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

Concept of social conflict

It is one of the types of social conflict.

The word "" (from lat. conflictus) means a clash (of parties, opinions, forces). The concept of social conflict as a collision of two or more subjects social interaction widely interpreted by representatives various directions conflictological paradigm. Thus, in K. Marx’s view, in a class society, the main social conflict manifests itself in the form of an antagonistic class struggle, the culmination of which is a social revolution. According to L. Coser, conflict is one of the types of social interaction, during which there is a “struggle for values ​​and claims to status, power and resources, during which opponents neutralize, damage or eliminate their rivals.” In R. Dahrendorf's interpretation, social conflict represents types of clashes of varying intensity between conflicting groups, in which class struggle is one of the types of confrontation.

It is an open confrontation, a collision of two or more subjects (parties) of social interaction, the reasons for which are incompatible needs, interests and values.

The conflict is based on subjective-objective contradictions. However, not every contradiction develops into a conflict. The concept of contradiction is broader in content than the concept of conflict. Social contradictions are the main determining factors of social development. They “permeate” all spheres of social relations and for the most part do not develop into conflict. In order for objectively existing (periodically arising) contradictions to be transformed into a social conflict, it is necessary for the subjects (subject) of interaction to realize that this or that contradiction is an obstacle to the achievement of their vital goals and interests. According to K. Boulding, a conflict arises when “ripe” contradictions are recognized by the parties as incompatible and each party seeks to take possession of a position that excludes the intentions of the other party. Therefore, conflict contradictions are of a subjective-objective nature.

Objective contradictions are considered to be those that actually exist in society, regardless of the will and desire of the subjects. For example, the contradictions between labor and capital, between managers and the governed, the contradictions between “fathers” and “children,” etc.

In addition to objectively existing (emerging) contradictions, imaginary contradictions may arise in the subject’s imagination when there are no objective reasons for a conflict, but the subject recognizes (perceives) the situation as a conflict. In this case, we can talk about subjective-subjective contradictions. Another situation is also possible, when conflicting contradictions actually exist, but the subject believes that there are no sufficient reasons for the conflict.

Contradictions can exist for quite a long period of time and not develop into a conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to keep in mind that the basis of the conflict are only those contradictions that are caused by incompatible interests, needs and values. Such contradictions, as a rule, give rise to open struggle between the parties, confrontation.

The causes of the conflict can be a variety of problems, for example, a conflict over material resources, over values ​​and the most important life attitudes, over power (domination problems), over status-role differences in the social structure, over personal issues (including emotional -psychological) differences, etc. Thus, conflicts cover all spheres of people’s life, the entire set of social relations, social interaction. Conflict, in essence, is one of the types of social interaction, the subjects and participants of which are individuals, large and small social groups and organizations. However, conflict interaction presupposes confrontation between the parties, i.e. actions of subjects directed against each other.

The form of clashes - violent or non-violent - depends on many factors, including whether there are real conditions and possibilities (mechanisms) for non-violent resolution of the conflict, what goals are pursued by the subjects of the confrontation, what attitudes are “guided” by the conflicting parties, etc.

So, social conflict is an open confrontation, a collision of two or more subjects (parties) of social interaction, the causes of which are incompatible needs, interests and values.

Structure of social conflict

In a simplified form, the structure of social conflict consists of the following elements:

• object - the specific reason for the collision of subjects;
• two or more subjects conflicting over an object;
• incident - a formal reason for the start of open confrontation.

The conflict is preceded by the emergence conflict situation. These are contradictions that arise between subjects regarding an object.

Under the influence of growing social tension, the conflict situation is gradually transforming into open social conflict. But tension itself can exist for a long time and not develop into conflict. In order for a conflict to become real, an incident is necessary - a formal reason for the start of the conflict.

However, the real conflict has a more complex structure. For example, in addition to the subjects, it involves participants (direct and indirect), supporters, sympathizers, instigators, mediators, arbitrators, etc. Each of the participants in the conflict has its own qualitative and quantitative characteristics. An object may also have its own characteristics. In addition, real conflict develops in a certain social and physical environment, which also influences it. Therefore, a more complete structure of social (political) conflict will be discussed below.

The essence of social conflict

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

German sociologist R. Dahrendorf created theory of the conflict model of society. According to the scientist, in any society, social conflicts can arise at any moment, based on a conflict of interests. Dahrendorf views conflicts as an essential element public life, which, being sources of innovation, contribute to constant development society. The main task is to learn to control them.

American sociologist L. Coser developed the theory of positive functional conflict. By social conflict he understood the struggle for values ​​and claims to a certain status, power and resources, a struggle in which the opponents' goals are to neutralize, damage or eliminate the enemy.

According to this theory, social inequality, which inevitably exists in every society and causes natural social dissatisfaction of people, often leads to social conflicts. L. Coser sees the positive functions of conflicts in the fact that they contribute to the renewal of society and stimulate social and economic progress.

General theory of conflict belongs to American sociologist K. Boulding. In his understanding, a conflict is a situation in which the parties realize the incompatibility of their positions and at the same time strive to get ahead of the opponent and beat him. In modern society, according to Boulding, conflicts are inevitable, so it is necessary to control and manage them. Main signs of conflict are:

• the presence of a situation that is perceived by the opposing parties as a conflict;
• the presence of conflicting participants in conflicting goals, needs, interests and methods of achieving them;
• interaction between conflicting parties;
• results of conflict interaction;
• using pressure and even force.

Great value for sociological analysis social conflicts has a selection of main types. There are the following types of conflicts:

1. by the number of participants in conflict interaction:

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

2. according to the direction of conflict interaction:

• horizontal - between people who are not subordinate to each other;
• vertical - between people who are subordinate to each other;
• mixed - in which both are represented. The most common are vertical and mixed conflicts, accounting for an average of 70-80% of all conflicts;

3. by source of occurrence:

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

4. according to its functions:

• creative (integrative) - promoting renewal, introduction of new structures, policies, leadership;
• destructive (disintegrative) - destabilizing social systems;

5. according to the duration of the course:

• short-term - caused by mutual misunderstanding or mistakes of the parties that are quickly realized;
• protracted - associated with deep moral and psychological trauma or objective difficulties. The duration of the conflict depends both on the subject of the contradiction and on the character traits of the people involved;

6. in terms of its internal content:

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

7. According to the methods and means of resolving conflicts, there are peaceful and armed:

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

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

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

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

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

The main course of action in case of hidden internal conflict is reflexive management, meaning that one of the opponents, through “deceptive movements,” is trying to force the other person to act this way. how beneficial it is for him.

