Author of the sociological theory of conflicts. Sociological theories of conflict

Social conflict is a process in which an individual or group of individuals strives to achieve their own goals by eliminating, destroying or subjugating another individual or group of individuals.

Characteristics of the concepts of social conflict

The problem is as old as time. However, before late XVIII V. thinkers reduced it to the problem of domination and subordination, resolved through the regulatory activities of the state.

Conflict as social phenomenon was first formulated in the work “Research on the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776). It expressed the idea that basis of the conflict lies division of society into classes and economic rivalry. This division is driving force development of society, performing useful functions.

The problem of social conflict also received substantiation in the works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin. This fact served as the basis for Western scientists to classify the Marxist concept among the “conflict theories.” It should be noted that in Marxism the problem of conflict received a simplified interpretation. In essence, it boiled down to a clash between antagonistic classes.

Yours theoretical basis the problem of conflict has received late XIX- early 20th century The English sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), considering social conflict from the standpoint of social Darwinism, considered it an inevitable phenomenon in the history of society and a stimulus social development. The same position was held by the German sociologist (the founder of understanding sociology and theory social action) Max Weber (1864-1920). His compatriot Georg Simmel (1858-1918) first introduced the term “sociology of conflict”. Based on his theory “ social conflicts“later the so-called “ formal school”, whose representatives attach contradictions and conflicts as stimulants of progress.

IN modern theory conflict, there are many points of view on the nature of this phenomenon, they are not one-dimensional and practical recommendations various authors.

Socio-biological theory

Conflict is inherent in humans, like all animals.

Researchers in this direction rely on what was discovered by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) theory natural selection and from it the idea of the natural aggressiveness of man in general is derived. The main content of his theory biological evolution set out in the book “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life,” published in 1859. Main idea work: the development of living nature is carried out in conditions of constant struggle for survival, which constitutes a natural mechanism for selecting the most adapted species. Following Charles Darwin, “social Darwinism” appeared as a direction whose supporters began to explain evolution public life biological laws of natural selection. Also based on the principle of the struggle for existence, but purely sociological concept developed Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). He believed that the state of confrontation is universal and ensures balance not only within society, but also between society and surrounding nature. The law of conflict was considered by G. Spencer as universal law, but its manifestations should be observed until, in the process of development of society, complete balance is achieved between peoples and races.

The American social Darwinist also held a similar point of view William Sumner (1840-1910), who argued that in the struggle for existence the weak, the worst representatives die human race. The winners (successful American industrialists, bankers) are the true creators human values, the best people.

Currently ideas social Darwinism have few followers, but some of the ideas of this theory are useful in resolving current conflicts. Representatives of social Darwinism gave a description of various conflicts, identifying various types aggressive behavior people:

territorial aggression;
dominance aggression;
sexual aggression;
parental aggression;
child aggression;
moralistic aggression;
robber's aggression;
aggression of the victim towards the robber.

Of course, in real life There are many manifestations of these types of aggression, but, fortunately, they are not universal.

Social-psychological - theory

The features of the modern inevitably entail a state of tension in most people, when the balance between the individual and the environment is disturbed.

This is associated with overcrowding, crowding, impersonality and instability of relationships.

The social background of tension is frustration, manifested in the form of disorganization internal state personality to social obstacles to achieving goals. The phenomenon of frustration is generated when all possible ways to achieve a goal and can manifest itself in reactions of aggression, regression or withdrawal.

But explaining conflict using tension theory is somewhat difficult because it cannot determine at what level of tension conflict should occur. Voltage indicators manifested in specific situation, are individual states of individuals and are unlikely to be applicable to predicting collective outbursts of aggression.

Theory of violence

Social conflict is reproduced by societies with a certain social structure.

Among the authors of similar views on the conflict are: Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), V.I. Lenin (1870-1924), Mao Zedong (1893-1976); German-American sociologist, representative of neo-Marxism Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), American left-wing sociologist Charles Wright Mills (1916-1962). Not without the influence of Marxism it developed Italian school political sociology, which created the theory of elites, the classics of which were Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Robert Michels (1876-1936).

Marxist sociology has made significant adjustments to the prevailing ideas about the processes of social development.

The materialist understanding of history was set out by K. Marx in his book “Towards a Critique of Political Economy” (1859), where the structure of society is represented by four main elements:

productive forces;
relations of production;
political superstructure;

K. Marx believed that conflict in society occurs due to the division of people into different classes in accordance with their position in economic system. The main classes of society, according to Marx, are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between which there is constant hostility, since the goal of the bourgeoisie is the domination and exploitation of wage workers. Antagonistic conflicts lead to revolutions, which are the locomotives of history. The conflict in this case is seen as an inevitable clash that must be properly organized in the name of accelerating the development of society, and violence is justified by the tasks of future creation.

The concept of class occupies central place in Marxism, where it is defined in relation to the means of production. Outside of Marxism, the basis for defining classes (meaning layers-strata) is based on criteria such as attitude to power, property, income, lifestyle or standard of living, prestige(these are the main criteria of the theory social stratification). But be that as it may, almost all authors agree with such class characteristics as:

collective inequality of living and working conditions;
hereditary transfer of privileges (not only property, but also status).

Classes are characterized by inequality of opportunity, which results from unequal levels of wealth, type of property, legal privileges, cultural advantages, etc., manifested in a certain way of life and a sense of belonging to the corresponding stratum.

K. Marx's theory, which assigned classes the role of the main carriers of political antagonisms, generally correctly described the Western European situation mid-19th- beginning of the 20th century. However, this does not mean its unconditional applicability to the conditions of other eras and regions. Currently, probably no less important role as participants political action started playing territorial(nations and other formations within nations) and corporate(professional and paraprofessional) groups. So, belonging to a territorial group is recognized with particular acuteness by man, which is why conflicts between nations can be extremely fierce, surpassing even class relations in this regard.

Corporate groups are formed by people engaged in the same or similar activities (large business, banking system, export industries, etc.). Fact of execution professional activities of the same species often produces strong feeling solidarity, especially in a fragile economy. In cases where the lifestyle of representatives various classes does not differ very much, esprit de corps can weaken class solidarity.

Regarding the Marxist idea of revolution, then the experience of Russia and other countries shows the dubious quality of the society with liberated violence that is born in such a flame. A classic of conflictology, German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf considers “revolutions to be melancholic moments of history. A brief flash of hope remains drowned in suffering and disappointment.”

