Conflict Theory: Concepts, Strengths, and Social Applications

Introduction

Conflict theory was first articulated by Karl Marx as a way to explain his perception that society was engaged in a continual struggle 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 those resources. The subtext of this theory is that social order is established by rule and coercion rather than by the consensus of the whole. This paper examines the main concepts and principles of conflict theory, identifies its strengths and weaknesses, discusses fallacies within the theory, and describes how it can be used to address differences among 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 proposed to explain how society functions as a result of various relationships and social institutions working together toward stability. Conflict theory was promoted by theorists like Ralf Dahrendorf, who juxtaposed conflict theory and structural functionalism to show that society had "two faces" — 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: its classes, institutions, and organizations. While 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 argue that society should be studied in structurally functionalist terms — that is, as an organizational process in which conflict and consensus are integrated throughout.

The main concepts and principles of conflict theory were developed by the critical theorists of the first half of the twentieth century — the Frankfurt School thinkers: Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, and others. These Marxists anticipated the class warfare that Marx had predicted yet grappled with the fact that no class uprising had occurred. They sought explanations and formulated critical theory — a method of breaking down social conventions and relationships to identify the hidden power struggle beneath the surface. For example, the Frankfurt School identified mass media as a means of control used by the ruling class to keep the working 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 a means of re-awakening the working class to the reality of conflict and oppression (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002).

Conflict theory was thus posited as an extension of this groundwork while simultaneously serving as a reaction to structural functionalism, which denied the existence or meaningfulness of conflict inherent in society. Conflict theory was grounded in the principle that all of society functions for the purpose of control and that the owners of the means of production are those in control in the present era: the laboring class is oppressed by the ruling class through systems of control exercised via government, education, social structure, institutions, organizations, and even the culture industry. However, conflict theory was also used to explain why structural functionalism never worked entirely on its own: conflict is present in society and must be understood.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The strengths of conflict theory lie in its identification of an inherent, underlying theme of conflict within society, visible wherever elements vie for power, control, influence, and autonomy. It highlights the tensions that exist between groups and shows how one group can work to undermine or dominate another. Rather than focusing on how entities cooperate, it emphasizes the ways in which entities oppose one another and seek dominance. Unbridled capitalism offers a useful illustration. In an unregulated market, one business might attempt to gain dominance by undercutting the prices of its competitors until those competitors are priced out of the market. The business can then absorb the entire market share and create a monopoly — an example of conflict theory operating at the mezzo level. Monopolies still exist today, and similar tactics are visible in various business models: Amazon, for instance, has been undercutting competitors — especially brick-and-mortar retailers — in order to gain market share and establish a virtual monopoly on retail. A classic historical example is Standard Oil.

Conflict theory is more aptly applied in a sociological sense, however. It shows how groups are opposed to one another's aims and even well-being as they struggle to control resources upon which all depend, operating at both micro and macro levels. U.S. foreign policy could be explained as a macro-level example, as it reflects an American sense of "Manifest Destiny" — the assertion that Americans are destined to extend their influence and thus control the resources upon which a modern economy depends (Hirshleifer, 2001; Morris, 2013).

Even at a domestic or micro level, conflict theory can explain interactions between groups and individuals. A laborer in an industry may work for very low wages while the company benefits substantially from that labor. Executives at the top of the company receive millions in compensation while the laborer struggles to pay bills and support a family. The executives offer health insurance as an incentive, but even this is costly, and the worker is further burdened by rising costs in housing, health care, education, food, and transportation — while wages stagnate. The worker begins to resent the executives who refuse to share the rewards of labor fairly. A conflict of wills develops: the executive views the worker as expendable and easily replaced, while the worker views the executive as a leech who could not perform the laborer's job and who contributes little to the company's actual functioning. The laborer believes he has more leverage; the executive holds more power. This conflict can emerge through union negotiations, wage disputes, or countless other forms. The worker might express his will through indirect means — for example, by sabotaging the company from within — or the conflict could spill into the public sphere in more destructive ways. Conflict theory helps explain this micro-level behavior as well.

The main weakness of conflict theory, however, is that it does not adequately explain why entities, groups, and classes so often seem to get along despite their differences and the inherent conflicts between them. This is precisely what Adorno, Horkheimer, and the other Frankfurt School thinkers attempted to understand — the reason they developed critical theory in the first place. Their explanation for why society functioned relatively well, and why no class uprising had occurred, was that the oppressed class had essentially come to accept its oppression: it was satisfied by various opiates, from entertainment to material comforts, and showed little interest in power or control. Conflict theory could not adequately explain this phenomenon without critical theory to expose the underlying dynamics of the relationship between the masses and the ruling class.

References

Bartos, C., & Wehr, P. (2002). Using conflict theory. University of Cambridge.

Hirshleifer, J. (2001). The dark side of the force: Economic foundations of conflict theory. University of Cambridge.

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (1944). The culture industry. Routledge.

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford University Press.

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. SAGE.