Participants in social conflict can be significant. Cheat sheet: Social conflicts, their causes, types and role in public life

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 exit 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.

• Yamalov Ural Buranbaevich, master
• Bashkir State Agrarian University

• MODELS (METHODS) CONFLICT RESOLUTION
• STYLES OF BEHAVIOR IN CONFLICT
• CONFLICT
• CONTRADICTION
• CONFLICT SITUATION

The article discusses the features of the course of the conflict. The outcome of a conflict situation will largely depend not only and not so much on the causes, factors and models of the course of the conflict, the degree of its development, but on the attitude of the participants themselves to the conflict situation.

• Algorithms for effective conflict management

Social conflict is the highest stage in the development of contradictions in relations between people, social groups, social institutions, which is characterized by the strengthening of opposing tendencies, the clash of various interests.

The world is arranged in such a way that conflicts arise in almost all spheres of human activity, which are most often based on emotions and personal hostility, and they are associated with aggression, threat, hostility. The conflict is determined by the fact that the conscious behavior of one of the parties: an individual, a group or an organization, conflicts with the interests of the other party. Conflict management is one of the most important functions of a leader (on average, they spend about 20% of their working time). To manage them, it is necessary to know the types of conflicts, the causes of their occurrence, the features of the course, as well as the consequences to which they can lead.

Social conflicts in the life of society are inevitable, since social development is carried out in the conditions of confrontation of various interests, attitudes, and aspirations. However, in a developed society, there are mechanisms for the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts within the framework of normalized relations.

Individuals and social groups participating in the conflict are called the subjects of the conflict. The issue that needs to be resolved, or the good, because of which there is a collision, is called the subject of the conflict. The cause of the conflict is the objective social circumstances that predetermine its occurrence. The reason for the conflict is a specific incident or social action that provokes a transition to open confrontation.

The difference between a conflict and peaceful confrontation, competition and rivalry for the possession of certain benefits lies in the sharpness of the conflict, which can take the form of open aggression and violent actions.

At the heart of any social conflict is an acute contradiction.

A contradiction is a fundamental incompatibility of important interests and aspirations (political, economic, ethnic, cultural) of individuals and social groups. Dissatisfaction with the current situation and readiness to change it is expressed in the growth of social tension. A conflict arises when one of the parties begins to openly pursue its aspirations to the detriment of the other, which causes an aggressive response.

The contradiction does not always go into the stage of an open conflict, it can be resolved peacefully or persist in society as an implicit opposition of ideas, interests, trends.

Based on various criteria, types of conflicts are distinguished:

• by duration: short-term and protracted conflicts;
• by coverage of participants: global, interethnic, national, local conflicts;
• by spheres of public life: economic, political, labor, socio-cultural, national-ethnic, family-domestic, ideological, spiritual-moral, legal-legal conflicts;
• in the sphere of contradictions: interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup conflicts, as well as conflicts of the group with the external environment;
• by the nature of development: deliberate, spontaneous;
• by means used: violent (military, armed) and non-violent conflicts;
• on social consequences: successful, unsuccessful, constructive, destructive conflicts.

Social conflict goes through several stages in its development:

1. pre-conflict situation - awareness by the parties of the existing contradiction and increasing social tension;
2. the conflict itself - open actions aimed at realizing the aspirations and satisfying the needs that caused the confrontation;
3. conflict resolution - the end of the confrontation, the elimination of the causes of the conflict or the reconciliation of the parties on the basis of a compromise;
4. after the conflict stage - the final elimination of contradictions, the transition to peaceful interaction.

Usually, a social conflict is preceded by a pre-conflict stage, during which contradictions between subjects accumulate and gradually become aggravated.

Before the start of the conflict, the parties are aware of the existence of tension due to the dissatisfaction of some important needs, they are looking for ways to resolve the contradiction that has arisen, and they choose ways to influence the enemy.

Most often, social conflict arises due to differences in the level of material well-being, access to power, cultural goods, education, information, as well as differences in religious, worldview, moral attitudes and standards of behavior.

The severity of the pre-conflict situation and the way out of it are determined not only by the significance of the contradiction, but also by the socio-psychological traits of the participants in the conflict: the characteristics of temperament, intelligence, level common culture, communication skills.

The reason for the start of the conflict is an incident - an event or social action aimed at changing the behavior of the opposing side and entailing a transition to open confrontation (verbal debate, economic sanctions, changes in legislation, etc.).

The next stage in the development of the conflict is its escalation, i.e. growth, increase in the scale, number of participants, publicity.

The directly conflict stage of social confrontation is characterized by a set of certain actions that the participants take in order to realize their interests and suppress the enemy.