Functionalist theory

Conflict is seen as a distortion, a dysfunctional process in social systems.

The leading representative of this trend is the American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) interpreted the conflict as a social anomaly, a “disaster” that must be overcome. He formulated a series social preconditions ensuring the stability of society:

satisfaction of basic biological and psychological needs most of society;
effective activities of social control bodies that educate citizens in accordance with the norms accepted in a given society;
coincidence of individual motivations with social attitudes.

According to functionalists, in a well-functioning social system, consensus should prevail, and conflict should not find soil in society.

A point of view close to this position was also defended by representatives « human relations» (publicrelations) . Famous representative this school Elton Mayo (1880-1949), an American sociologist and psychologist, one of the founders of industrial sociology, argued that it is necessary to promote peace in industry, this main problem modernity. In his recommendations to captains of industry, he argued for the need to replace individual remuneration with group, economic - socio-psychological, implying a favorable moral climate, job satisfaction, and a democratic leadership style.

Over time, it turned out that the expectations associated with the activities of the school of “human relations” were excessive, and its recommendations increasingly began to be criticized. In the 50s, a change in theoretical orientation began to be felt, a return to conflict model society. Functionalism was critically rethought, criticism of which was directed against the inability to provide an adequate analysis of conflicts. The work of the American sociologist contributed to the critical attitude towards functionalism Robert Merton " Social theory And social structure"(1949), in which he analyzed social anomalies in detail.

Dialectical theories

At the same time there appeared modern, most popular concepts of social conflict, conventionally called dialectical: conflict is functional for social systems. The most famous among them are the concepts Lewis Koser, Ralph Dahrendorf and Kenneth Boulding.

Conflict is considered by researchers as an inevitable part of the integrity of people's social relationships, not as a pathology and weakness of behavior. In this sense, conflict is not the opposite of order. Peace is not the absence of conflict, it consists of creative communication with it, and peace is the working process of conflict resolution.

In 1956, the American sociologist Lewis Coser published a book "Functions of social conflict", where he outlined his concept, called “concepts of positive functional conflict”. He built it in addition to classical theories structural functionalism, in which conflicts are moved outside sociological analysis. If structural functionalism saw conflicts as an anomaly, a disaster, then L. Coser argued that the more various conflicts intersects in society, the more difficult it is to create a united front dividing members of society into two camps that are strictly opposed to each other. The more conflicts independent from each other, the better for the unity of society.

In Europe, the 1960s also saw a renewed interest in the conflict. In 1965, a German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf published the work « Class structure and class conflict", and two years later an essay entitled "Beyond Utopia". His concept "conflict model of society" built on a dystopian, real vision of the world - a world of power, conflict and dynamics. If Coser argued the positive role of conflicts in achieving social unity, then Dahrendorf believed that in every society there is disintegration and conflict, this is a permanent state of the social organism:

“All social life is conflict because it is changeable. IN human societies there is no permanence because there is nothing stable in them. Therefore, it is in conflict that the creative core of all communities and the possibility of freedom are found, as well as the challenge to rational mastery and control over social problems.”

Contemporary American sociologist and economist Kenneth Boulding, author "general theory of conflict" at work “Conflict and protection. General theory"(1963) tried to present a holistic scientific theory conflict, covering all manifestations of living and inanimate nature, individual life and public.

He applies conflict to the analysis of both physical, biological and social phenomena, arguing that even inanimate nature full of conflicts, waging “an endless war of sea against land and some forms of earthly rock against other forms.”

The dialectical theories of conflict by L. Coser, R. Dahrendorf and K. Boulding that we have considered focus on a dynamic explanation of the process of change and highlight the positive role of conflict in the life of society.

The positive role of conflict is seen by supporters of the dialectical approach as follows:

conflict helps clarify the problem;
conflict enhances the organization's ability to change;
conflicts can strengthen morality by deepening and enriching relationships between people;
conflicts make life more interesting, awaken curiosity and stimulate development;
conflicts can contribute to self-improvement of skills and knowledge;
conflicts improve the quality of decisions made;
conflicts contribute to the production of new creative ideas;
Conflicts help people understand who they really are.

It can be argued that in modern foreign literature in conflictology the following prevail:

What's new with Lewis Coser:

In contrast to the theory of structural functionalism, whose representatives take conflicts beyond social system as something unusual for it, he proves that conflicts are a product inner life society, i.e. he emphasizes their stabilizing role for the social system.

But the concept of “positive functional conflict” did not reign for long. In the mid-60s, Ralf Dahrendorf came up with a justification for the “conflict model of society.”

The essence of Ralf Dahrendorf's concept is as follows:

any society is subject to change at every moment;
social change is omnipresent;
every society experiences social conflict at every moment;
social conflict is omnipresent;
every element of society contributes to its change;
any society relies on coercion of some of its members by others.

R. Dahrendorf: “He who knows how to cope with conflicts by recognizing and regulating them takes control of the rhythm of history. Anyone who misses this opportunity gets this rhythm as his opponent.”

Among the concepts that claim to be universal is Kenneth Boulding’s “general theory of conflict.”

From the main provisions of K. Boulding’s theory it follows that:

conflict is inseparable from social life;
in human nature there is a desire for constant enmity with one’s own kind;
conflict can be overcome or limited;
all conflicts have common samples development;
the key concept of conflict is competition;

Competition is broader than the concept of conflict, since not every competition turns into conflict. The parties are not aware of the fact of their rivalry.

in a genuine conflict there must be awareness of the parties and incompatibility of their desires.

In the 70-90s In Western studies of the conflict, two main directions have been identified:

first- common in Western Europe(France, Holland, Italy, Spain) and is associated with the study of the conflicts themselves;
second- is widespread in the USA and is associated with the study of peace and harmony, as evidenced by some popular publications listed in our list of recommended literature.

The goals of the two scientific directions are essentially identical, but their achievement is associated with different methodological approaches.

Conflictology in Russia is beginning to truly develop only now, when we are faced with a number of acute labor and interethnic conflicts.