Conflict resolution is possible only by eliminating the conflict situation, and not just by exhausting the incident. Resolution of the conflict can also occur as a result of the depletion of the resources of the parties or the intervention of a third party, which creates an advantage for one of the parties, and, finally, as a result of the complete exhaustion of the opponent.

To successfully resolve a conflict, the following conditions are necessary:

• timely identification of the causes of the conflict;
• definition business conflict zone— reasons, contradictions, interests, goals of the conflicting parties:
• mutual desire of the parties to overcome contradictions;
• joint search for ways to overcome the conflict.

There are various conflict resolution methods:

• avoiding conflict - leaving the “scene” of conflict interaction physically or psychologically, but the conflict itself in this case is not eliminated, since the reason that gave rise to it remains;
• negotiation - allow you to avoid the use of violence, achieve mutual understanding and find a path to cooperation;
• use of intermediaries - conciliation procedure. An experienced mediator, who can be an organization or an individual, will help quickly resolve the conflict there. where without his participation this would not have been possible;
• postponing - in essence, this is a surrender of its position, but only temporary, since as the party accumulates strength, it will most likely try to regain what it has lost;
• arbitration proceedings or arbitration, is a method in which the rules of law and law are strictly followed.

The consequences of the conflict can be:

1. positive:

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

2. negative:

• tension;
• destabilization;
• disintegration.

Conflict resolution can be:

• full - the conflict ends completely;
• partial— conflict changes its external form, but retains motivation.

Of course, it is difficult to foresee all the variety of conflict situations that life creates for us. Therefore, in conflict resolution, much must be resolved on the spot based on the specific situation, as well as the individual psychological characteristics of the participants in the conflict.

Plan

1. Characteristics of the concepts of social conflict.

2. Main stages of analysis of social conflict.

3. General causes of social conflicts. Typology of conflicts.

4. Functions of social conflicts.

1. Characteristics of the concepts of social conflict

Describing the basic concepts of social conflict, it should be noted that today in the conflictology literature there are a variety of definitions of conflict.

Thus, the American sociologist L. Coser believes that conflict is a struggle for values ​​and claims to a certain status, power and resources, in which the enemy’s goals are to neutralize, cause damage or eliminate the opponent. The well-known domestic conflictologist A. Zdravomyslov defines conflict as a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is determined by opposing values ​​and norms, interests and needs. Yu. Zaprudsky sees conflict as an obvious or hidden state of confrontation between objectively divergent interests, goals and trends in the development of social objects; direct and indirect clash of social forces on the basis of opposition to the existing social order; a special form of historical movement towards a new social unity. A. Dmitriev is convinced that social conflict is a confrontation in which the parties seek to seize territory or resources, threaten opposition individuals or groups, their property or culture in such a way that the struggle takes the form of attack or defense.

Currently, there are two general approaches to understanding social conflict. The first approach defines conflict as a clash of parties, opinions, and forces. The definition of the conflict in this case is broad. From this point of view, conflicts are also possible in inanimate nature. The second approach to conflict defines it as a collision of opposing positions, goals, interests, opinions of opponents or subjects of interaction. In this case, the subject of interaction can be either an individual person or a group of people. Since the second approach treats conflict as a social phenomenon and assumes that conflicts arise only in the presence of social interaction, it can be considered more relevant.

The social nature of the conflict was first pointed out by the outstanding Scottish economist and philosopher A. Smith in his 1776 work “Inquiries into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” He expressed the idea that the conflict is based on the division of society into classes, which, according to A. Smith, is the driving force in the development of society.

Today, there are many views and points of view in the theory of social conflict. We can distinguish five main concepts of the nature of conflict: socio-biological, socio-psychological, class, functionalism, and dialectical.

Socio-biological concept comes from the belief that conflict is inherent in humans, like all animals. Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection was transferred to the human community, and the conclusion was made about the natural aggressiveness of man. This view was called “social Darwinism,” whose supporters explained the evolution of society by the biological laws of natural selection.

Based on the principle of the struggle for existence, he developed his sociological concept of conflict in the second half of the 19th century. English philosopher and sociologist G. Spencer. He argued that the state of confrontation is universal. Conflict is a universal law. Confrontation ensures balance both in society and in the relationship between society and nature. Until complete balance is achieved between peoples and races, conflicts are inevitable.

The American sociologist W. Sumner also considered the conflict from the standpoint of social Darwinism. He argued that in the struggle for existence, the weak, the worst representatives of humanity die. The best people- these are the winners, the true creators of value. By such winners, W. Sumner meant, first of all, successful American industrialists and bankers.

Today, the ideas of social Darwinism are used by individual researchers mainly when describing various types of aggressive behavior of people: sexual aggression, aggression of a robber, aggression of a victim, aggression of parents, children, etc.

The explanation of conflict using tension theory characterizes socio-psychological concept. The basis of this concept is the belief that modern society is the cause of the state of tension in most people. There is a constant imbalance between the individual and social environment. This disruption comes from unstable relationships, impersonality, overcrowding and overcrowding. The result is a state of frustration - disorganization of the internal state of the individual, which can manifest itself in a reaction of withdrawal, a reaction of regression or a reaction of aggression. When talking about this concept, it should be borne in mind that tension indicators are very individual, and they cannot be used to analyze the collective manifestation of conflicts.

Supporters are convinced that social conflict is reproduced by societies with a certain social structure class concept. In the study of social conflict, they start from the class theory of Marxism. Thus, K. Marx believed that the cause of the conflict lies in the division of people into classes, which are determined by their position in the economic system. Between main classes modern society- the bourgeoisie and the proletariat - there is constant hostility. These antagonistic conflicts lead to revolutions, which, according to K. Marx, are the locomotives of history. Therefore, from the point of view of Marxism, conflict is an inevitable collision. In order to accelerate the development of society, this conflict must be properly organized.

K. Marx’s views on the nature of social conflict were developed by both his followers F. Engels, V. Ulyanov, Mao Zedong, and representatives of neo-Marxism - the American sociologist G. Marcuse, representatives of the Italian school of political sociology, the creators of the theory of elites V. Pareto, G. Mosca , as well as the American left-wing sociologist C.R. Mills.

It should be noted that the class concept of the nature of conflict cannot be applied to the analysis of ethnic conflicts, corporate conflicts, interpersonal conflicts, intrapersonal conflicts, etc.

Functionalism concept views conflict as a distortion or dysfunctional process in social systems.

