The Main Concepts of Conflict Theory

Introduction
Conflict theory was first articulated by Karl Marx as a way to explain his perception that society was engaged in a continual struggle or conflict due to a finite supply of resources. As a result, the order of society is determined by the powers that rise to the top to control the resources. The subtext of this theory is that order is established by rule and tyranny rather than by consensus of the whole. This paper will examine the main concepts and principles of Conflict Theory, identify its strengths and weaknesses, discussed fallacies within the theory, and describe how it can be used to address differences in people.
The Theory: Main Concepts and Principles
Though rooted in Marxist ideology, conflict theory emerged in the 1950s as a reaction to structural functionalism (Ritzer, Stepnisky, 2017). Structural functionalism was a theory that proposed to explain the manner in which society functions as a result of various relationships and social institutions working together towards stability and functionality. Conflict theory was promoted by theorists like Ralf Dahrendorf, who juxtaposed conflict theory and structural functionalism to show that society had “two faces” consisting of one part conflict and one part consensus (Ritzer, Stepnisky, 2017, p. 120). Conflict theory focused on the conflicts of interest inherent in the various elements of society, the various classes, and the various institutions and organizations. So while it was rooted in concepts defined by Marx in the previous century, it was ultimately a response to structural functionalism and was even used by Dahrendorf to explain how society should be studied in structurally functionalist terms—i.e., as an organizational process where conflict and consensus were integrated throughout.
The main concepts and principles of conflict theory were laid by the critical theorists of the first half of the 20th century—the Frankfurt School thinkers: Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm and others. They were Marxists who anticipated the class warfare that Marx had predicted but who were grappling with the fact that the class uprising had not yet occurred. They sought explanations as to what had happened and formulated critical theory, which was a way to break down social conventions and relationships to identify the hidden power struggle underneath. For example, the Frankfurt School identified mass media as a means of control used by the power/ruling class to keep the worker class docile and unconcerned with the conflict inherent in society, as Marx had viewed it (Horkheimer, Adorno, 1944). They viewed the “culture industry” as the cause of conflict suppression and deemed education as a means of re-awakening the worker class to the reality of the conflict and their oppression (Horkheimer, Adorno, 2002).
Conflict theory was thus posited as an extension of this groundwork but at the same time as a reaction to structural functionalism, which denied the existence or meaningfulness of conflict inherent in society. Conflict theory was situated on the principle that all of society is functioning for control and that the owners of the means of production were the ones in control in the present era: the laboring class was oppressed by the ruling class’s system of controls—exercised via government, education, social structure, institutions, organizations, even the culture industry, as Horkheimer and Adorno would say. However, conflict theory was also use to explain why structural functionalism never wholly worked by itself: conflict is present and needs to be understood.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The strengths of conflict theory are that it identifies an inherent, underlying theme of conflict within society that can exist as elements vie for power, control, influence, autonomy, and so on. It highlights the tensions that exist between groups and shows how one group can work to undermine or dominate another group. Rather than focusing on how entities get along and work together, it emphasizes the ways in which entities will oppose one another and seek to dominate one another. The example of unbridled capitalism is one example that can be used to help illustrate conflict theory. In unbridled capitalism, one business might attempt to gain dominance in the market buy undercutting the prices of its competitors until they were priced out of the market. That business could then absorb the entire market share for itself and create a monopoly. This would be an example of conflict theory at the mezzo level. Monopolies still exist today and one can see tactics of this approach in various business models: Amazon, for instance, is a company that is currently undercutting its competitors (especially its bricks and mortar competitors) in order to obtain market share and establish a virtual monopoly on retail. A classic example is that of Standard Oil.
Conflict theory is more aptly applied in a sociological sense, however; it shows how groups are opposed to one another’s own aims and even well-being as they struggle to control the resources that all depend upon, typically on a micro level but certainly at a macro level as well. The U.S.’s foreign policy could best be explained as an example of conflict theory at the macro level, as it emphasizes the American sense of “Manifest Destiny,” which asserts that Americans are destined to spread their empire and thus rule the world by controlling the precious resources upon which a modern economy is predicated (Hirshleifer, 2001; Morris, 2013).
Even at a domestic or micro level, conflict theory can be used to explain interactions between groups or individuals. A laborer in an industry may work, for instance, for very low wages while the company for which he works benefits substantially from his labor. The executives at the top of the company get paid millions while the laborer gets paid far less and even struggles to pay all his bills and support a family. The executives incentivize the worker by offering some form of health insurance, but even this is costly and the worker is further oppressed by the fact that costs are rising in everything—from housing to health care to education to food to transportation. Meanwhile his wages stagnate. The worker begins to resent his employers and the executives who refuse to share the rewards of his labor in a way that is fair to the workers. As a result, a conflict of wills develop: on the one hand is the executive who views the worker as expendable and easily replaced; on the other hand is the worker who views the executive as a leech, who does nothing to actually make the company run efficiently and who, if needed, would not know how to do the laborer’s job at all. Thus, in this sense, the laborer believes he has more leverage, while the executive has more power. The conflict can emerge in the form of union labor negotiations, or in terms of wage negotiations, or in myriad other ways. The worker might prefer to assert his will in more underhanded ways—for example, by sabotaging the company from within. The conflict could boil out into the public sphere, and the worker could unload his grievances at random on an unsuspecting public in a gratuitous and violent manner. Conflict theory would help to explain this micro level behavior as well.