Adherents of this theory, like functionalists, focus on society as a whole, examining its institutions and structural formations. However, these two approaches differ from each other in many ways. While functionalists describe society as relatively static, conflictologists focus on processes that continuously transform social life. Where functionalists emphasize order and stability in society, conflictologists emphasize disorder and instability. Where functionalists see common interests shared by members of society, conflictologists focus on the interests of divergent ones. If functionalists consider consensus as the basis for social unity, then conflictologists argue that social unity is an illusion, it can only be achieved by force. Finally, functionalists view social structures as necessary and conditioned by the demands of group life, while conflictologists consider many of these structures to be unnecessary and unjustified.

Basic sociological theories of social conflict. The most famous concepts are the positive functional conflict of L. Coser (USA), the conflict model of society of R. Dahrendorf (Germany) and the general theory of conflict of K. Boulding (USA).

According to Lewis Coser's concept, society is inherently fatally inevitable. social inequality, the eternal psychological dissatisfaction of its members and the resulting tension between individuals and groups, due to their sensory-emotional, mental disorder, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ periodically finds a way out in their mutual collisions. For this reason, Coser reduces social conflict to the tension between what is and what should be in accordance with feelings famous groups and individuals. By social conflict he understands the struggle for values and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the opponents’ goals are to neutralize, damage or destroy the opponent. This is the most common definition of conflict in Western political science.

Coser closely links the form and intensity of conflict with the characteristics of the conflicting groups. Since conflict between groups contributes to the strengthening of intra-group solidarity and, consequently, the preservation of the group, the group leaders deliberately resort to searching for an external enemy and inciting an imaginary conflict. There are also known tactics aimed at searching internal enemy(“traitor”), especially when leaders suffer failures and defeats. Coser justifies the dual role of conflict in the internal cohesion of a group: internal cohesion increases if the group is already sufficiently integrated and if an external danger threatens the entire group and is perceived by all group members as a common threat. At the same time, Coser notes, large groups with a high degree of complicity of their members, they can show a significant degree of flexibility. Small groups, as well as those that are not sufficiently integrated, can show cruelty and intolerance towards “evading” members.

Coser believed that his concept of social conflict, combined with the “equilibrium-integral” theory and the consensus principle of structural functionalism, would overcome the shortcomings of the latter and become something like a general sociological theory of society. At the same time, the concept of positive functional conflict did not dominate for long.

Ralf Dahrendorf in the mid-1960s. made a justification new theory social conflict, known as the conflict model of society. His work “Classes and class conflict in industrial society” (Dahrendorf R. Classes and Class Conflict Society. 1965) has received wide recognition.

The essence of his concept is as follows: any society is constantly subject to change, social changes are omnipresent; at every moment society is experiencing social conflict, social conflict is omnipresent; every element of society contributes to its change; any society relies on coercion of some of its members by others. For this reason, society is characterized by inequality social positions occupied by people in relation to the distribution of power, and from here arise differences in their interests and aspirations, which causes mutual friction, antagonism and, as a result, structural changes society itself. He compares suppressed conflict to the most dangerous malignant tumor on the body of a social organism.

Societies differ from each other not by the presence or absence of conflict, but only by different attitudes towards it on the part of the authorities. For this reason and democratic society conflicts do occur, but rational methods regulations make them non-explosive. “He who knows how to cope with conflicts by recognizing them in regulation takes control of the rhythm of history,” writes R. Dahrendorf. “He who misses this opportunity receives this rhythm for himself.” opponents".(Darendorf R. Society and Democracy in Germany. N.Y., 1969. P. 140.)

The general theory of conflict by American sociologist Kenneth Boulding is outlined in his book “Conflict and Defense: A General Theory” (Boulding K. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. N.Y., 1963). All conflicts, in his opinion, have common elements and general patterns of development, and the study of both can present the phenomenon of conflict in any of its specific manifestations. For this reason, Boulding concludes, knowledge of the “general theory of conflict” will allow social forces to control conflicts, manage them, and predict their consequences.

Conflict, according to his concept, is inseparable from social life. In the very nature of man lies the desire for constant hostility and struggle with his own kind, for the escalation of violence. Boulding defines conflict as a situation in which the parties are aware of the incompatibility of their positions and each party seeks to take a position contrary to the interests of the other. At the same time, conflicts are such a type social interaction when the parties are aware of both their confrontation and their attitude towards it. Οʜᴎ consciously organize themselves, developing strategies and tactics of struggle. But all this does not exclude the fact that conflicts can and should be overcome or at least significantly limited.

The scientist considers two aspects of social conflict - static and dynamic. In the static aspect, the parties to the conflict and the relationships between them are analyzed. Because as warring parties can be individuals, organizations, groups (ethnic, religious, professional, age, etc.), conflicts can be divided into personal, organizational and group. In the dynamic aspect, Boulding considers the interests of the parties as driving forces in conflict behavior people. Based on the theory of behaviorism, he defines the dynamics of conflict as a process consisting of a set of reactions of the warring parties to external stimuli. All social conflicts are “reactive processes.” For example, “the phenomenon of the emergence and growth of love is completely analogous to the arms race, which, like war, is reactive process".(Bouldtng K. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. N.Y., 1963. P. 25.) In other words, Boulding sees the essence of social conflict in certain stereotypical human reactions. In this regard, he believes that any conflict can be overcome and resolved by appropriately manipulating stimuli by changing the reactions, values and drives of individuals, without resorting to a radical change in the social system itself.

Evaluating conflict theory. This theory serves as a good counterbalance to the functional approach. Indeed, since the advantages of one approach are the disadvantages of the other, both of them complement each other in many ways. In case functionalists have difficulty studying social change, then conflict experts have an advantage here. And where conflict theorists have difficulty, for example when considering some aspects of consensus, integration and stability, functional approach provides in-depth coverage of the problem.

According to some representatives of both movements, the differences between them are so great that they see no basis for reconciliation. Meanwhile, many sociologists have taken up this task. For example, R. Dahrendorf and G.E. Lenski sees a “two-faced Janus” in society and argues that functionalists and conflictologists simply explore two aspects of the same reality. They note that both consensus and conflict are key features public life. At the same time, both approaches traditionally contain a holistic view of social life, suggesting that societies are systems of interconnected parts.

Other sociologists, such as L. Coser and J. Himes, based on the ideas of G. Simmel, believe that under some circumstances conflict should be functional for society. It then promotes commitment and loyalty to the group and thus plays an integrating role. Conflict can also prevent the ossification of social systems, forcing them to change and renew themselves.

