine its positive and negative functions.

Positive functions of conflicts:

Identifies urgent problems;

Stimulate the correction of deficiencies;

Contribute to the renewal of life;

Relieve tension in society;

They help bring people together.

Negative features of conflicts:

Can create stressful situations;

Can disrupt people's lives;

May allow social ties;

They can cause division in society.

3. Sociological theory of conflict

The scientist proving the possibility of a structural-functional conflict was an American sociologist Lewis Alfred Coser(1913-2003). His work "Functions of Conflict" (1956) marked the beginning of the development of the sociological theory of conflict. In subsequent works "Social conflict and the theory of social change" (1956), "Stages in the study of social conflict" (1967), "Conflicts: social aspects" (1968), he developed the main provisions of the theory of social conflict

The appeal of L. Koser to the problem of conflict is connected with his understanding of the purpose of sociology in the transformation of society. The American sociologist considered conflict and order as two equivalent social processes. At the same time, in contrast to other sociologists who saw only the negative consequences of the conflict, L. Koser emphasized that the conflict produces both negative and positive consequences at the same time. Therefore, he set himself the task of determining the conditions under which the consequences of the conflict can be either negative or positive.

For L. Koser, conflicts are not social anomalies, but necessary, normal natural forms of existence and development social life. In almost every act of social interaction lies the possibility of conflict. He defined conflict as a confrontation between social subjects (individuals, groups) that arises due to a lack of power, status or means necessary to satisfy value claims, and involves the neutralization, infringement or destruction (symbolic, ideological, practical) of the enemy.

The subject that causes the vast majority of conflicts, according to L. Koser, are real social benefits recognized by both parties as such. The main causes of the conflict are the lack of resources and the violation of the principles of social justice in their distribution. The initiators of the aggravation of relations and bringing them to the point of conflict are most often representatives of those social groups that consider themselves socially disadvantaged. The more stable their confidence in this, the more actively they initiate conflicts and the more often they clothe them in illegal, violent forms.

L. Koser divided social conflicts into realistic and non-realistic ones. He referred to realistic conflicts those conflicts for the resolution of which society has all the necessary prerequisites. Unrealistic conflicts are those conflicts where the participants were captured by antagonistic emotions and passions, and went along the path of putting forward clearly inflated demands and claims to each other.

L. Koser believed that conflicts play an integrating and stabilizing role in society. He stated that the sociologist must identify those social contexts and social conditions in which social conflict contributes to "the recovery rather than the decay of society or its constituents." The sociologist drew attention to the fact that many of his contemporary colleagues are far from understanding the necessity and recognizing the positive role of conflict as an element of social relations. They tend to see it as a destructive phenomenon. He was closer to G. Simmel's point of view, according to which "conflict is a form of socialization."

The conflict was understood by L. Koser as a process of social interaction between people, as a tool with which it is possible to form, standardize and maintain a social structure. In his view, social conflict contributes to the establishment and preservation of boundaries between groups, the resuscitation of group identity, and the protection of the group from assimilation.

Speaking about the positive functions of the conflict, the American sociologist characterizes among them such as group-creating and group-preserving functions. Through conflict, there is a détente between its antagonistic sides. According to him, the communicative-informational and connecting functions are important, since on the basis of identifying the necessary information and establishing communication, after which partner interaction becomes real, hostile relations can be replaced by friendly ones. Among the positive functions of the conflict considered by L. Koser, it should be noted the creation and construction of public associations that contribute to the cohesion of the group and such a function as stimulating social change.

The conflict, according to L. Kozer, realizing positive functions, contributes to the relaxation of tension, stimulates social changes, the creation of public associations, the development of communication ties. The American sociologist referred to "Simmel's paradox", according to which an important tool Containment of the conflict is to find out the capabilities of its participants before the actual onset of the conflict situation itself, which makes it possible to mitigate its consequences. This theoretical position today is of great practical importance both in international relations and in the internal life of countries undergoing complex, including transitional, processes.

L. Koser singled out two types of social systems that differ from each other in the nature of their attitude to social conflicts. The first type is rigid or rigid systems of a despotic-totalitarian nature, within which an ideological taboo on mentioning the existence of internal conflicts. Such government systems there are no institutional political and legal mechanisms for conflict resolution. The reaction of state mechanisms to individual outbreaks of conflict situations has a harsh, repressive character. Within such social systems, individuals and groups do not develop the skills of constructive behavior, and conflicts themselves do not have the opportunity to play a constructive role in the life of society and the state. The second type of social systems is flexible. They have officially recognized, actively practiced institutional and non-institutional means of conflict resolution. This allows you to improve conflict resolution skills, identify in conflicts structural elements. Hard-rigid systems are gradually destroyed from the perturbations of social matter coming from within. Flexible social macrosystems, due to their adaptation to such disturbances, turn out to be more durable.