The main weakness of conflict theory, however, is that it does not explain why entities, groups and classes so often seem to get along well in spite of their differences and the inherent conflicts that exist between them. This is, in fact, what Adorno and Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School thinkers attempted to understand. That is why they developed critical theory—to help break down the actual relationships and interpret functioning relationships as the power struggles they still viewed them to be. Their explanation for why society still seemed to function basically well and why there had been no class uprising was that the oppressed class was essentially happy in its oppression: it was full of opiates—from drugs to entertainment and so on. It cared not a whit for power or control, as it was perfectly sated. Conflict theory could not explain this phenomenon without critical theory to expose the actual component parts of the relationship between the masses and the ruling class.
Associated Fallacies
Conflict theory could be said to suffer from two logical fallacies—one being the false cause fallacy and the other being the strawman fallacy. The false cause fallacy could apply to conflict theory in the sense that the theory attempts to explain human and social behavior by identifying the cause of human behavior as the struggle for power and dominance: people and groups seek to obtain power for themselves and thus there will be conflict as this behavior can lead ultimately to a zero-sum game in which there is a victor and a loser. This may be viewed as a false cause fallacy because as the critical theorists show, some people are perfectly content to be without power. The critical theorists believe the masses have been duped by those with power into feeling this way, but nonetheless, this identification of the need for power could be a false cause of human behavior and thus a fallacy in the theory.
Another fallacy could be the strawman fallacy. For example, by exaggerating the functional aspect of society (everyone getting along), an opposite reaction could be to develop conflict theory to show that really no one gets along for long. One exaggeration leads to another in the opposite direction. Instead of saying that sometimes people in society get along very well and other times they do not, the theorist relies upon a strawman in order to develop or promote his own theory.
How Conflict Theory Addresses Differences in People
Conflict theory addresses differences in people, such as religion, culture, sexuality and so on, by highlighting the ways in which people will use these differences to facilitate their struggle for power. Religion might be used as a way for one group of people to justify their oppression of another group. Sexuality could be used by an individual as a way to promote his or her own power in a relationship or as a way to draw attention to his or her self in a given environment. Culture could be used as a way to strengthen or undermine another group of people while promoting one’s own group and one’s own aims.
Differences in people are not so much as seen by conflict theory as incidental or accidental but rather as purposeful. People believe the doctrines of a religion because they find it useful to their lives, according to this theory. They embrace a particular culture because it aids them in their efforts to obtain status, power, conviction, friends, influence, a job, and so on. Sexuality can be used by people to gain fame, power, money, just like anything else. Differences can also be emphasized by groups to oppress those who outside the accepted “norm” and to marginalize people. Conflict theory views differences in terms of how those differences impact relationships in the universal struggle for authority and control.
Summary
Conflict theory can be used to explain the inherent tension in society and why some groups or people prosper while others do not. It suggests that people are inherently selfish and geared towards obtaining control for themselves and that they will vie with others for power.
This theory is most applicable in a modern economic sense, as it much of the modern global economy is driven by an inherently self-centered capitalistic and often monopolistic method. It can also be applied to populations where other materialistic economic organizing philosophies are utilized or implemented—such as communism or socialism. It helps to explain materialism in society as it is inherently self-centered and it applies to the U.S. very much so since the U.S. is a nation driven by self-interest and a desire to control the world’s resources.
This type of theory would not work very well to explain a population like a monastery where all the monks are basically equal, living in a communal environment, working for the common good of all and where no one is vying for power of another individual or group. The monasteries of the Middle Ages, for example were not centers of power but rather centers of prayer, where emphasis was placed on one’s relationship with God and work was oriented towards obtaining a reward in the afterlife rather than in the here and now.
References
Bartos, C., Wehr, P. (2002). Using conflict theory. UK: University of Cambridge.
Hirshleifer, J. (2001). The dark side of the force: Economic foundations of conflict
theory. UK: University of Cambridge.
Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. (1944). The Culture Industry. UK: Routledge.
Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. CT: Stanford.
Morris, J. (2013). Libya and Syria: R2P and the spectre of the swinging pendulum.
International Affairs, 89(5): 1265-1283.
Ritzer, G., Stepnisky, J. (2017). Modern sociological theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.