Conflict theory - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Conflict Theory" 2017, 2018.

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………...3

1. General theory of conflict………………………………………………………5

1.1. The concept of conflict and the typology of conflict……………………………5

1.2. Social conflict: causes, structure, functions..………………...8

2. Basic conflict theories……………………………………11

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….14

List of references………………………………………………………...16

Introduction

People have long dreamed of a society in which strife would cease and eternal peace would be established. But contrary to all their dreams, they again and again found themselves in a state of war of all against all. But still, the hope for the possibility of curbing the destructive elements of universal hatred did not die. IN historical memory The names of those wise rulers who were famous for the art of resolving the most complicated disputes have been preserved for centuries.

By the middle of the 1st millennium BC. include the first attempts to penetrate underlying reasons social clashes, theoretically comprehend, generalize the accumulated practical experience. The thinkers of antiquity made a significant contribution to the solution of this problem. Their achievements served as the initial ideological basis for modern conflictology, which studies the causes, essence, forms and dynamics of conflicts, as well as ways to resolve and prevent them.

Ancient philosophers believed that conflict in itself is neither good nor bad, it exists everywhere, regardless of people's opinions about it. They had not yet used the term “conflict,” but they had already seen that conflict does not exhaust the whole of life, but represents only a part of it.

Scientists thought especially a lot about contradictions in nature, society, thinking, about the struggle between people, classes, and states in modern times, when social conflicts became especially acute. The English thinkers F. Bacon and T. Hobbes, the French educator J.-J. wrote about the nature of conflicts. Rousseau and German philosophers I. Kant, G. Hegel and K. Marx, Russian philosophers V. Solovyov and N. Berdyaev. During the discussion, two different approaches to understanding the nature of social conflict emerged, which can be defined as pessimistic and optimistic.

In sociology, the general concept of social conflict began to take shape at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century in the works of German scientists Max Weber and Georg Simmel. It was after Simmel’s work in scientific circulation The term “sociology of conflict” came into use. The starting points he substantiated served as the basis for the creation of conflict theory as an independent field of sociology by the mid-20th century. This problem was solved through the efforts of the German sociologist Ralph Darenford and the American sociologist Lewis Coser. Another American sociologist, Kenneth Boulding, made a significant contribution to the completion of the formation of conflictology as an independent scientific discipline. He tried to present a general theory conflict interaction.

1. General theory of conflict

1.1. The concept of conflict and typology of conflict

A conflict is a collision of opposing goals, positions, and views of the subjects of interaction. Conflict is always associated with people’s awareness of the contradictions between their interests as members of certain social groups and the interests of other subjects. Aggravated contradictions give rise to open or closed conflicts. Contradictions permeate all spheres of society - economic, political, social, spiritual. The aggravation of certain contradictions creates “crisis zones.” The crisis manifests itself in a sharp increase in social tension, which often develops into conflict. Most sociologists are inclined to believe that the existence of a society without conflicts is impossible, because conflict is an integral part of people’s existence, the source of changes occurring in society. Conflict makes social relationships more mobile.

The usual norms of behavior and activity of individuals, which previously satisfied them, are discarded with amazing determination and sometimes without any regret. Under the influence of conflicts, society can be transformed. The stronger the social conflict, the more noticeable its influence on the course of social processes and the pace of their implementation. Conflict, understood as competition, encourages creativity, innovation and ultimately promotes progressive development. A certain level of competition makes a society or its cell more viable, dynamic, and receptive to progress. The sociology of conflict proceeds from the fact that conflict is a normal phenomenon of social life, and the identification and development of conflict is generally useful and necessary. Society, power structures and individual citizens will achieve more effective results in their actions if they do not turn a blind eye to conflicts and conflict situations, but follow certain rules aimed at resolving the conflict.

The variety of forms and empirical manifestations of conflicts makes researchers strive to reduce them to certain types. However, there are many such typologies, since they are based on different criteria.

The existence of a conflict presupposes the presence of two conditions: its participants must have autonomy and they must be interconnected, since they are in a single social field. These two conditions can be combined in different ways, and depending on their combination, all social conflicts can be classified into two large types:

Extra-systemic conflicts are those in which authors with autonomous social will seek to acquire or increase their existing advantages, either by pursuing their economic interests or by increasing the degree of their social integration.

Intrasystem conflicts are conflicts that are not caused by a clash between two different social systems or two individuals, but reflect internal contradictions rooted within a single system.

Other typologies of social conflict are also possible. For example, depending on the subjects of the conflict, the following are distinguished:

Intrapersonal conflict. The content of intrapersonal conflict is expressed in acute negative experiences of the individual, generated by its conflicting aspirations. ;

Interpersonal conflict is a confrontation that arises between two or more people;

Intergroup conflict is a clash between social groups and communities caused by the opposition of their interests.

The typology of social conflict can be presented in this way:

Confrontation is a passive open confrontation between groups and individuals whose interests are in polar contradiction with each other;

Rivalry is a less intense and longer-lasting confrontation between individuals and groups with approximately equal potential and achievements, associated with the struggle for recognition by society or a group of their results or qualities;

Competition is a struggle, usually economic, for specific economic goods, for example, markets, or for political power, at the level of individuals - for position or status.

The numerous typologies of conflict reflect the real fact that conflict situations arising in society are extremely diverse, although in their dynamics they reveal common patterns. It must be remembered that any social conflict tends to become open and generalized. This is the own internal logic of its development.

1.2. Social conflict: causes, structure, functions

Like all social phenomena, conflict is never without cause. It must be considered as a consequence and result of the action of a combination of certain causal factors and conditions.

Among the reasons for the emergence of social conflict, it is necessary to distinguish between objective and subjective reasons. Subjective causes of a conflict are those aspects of the phenomena and events that gave rise to it that are associated with the activity of social actors participating in the conflict. Such subjective reasons include the peculiarities of the worldview of individuals and groups participating in the conflict, the traits and properties of their mentality, their beliefs, interests, value orientations, motivations and goals, ideas and feelings, archetypes of the collective unconscious, traditions and religious ideas. The emergence, development and resolution of conflict largely depends on emotional state participants. The most important subjective cause of social conflict is the divergent interests of individuals and groups. Interests act as a subjective cause of conflict in the following cases: if the private egoistic interests of groups and individuals are in conflict with the norms of behavior accepted in society; if the same interests of different subjects intersect on the same subject, which in this case is the object of a conflict; if the interests of various subjects are opposite. Conflict also arises when the goals of different actors conflict; if contradictions are observed between the holistic ideas and orientations of the subjects; if subjects adhere to contradictory modes of behavior; if they have opposite socio-political preferences, etc.