All participants in a large-scale conflict play a certain role in it, although not all of them are necessarily in a state of confrontation with each other.

Witnesses to the conflict observe the events from the outside, without taking an active part in them.

Mediators are people who try to prevent, stop or resolve a conflict, look for ways to reconcile conflicting interests, and participate in organizing negotiations. Instigators are people who provoke the beginning and further development conflict.

Accomplices may not take a direct part in an open clash of opposing subjects, but by their actions contribute to its development, supporting one of the parties.

The resolution of a social conflict is the overcoming of the main contradiction in the interests of the parties, its elimination at the level of the causes of the conflict. The solution to the conflict can be achieved by the conflicting parties themselves without the help of any third parties, or by connecting to the decision of any third party (intermediary). Thus, the conflict resolution model is a set of certain methods for overcoming it. This is far from a randomly chosen method, but directly dependent on the testimony of the diagnostics of a particular conflict.

The models that are used in conflict resolution are formed on the basis of the cultural and legal attitudes in relation to the conflict that exist in society, encouraging or prohibiting one or another way of resolving the conflict. The model for resolving any conflict is based on the use of various methods - violent (repression, demonstration of force, various forms of coercion) or peaceful (negotiations, agreements, compromises).

There are four principal ways (models) by which the conflicting parties can resolve their contradictions and get out of the state of conflict:

1. Power (one-sided dominance).
2. Compromise.
3. integral model.
4. Separation of the parties. A certain combination of these four methods is also possible (symbiotic model).

one sided domination(power model) - a method that involves the satisfaction of the interests of one of the conflicting parties at the expense of the interests of the other. Forceful methods of resolving the conflict, in fact, lead to the destruction or complete suppression of the interests of one of the parties to the conflict. In this case, various means of coercion are used, from psychological to physical. This is often a way of transferring blame and responsibility to the weaker party. Thus, the true cause of the conflict is replaced and the dominant will of a stronger subject is unilaterally imposed.

Separation of the parties to the conflict. In this case, the conflict is resolved by terminating interaction, breaking off relations between the conflicting parties, isolating them from each other (for example, divorce of spouses, separation of neighbors, transfer of workers to different areas of production). Separation of the conflicting parties can be done by their retreat, when they both leave the "battlefield". This is how, for example, a skirmish between bus passengers ends when one of them leaves at their stop or a quarrel between neighbors in a communal apartment, which stops after they are relocated.

Model of compromise- a way of reconciling conflicting interests, which consists in mutual concessions in the positions of the conflicting parties. It is important to know that the compromise model for resolving conflicts is based on concessions to conflicts precisely in their interests. Thus, the concept of compromise is used in different senses: in the ordinary sense, these are various concessions to each other, and in the conflict of logic, this is the mutual renunciation of the parties to the conflict from any part of their claims, the mutual sacrifice of interests, for the sake of reaching agreement.

The main advantage of the peaceful resolution of the conflict through compromise is the introduction of the conflict into a constructive framework and the establishment of a process of communication between the parties, finding certain points of agreement (compromise). Nevertheless, a compromise, according to the well-known Western conflict logger K. Lasswell, is “a patchwork quilt that the conflicting parties pull over themselves.” Compromise, as a model for resolving a conflict, is certainly preferable and more civilized than force or disunity, but it is not universal and has its limits of applicability. Do not think that on its basis you can easily resolve any conflict.

Integral model (integral strategy)- provides for the possibility of satisfying the interests of all conflicters, subject to the revision (revision) of their previously formed positions, the goals that they intended to achieve in the conflict. It is called integral not because it combines the qualities and advantages of previous models, but because it is able to integrate the interests of conflicters. When using it, no one sacrifices their interests. Each conflicter seeks to satisfy his interests, and therefore feels like a winner. To achieve such a desirable outcome, the conflictors must abandon their position, reconsider their goals that they set in this conflict.

As a rule, the integral model is achieved as a result of negotiations between the conflicting parties, ending with the adoption of an agreed decision. In order for the conflict to be truly resolved, it is important that the conflicting parties agree among themselves, so that they themselves find the most convenient way out of the conflict situation. In practice, conflicting parties usually enter into some sort of negotiation before resorting to violence or breaking up. The integral model of conflict resolution is an important discovery of the twentieth century in the field of public institutions. One of the many paradoxes of modern Russian society is that the most effective and rational way to resolve conflicts is used much less frequently than it should be. In Russia, most of our fellow citizens do not know that there is a similar model for resolving conflicts, and if they do, they do not like to use it. This is explained by a complex of reasons, among which we note the peculiarities of the mentality of Russians, expressed in an increased commitment to forceful decisions, with the peculiarities of education - we are always taught that the goal is above all and the Russians' misconceptions about adherence to principles. Many identify adherence to principles with stubbornness on one's own, with a refusal to revise one's position in a conflict, regardless of what this position is caused by. At the same time, it is overlooked that the interests of people and their groups are always more important than the goals that they set for themselves in order to achieve these interests. You need to be flexible in setting and changing your short-term goals, constantly looking after your long-term vital interests. Unfortunately, many do the opposite. Refusing to revise their positions, not taking into account the new conditions that have made them unreasonable, they continue to defend them, which complicates the achievement of fundamental interests.