From the point of view of the leading representative of this trend, American sociologist T. Parsons, conflict is a social anomaly, it is a disaster. T. Parsons paid special attention to overcoming conflict and achieving stability of the social system. This requires a number of prerequisites, namely, it is necessary to achieve a coincidence of individual motivations with social attitudes, satisfaction of the basic needs, both biological and psychological, of the majority of society. In addition, the effective activities of social control bodies are also important. Only in a well-functioning, well-functioning social system is consensus possible. There is no ground for conflict in it.

The concept of functionalism should include representatives of the school of “human relations”. Thus, one of the founders of the public relations school, E. Mayo, considered it necessary to pay primary attention to improving industrial relations: establishing peace in industry, a democratic leadership style, replacing individual rewards with group ones, economic rewards with socio-psychological ones, and job satisfaction.

Currently the most successfully developed dialectical concepts, which are united by the belief that conflict is functional for social systems.

These concepts include, first of all, positive functional conflict theory , developed by L. Coser. In his work “Functions of Social Conflict,” he argued that the more conflicts in a society that are independent of each other, the better for the unity of this society. L. Coser was convinced: the more different conflicts intersect in society, the more difficult it is to create a united front that will divide society into two hostile camps.

In the book of the German-British sociologist and public figure R. Dahrendorf's “Modern Social Conflict” sets out a theory called "conflict model of society" . R. Dahrendorf believed that in every society there is a certain disintegration. In his opinion, conflict is a constant state of any social organism. Any society is subject to change at every moment. Therefore, any society experiences social conflict at every moment.

Within the framework of the dialectical concept, a theory was developed called "general theory of conflict" . Its author is the American sociologist and economist K. Boulding - in his work “Conflict and Defense. General Theory" applied conflict in the analysis of not only social phenomena, but also physical and biological phenomena. In his opinion, nature, both living and inanimate, is filled with conflicts. K. Boulding is convinced that conflict is inseparable from social life. Its basis is in human nature. This is a person’s desire for constant hostility with his own kind. The main concept of conflict in K. Boulding is competition between people. In a real conflict, there is awareness of the parties, as well as the incompatibility of their desires. All conflicts have common development patterns. Since it is impossible to avoid conflicts, the main task is to overcome or limit them.

In general, it should be noted that in modern foreign conflitological literature the dialectical concept of social conflict prevails, namely, the theories of L. Coser, R. Dahrendorf and K. Boulding. Their supporters emphasize the positive role of conflict. It is seen in the fact that conflicts can strengthen morality, enrich relationships between people, conflicts make life more interesting, awaken curiosity, and stimulate development. Conflicts help clarify the problem, they strengthen the organization's ability to change, improve the quality of decisions made, contribute to the production of new creative ideas, etc.

2. Main stages of analysis of social conflict

It should be noted that conflicts do not arise out of nowhere. Their causes accumulate and can sometimes mature for quite a long time. Therefore, the period of gestation of the conflict can be divided into four stages.

First stage the maturation of the conflict is the hidden stage. It is usually associated with the unequal position of groups of individuals in the spheres of “have” and “can”. People constantly strive to improve their status, strive for superiority. This contains main reason development of the first stage. Degree second stage - tension - depends on the position of the opposing side, which has great power or superiority. Third stage antagonism manifests itself as a consequence of high tension. Fourth stage is the stage of incompatibility. This is already a consequence of high tension, a conflict itself. Moreover, the emergence of the conflict itself does not exclude the continuation of the previous stages.

To successfully resolve a conflict, it must be studied well. The first stage analysis can be considered the development of the conflict from the moment it begins to the beginning of observation of it. This time can be significant. At this stage of the analysis, several issues need to be examined.

First, it is necessary to clarify the subject and object of the conflict. Under p subject of conflict one should understand an objectively existing or imaginary problem that is the cause of discord between the parties. This could be a problem of power, the possession of any values, a problem of primacy or incompatibility. It must be borne in mind that in complex, large conflicts, the subject of the conflict may not have clear boundaries. Under object of conflict is understood as a material, social, political or spiritual value, over which there is a confrontation between parties seeking to possess or use this value. To become the object of a conflict, this value must be at the intersection of interests social subjects who seek to control it. Such a value can be a resource, power, idea, norm, principle, etc.

Secondly, at the first stage it is important analysis of the participants in the conflict To do this, it is advisable to identify the direct participants in the conflict and their allies. It is also necessary to identify those who are indirectly interested in supporting the parties to the conflict.

Analysis of the composition of the parties to the conflict involves identifying their resources, the forces that the parties to the conflict have. So, for example, when analyzing an international conflict, it is necessary to calculate material resources (level of production, mineral reserves), ideological resources (moral and political unity of the nation); military resources (composition of armed forces, weapons); political resources (type of state, political regime, its stability, qualities of a leader); foreign policy resources (alignment of forces in warring coalitions).

In addition, to analyze the composition of the participants in the conflict, it is necessary to determine the level of their claims. In this case, the goals of the parties should be considered from the point of view of the possibilities of achieving them by any of the conflicting parties.

Thirdly, at the first stage of conflict analysis, it should be determined occasion, i.e. find out the specific events that led to the conflict. The reason for the conflict is the incident, circumstances or pretext that were used to start the conflict. The reasons for the conflict can be very different: the adoption of an administrative act that infringes on the rights of one of the groups; planned provocations; acceptance of customs restrictions, etc.

Fourthly, it is necessary to determine tension level or stability in the relationship between the parties at the starting point of the conflict. For example, this level can be represented as the degree of satisfaction of various social groups government policies, the level of organization of social groups, the possibility of their pressure on the policies of the authorities. Social tension is an indicator of conflict, psychological state significant social groups, group emotions.

On second stage analysis of the conflict is the study of its course. The main attention here is focused on identifying events that bring a fundamentally new quality to the development of the conflict, promoting it to a new stage of escalation. They accumulate some quality for a leap or artificially delay its progress. For example, such events may be rallies, strikes, decisions of informal bodies, etc. It is especially important to determine the transition of a conflict into a crisis, i.e. in a situation of sudden exacerbation that requires prompt decisions or intervention.

Third stage Conflict analysis should be devoted to its prediction. A forecast is a scientifically based judgment about the possible states of a particular phenomenon in the future and (or) about alternative ways and timing for the implementation of these states. In other words, based on the available data, it is necessary to make a prediction about the development and outcome of the conflict. The main task of the forecast is to obtain an answer to the question: what will happen if certain events take place.

In conclusion, we note that fourth stage conflict analysis is its resolution. It represents the process of solving a problem. The goal of the process is to resolve the conflict in its very essence, to reach its real reasons. It is necessary to find out, recognize those needs and values ​​that cannot be agreed upon, and achieve agreement.