In The Functions of Conflict, the American sociologist came to conclusions concerning the analysis of conflict both at the intra-group and extra-group levels and linking it to social structures, institutions, and the social system. He believed that it was not the conflict as such, but the nature of the social structure and social system itself. L. Koser argued that the analysis of various types of conflict and social structures led him to the conclusion that the conflict is dysfunctional for those social structures that are not sufficiently or completely intolerant of the conflict and in which the conflict itself is not institutionalized. The acuteness of the conflict, threatening a "complete break" and undermining the fundamental principles of the social system, is directly related to the rigidity of its structure. The balance of such a structure is threatened not by the conflict as such, but by this rigidity itself, which contributes to the accumulation of hostile feelings and directs them along one axis, when the conflict nevertheless breaks out.

L. Koser was both a critic and a follower of K. Marx. He also saw society as a fluid balance of opposing forces that give rise to social tension and struggle. For him, the class struggle is the source of progress. And social conflict is the core. The basis of society is not the relations that people enter into in the process of material production, but the superstructure is a cultural superstructure that encompasses social, political and spiritual processes. People by birth belong to different classes, they cannot choose or change social affiliation. Thus, the class struggle and class roles are predetermined and social mobility is impossible. L. Koser believed that many provisions Marxist theory conflicts are true for early capitalism, and modern capitalism is characterized by a number of new features that allow you to regulate emerging conflicts.

Ralph Gustav Dahrendorf(1929-2009) - Anglo-German sociologist, political scientist and politician, author of the theory of the "conflict model of society", which is presented in the works "Social classes and class conflict in an industrial society" (1957), "Society and freedom" (1961) , "Essays on the Theory of Society" (1968), "Conflict and Freedom" (1972), "Sociological Man" (1973), "Modern Social Conflict" (1982).

The theory of the "conflict model of society" arose from R. Dahrendorf as a reaction to the universal claims of integrationism of the structural-functionalist theory and an alternative to Marxism. Opposing the consensus theory of society by T. Parsons, the sociologist argued that order and stability should be considered as pathologies of social life. Denying the concepts of "stratum" and "layer", R. Dahrendorf uses the concept of "class". Unlike the Marxists, he considers the basis for defining classes not the presence or absence of property, but relations of domination and subordination, or rather participation or non-participation in power relations. At the same time, "dominance in one association does not mean and does not necessarily imply domination in all other associations to which" a person belongs and "on the contrary, subordination in this association does not mean subordination in others." Being simultaneously a member of several associations and occupying different positions there, performing various social roles, a person participates at once in several social conflicts independent of each other. Hence the final definition of classes according to Dahrendorf: classes are "conflicting social groupings or groups of social conflict based on participation or non-participation in the exercise of power in imperatively coordinated associations."

R. Dahrendorf believed that the conflict was based on the opposition of interests and relations of its participants. He explained the presence of contradictory relations by the difference of interests. Therefore, in order to clarify the nature of the conflict, in his opinion, one should understand what interests do not coincide, what is the degree of this discrepancy, and how the participants in the conflict themselves realize them. This requires compliance with one important condition: the parties to the conflict must be characterized by a noticeable identity, i.e. those entering into conflict must belong to certain social groups, organizations, institutions.

The opposing interests that determine the essence of the conflict are considered by the sociologist as explicit and implicit, obvious and hidden (latent). The latter may not always be recognized by the parties to the conflict, which puts on the agenda as one of the means of its regulation the need for a clear understanding of the interests of both parties in the emerging conflict. difficult situation. In this regard, R. Dahrendorf argued that latent interests belong to social positions. They are not necessarily conscious and recognized representatives of these positions, the entrepreneur may deviate from his latent interests and be at one with the workers, "the Germans in 1914 could, contrary to their role expectations, be aware of sympathy for France."

From the point of view of R. Dahrendorf, conflict is a natural result of any management system, no matter how perfect it may be. The main social task of the conflict is the stabilization of social processes. In this sense, the conflict is positive. In order to use it in the interests of society and individual social groups, it is necessary not to resolve it, let alone suppress it, but to regulate the conflict. He believed that social conflicts, i.e. contradictions that systematically grow out of the social structure "cannot be resolved in principle in the sense of final elimination." The regulation of social conflicts is a crucial means of reducing the violence of almost all types of conflicts. R. Dahrendorf singled out three forms of conflict regulation: reconciliation, mediation, arbitration. "These forms," ​​he argued, "are an outstanding mechanism for reducing the force of class conflict."

However, the sociologist argued, conflicts do not disappear through their regulation. They do not necessarily become immediately less intense. But to the extent that they can be regulated, they become controlled, and their "creative power is put at the service of the gradual development of social structures." To regulate social conflicts, argued R. Dahrendorf, it is necessary to comply with a number of conditions. There must be special social institutions with appropriate powers, their decisions become binding on the conflicting parties. These institutions develop rules of conduct that are recognized by the conflicting parties, and the authorities contribute as much as possible to the implementation of arbitration functions.