There are also symbioses of conflict resolution methods - models that combine in a certain sequence - force, compromise, disengagement and integral models of conflict resolution.

In conclusion, it should be noted that it is difficult to foresee all the variety of conflict situations that life creates for us. Therefore, in resolving conflicts, a lot should be decided on the spot, based on the specific situation, as well as the individual psychological characteristics of the participants in the conflict.

Bibliography

1. Igebaeva F.A. Interpersonal conflict in the organization and its consequences. // Language and Literature in the Conditions of Bilingualism and Polylingualism. Collection of materials of the II All-Russian scientific-practical conference. - Ufa: RIC BashGU, 2012. S. 249 - 252.
2. Igebaeva F.A. Leader and his role in preventing conflicts in organizations // Development of modern society in Russia in the new economy. Materials of the V All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference. - Saratov: Publishing House "KUBiK", 2012. - P. 39 - 42.
3. Igebaeva F.A. Social conflicts and ways to solve them. Socio-economic development of society: education system and knowledge economy. Collection of articles IV International scientific-practical conference. Penza. 2007. - P.33 - 35.
4. Andreeva G.M. "Social psychology", M., 2011. - 678s.
5. Borodkin F.N. "Attention, conflict!", Novosibirsk, 2012. - 679p.
6. Ageev V.S. “Intergroup interaction. Socio-psychological problems”, M., 2013. – 456p.
7. Social Psychology. / Ed. Semenova V.E., 2015. - 888s.
8. Igebaeva F.A. The art of managing people is the most difficult and highest of all the arts in the collection: Science, technology and life - 2014 proceedings of the international scientific conference. editors v.a. iljuhina, v.i. zhukovskij, n.p. ketova, a.m. gazaliev, g.s.mal". 2015. pp. 1073 - 1079.
9. Igebaeva F.A. Conflicts in the organization and their consequences. In the collection: Zprávy vědeckė ideje - 2014. Materiàly X mezinàrodní vědecká-praktická konference. 2014. - S. 27 - 29.
10. Igebaeva F.A. Some ethical and organizational aspects of personnel management In the collection Problems and prospects of the Russian economy. VII All-Russian scientific and practical conference March 26-27, 2008. Penza. 2008. - P. 43 - 45.
11. Igebaeva F.A. Sociology: tutorial for university students. – M.: INFRA-M, 2012. – 236 p. - ( Higher education- Bachelor's degree).
12. Igebaeva F.A. Workshop on sociology: /F.A. Igebaeva. - Ufa: Bashkir State Agrarian University, 2012. - 128p.
13. internet resource. Available at: http://www.studfiles.ru/preview/2617345/

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

The concept of social conflict

It is one of the varieties of social conflict.

The word "" (from lat. conflict) means 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 areas of the conflictological paradigm. Thus, in the view of K. Marx 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. Koser, 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 the interpretation of R. Dahrendorf, social conflict is a variety of intensity types of clashes between conflicting groups, in which the class struggle is one of the types of confrontation.

It is an open confrontation, a clash of two or more subjects (sides) of social interaction, the causes of 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 in its content is broader than the concept of conflict. Social contradictions are the main determining factors social development. They "penetrate" all spheres social relations and for the most part do not escalate into conflict. In order for objectively existing (periodically arising) contradictions to transform into a social conflict, it is necessary that the subjects (subject) of interaction realize that this or that contradiction is an obstacle to their achievement of vital goals and interests. According to K. Boulding, the conflict arises when the "matured" contradictions are recognized by the parties as incompatible and each of the parties seeks to seize a position that excludes the intentions of the other side. Therefore, conflict contradictions are subjective-objective in nature.

Objective contradictions are those that actually exist in society, regardless of the will and desire of the subjects. For example, the contradictions between labor and capital, between the managers and the ruled, the contradictions between "fathers" and "children", etc.