3. General causes of social conflicts. Typology of conflicts

The main condition for successfully influencing conflicts is knowledge of the causes of their occurrence. As domestic conflictologists A. Antsupov and A. Shipilov point out, the causes of conflicts are objective-subjective in nature. They can be combined into four groups: objective, organizational and managerial, socio-psychological and personal.

Objective reasons the emergence of conflicts are: the natural clash of interests of people in the process of their life; poor development and use of normative procedures for resolving social contradictions; lack or unfair distribution of material and spiritual benefits that are significant for people’s life; a lifestyle associated with material instability and radical changes; stereotypes of conflict resolution of social contradictions.

Basic organizational and managerial reasons conflicts: structural-organizational, functional-organizational, personal-functional and situational-managerial reasons; unequal position of people in imperatively coordinated associations, when some control, others obey.

Typical socio-psychological reasons conflicts are: loss or distortion of information during interpersonal and intergroup communication; imbalance of role interaction between people; different way performance evaluation; different assessments of the same complex events; competition and competition, etc.

Among the main personal reasons conflicts should be highlighted: subjective assessment of the partner’s behavior as unacceptable; inadequate level of aspirations; poorly developed ability to resist conflicts, different or completely opposite perceptions of people's goals, values, interests; imperfection of the human psyche, discrepancy between reality and ideas about it, etc.

To successfully regulate the process of conflicts, it is important to know their typology. The importance of the typology of social conflicts is due to the need to regulate the process of their occurrence.

The emergence of conflicts is inextricably linked with various aspects of the activities of people and organizations, which explains their fairly large diversity. The ambiguity of the criteria used in the description and classification of many conflicts gives rise to the creation of a number of typologies. Currently, depending on the criterion used, there are a variety of classifications of conflicts.

In accordance with the organization of society, conflicts are formed at different levels. Conflicts can be identified at the level of individuals and between them; at the level of groups of individuals; at the level of large systems (subsystems); at the level of social class division of society; at the level of society as a whole; conflicts at the global (regional) level.

It is worth mentioning the multivariate typology proposed by social psychology, according to which four types of conflicts can be classified: intrapersonal, interpersonal, between an individual and the organization to which he belongs, between organizations or groups of the same or different status.

Depending on the direction of conflict interaction, horizontal, vertical and mixed conflicts are distinguished. Horizontal conflict occurs between people who are not subordinate to each other. Vertical conflict develops between people in imperatively coordinated associations. In a mixed conflict, both horizontal and vertical connections between people are represented.

It is generally accepted to divide conflicts into constructive and destructive. There is a certain norm within which the conflict has a constructive content. Going beyond this framework leads to the pathological degeneration of a constructive conflict into a destructive one.

The author's typologies of conflicts may be of particular interest. Thus, according to the American researcher M. Deutsch, the determining role in a conflict is played by the adequacy of its perception by opponents. On this basis, M. Deutsch identifies six types of conflicts.

1. Genuine conflict - the conflict exists objectively and is perceived adequately.

2. Random conflict, the existence of which depends on easily changeable circumstances. But this is not realized by opponents.

3. A displaced conflict is an “overt” conflict, behind which some other latent conflict is hidden, which is at the basis of the “overt” one. The real problem that caused the conflict is veiled by other problems.

4. Misattributed conflict is a conflict between misunderstood parties and, as a result, about a misinterpreted problem. The real problem exists, but its initiator is not the person who is accused of it.

5. A latent conflict is a conflict that should have occurred, but which is not obvious, since for one reason or another it is not realized by the parties.

6. False conflict, the objective basis of which is absent and it exists only due to errors of perception.

The typology of the German-American psychologist, representative of Gestalt psychology, experimental research of will and affect, K. Lewin, became famous. He identified four types of conflict situations depending on the influences that direct the subject’s behavior.

1. “Striving-Striving” conflict, in which two objects or goals are considered that have positive and approximately equal valence.

2. “Striving-avoidance” conflict, when the same thing simultaneously attracts and repels.

3. Avoidance-avoidance conflict, when you have to choose one of two equally unattractive solutions.

4. The conflict of “double aspirations-avoidance”, or double ambivalence, when the choice is made from two objects, each of which has its own positive and negative sides.

Based on the doctrine of motivation, K. Levin identified three types of conflicts:

choice between positive and positive;

choice between positive and negative;

choice between negative and negative.

Conflictologist G. Bisno identified six types of conflicts:

1) conflicts of interest, which are characterized by a real interweaving of interests or obligations;

2) forced conflicts - deliberately created conflicts to achieve goals other than the declared ones;

3) falsely correlated - these are conflicts confused by the discrepancy between the characteristics of the participants’ behavior, content and reasons;

4) illusory conflicts that are based on misperception or misunderstanding;

5) displaced conflicts, where the antagonism is directed at a person or considerations other than the actual offended participants or the real issues;

6) expressive conflicts, characterized by the desire to express hostility and antagonism.

American researcher J. Himes proposed his typology of social conflicts, the criterion of which was the breadth of the masses involved and the degree of impact on society. Firstly, these are private conflicts where the state or government does not play the main roles: gang wars, interreligious, interethnic, interclan, intertribal, interregional clashes, conflict between employee and manager. Secondly, there is civil disobedience: riots (actions directed against the government), collusion, internal war (insurrection, riot, civil war, revolution), etc.

In addition, J. Himes identified simple and complex forms of pathological conflict. Simple pathological forms of conflict: boycott, sabotage, bullying (persecution), verbal and physical aggression. Complex pathological forms of conflict: protest, riot, revolution, war.

According to the American scientist R. Fisher, three types of conflict can be distinguished. Economic conflict is based on the motives of possessing limited resources, including territory. A conflict of values ​​is formed around incompatible preferences, principles that people believe in and which correlate with group cultural, religious and ideological identification. A power conflict that occurs when one party seeks to maximize its influence over the other party through force.

As we can see, the typology of conflicts is complex. This is due to a number of circumstances. Firstly, conflicts belong to the category of social phenomena, the boundaries of which are not clearly visible. Secondly, any conflict has many sides, aspects and possible facets, which makes it impossible to create a unified classification and clearly distinguish one type of conflict from another. Thirdly, the essence of the conflict is often impossible to determine even after the passage of time: the latency of the true sources, causes and motives of the participants. In addition, such circumstances include the subjectivity of the researcher.

4. Functions of social conflicts

In general, all functions of social conflicts can be divided into two groups: constructive(positive) and destructive(negative). In relation to the participants in the conflict, he can play both positive and negative role.