Understanding conflict as "structurally produced relations of opposites of norms and expectations, institutions and groups," R. Dahrendorf used them as criteria for distinguishing types of conflicts. He distinguished conflicts between different expectations in relation to one role, between roles, within social groups, between groups. At the same time, we are talking about conflicts not only of real, but also of potential groups, which, from the point of view of their bearing conflict-prone principles, R. Dahrendorf called quasi-groups. Ranking conflicts: the conflict of opponents of the same rank, the conflict of opponents who are in relation to the subordination of one to the other, the conflict of the whole and the part, the sociologist identified 15 types of conflicts. In addition, he drew attention to conflicts between individual countries and groups of countries, within society as a whole.

R. Dahrendorf believed that the conflict model of society is the leading one and explains almost all social processes of any significance. This model is based on the following three assumptions.

1. Disagreements and conflicts are ubiquitous in every society.

2. Each society is based on the violence of some of its members over others.

3. Conflicts are the result of changes in society and themselves lead to them.

For R. Dahrendorf, the essence of social conflict is the struggle of various groups for power, a struggle that acts as an antagonism between power and resistance to it. The conflict itself is generated by power, which is a consequence of the unequal position of people in society, in which some have it, as well as power and money (therefore they command), others have none of this (therefore they are forced to obey). The main thing that the sociologist called for was not to bring social conflicts to social upheavals.

R. Dahrendorf echoed G. Simmel and L. Koser, asserting "the policy of freedom is the policy of life with conflict." The assessment of R. Dahrendorf as a representative of the dialectical theory of conflict in the spirit of the traditions of the dialectical approach of K. Marx is widespread. In a post-industrial society, the main contradiction of the social system moves, in his opinion, from the economic plane, from the sphere of property relations to the area of ​​domination-subordination relations, and the main conflict is associated with the redistribution of power.

R. Dahrendorf defined conflict as any relationship between elements that can be characterized through objective or subjective opposites. His focus was on structural conflicts, which are just one type of social conflict. The path from a stable state of the social structure to unfolding social conflicts, which meant, as a rule, the formation of conflict groups, analytically goes through three stages.

The first stage is associated with the emergence of a causal background of latent, but actually opposite to each other and therefore conflicting interests, represented by two aggregates of social positions in the form of quasi-groups.

The second stage of the development of the conflict consists in the realization of latent interests and the organization of quasi-groups into actual groups (groups of interests). Conflicts always tend towards crystallization and articulation.

For conflict to occur, certain conditions must be met:

Technical (personal, ideological, material):

Social (systematic recruiting, communication);

Political (freedom of coalition).

The third stage is the deployment of the formed conflict, i.e. in a clash between parties with distinct identities (nations, political organizations, etc.). If such an identity is not yet present, the conflicts are to some extent incomplete.

The forms of social conflicts change depending on the action of variables and factors of variability. A variable of violence is singled out, which refers to the means chosen by the belligerents to achieve their interests. At one extreme of the scale of violence are international war, civil war, armed struggle in general with a threat to the lives of the participants, at the other - conversation, discussion and negotiations in accordance with the rules of courtesy and with open argumentation. Between them there are a large number of polyvariant forms of interaction: strikes, competition, fierce debates, fights, an attempt at mutual deception, a threat, an ultimatum, etc.

Variable intensity refers to the degree of involvement of the parties in given conflicts. It is determined by the significance of the subject of the collision. R. Dahrendorf explained this situation with the following example: the struggle for the chairmanship of a football club can be violent and even violent, but, as a rule, it does not mean as much for the participants as in the case of a conflict between employers and trade unions over wages.

An important parameter influencing the level of conflict intensity is social pluralism, i.e. stratification or division of social structures. Complex societies are characterized by a combination of many interests and conflicts, which are a kind of balanced mechanism that prevents instability. The intensity of conflict decreases as the structure of society becomes pluralistic. Intersection of interests of diverse social institutions generates a variety of conflicts, thereby reducing their intensity.

According to R. Dahrendorf, the conflict suppression method is an inefficient way of dealing with conflicts. To the extent that social conflicts are suppressed, their potential "malignancy" increases, and then the explosion of extremely violent conflicts is only a matter of time. Throughout the history of mankind, revolutions provide proof of this thesis. The method of suppressing social conflict cannot be used for a long time, i.e. a period exceeding several years.

A variety of conflict suppression is the method of conflict cancellation, which is understood as a radical attempt to eliminate contradictions by intervening in the relevant social structures. But social contradictions are objectively impossible to resolve in the sense of final elimination. "Unity of the People" and "Classless Society" are just two examples of the suppression of conflicts under the guise of resolving them.

Finally, the method of regulating conflicts involves controlling the dynamics of their development, lowering the level of violence and gradually transferring them to the service of developing social structures. Successful conflict management requires the following conditions:

Awareness of the conflict, its natural nature;

Regulation of a specific subject of the conflict;

Manifestation of the conflict, i.e. organization of conflict groups as a condition for its possible successful settlement;

The agreement of the participants to define the "rules of the game" according to which they want to solve the problem.