In addition to objectively existing (arising) contradictions, imaginary contradictions may arise in the imagination of the subject, when there are no objective reasons for the conflict, but the subject is aware (perceives) the situation as a conflict. In this case, we can talk about subjective-subjective contradictions. Another situation is also possible, when conflict contradictions really 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 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, give rise to an open struggle of 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 (including emotional -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 individual individuals, large and small social groups and organizations. However, conflict interaction involves the confrontation of the parties, i.e. with. 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 opportunities (mechanisms) for non-violent conflict resolution, what goals the subjects of confrontation pursue, what attitudes the conflicting parties are "guided", etc.

So, a social conflict is an open confrontation, a clash of two or more subjects (sides) 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 because of any object;
• incident - a formal reason for the start of an open confrontation.

Conflict is preceded by conflict situation. These are contradictions that arise between subjects about the object.

Under the influence of growing social tension, the conflict situation is gradually transforming into an open social conflict. But the tension itself can exist for a long time and not develop into a conflict. In order for the conflict to become real, an incident is needed - 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 can also have its own characteristics. In addition, the real conflict develops in a certain social and physical environment, which also influences it. Therefore, a more complete structure of the social (political) conflict will be discussed below.

The essence of social conflict

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

German sociologist R. Dahrendorf created theory of the conflict model of society. According to the scientist, in any society, social conflicts can arise every moment, which are based on a conflict of interests. Dahrendorf considers conflicts as an indispensable 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.

The American sociologist L. Koser 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 goals of opponents 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. Koser 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 owned by American sociologist K. Boulding. The conflict in his understanding 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, beat him. V 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 parties to the conflict have opposite goals, needs, interests and methods of achieving them;
• interaction of the 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 the conflict interaction:

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

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 presented. The most common are vertical and mixed conflicts, averaging 70-80% of all conflicts;

3. according to the source of occurrence:

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

4. According to its functions:

• creative (integrative) - contributing to renewal, the 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, which are quickly realized;
• protracted - associated with deep moral and psychological trauma or with 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. according to its internal content:

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

7. according to the ways and means of resolving conflicts there are peaceful and armed:

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

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

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

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

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

The main course of action in a hidden internal conflict is reflective control, meaning that one of the opponents, through "deceptive movements", is trying to get the other person to act in this way. how beneficial to him.

Conflict Resolution is possible only when the conflict situation is eliminated, and not only when the incident is exhausted. The 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, creating an advantage for one of the parties, and, finally, as a result of the complete exhaustion of the opponent.

Successful conflict resolution requires the following conditions:

• timely determination of the causes of the conflict;
• definition business conflict zone- causes, 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:

• avoidance of conflict leaving the “stage” of conflict interaction physically or psychologically, but the conflict itself is not eliminated in this case, since the cause that gave rise to it remains;
• negotiation - avoid the use of violence, achieve mutual understanding and find a way to cooperate;
• use of intermediaries conciliation procedure. An experienced mediator, which can be an organization and an individual, will help to quickly resolve the conflict there. where without his participation it would not have been possible;
• postponing - in fact, this is a surrender of its position, but only temporary, since as the forces accumulate, the party will most likely try to return what was lost;
• arbitration or arbitration, - a method in which the norms of laws and rights are strictly guided.

The consequences of conflict can be:

1. positive:

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

2. negative:

• tension;
• destabilization;
• disintegration.

Conflict resolution can be:

• complete - the conflict ends completely;
• partial- the conflict changes the 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 resolving conflicts, much should be decided on the spot based on the specific situation, as well as the individual psychological characteristics of the participants in the conflict.

Social conflicts are objectively inevitable in any social structure. Moreover, they are 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 conflicts, interacting, complement each other, acquiring new features. This is due to the dynamization and complication of the system of 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 tension, 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. Virtually every act of social interaction contains 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 firm or rigid systems of a despotic-totalitarian nature, within which an ideological taboo to mention 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 is of a harsh, repressive nature. 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 perturbations, 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 various types Conflict and social structures led him to the conclusion that conflict is dysfunctional for those social structures that are not sufficiently or not at all intolerant of 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 relationships 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 are aware of 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 in 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 within which the conflicting parties meet regularly to discuss the problems of the conflict and make decisions established ways(majority, qualified majority, majority with veto, unanimous).

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.

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 form in various fields the life 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, rivalries and struggles 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. occupy a prominent place in modern life 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. The organizers of mass protests are political organizations and the so-called “pressure groups”, which unite people along economic goals, professional, religious and cultural interests. Forms of expression of mass protests can be such as: rallies, demonstrations, pickets, campaigns of civil disobedience, strikes. Each of these forms is used for specific purposes, is an effective means of 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.

Exists effective ways resolving 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.