Talking about first group of functions, the following should be noted.

Conflict eliminates completely (or partially) contradictions that arise due to imperfections in the organization, management errors, fulfillment of duties, etc. When resolving conflicts, in most cases it is possible to completely or partially resolve the contradictions underlying them.

Conflict allows us to more fully assess the individual psychological characteristics of the people participating in it. Conflict highlights value orientations of a person, the relative strength of his motives, reveals psychological resistance to stress factors difficult situation. It helps to reveal not only negative, but also positive aspects in man.

Conflict allows you to ease psychological tension, which is the reaction of participants to a conflict situation. Conflict interaction, accompanied by violent emotions, relieves a person’s emotional tension and leads to a subsequent decrease in the intensity of negative emotions. One of the final feelings of conflict may be catharsis, i.e. a release of accumulated energy that has been weighing on a person for a long time.

Conflict serves as a source of personality development and interpersonal relationships. If resolved constructively, conflict allows a person to rise to new heights, expand the scope and methods of interaction with others. The individual gains social experience in solving difficult situations.

Conflict can improve quality individual activities. When defending just goals, the authority of one of the participants increases, and the attitude of the people around him noticeably improves. Regardless of the outcome of the conflict, this happens more often than in relation to an opponent who defends dubious goals. In addition, it must be borne in mind that interpersonal conflicts serve as a means of human socialization and contribute to the self-affirmation of the individual.

Conflict acts as a means of activating social life groups or societies (innovation conflict). It highlights unresolved problems. Interpersonal conflicts in organizations more often have a positive effect on the effectiveness of joint activities than a negative one. Conflict sometimes contributes to the creation of new, more favorable conditions for human activity. It can serve as group cohesion. The end of a conflict is often accompanied by an increase in the discipline of employees, a faster response to each other’s comments and wishes, and the establishment of a more friendly environment.

Regarding second group of functions, it is advisable to note the obvious negative impact of most conflicts on the mental state of its participants. After the end of the conflict, mood generally worsens and almost never improves immediately after the end of the conflict. Conflict is accompanied by stress. With frequent, emotionally intense conflicts, the likelihood of cardiovascular and other diseases increases sharply.

Conflict forms a negative image of the other, which is easily restored in the event of even minor complications in the relationship and often leads to the emergence of a new conflict. Defeat in a conflict negatively affects a person's self-esteem.

Unsuccessful conflicts can be accompanied by psychological and physical violence. According to statistics, most intentional killings occur as a result of conflict escalation. If victory in a conflict is achieved through violence, there is a high probability that subsequently a person, without sufficient grounds, will resort to the same method of solving the problem in a similar situation.

Moreover, conflict affects more than just the parties involved. It often affects the macroenvironment and microenvironment of the participants. The degree of influence of a conflict on a group is directly proportional to the degree of connection between the parties and the environment in which the conflict occurs. It is directly proportional to the rank of the participants and the intensity of the confrontation.

Conflict is always accompanied by a temporary disruption of the communication system and relationships in the team. If the conflict ends with a destructive decision, relationships in the team deteriorate. Frequent conflicts lead to decreased group cohesion. Sometimes the quality of joint activities deteriorates during conflict. If the conflict is not resolved, but slowly fades away or the advantage is on the side of the one who, from the point of view of the group, is wrong, the quality of joint activity decreases even after the end of the conflict.

So, when assessing the constructiveness and destructiveness of the functions of conflict, it is necessary to keep in mind that they have a dual nature. There are no clear criteria for distinguishing between constructive and destructive conflicts. The line between them becomes less clear when it comes to assessing the consequences of the conflict. The vast majority of conflicts have both constructive and destructive functions. The same conflict can play a positive and negative role in the relations of the conflicting parties. The degree of constructiveness and destructiveness of a particular conflict may change at different stages. It can be constructive and destructive at different moments of its development. It is necessary to consider for which of the participants this conflict is constructive and for whom it is destructive. It is not the warring parties themselves who may be interested in the conflict, but other participants: instigators, accomplices, organizers.

Questions and tasks

1. Which concept of social conflict, in your opinion, most fully reveals its nature? Why?

2. What is the subject of the conflict and its object? Give examples.

3. Conduct an analysis of social conflicts known to you from history.

4. Describe the main groups of causes of social conflicts. Give examples.

5. Give an example of a conflict and characterize it from the point of view of various typologies of social conflicts.

6. Describe the constructive and destructive functions of social conflicts using examples known to you.

L. Koser. "Functions of social conflict"

American functionalist sociologist Lewis Coser (1913-2003) developed leading theoretical principles that became fundamental prerequisites for the development of the science of conflictology. His conflict theory is presented in the works “Functions of Social Conflict” (1956), “Further Studies of Social Conflict” (1967).

For L. Coser conflicts- not social anomalies, but necessary, normal natural forms of existence and development of social life. Almost every act of social interaction contains the possibility of conflict. He defines conflict as a confrontation between social subjects (individuals, groups), arising from a lack of power, status or means necessary to satisfy value claims, and involving the neutralization, infringement or destruction (symbolic, ideological, practical) of the enemy.

The main questions considered by Coser:

• - causes of conflicts;
• - types of conflicts;
• - conflict functions;
• - types of society;
• - severity of the conflict;
• - consequences of the conflict.

Causes of conflicts Coser saw in short supply any resources And violation of the principles of social justice during their distribution: authorities; prestige; values.

The initiators of the aggravation relations and bringing them to the point of conflict are most often representatives of those social groups that consider themselves socially disadvantaged. The more stable their confidence in this, the more actively they initiate conflicts and the more often they take them into illegal, violent forms.

L. Koser highlights two types of social systems:

• 1 type - hard or tough systems of a despotic-totalitarian nature, within which an ideological taboo on mentioning the existence of internal conflicts. In such state systems there are no institutional political and legal mechanisms for resolving conflicts. The reaction of government mechanisms to individual outbreaks of conflict situations is harsh and repressive. Within such social systems, individuals and groups do not develop skills of constructive behavior, and conflicts themselves do not have the opportunity to play a constructive role in the life of society and the state
• 2 type - flexible. They have officially recognized and actively practiced institutional and extra-institutional means of conflict resolution. This allows you to improve conflict resolution skills and identify constructive elements in conflicts.

Hard-rigid systems are gradually destroyed by disturbances of social matter coming from within.

Flexible social macrosystems, due to their adaptability to such disturbances, turn out to be more durable.