"Rules of the game", model agreements, constitutions, charters, etc. can only be effective if they do not favor one participant over another.

The "rules of the game" concern the ways in which social actors intend to resolve their contradictions. R. Dahrendorf proposed a number of methods that can be applied consistently in the range from non-violent to coercive options for solving problems.

1. Negotiations. This method involves the creation of a body in which the conflicting parties meet regularly to discuss the problems of the conflict and make decisions in the established ways (by a majority, a qualified majority, a majority with a veto, unanimously).

2. Mediation. The mildest form of participation of a third party in the regulation of the conflict on the basis of a voluntary agreement of its direct participants.

3. Arbitration is an appeal of the subjects of the conflict to a third party, the decisions of which are either recommendatory or binding for him. Last option practiced in situations where it is necessary to preserve the form of state government and ensure peace in the field of international relations.

From the point of view of R. Dahrendorf, the conflict is the driving force of change, but it should not be a war between peoples or civil war. The rational curbing of social conflicts is one of the central tasks of politics.

The social heterogeneity of society, differences in income levels, property, power, prestige naturally lead to an aggravation of social contradictions and conflicts. Conflicts are a special type of interaction, the subjects of which are communities, organizations and individuals with real or supposedly incompatible goals.

social conflict- this is a special interaction of individ-species, groups and associations in the event of a clash of incompatible views, positions and interests. The concept of social conflict includes a wide range of phenomena of different levels: from clashes of individuals to interstate armed conflicts.

Depending on the spheres of contradictions, conflicts are divided into:

For personal;

interpersonal;

Intragroup;

Intergroup;

Conflicts with the external environment, etc.

The sources of social conflicts can be in social, political or economic relations. Conflict situations of a production, national or ethnic nature in modern society acquire a special social significance and can serve as the basis for the emergence of such a phenomenon as extremism . Extremism represents a commitment to extreme views and measures in social and political activity.

The emergence of extremist views is facilitated by factors of social tension:

A sharp drop in the efficiency of the functioning of various spheres of public life;

Formation of opposing social groups;

Decline in the standard of living of the population:

The possibility of unpredictable, spontaneous mass behavior and the formation of an aggressive crowd;

Economic and social crisis;

Weakening of state power;

Feeling of infringed national identity.

Participants in the conflict can be both individuals and social groups, organizations and states. The main subjects of the conflict are called opponents, or opposing sides. The opposing sides may be unequal, i.e. have different ranks. Rank- this is the strength of the opponent in the conflict, due to his social status, available resources and power. For example, a person may be in conflict with a group and even the state and win if his rank is higher.

Causes of conflicts are diverse, but they are always based on a contradiction associated with a clash of social interests, views, and positions of the two sides.

The subject of conflict in sociology is considered to be an objectively existing or imaginary problem, which is the cause of disagreement between opponents. Each of the parties is interested in resolving this problem in their favor. The object of the conflict is some scarce resource. The emergence of any conflict is preceded by such a combination of objective conditions and circumstances that creates the real subject of the conflict. This combination sociologists call conflict situation. The conflict situation develops gradually, against the background of social tension.

Social tension in society is characterized by:

The spread of dissatisfaction with the existing order among the population;

Loss of confidence in the authorities;

Mass spontaneous actions, etc. The level of social tension in society can change: decrease or increase.

All social conflicts go through three stages:

Pre-conflict;

Directly conflict;

Post-conflict.

Pre-conflict stage- this is the period during which contradictions accumulate (for example, the need to reduce the staff).

Conflict stage- this is a set of certain actions of the warring parties (for example, the administration determines candidates for dismissal, and trade unions protest).

Post-conflict stage- the stage when measures are taken to eliminate contradictions between the opposing sides (removal of socio-psychological tension in the relationship between the administration of the enterprise and the remaining employees).

As a rule, any conflict begins with an incident. An incident (or cause) of a conflict is an event or circumstance, as a result of which latent (i.e. hidden) contradictions between the parties pass into the stage of open confrontation. If none of the parties tries to make concessions and evade the conflict, then the latter goes into an acute stage. The escalation of conflict is called escalation. . The end of a conflict does not always mean its resolution. The resolution of the conflict is the decision of its participants to end the confrontation . The conflict may end with the reconciliation of the parties, the victory of one of them, the gradual fading or development into another conflict. Sociologists consider reaching a consensus the most optimal solution to the conflict.

Consensus is the agreement of a significant majority of representatives of a certain community regarding important aspects of its functioning, expressed in assessments and actions. Consensus does not mean unanimity, since it is almost impossible to achieve a complete coincidence of the positions of the parties, and it is not necessary. The main thing is that none of the parties should express direct objections; also, when resolving the conflict, a neutral position of the parties, abstention from voting, is allowed.