Objective reasons do not depend on the consciousness and will of individuals, groups, classes, and organizations entering into conflict. Such reasons include phenomena that constitute the objective context of any social action. The most fundamental objective cause of social conflicts is social inequality, manifested at all levels - property-economic, political, ethno-national, status, religious, cultural and educational.

As another objective reason Researchers call social conflicts disorganization. Society is an organized entity that has the ability to spontaneously adapt to emerging difficulties. But there are threatening ones crisis situations that the social system falls into a state of total chaos and discord, the usual balance between the processes of destruction and creation is disrupted, the collapse of social production begins, a crisis of political power begins, accepted moral and cultural norms are devalued. This results in an increase in aggression, insecurity of life, property and dignity of citizens, due to the weakening of social control and the legal system, disorganization of society and its basic institutions. In such a situation, the state and society lose the ability to restrain the negative energy of decay, and a highly conflict-prone social environment is formed.

When talking about the structure of a social conflict, the main elements usually identified are the subjects of confrontation and the subject over which the conflict flared up. Subjects of social conflict can be: individual personalities, as well as groups, classes and other human communities. In order for a conflict to take place, hostile actions on the part of all social actors are necessary. The following stages can be distinguished in the dynamics of conflict development:

A pre-conflict situation that arises under certain conditions when long-existing contradictions between the parties suddenly, under the influence of stimulating obligations and factors, escalate and threaten to develop into open conflict.

The stage of the conflict that has begun. It is associated with hostile actions of the parties openly directed at the enemy. The conflict that has begun can intensify, expand, capture new participants, fade away on its own, and return to the latent phase.

Conflict resolution stage. A distinctive feature of this stage is the cessation of conflict interaction between the parties. Conflict resolution occurs only when its causes are eliminated, when the interests of the parties no longer contradict each other or a compromise has been found.

Although conflict appears to be a negative phenomenon, it serves necessary positive functions. Firstly, sociologists consider the most important function of conflict to be the function of defusing social tension. Tension between groups, classes, and individuals always exists. It comes to the surface, taking on a distinct image in the form of conflict.

Secondly, conflict stimulates and acts as a driving force for positive social change. It allows the system to show its vital potential, forces it to change in accordance with the requirements of the time, and therefore remain viable.

Thirdly, conflict helps maintain social balance by identifying opposing group interests, creating the possibility of their analysis and a qualified and timely response to the situation.

Fourthly, conflict is a communicative factor. Individuals get to know each other and themselves better, they develop group, class, ethnic identity, corresponding solidarity, they form new unions and organizations.

Of course, conflict also has negative consequences; it can develop into a social revolution and completely destroy the existing system. In less severe cases, unresolved conflict leads to further escalation of social tension, a crisis of power, and an increase in hostile attitudes of social groups towards each other.

2. Basic conflict theories

Interest in the problems of social conflict has always been present in social philosophy and sociology. According to Hegel's concept, contradiction and conflict are the driving forces of all development. K. Marx created a model of social development through the conflict of the main classes and revolution. In his opinion, society is built on class contradiction, which gradually turns into open conflict, which inevitably arises and ends with a total change in the social situation.

G. Simmel viewed social conflict as a positive phenomenon that contributed to the maintenance of social stability.

With the emergence of functionalism in sociology, there was a tendency to neglect problems associated with conflict. Conflict began to be seen as something deeply pathological, while the subject of sociology should have been normal society. According to the ideas of classical functionalism, conflict is abnormal, but harmony in society is normal, and a healthy social system has all the potential to prevent and eliminate conflict.

In modern sociology, there are several concepts of social conflict. Among the most famous who had the greatest influence on sociological thought are the following.

The theory of positive functional conflict by L. Coser. He believes that the basis of any conflict is a psychological factor - the eternal dissatisfaction with reality experienced by people on an individual, group, class level, the difference they recognize between what is and what should be. In an effort to change the reality of things, people enter into a struggle to satisfy their interests, for power, high social status and associated material and social benefits.

Coser divides conflicts into two categories: realistic and unrealistic. The first arise on a specific basis, associated with a certain dissatisfaction of individuals and groups and are aimed at achieving a specific result. The second category includes conflicts that have no other basis other than accumulated frustrations, unsatisfied aggression, grievances and complexes, in other words, conflicts that are purely psychological in nature.

According to Coser, conflict performs a number of positive functions in society, promoting cohesion and integration of groups, stimulating creative potential for change and preservation in new conditions. Therefore, his concept is an attempt to combine the ideas of the conflictological approach and structural functionalism.

Conflictology by R. Dahrendorf. His work “Classes and Class Conflict in Industrial Society” provides a classic presentation of the theory of conflict. Dahrendorf's concept is based on the fact that the center of conflict is the question of power. Social groups with power strive to preserve and strengthen it, and groups deprived of power strive to take it away from those in power. Since society is naturally changeable and dynamic, it never reaches a harmonious state of equilibrium, when everyone is happy and everyone’s interests are in equally satisfied. There are no conflict-free societies. Prosperous and democratic social systems differ from societies torn apart by crises only in the skill and ability to properly deal with their internal conflicts. The main thing, according to Dorendorf, is to recognize the presence of a conflict in society in a timely manner, let it come to the surface and try to rationally regulate it so that its resolution does not become catastrophic for society. In this case, the conflict becomes a positive factor and serves to strengthen the social system.

The theory of conflict by the American sociologist K. Boulding outlined in his work “Conflict and Defense: A General Theory.” Boulding proceeds from the position that all conflicts have general scheme development and similar structure. In his opinion, the parties involved in the conflict thereby realize their human nature, which consists in defending their interests at the cost of infringing others. Conflict is a conscious confrontation between individuals and groups. Participants in the conflict accept the opposition of their own and others' interests and consciously strive to defeat the enemy.