There are conflicts two types:

• 1. realistic conflicts. He includes among them those for the resolution of which society has all the necessary prerequisites.
• 2. Unrealistic conflicts- these are those collisions where the participants were captured by antagonized emotions and passions and took the path of putting forward clearly inflated demands and claims against each other.

Positive functions of conflict according to L. Coser

• 1. group-creating and group-preserving functions. Thanks to the conflict, there is a release of tension between its antagonistic parties.
• 2. communicative-informational and connecting functions, since on the basis of identifying information and establishing communication, hostile relations can be replaced with friendly ones.
• 3. creation and construction of public associations that promote group cohesion.
• 4. stimulating social change.

But if it develops incorrectly, it can:

- negative or destructive function (for example, decreased cooperation during a conflict, material and emotional costs at the stage of conflict resolution, decreased labor productivity), but considers them less significant in comparison with the positive consequences of the conflict.

The emotions prevailing among the participants in the conflict, the level of values ​​for which there was a struggle, determine the degree of severity of the conflict. Functional conflict theory is often compared to R. Dahrendorf, Although Coser criticized his German colleague for the lack of research into the positive consequences of conflict. Focus of conflict theory L. Kozera generally opposed to the ideas of the theory of class struggle K. Marx and theories of social harmony and “human relations” E. Mayo, which dominated the socialist countries.

L. Coser comes to a conclusion concerning the analysis of conflict at both intra-group and extra-group levels and connecting it with social structures, institutions and the social system. The point is not in the conflict as such, but in the nature of the social structure and social system.

Read: L. Coser turns to Simmel's work, which is built around the main thesis: " conflict is a form of socialization "Essentially, this means that no group is completely harmonious, since if it were, it would lack movement and structure. Groups require both harmony and disharmony, both association and dissociation; and conflicts within groups are neither in no case are exclusively destructive factors. The formation of a group is the result of processes of both types. The belief that one process destroys what the other creates, and what remains in the end is the result of the subtraction of one from the other, based on misconception. On the contrary, both “positive” and “negative” factors create group bonds, as well as cooperation. social functions. A certain level of conflict is not necessarily dysfunctional, but is an essential component of both the process of group formation and its sustainable existence

He believed that the conflict hasa specific function in complex pluralistic societies:

L. Coser analyzed “cross conflicts "as characteristic of contemporary American bourgeois society. In it, allies on one issue can be opponents on another issue and vice versa. This leads to a dilution of the conflict, which prevents the development of dangerous conflicts along one axis, which divides society along a dichotomous principle. For example, the owner is a hired worker. In modern Western society there is a diffusion of society. In a complex society

many interests and conflicts are combined, which represent a kind of balancing mechanism that prevents instability.

L. Coser on Marxism :

L. Coser was a critic and follower of K. Marx at the same time, developing his views based on him. He also views society as a moving balance of opposing forces that generate social tension and struggle. He is a defender of capitalism. Class struggle is the source of progress. And social conflict is the core. The basis of society is not the relationships into which people enter in the process of material production, but the superstructure is a cultural superstructure that embraces social, political and spiritual processes. By birth, people belong to different classes and cannot choose or change their social affiliation. Thus, class struggle and class roles are predetermined and social mobility is impossible. According to L. Coser, many provisions of the conflict are true for early capitalism, and modern capitalism is characterized by a number of new features that make it possible to regulate emerging conflicts.

Conflict- a collision of opposing goals, interests, positions, opinions or views of two or more people. There are many types of conflicts; they can be classified, for example, by factors. Thus, according to their direction, conflicts are divided into horizontal (they do not involve people who are subordinate to each other), vertical (between managers and subordinates) and mixed (between a manager and subordinates who are not directly subordinate).

Another typology of conflicts is presented in Fig. 12.1.

Rice. 12.1. Typology of conflicts

By origin. Conflicts can be objectively determined. These are those conflicts that are associated with objective reasons and do not depend on the relationships of workers (unclear division of labor and responsibility, social tension, etc.). Subjectively determined conflicts are associated with the personal characteristics of those in conflict and with situations that interfere with the fulfillment of desires and the satisfaction of people’s Interests.

By nature of occurrence. We can distinguish social conflicts - the highest stage of social contradictions in the system of relations of social groups. Organizational conflicts - improper regulation of an individual's activities (job descriptions, management structures). Emotional conflicts - dissatisfaction with the interests of an individual, clashes with others (envy, hostility, antipathies). Sometimes it is very difficult to outwardly determine the motivation for such a conflict.

According to the duration of conflicts are short-term. They arise due to misunderstandings or mistakes; usually they are quickly recognized and resolved. Protracted conflicts are often associated with moral and psychological trauma. The duration of such conflicts depends on the characteristics of the people in conflict and on the subject of the conflict.

By direction of impact conflicts are vertical. They involve people at different social levels: boss - subordinate, department - institution, etc. The conflicting parties initially have an unequal amount of power. In a horizontal conflict, the parties have an equal amount of power and are at the same hierarchical level (heads of departments, suppliers among themselves, etc.).

By severity of conflicts are open (impulse) - this is a direct collision of the parties, it manifests itself in arguments, shouting, fights, etc. The regulation of such conflicts will depend on the level of their manifestation and on the situation itself. Measures can be legal, social, and even international. Hidden conflicts (latent) do not have a pronounced form; they occur hidden, but indirectly affect the opposite side. Most often, this happens when it is impossible to openly resolve the conflict (the difference in the social status of the parties: boss - subordinate, apprehension and even fear for one’s well-being arises). Regulatory measures in this case depend on the individual, the level of her upbringing, and moral and ethical principles. The presence of an object and an opponent creates a conflict situation. But a conflict situation does not always provoke a conflict. If there is no incident, then we can talk about a potential conflict.

The scale of the conflict (in terms of the number of participants) may be small. Thus, intrapersonal conflict consists of a collision of oppositely directed, but equal in strength, motives, needs and interests within the individual - one person. It can arise due to a discrepancy between external requirements and internal values ​​and needs of the individual. Interpersonal conflicts arise due to claims on limited resources. Intergroup conflicts arise within the same group or between groups. For example, between formal and informal groups. Conflict between an individual and a group is the contradiction that arises between the requirements of the individual and the norms established in the group. There may also be a conflict between the manager and employees due to different views on the management system.

By resolution method conflicts are antagonistic. They are resolved by forcing all participants except one to renounce any claims. Compromise conflicts are resolved through mutual agreement of the conflicting parties.

There are many different opinions about the benefits or harms of conflict situations. Conflicts are an extremely complex and contradictory phenomenon that cannot be defined unambiguously. Conflicts can play both a negative and a positive role. Despite all the pros and cons, conflicts are inevitable. Let us carefully consider the positive and negative functions of conflicts.