Social conflicts can lead to both non-integrative(partnerships are destroyed), and integrative(group cohesion increases) consequences. In the prevention and timely resolution of social conflicts, the social policy pursued by the state plays an important role. Its essence is the regulation of the socio-economic conditions of society and concern for the well-being of all its citizens.

test in the discipline "Sociology"

on the topic "Social conflicts, their causes, types and role in public life"

Introduction _____________________________________________________________3

1. The concept of social conflict ___________________________________4

2. Causes of social conflicts __________________________________ 5

3. Types of social conflicts ___________________________________________ 8

4. The role of social conflicts in public life _________________9

Conclusion __________________________________________________________11

List of used literature _________________________________12

Introduction

Social heterogeneity of society, differences in income levels, power, prestige, etc. often lead to conflict. Conflicts are an integral part of social life. The modern life of Russian society is especially rich in conflicts.

Social conflicts in modern Russian society are organically linked to its transitional state and the contradictions that underlie conflicts. The roots of some of them lie in the past, but they get their main aggravation in the process of transition to market relations.

The emergence of new social groups of entrepreneurs and owners, growing inequality, become the basis for the emergence of new conflicts. A social contradiction is being formed in society between the elite, representing various groups of new owners, and a huge mass of people who have been removed from property and from power.

Social conflicts in modern Russia are particularly acute and often use violence. Based on the deepening of the crisis state of society, leading to clashes of various forces and communities, social contradictions are aggravated and social conflicts become their result.

Conflicts are formed in various spheres of society and are usually referred to as political, socio-economic, spiritual, national, etc. All of them belong to the category of social conflict, which is understood as any kind of struggle and confrontation between communities and social forces.

The concept of social conflict

Conflict- this is a clash of opposite goals, positions, views of the subjects of interaction. At the same time, the conflict is the most important side of the interaction of people in society, a kind of cell of social life. This is a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is due to opposing values ​​and norms, interests and needs.

The essential side of social conflict is that these subjects act within the framework of some wider system of connections, which is modified (strengthened or destroyed) under the influence of the conflict.

The conflict is associated with people's awareness of the contradictions of their interests (as members of certain social groups) with the interests of other subjects. Aggravated contradictions give rise to open or closed conflicts.

The sociology of conflict proceeds from the fact that conflict is a normal phenomenon of social life, the identification and development of conflict as a whole is a useful and necessary thing. Society, power structures and individual citizens will achieve more effective results in their actions if they follow certain rules aimed at resolving the conflict. Thus, under social conflict in modern sociology they understand any kind of struggle between individuals, the purpose of which is to achieve or maintain the means of production, economic position, power or other values ​​that enjoy social recognition, as well as the conquest, neutralization or elimination of a real or imaginary enemy.

Causes of social conflicts

In the development of the conflict, in its transition to the stage of extreme aggravation, much depends on how exactly the very initial, initial events leading to the development of the conflict are perceived, what importance is attached to the conflict in the mass consciousness and in the consciousness of the leaders of the relevant social groups. To understand the nature of the conflict and the nature of its development, the "Thomas theorem" is of particular importance, which states: "If people perceive a certain situation as real, then it will be real in its consequences." In relation to conflict, this means that if there is a mismatch of interests between people or groups, but this mismatch is not perceived, felt or felt by them, then such a mismatch of interests does not lead to a conflict. Conversely, if there is a community of interests between people, but the participants themselves feel hostility towards each other, then relations between them will necessarily develop according to the pattern of conflict, not cooperation.

When considering the causes of a particular conflict, it must be borne in mind that every conflict is somehow personified. Each of the parties to the conflict has its own leaders, leaders, leaders, ideologists who voice and broadcast the ideas of their group, formulate “their” positions and present them as the interests of their group. At the same time, it is often difficult to figure out whether this or that leader is put forward by the current conflict situation or he himself will create this situation, since he, thanks to a certain type of behavior, takes the position of leader, leader, “spokesman for the interests” of the people, ethnic group, class, social stratum, political party, etc. In any case, in any conflict, the personal characteristics of leaders play an exceptional role. In each specific situation, they can lead the case to aggravate the conflict or find means to resolve it.

World experience allows us to identify some of the most characteristic sources on the basis of which the causes of conflicts are formed: wealth, power, prestige and dignity, i.e. those values ​​and interests that matter in any society and give meaning to the actions of specific individuals participating in conflicts.

Each of the parties perceives the conflict situation as a certain problem, in the resolution of which three main points are predominant:

· firstly, the degree of significance of the wider system of relations, the advantages and losses arising from the previous state and its destabilization - all this can be designated as an assessment of the pre-conflict situation;

Secondly, the degree of awareness of one's own interests and the willingness to take risks for the sake of their implementation;

Thirdly, the perception of each other by the opposing sides, the ability to take into account the interests of the opponent.

The usual development of the conflict assumes that each of the parties is able to take into account the interests of the opposing side. This approach creates the possibility of a relatively peaceful development of the conflict through the negotiation process and making adjustments to the previous system of relations in the direction and scale acceptable to each of the parties.