Boulding distinguishes two aspects of social conflict - static and dynamic. The static aspect is the structural elements of the conflict: the opposing sides and the relationship that binds them. The dynamic aspect of conflict is the process of motivating conflict behavior by opposing personal and group interests. Conflict, like all social processes, has reactive nature. This is a stereotypical human reaction to a certain combination of external factors. Boulding sees the path to resolving and overcoming conflicts in accordance with the ideas of behaviorism - in the targeted manipulation of stimuli in order to cause a change in the reactions of the conflicting parties.

Conclusion

The real meaning and place of conflict in public life can be determined on the basis of identifying the consequences or direction of its impact on society as a whole or on individual spheres of its life in a certain time frame.

Any social conflict, one way or another, affects many social processes and especially mass consciousness. It does not leave even passive observers indifferent, because it is most often perceived, if not as a threat, then, in any case, as a warning, as a signal of possible danger. Social conflict evokes the sympathy of some and the censure of others, even when it does not directly affect the interests of groups not involved in it. In a society where conflicts are not hidden or glossed over, they are perceived as something completely natural (unless, of course, the conflict threatens the existence of the system itself or undermines its foundations).

But even in this case, the very fact of conflict acts as a kind of evidence of social ill-being on one scale or another, at one level or another of social organization. Therefore, it also acts as a certain incentive for making changes to ongoing policies, legislation, management decisions, etc.

Since the subjects of social conflict are, as a rule, groups that make up the social structure of society (socio-class, professional, demographic, national, territorial communities), under its influence there is a need to make appropriate adjustments to labor, socio-economic, interethnic and similar relations , objectively formed at a particular period of time.

The conflict that has arisen may indicate not only objective difficulties and unresolved problems, or certain social anomalies, but also subjective reactions to what is happening. The latter is no less important. Essentially, negative subjective reactions to what is happening, to certain events and processes represent a socio-psychological component of the conflict, which can have a self-sufficient significance.

A social conflict on a significant scale has a polarizing effect on society (social strata and groups), as if dividing it into those who participate in the conflict, sympathize with it, and condemn it. For those who participate and sympathize with the conflict, the latter has a consolidating effect, unites and unites them. More happening

a deep understanding of the goals in the name of which the confrontation is unfolding, new participants and supporters are “recruited”.

To the extent that the conflict has a constructive or destructive beginning, promotes or hinders the resolution of contradictions, it can receive one or another assessment. Conflict, even if it has a positive impact, raises the question of the cost of changes carried out under its influence. Whatever goals are proclaimed and no matter how important they are, if human lives are sacrificed to achieve them, the question arises about the morality of such a conflict, about its actual progressiveness. This especially applies to interethnic conflicts. No matter how significant national values are for people (and they have universal significance), the cost in the process of upholding them often turns out to be exorbitant. And even if the conflict contributes to the consolidation of one’s own nation, its self-affirmation and self-determination, the sacrifices and destruction associated with it cancel out its positive beginning.

List of used literature

Ratnikov V.P. Conflictology / V.P. Ratnikov. – M.: UNITY-DANA, 2008. – 551 p.

Volkov Yu.G. Sociology / Yu.G. Volkov. – Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2007. – 572 p.

Abercrombie N. Sociological Dictionary / N. Abercrombie, S. Hill, B.S. Turner. – M.: ZAO Publishing House “Economy”, 2004. – 620 s.

Dobrenkov V.I. Sociology / V.I. Dobrenkov, A.I. Kravchenko. – INFRA-M, 2007.- 624 p.

Fenenko Yu.V. Sociology / Yu.V. Fenenko. – Prospect, Welby, 2008. – 232 p.

Structural-functional analysis. T. Parsons became a comprehensive theory of social order. However, even taking into account adjustments to this concept from the outside. R. Merton, this system contained a number of omissions, the biggest of which was insufficient attention to social conflicts. Even sociological theory. R. Merton, who, unlike Parsons, considered social conflicts in society, saw them only as dysfunctions that violate the stability of social systems. Therefore, it is natural that in theoretical sociology In the second half of the 20th century, a number of concepts appeared that not only set the goal of conducting comprehensive social conflicts, but sought to explore them as a multifaceted phenomenon, to identify in conflicts, in addition to the destabilizing factor, positive roles in the social system.

There are a number of relatively independent concepts of social conflicts, but they can be combined into unified theory social conflict - conflictology

Among the theories of social conflicts, we can first distinguish scientific concepts. Ralph. Dahrendorf (b. 1929) and. Lewis. Cosera (nar 1931 p)

According to opinion. R. Dahrendorf, conflict is the relationship between social elements, which is built on existing (subjective) and latent (objective) contradictions. The sociologist proves with his theory of conflict that they are an objective thing and are a manifestation of the social heterogeneity of society. The formation of conflict is influenced by relations of dominance and subordination; the source of conflict is the struggle for power and car priority. Moreover, conflicts can arise between social entities that have the same social status (states, peoples, political parties), and those with different statuses (entrepreneurs and employees, bosses and subordinates). According to the scientist, the main characteristics of social conflict are its intensity and the degree of use of violence. Intensity of the conflict, by. R. Dahrendorf, is the level of energy that its participants put into the conflict. The degree of violence indicates the means being invested in the conflict social actors- from negotiations and compromises to war. Since conflicts are an objective thing, it is completely impossible to get rid of them, but it is important to develop measures to mitigate the conflict and regulate it. we're talking about not about eliminating the causes of the conflict, but about mitigating it harmful influence. Paths to conflict resolution. R. Dahrendorf sees negotiations, mediation, arbitration, arbitration.

Even more radical is the conflict theory developed. L. Koser. The scientist points out the structural-functionalist theory. Parsons-Merton is half-hearted because there is no space in it positive functions social conflicts. The task of his concept is not only to explore the causes, severity and duration of social conflicts, but above all the desire to comprehend positive value social conflicts. Coser by. Darend Orf believes that the objective conditions for the emergence of conflict are social heterogeneity and the lack of stable vertical mobility in society. The sources of conflict are the struggle between ourselves and for power and property - the main factors destabilizing social relations. Factors that aggravate conflicts. Coser names the emotions of the participants in the conflict, values and problems that have highest value in causing the conflict, as well as awareness by the subjects of the conflict of the significance of these values and problems. Unlike. Marx, who believes that the conflict is more acute the more its essence is realized by its participants. Coser proves that the severity of the conflict depends, on the contrary, on the lack of awareness by the subjects of the conflict of its essence.