Positive functions of conflict:

1 helps to identify a problem and consider it from different points of view;

* relieves tension between parties to the conflict;

* makes it possible to better know the properties of your opponent;

directs relationships in a new direction;

Stimulates change and development;

The cohesion of like-minded people is growing;

Stimulates creative activity.

Negative functions of conflict:

Causes strong emotional stress;

Increases nervousness, creates stress;

Employee layoffs occur;

Reduces the level of cooperation and mutual understanding;

Damages work;

Creates the belief that “victory” is more important than resolving the conflict in essence.

TEST

discipline: "Sociology"

“Causes, functions and subjects of social conflicts”

Completed the work

group student

Checked:

Introduction……………………………………………………….3

1. The concept of social conflict…..…………………………...5

2. Causes of social conflicts……………………………..8

3. Structure of social conflict……………………………10

4. Functions of social conflicts…………………………….14

Conclusion…………………………………………...………………18

List of used literature…………………………..19

Introduction

Every person throughout his life repeatedly faces conflicts of various kinds. We want to achieve something, but the goal turns out to be difficult to achieve. We experience failure and are ready to blame the people around us for our failure to achieve our desired goal. And those around us - be it relatives or those with whom we work together - believe that we ourselves are to blame for our own failure. Either the goal was formulated incorrectly, or the means to achieve it were chosen unsuccessfully, or we were unable to correctly assess the current situation and circumstances prevented us. Mutual misunderstanding arises, which gradually develops into discontent, creating an environment of dissatisfaction, socio-psychological tension and conflict. Social conflicts in modern Russian society are organically connected with its transitional state and the contradictions that underlie the conflicts. The roots of some of them lie in the past, but they receive their main aggravation in the process of transition to market relations.

The formation of new social groups, a class of entrepreneurs and owners, and growing inequality become the basis for the emergence of new conflicts. A new social contradiction is forming in society between the elite representing various groups new owners and a huge mass of people who were removed from property and power.

Conflicts in modern conditions characterized by severity and frequent use of violence. Based on the deepening crisis state of society, leading to clashes between various forces and communities, social contradictions are aggravated and their result is social conflicts.

Conflicts arise in various spheres of society and are usually referred to as political, socio-economic, spiritual, national, etc. All of them belong to the category of social conflict, which refers to any type of struggle and confrontation between communities and social forces.

Knowledge of conflicts improves the culture of communication and makes a person’s life not only calmer, but also more stable in life. psychologically. This explains the relevance of the chosen topic.

Within the framework of sociology, a special direction has even emerged, which is now designated as “sociology of conflict.” The study of conflicts means, first of all, familiarization with the very rich and diverse literature on this issue, assimilation of theoretical and practical knowledge accumulated within the framework of this direction of sociological thought. Of course, knowledge about conflicts has also accumulated in other areas of social science. We are talking about psychology, political science, history, economic theories, ethnology. But first of all, we need to pay attention to the sociology of conflict, within the framework of which, on the one hand, general theoretical problems of conflict are developed, and on the other - practical methods analysis and resolution of conflicts of various kinds.

The main goal of this work is to study social conflict as social phenomenon. In accordance with the set goal, the following specific tasks are also solved:

Identify the concept of social conflict;

Determine the causes, subjects and functions of social conflicts.

Thus, the social heterogeneity of society, differences in income levels, power, prestige, etc. often lead to conflicts. Conflicts are an integral part of social life. All this determines close attention sociologists to the study of conflicts. 1. The concept of social conflict The concept of “conflict” is characterized by an exceptional breadth of content and is used in a variety of meanings. In the most general way, conflict is understood as an extreme case of aggravation of contradictions. Social psychologists also emphasize that a difficult to resolve contradiction is associated with acute emotional experiences. One of the first definitions of conflict was proposed by the prominent American researcher L. Cozer, who had a significant impact on the formation of an approach to understanding the nature of conflict. According to L. Cozer, conflict in the proper sense of the word is “a struggle arising from a lack of power, status or means necessary to satisfy values ​​and claims, and involving the neutralization, infringement or destruction of the goals of rivals.” Later, K. Fink defined conflict , which reveals the closest dependence on the position of L. Cozer. “Social conflict,” writes K. Fink, “is any social situation or process in which two or more units are connected by at least one form of psychological or interactive antagonism.” Psychological antagonism is emotional hostility and similar phenomena. Interactive antagonism is understood as an interaction built on the type of struggle or interference in the affairs of the opposing side. The famous Polish sociologist J. Szczepanski defines conflict as a clash caused by a contradiction in attitudes, goals and methods of action in relation to a specific object or situation. A real conflict is socio-psychological process. Social psychologists propose to define conflict as a clash that arises in the sphere of communication, caused by conflicting goals, modes of behavior, and attitudes of people, in conditions of their desire to achieve any goals (Grishina N.V.). Or, similarly, a clash of personalities due to the incompatibility of needs, motives, goals, attitudes, views, behavior in the process and as a result of communication between these individuals (Ershov A.A.). According to K. Boulding, conflict marks the awareness and maturation of contradictions and clashes of interests. Conflicts should be distinguished from other forms of confrontation in society, which may result from: 1. lack of agreement between the participants in the discussion, 2. conflicting interests, 3. collisions,4. rivalry, 5. competition. It is important to emphasize that a conflict is a clash of interests of various social actors that occurs publicly. Often the conflict has a political dimension (since social conflict affects management systems) - social conflict is fraught with political conflict. The accumulation of conflicts in society is called a crisis. Political conflict is associated with mutual deviation of responsibility and power. Western sociologists and philosophers recognize conflicts as the most important factors of social development. The English philosopher and sociologist G. Spencer considered conflict “an inevitable phenomenon in the history of human society and a stimulus for social development.” The German philosopher and sociologist G. Simmel, calling the conflict a “dispute,” considered it a psychologically determined phenomenon and one of the forms of socialization. Classic sociologist R Dahrendorf pointed out in his writings the close connection of conflict with the concepts of crisis and contradictions. A crisis, according to R. Dahrendorf, is the result of pathological changes in the content and forms of life of the population, serious changes in the control mechanism in politics, economics and culture, an explosion of mass discontent among citizens, a radical break with traditional norms and values. According to R. Dahrendorf, conflict is the most important aspect of interaction between people in society; This is a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is determined by opposing values ​​and norms, interests and needs. An essential aspect of social conflict is that these subjects act within the framework of some broader system of connections, which is modified (strengthened or destroyed) under the influence of the conflict. Thus, social conflict in modern sociology is understood as any type of struggle between individuals, the goal of which is the achievement or preservation of the means of production, economic position, power or other values ​​that enjoy social recognition, as well as the conquest, neutralization or elimination of a real or imaginary enemy.