• during negotiations, priority should be given to discussion of substantive issues;

The parties should strive to relieve psychological and social tension;

the parties must demonstrate mutual respect for each other;

· negotiators should strive to turn a significant and hidden part of the conflict situation into an open one, publicly and convincingly revealing each other's positions and deliberately creating an atmosphere of public equal exchange of views;

All negotiators must be willing to compromise.

Types of social conflicts

Political conflicts- these are conflicts, the cause of which is the struggle for the distribution of power, dominance, influence and authority. They arise from various interests, rivalry and struggle in the process of acquiring, distributing and exercising political and state power. Political conflicts are directly related to winning leading positions in the institutions and structures of political power.

Main types of political conflicts:

conflict between the branches of government;

· conflict within parliament;

• conflict between political parties and movements;

· conflict between different parts of the administrative apparatus.

Socio-economic conflicts- these are conflicts caused by means of subsistence, the use and redistribution of natural and other material resources, the level of wages, the use of professional and intellectual potential, the level of prices for goods and services, access and distribution of spiritual goods.

National-ethnic conflicts- these are conflicts that arise in the course of the struggle for the rights and interests of ethnic and national groups.

According to the classification of typology by D. Katz, there are:

conflict between indirectly competing subgroups;

conflict between directly competing subgroups;

conflict within the hierarchy over rewards.

The role of social conflicts in public life

In modern conditions, in essence, each sphere of public life gives rise to its own specific types of social conflicts. Therefore, we can talk about political, national-ethnic, economic, cultural and other types of conflicts. political conflict- this is a conflict over the distribution of power, dominance, influence, authority. This conflict can be covert or open. One of the brightest forms of its manifestation in modern Russia is the conflict between the executive and legislative authorities in the country, which lasted throughout the entire time after the collapse of the USSR. The objective causes of the conflict have not been eliminated, and it has entered a new stage of its development. From now on, it is being implemented in new forms of confrontation between the President and the Federal Assembly, as well as the executive and legislative authorities in the regions. notable place in modern life occupy national-ethnic conflicts- conflicts based on the struggle for the rights and interests of ethnic and national groups. Most often, these are conflicts related to status or territorial claims. The problem of cultural self-determination of certain national communities also plays a significant role. play an important role in modern life in Russia. socio-economic conflicts, that is, conflicts over the means of subsistence, the level of wages, the use of professional and intellectual potential, the level of prices for various benefits, over real access to these benefits and other resources. Social conflicts in various spheres of public life can take the form of intra-institutional and organizational norms and procedures: discussions, requests, adoption of declarations, laws, etc. The most striking form of expression of the conflict are various kinds of mass actions. These mass actions are realized in the form of presentation of demands to the authorities by dissatisfied social groups, in the mobilization of public opinion in support of their demands or alternative programs, in direct actions of social protest. Mass protest is an active form of conflict behavior. It can be expressed in various forms: organized and spontaneous, direct or indirect, taking on the character of violence or a system of non-violent actions. Mass protests are organized by political organizations and so-called “pressure groups” that unite people along economic goals, professional, religious and cultural interests. Forms of expressing mass protests can be such as: rallies, demonstrations, picketing, civil disobedience campaigns, strikes. Each of these forms is used for specific purposes, is effective tool solving very specific problems. Therefore, when choosing a form of social protest, its organizers must be clearly aware of what specific goals are set for this action and what is the public support for certain demands.

Conclusion

Summing up social conflicts, it can be argued that the existence of a society without conflicts is impossible. One cannot categorically call conflict a manifestation of the dysfunction of organizations, deviant behavior of individuals and groups, a phenomenon of public life, most likely conflict is a necessary form of social interaction between people. Due to the fact that social conflict is a multifaceted phenomenon, it is presented in the work from different angles of viewing this problem. The main aspects of social conflicts are singled out and their characteristics are given according to their main components. So this paper reveals the concept, causes, types and role of social conflicts.

There are effective ways to resolve conflicts caused by differences in views, attitudes, mismatches of goals and actions. They strengthen relationships and are therefore extremely valuable. Successful conflict resolution together can bring people closer together than many years spent in mutual exchange of pleasantries.

List of used literature

1. Druzhinin V. V., Kontorov D. S., Kontorov M. D. Introduction to the theory of conflict. - M .: Radio and Communication, 2001.

2. Zborovsky G. E. General sociology: Textbook. – M.: Gardariki, 2004.

3. Radugin A. A., Radugin K. A. Sociology: a course of lectures. - M.: Center, 2002.

The social heterogeneity of society, the difference in income levels, power, prestige, etc. often leads to social conflicts.

They are an integral part of social life and are always associated with the subjective consciousness of people, the inconsistency of their interests of certain social groups. Aggravations of contradiction give rise to open or closed conflicts only when they are deeply experienced by people and are realized as incompatibility of goals and interests.