The positive or dysfunctional meaning of social conflict depends on how rigid the norms of social order are in the social system. The tougher the social system in which the conflict occurs, the more it manifests its destructive force. But in non-rigid systems, conflict has a positive meaning, because thanks to it, old and outdated norms collapse and slow down the progress of the social system. Instead, more modern, progressive principles of its functioning are established. This is the point, in my opinion. Coser, the functional purpose of social conflict. Conflict has constructive meaning only when it is gentle character, which again depends on the “rigidity” of the social systemic system.

Thus, on the one hand, conflictology opposed the principles of structural functionalism, becoming an alternative to it conceptual system. On the other hand, conflict theories harmoniously helped structural-functional analysis and made it a more flexible scientific concept.

The problem of conflict is as old as time. However, until the end of the 18th century. thinkers reduced it to the problem of domination and subordination, resolved through the regulatory activities of the state.

Conflict as a social phenomenon was first formulated in Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). It suggested that the conflict was based on the division of society into classes and economic rivalry. This division is the driving force behind the development of society, performing useful functions.

The problem of social conflict was also substantiated in the works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin. This fact served as the basis for Western scientists to classify the Marxist concept among the “conflict theories.” It should be noted that in Marxism the problem of conflict received a simplified interpretation. In essence, it boiled down to a clash between antagonistic classes.

The problem of conflict received its theoretical justification at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. The English sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), considering social conflict from the standpoint of social Darwinism, considered it an inevitable phenomenon in the history of society and a stimulus for social development. The same position was held by the German sociologist (founder of understanding sociology and the theory of social action) Max Weber (1864-1920). His compatriot Georg Simmel (1858-1918) first introduced the term “sociology of conflict”. Based on his theory of “social conflicts,” the so-called “formal school” later arose, whose representatives attach contradictions and conflicts as stimulants of progress.

In modern conflict theory, there are many points of view on the nature of this phenomenon, and the practical recommendations of various authors are also varied.

▼ One of them, conventionally called socio-biological, claims that Conflict is inherent in humans, like all animals. . Researchers in this direction rely on what was discovered by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) the theory of natural selection and from it the idea of natural aggressiveness of man in general is derived. The main content of his theory of biological evolution is set out in the book “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life,” published in 1859. The main idea of the work: the development of living nature is carried out in conditions of constant struggle for survival, which constitutes a natural mechanism for selecting the most adapted species. Following Charles Darwin, “social Darwinism” appeared as a trend, whose supporters began to explain the evolution of social life by the biological laws of natural selection. Also based on the principle of the struggle for existence, but already a purely sociological concept, he developed Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). He believed that the state of confrontation is universal and ensures balance not only within society, but also between society and the surrounding nature. The law of conflict was considered by G. Spencer as a universal law, but its manifestations should be observed until, in the process of development of society, complete balance is achieved between peoples and races.

The American social Darwinist also held a similar point of view William Sumner (1840-1910), who argued that in the struggle for existence, the weak, the worst representatives of the human race die. The winners (successful American industrialists, bankers) are the true creators of human values, the best people.

Currently, the ideas of Social Darwinism have few followers, but some of the ideas of this theory are useful in resolving current conflicts. Representatives of social Darwinism gave a description of various conflicts, identifying various types of aggressive behavior in people :

· territorial aggression;

· dominance aggression;

· sexual aggression;

· parental aggression;

· child aggression;

· moralistic aggression;

· robber's aggression;

· aggression of the victim towards the robber.

Of course, in real life there are many manifestations of these types of aggression, but, fortunately, they are not universal.

▼ The second theory is socio-psychological, explains conflict through tension theory . Its widest distribution dates back to the Second World War. It is based on the statement: the features of modern industrial society inevitably entail a state of tension for most people when the balance between the individual and the environment is disturbed. This is associated with overcrowding, crowding, impersonality and instability of relationships.

The social background of tension is frustration, manifested in the form of disorganization of the internal state of the individual due to social obstacles to achieving the goal. The phenomenon of frustration is generated when all possible paths to achieving a goal are blocked and can manifest itself in reactions of aggression, regression or withdrawal.

But explaining conflict using tension theory is somewhat difficult because it cannot determine at what level of tension conflict should occur. Indicators of tension manifested in a specific situation are individual states of individuals and can hardly be used to predict collective outbursts of aggression.

▼ A third view, traditionally called class or violence theory consists in the statement: social conflict is reproduced by societies with a certain social structure . Among the authors of similar views on the conflict are: Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), V.I. Lenin (1870-1924), Mao Zedong (1893-1976); German-American sociologist, representative of neo-Marxism Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), American left-wing sociologist Charles Wright Mills (1916-1962). Not without the influence of Marxism, the Italian school of political sociology emerged, which created the theory of elites, the classics of which were Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Robert Michels (1876-1936).

Marxist sociology has made significant adjustments to the prevailing ideas about the processes of social development.

The materialist understanding of history was set out by K. Marx in his book “Towards a Critique of Political Economy” (1859), where the structure of society is represented by four main elements:

· productive forces;

· relations of production;

· political superstructure;

· forms of social consciousness.

K. Marx believed that conflict in society occurs due to the division of people into different classes in accordance with their position in the economic system. The main classes of society, according to Marx, are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between which there is constant hostility, since the goal of the bourgeoisie is the domination and exploitation of wage workers. Antagonistic conflicts lead to revolutions, which are the locomotives of history. The conflict in this case is seen as an inevitable clash that must be properly organized in the name of accelerating the development of society, and violence is justified by the tasks of future creation.

The concept of class is central to Marxism, where it is defined in relation to the means of production. Beyond Marxism The definition of classes (meaning layers-strata) is based on criteria such as attitude to power, property, income, lifestyle or standard of living, prestige (these are the main criteria of the theory of social stratification). But be that as it may, almost all authors agree with such class characteristics as:

· collective inequality of living and working conditions;

· hereditary transfer of privileges (not only property, but also status).

K. Marx's theory, which assigned classes the role of the main carriers of political antagonisms, generally correctly described the Western European situation in the middle XIX – beginning of the 20th century. However, this does not mean its unconditional applicability to the conditions of other eras and regions. Nowadays, perhaps, no less important role has begun to be played as participants in political action. territorial (nations and other formations within nations) and corporate (professional and paraprofessional) groups. So, belonging to a territorial group is recognized with particular acuteness by man, which is why conflicts between nations can be extremely fierce, surpassing even class relations in this regard.

