Theories of Violence: Marxist and Conflict Perspectives
This paper examines the root causes of societal violence through several major theoretical lenses. Beginning with Marxist theory and its emphasis on class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, the paper moves through C. Wright Mills's conflict theory, Galtung's naturalistic definition of conflict, and Parsonian conflict theory as articulated by Dahrendorf. Each perspective is analyzed for how it explains the emergence of violence as a product of social inequality and competing group interests. The paper concludes by synthesizing these frameworks, noting that violence is not only a top-down phenomenon but also erupts horizontally within disadvantaged communities facing diverse, compounding forms of oppression.
- Introduction: Why Does Violence Emerge?: Introduces the question of violence's societal causes
- Similarities in the Demonstration of Conflict and Violence: Compares Marxism and conflict theory on class struggle
- Marxism in Understanding Conflict: Marx's view of bourgeoisie, proletariat, and revolution
- Conflict Theory: Mills and Galtung: Mills's power elite and Galtung's naturalistic conflict model
- Parsonian Conflict Theory: Dahrendorf and elite dominance as sources of conflict
- Summary and Conclusion: Synthesizes theories; highlights intra-class community violence
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper systematically compares multiple theoretical frameworks — Marxism, Mills's conflict theory, Galtung's naturalistic approach, and Parsonian theory — rather than relying on a single perspective, giving the analysis breadth.
- The conclusion effectively synthesizes the theories by extending the discussion beyond elite-versus-lower-class conflict to include intra-class violence, demonstrating nuanced thinking about how oppression reproduces itself at multiple levels.
- Each theoretical section is grounded in a named scholar or text, keeping the argument anchored in established academic literature rather than unsupported assertion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical analysis: it introduces each framework on its own terms, identifies what it shares with neighboring theories, and then highlights what distinguishes it. This move — compare, contrast, synthesize — is a core skill in sociological writing, allowing the writer to build a cumulative argument across sections rather than treating each theory in isolation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a broad research question (why does violence emerge?), then establishes common ground between Marxism and conflict theory before unpacking each tradition individually. Galtung's naturalistic variant and the "power elite" discussion deepen the conflict-theory section, while Parsonian theory adds Dahrendorf's social-differentiation angle. The conclusion broadens scope beyond macro-level class struggle to street-level, intra-community violence, tying all frameworks together into a unified claim about the pervasiveness of conflict.
Introduction: Why Does Violence Emerge?
Why do people engage in violence? It is so ingrained within society, yet we seem to lack a concrete understanding of what provokes it — especially to the degree that recent events have demonstrated. Violence has acquired several dimensions in modern society and has become one of the leading causes of human conflicts that have spanned years and even decades. The quest to understand the main causes of violence is ultimately aimed at stopping its effects and fostering greater peace within society. There are various factors responsible for the emergence of violence in the contemporary world, each of which is explored differently by a number of theoretical perspectives. This paper begins by examining Marxist theories of violence and conflict, before turning to conflict theory, Galtung's naturalistic framework, and Parsonian conflict theory.
Similarities in the Demonstration of Conflict and Violence
Marxism holds that class differences inherently breed class conflict. More recently, conflict theory has been identified as responsible for sparking violence within society. This school of thought holds that conflict is a natural part of life because there will always be contradicting social groups that hinder each other's pursuit of their own objectives, thus creating the potential for violence. Parsonian conflict theory adds to this the notion that societies that permit the rule of elites will always be prone to conflict.
The similarities between these schools demonstrate that conflict and violence arise when an elite group disadvantages other, contradicting groups within society. Both Marxism and conflict theory see conflict as emerging from struggles between social groups when one acquires too much power and abuses it at the expense of other groups' interests. As tensions increase, violence builds and eventually erupts. Conflict — and the violence that follows — is a direct result of class differences, with tensions rising when a minority hinders the majority from achieving goals that serve their self-interest. Conflict theories view such struggles as ongoing and a natural part of life, while Marxism tied them more specifically to the conditions of modern capitalism.
Marxism in Understanding Conflict
An exploration of Marxism helps set the foundation for understanding conflict in modern societies. Karl Marx believed that within a capitalist society, an elite few are allowed to accumulate too much power and influence over the rest of society. Empowered by material wealth, they become the owners of production — the bourgeoisie. These are the individuals who control the distribution of wealth, and who often claim too much of it for themselves and their own self-interest. This leaves the rest of the working class at a disadvantage. The proletariat, although greater in number, lacks access to money and capital and is therefore unable to adequately pursue its own needs (Weininger, 2002). Even worse, the proletariat is constantly exploited by the elite bourgeoisie, further disenfranchising them.
Marx believed that within this economic structure, conflict and violence are bound to erupt because the working class will eventually tire of exploitation and rise up against the owners of capital. Such social revolutions did occur throughout history. Marx argued that a more communal society — one in which wealth was redistributed more evenly — would therefore be less prone to violence and conflict.
References
Galtung, J. (2009). Theories of conflict: Definitions, dimensions, negotiations, formations. https://www.transcend.org/files/Galtung_Book_Theories_Of_Conflict_single.pdf
Elwell, F. (2014). Karl Marx.
Weininger, E. B. (2002). Class and causation in Bourdieu. In J. Lehmann (Ed.), Current perspectives in social theory (Vol. 21, pp. 49–114). JAI Press.
Tittenbrun, J. (2013). Ralph Dahrendorf's conflict theory of social differentiation and elite theory. Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, 6(3). http://www.iiass.com/pdf/IIASS-volume6-number3-article7.pdf
Idris, G. (2014). Karl Marx and Ralf Dahrendorf: A comparative perspective on class formation and conflict.
Elwell, F. (2014). The sociology of C. Wright Mills.
Hardwood, E., & Samir, D. (1964). Wright Mills and the "power elite." The Economic Weekly.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.