Conflict- this is a clash of opposing goals, opinions, interests, positions of opponents or subjects of interaction.

social conflict- this is a confrontation between individuals or groups pursuing socially significant goals. It occurs when one side seeks to realize its goals or interests to the detriment of the other.

English sociologist E. Giddens gave the following definition of conflict: "by social conflict, I mean the real struggle between acting people or groups, regardless of what the sources of this struggle are, its methods and means mobilized by each side."

Conflict is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Every society, every social group, social community is subject to conflicts to one degree or another.

In science, there is a special branch of sociological knowledge that directly studies this social phenomenon - conflictology.

The main subjects of conflicts are social groups, since their needs, claims, goals can only be realized through the use of power. That is why such political forces as the state apparatus, political parties, parliamentary groups, factions, “influence groups”, etc. take part in conflicts. It is they who are the spokesmen for the will of large social groups and the main bearers of social interests.

In conflictology, much attention is paid to the concept of the strength of the participants in a social conflict.

Power- this is the ability of the opponent to realize his goal against the will of the interaction partner. It includes a number of different components:

1) physical force, including technical means used as an instrument of violence;

2) an information-civilizational form of the use of social force, requiring the collection of facts, statistical data, analysis of documents, study of expert examination materials in order to ensure complete knowledge about the essence of the conflict, about one’s opponent in order to develop a strategy and tactics of behavior, use materials that discredit the opponent, etc. d.;

3) social status, expressed in socially recognized indicators (income, level of power, prestige, etc.);

4) other resources - money, territory, time limit, psychological resource, etc.

The stage of conflict behavior is characterized by the maximum use of force by the participants in the conflict, the use of all means at their disposal. A significant influence on the development of the conflict is exerted by the surrounding social environment, which determines the conditions in which the social conflict proceeds.

It can act either as a source of external support for the participants in the conflict, or as a deterrent, or as a neutral factor.

Social conflict usually goes through major stages.

In conflictology, it is customary to distinguish the following stages of the course of the conflict:

1) a hidden stage, at which the contradictions between the participants in the conflict are not yet recognized and are manifested only in explicit or implicit dissatisfaction with the situation;

2) the formation of a conflict - a clear understanding of the claims, which, as a rule, are expressed to the opposite side in the form of demands;

3) incident - an event that takes the conflict to the stage of active actions;

4) active actions of the parties that contribute to the achievement of the highest point of the conflict, after which it subsides;

5) the end of the conflict, and it is not always carried out by satisfying the claims of the parties.

It is also necessary to remember that at any of these stages, the conflict can end either independently, or by agreement of the parties, or with the participation of a third party.

2. Types of conflicts

In modern sociological literature, there are many classifications of types of conflicts on various grounds.

From the point of view of the subjects entering into the conflict, four types of conflicts can be distinguished:

1) intrapersonal (can take the following forms: role - occurs when conflicting requirements are made to one person about what the result of his work should be; intrapersonal - can also arise as a result of the fact that production requirements are not consistent with personal needs or values );

2) interpersonal (can manifest itself as a clash of personalities with different character traits, attitudes, values ​​and is the most common);

3) between the individual and the group (occurs if the individual takes a position that differs from the position of the group);

4) intergroup.

Conflicts can be classified by spheres of life into political, socio-economic, national-ethnic and others.

Political- these are conflicts over the distribution of power, dominance, influence, authority. They arise from the clash of different interests, rivalry and struggle in the process of acquiring, redistributing and exercising political and state power.

Political conflicts are associated with consciously formulated goals aimed at winning leading positions in institutions in the structures of political power. The main political conflicts are:

1) between branches of government;

2) inside the parliament;

3) between political parties and movements;

4) between various links of the administrative apparatus.

Socio-economic- these are conflicts over the means of subsistence, the level of wages, the use of professional and intellectual potential, the level of prices for goods and services, access to the distribution of material and spiritual wealth.

National-ethnic- these are conflicts that arise in the course of the struggle for the rights and interests of ethnic and national groups.

According to the classification D. Katz conflicts are:

1) between indirectly competing subgroups;

2) between directly competing subgroups;

3) within the hierarchy and about remuneration.

Conflict Explorer K. Boulding highlights the following types conflicts:

1) real (existing objectively in a certain social subsystem;

2) random (depending on minor points in relation to the fundamental contradictions that cause conflict);

3) substitutive (which are a visible manifestation of hidden conflicts);

4) based on poor knowledge (the result of inept management);

5) hidden, latent (participants for various reasons cannot fight openly);

6) false (creating only appearance).

The current view is that some conflicts are not only possible, but may even be desirable.

Accordingly, there are two types of conflicts:

1) the conflict is considered functional if it leads to an increase in the efficiency of the organization;

2) the conflict can also be dysfunctional and lead to a decrease in personal satisfaction, group cooperation and organizational effectiveness.

3. Compromise and consensus as a form of completion of social conflict

An external sign of conflict resolution may be the end of the incident.

Elimination of the incident is necessary, but this is not a sufficient condition for resolving the conflict. Complete resolution of the conflict situation is possible only when the conflict situation changes.