Corporate groups are formed by people engaged in the same or similar activities (large business, banking system, export industries, etc.). The act of performing one type of professional activity often generates a strong sense of solidarity, especially in a fragile economy. In cases where the lifestyles of representatives of different classes do not differ very much, esprit de corps can weaken class solidarity.

Regarding the Marxist idea of revolution , then the experience of Russia and other countries shows the dubious quality of the society with liberated violence that is born in such a flame. A classic of conflictology, German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf considers “revolutions to be melancholic moments of history. A brief flash of hope remains drowned in suffering and disappointment.”

▼ The fourth point of view on conflict belongs to the functionalists: conflict is seen as a distortion, a dysfunctional process in social systems .

The leading representative of this trend is the American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) interpreted the conflict as a social anomaly, a “disaster” that must be overcome. He formulated a number of social prerequisites that ensure the stability of society:

· satisfaction of the basic biological and psychological needs of the majority of society;

· effective activities of social control bodies that educate citizens in accordance with the norms accepted in a given society;

· coincidence of individual motivations with social attitudes.

According to functionalists, in a well-functioning social system, consensus should prevail, and conflict should not find soil in society.

A point of view close to this position was also defended by representatives schools of "human relations" ( public relations ) . A famous representative of this school Elton Mayo (1880-1949), an American sociologist and psychologist, one of the founders of industrial sociology, argued that it is necessary to promote peace in industry, this is the main problem of our time. In his recommendations to captains of industry, he argued for the need to replace individual remuneration with group, economic - socio-psychological, implying a favorable moral climate, job satisfaction, and a democratic leadership style.

Over time, it turned out that the expectations associated with the activities of the school of “human relations” were excessive, and its recommendations increasingly began to be criticized. In the 50s, a change in theoretical orientation began to be felt, and a return to the conflict model of society was outlined. Functionalism was critically rethought, criticism of which was directed against the inability to provide an adequate analysis of conflicts. The work of the American sociologist contributed to the critical attitude towards functionalism Robert Merton "Social Theory and Social Structure" (1949), in which he analyzed social anomalies in detail.

▼ At the same time there appeared modern, most popular concepts of social conflict, conventionally called dialectical: conflict is functional for social systems. The most famous among them are the concepts Lewis Koser, Ralph Dahrendorf and Kenneth Boulding.

In 1956, the American sociologist Lewis Coser published a book "Functions of social conflict", where he outlined his concept, called “concepts of positive functional conflict” . He built it in addition to the classical theories of structural functionalism, in which conflicts are moved beyond the boundaries of sociological analysis. If structural functionalism saw conflicts as an anomaly, a disaster, then L. Coser argued that the more different conflicts intersect in a society, the more difficult it is to create a united front dividing members of society into two camps that are strictly opposed to each other. The more conflicts independent from each other, the better for the unity of society.

In Europe, the 1960s also saw a renewed interest in the conflict. In 1965, a German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf published the work "Class structure and class conflict", and two years later an essay entitled "Beyond Utopia". His concept "conflict model of society" built on a dystopian, real vision of the world - a world of power, conflict and dynamics. If Coser argued the positive role of conflicts in achieving social unity, then Dahrendorf believed that in every society there is disintegration and conflict, this is a permanent state of the social organism:

“All social life is conflict because it is changeable. There is no permanence in human societies because there is nothing stable in them. Therefore, it is in conflict that the creative core of all communities and the possibility of freedom are found, as well as the challenge to rational mastery and control over social problems.”

Contemporary American sociologist and economist Kenneth Boulding, author "general theory of conflict" at work “Conflict and protection. General Theory" (1963) tried to present a holistic scientific theory of conflict, covering all manifestations of animate and inanimate nature, individual and social life.

He applies conflict to the analysis of both physical, biological, and social phenomena, arguing that even inanimate nature is full of conflict, waging "an endless war of sea against land and some forms of the earth's rocks against other forms."

The positive role of conflict is seen by supporters of the dialectical approach as follows:

- conflict helps clarify the problem;

- conflict enhances the organization's ability to change;

- conflicts can strengthen morality by deepening and enriching relationships between people;

- conflicts make life more interesting, awaken curiosity and stimulate development;

- conflicts can contribute to self-improvement of skills and knowledge;

- conflicts improve the quality of decisions made;

- conflicts contribute to the production of new creative ideas;

- Conflicts help people understand who they really are.

It can be argued that modern foreign literature on conflictology is dominated by:

What's new with Lewis Coser:

In contrast to the theory of structural functionalism, whose representatives take conflicts outside the social system as something unusual for it, he proves that conflicts are a product of the internal life of society, i.e. he emphasizes their stabilizing role for the social system.

But the concept of “positive functional conflict” did not reign for long. In the mid-60s, Ralf Dahrendorf came up with a justification for the “conflict model of society.”

The essence of Ralf Dahrendorf's concept is as follows:

· any society is subject to change at every moment;

· social change is omnipresent;

· every society experiences social conflict at every moment;

· social conflict is omnipresent;

· every element of society contributes to its change;

· any society relies on coercion of some of its members by others.

Among the concepts that claim to be universal is Kenneth Boulding’s “general theory of conflict.”

From the main provisions of K. Boulding’s theory it follows that:

· conflict is inseparable from social life;

· in human nature there is a desire for constant enmity with one’s own kind;

· conflict can be overcome or limited;

· all conflicts have common patterns of development;

· the key concept of conflict is competition;

Competition is broader than the concept of conflict, since not every competition turns into conflict. The parties are not aware of the fact of their rivalry.

· in a genuine conflict there must be awareness of the parties and incompatibility of their desires.

In the 70-90sIn Western studies of the conflict, two main directions have been identified:

· first– common in Western Europe (France, Holland, Italy, Spain) and is associated with the study of conflicts themselves;

· second- widespread in the USA and is associated with the study of peace and harmony, as evidenced by some popular publications indicated in our list of recommended literature.

The goals of the two scientific directions are essentially identical, but their achievement is associated with different methodological approaches.

Conflictology in Russia is beginning to truly develop only now, when we are faced with a number of acute labor and interethnic conflicts.

Social conflict is a process in which an individual or group of individuals strives to achieve their own goals by eliminating, destroying or subjugating another individual or group of individuals.