This change can take many forms, but the most radical change is the one that removes the causes of the conflict.

It is also possible to resolve a social conflict by changing the demands of one side: the opponent makes concessions and changes the goals of his behavior in the conflict.

In modern conflictology, two types of successful conflict resolution can be distinguished: compromise and consensus.

Compromise is a way to resolve the conflict, when the conflicting parties realize their interests and goals through either mutual concessions, or concessions from the weaker side, or from the side that managed to prove the validity of its requirements to the one who voluntarily renounced part of his claims.

Consensus- the presence between two or more individuals of similar orientations in any respect, one or another degree of agreement and consistency in actions. It is easy to see that it is precisely at the stage of conflict resolution that such a situation is possible under certain conditions.

M. Weber considers consensus as an integral characteristic of any human community, as long as it exists and does not disintegrate.

He contrasts consensus with solidarity, arguing that behavior based on consensus does not require it as a condition.

At the same time, it must be remembered that consensus does not completely exclude the conflict of interests between the parties. Also, the consensus does not completely rule out the possibility of a new conflict flaring up.

According to M. Weber, consensus is an objectively existing probability that, despite the absence of a preliminary agreement, the participants in one form or another of interaction will treat each other's expectations as significant for themselves. Thus, consensus is not always associated with conflict behavior.

It is easy to see that Weber's interpretation considers this social phenomenon in the broadest sense of the word.

From this we can conclude that consensus is not always generated by conflict, just as conflict does not always end in consensus.

With this understanding of consensus, behavior based on consent is different from behavior based on contract. At the same time, consensus is the primary form - it arises in the minds of people.

The treaty is secondary, since it is the normative consolidation of consensus.

Achieving consensus in society presupposes achieving political consensus.

It is usually understood as a state of agreement in relation to a particular political course in general or its individual aspects.

At the same time, such consent is not identical with joint actions and does not necessarily imply cooperation in the implementation of the relevant goals and objectives. The very degree of agreement in consensus may be different, although it is understood that it must be supported, if not by an overwhelming, then at least by a significant majority.

Varying from problem to problem, the degree of consensus is usually higher in views on provisions of a more general, abstract nature.

That is why the conflicting parties, for more successful negotiations, need to start them with such topics, as this will give them more chances to find a common consensus.

In order to maintain consensus in society, three circumstances must be taken into account.

First, the natural willingness of the majority to follow the laws, regulations, and norms in force.

Secondly, a positive perception of institutions designed to implement these laws and regulations.

Thirdly, the feeling of belonging to a certain community, which contributes to a certain leveling of the role of differences.

Everyone has an idea. Each person faced a situation of aggravation of relations with other people. Social conflicts - a concept that characterizes the situation of sharp corresponding contradictions. With this aggravation of relations, interests and beliefs collide, which is due to various reasons. Consider what are the components, varieties and functions of social conflicts.

The concept and types of social conflicts

A social conflict always contains a moment of collision, that is, there is a certain divergence, a contradiction of interests, positions of the parties. Opposite opinions are worn by the subjects of the conflict - the opposing sides. They seek to overcome the contradiction in one way or another, while each side wants to prevent the other from realizing its interests. in social psychology extends not only to Depending on the subject, conflicts are distinguished:

• intrapersonal;
• interpersonal;
• intergroup.

Also included in social conflicts is the concept of internal content, regarding which contradictions can be rational and emotional. In the first case, the confrontation is based on the sphere of reason. It usually involves the redesigning of social and managerial structures, as well as the liberation from unnecessary forms of cultural interaction. Emotional conflicts are characterized by a strong affective aspect, often by aggression and the transfer of appropriate reactions to subjects. Such a conflict is more difficult to resolve, since it affects the sphere of the personal and can hardly be resolved in rational ways.

Intergroup social conflicts: concept and functions

Social psychology considers mainly which can be divided into:

• socio-economic;
• international;
• ethnic;
• ideological;
• political;
• religious;
• military.

Each conflict has a flow dynamics, in accordance with this, intergroup clashes can occur spontaneously, planned, short-term or long-term, they can be controlled and uncontrollable, provoked or initiative.

It is impossible to consider conflicts only from a negative point of view. Positive functions are to accelerate the process of self-awareness, the assertion of certain values, the discharge of emotional intensity, etc. Social conflict indicates a problem that needs to be solved, which cannot simply be ignored. Thus, the collision contributes to the regulation of social relationships.

Ways to get out of a conflict situation

How can social conflicts be resolved? The concept of a way out of them is characterized by the end of the confrontation by various methods. Allocate:

• rivalry - upholding one's convictions to the last;
• adaptation - the adoption of someone else's point of view to the detriment of one's own;
• avoidance - leaving the conflict situation by any means;
• compromise - willingness to make concessions to resolve the situation;
• cooperation - the search for a solution that satisfies the interests of all parties to the conflict.

The latter method is the most constructive and desirable.