2. Causes of social conflicts

It is absolutely obvious that without finding out the causes of conflicts, you and I will not be able to do anything more or less effective to successfully resolve them, much less to prevent them.

There are several groups of causes of conflicts.

Objective reasons, as a rule, lead to the creation of a pre-conflict situation. Sometimes they can be real, and sometimes imaginary, and in this case they will only be a reason artificially invented by a person.

Subjective reasons begin to operate when the pre-conflict situation develops into a conflict. In almost any pre-conflict situation, a person has a choice of conflict or one of the non-conflict ways to resolve it. Only based on individual psychological characteristics does a person choose this or that behavior. In a dispute, as in a quarrel, there is never just one person to blame. Two sides always quarrel. There is no need to relieve yourself of the sense of responsibility and find out who started it first. You supported, therefore, you chose the conflict yourself. If you need to avoid arguing, for example, with your boss, you will find many ways to avoid conflict. But if your “opponent” is equal to you or weaker, you are unlikely to concede here.

Of course, in one conflict, objective and subjective reasons are clearly distinguished. It's quite difficult to draw the line. The same objective premise is conflict-generating for some people, but not for others, and therefore the objective reasons themselves are largely subjective. On the other hand, subjective reasons are largely objective, because a person’s aggressiveness, as we said in the first lesson, is largely shaped by the aggressiveness of the environment in which he was formed as a person.

And, nevertheless, objective and subjective causes of the conflict are conventionally distinguished.

The most common objective reasons include the following:

A natural clash between the material and spiritual interests of people in the process of life.

Weak development of legal norms regulating non-conflict resolution of problems.

The second group of objective causes of conflicts is organizational and managerial in nature. These reasons have an element of subjectivity inherent in several to a greater extent compared to objective reasons. Organizational and managerial causes of conflicts are related to the creation and functioning of organizations, teams, and groups. Structural and organizational causes of conflicts lie in the inconsistency of the organization's structure with the requirements of the activities in which it is engaged. The structure of an organization should be determined by the tasks that this organization will solve or is solving; the structure is created for the tasks. However, it is almost impossible to achieve perfect compliance of the organization's structure with the tasks being solved.

The third group of reasons is socio-psychological in nature. One of these reasons is possible significant loss of information and distortion of information in the process of interpersonal and intergroup communication.

3. Structure of social conflict

Conflict as a multidimensional phenomenon has its own structure. Sometimes structure is considered as a device, an arrangement of elements. In relation to conflict, such an approach is unacceptable, since, along with the fact that it is a system, conflict is a process. Therefore, the structure of the conflict is understood as a set of stable connections of the conflict, ensuring its integrity, identity with itself, difference from other phenomena of social life, without which it cannot exist as a dynamically interconnected integral system and process.

The structure of social conflict can be presented as follows:

1) a contradiction that is expressed in the problem and is an objective prerequisite for the conflict (the source of the conflict);

2) people as carriers of this contradiction, representing various social interests (subjects of the conflict); They can act in conflict as private individuals ( family conflict), as officials (vertical conflict) or as legal entities (representatives of institutions and organizations).

3) object of conflict (hidden needs). The object of the conflict can be a material (resource), social (power) or spiritual (idea, norm, principle) value, which both opponents strive to possess or use.

4) subject of conflict (open needs). The core of any conflict is contradiction. It reflects the conflict of interests and goals of the parties.

5) a clash between the subjects of the conflict (process, active phase), in which a “contradiction in action” seems to occur. The collision is also characterized by the emotional coloring and psychological attitudes of the subjects. Since conflict represents the highest (active) stage of development of a contradiction, in the absence of the last component (collision) we are dealing with a latent, i.e., hidden conflict, the identification of which is most difficult. Such a conflict can also be called “underdeveloped” due to its stoppage of development at the stage of contradiction.

One of the most important problems of sociology is to understand the nature and main participants of social conflict. One of the creators of modern conflictology, the West German sociologist R. Dahrendorf, based social conflicts on political factors: the struggle for power, prestige, authority. Conflict, according to Dahrendorf, can arise in any community, in any social group where there are dominant and subordinate . The cause of the conflict, according to R. Dahrendorf and his followers, is the desire for dominance. This position is usually interpreted as follows: human beings by nature tend to form hierarchies of social dominance and fight for acquired positions in a group, community, etc. The hierarchy of social dominance, including a certain degree of achievement of social dominance, under certain conditions can lead to conflict. The immediate causes of conflicts can be resource shortages, ideological differences, etc. However, the tendency to dominate and the social aspirations of people should not be interpreted as their natural, eternal instincts. They are formed on the basis of comparing the position of some people with the position of others. Consequently, social conflict is always a consequence of social inequality. Inequality of social positions means unequal access to development resources of individuals, social groups or communities of people. Therefore, in the doctrine of conflicts by R. Dahrendorf and his followers, a significant place is given to the problems of property, possession and distribution of resources. However, the central question of the conflict is: who manages the resources and how? The answer to this question again refers us to the question of power, which, according to R. Dahrendorf, is a set of social positions that allow one group to control the results of the activities of other groups of people. P.A. Sorokin pointed out the connection between the conflict and the satisfaction of people's needs. In his opinion, the source of conflicts lies in the suppression of basic human needs, without the satisfaction of which he cannot exist, first of all, the needs for food, clothing, housing, self-preservation, self-expression, creativity, freedom, etc. At the same time, he emphasized that it is not the needs themselves that are important, but also the means of satisfying them, access to appropriate activities, which is determined by the social organization of society. It is in this regard that the question arises not only about equality and inequality in the level of well-being, but also about comparing the life chances of different social groups. So, the main subjects of the conflict are large social groups. Since their needs, interests, goals, and claims can be realized only through the use of power, political organizations such as the state apparatus, parties, parliamentary factions, “pressure groups,” etc., are directly involved in conflicts. They are the spokesmen for the will of large social groups and the main bearers of social interests. Ultimately, social conflict usually takes the form not of a conflict of large social groups (the masses take to the streets only in rare moments of the highest aggravation of the situation), but of conflicts between political, ethnic and other leaders who act on the basis of mechanisms formed in a particular society. At the same time, it should be noted that social conflict is always a struggle generated by the confrontation of social and group, but not individual, interests. Thus, the subjects of conflicts are social groups, which, according to R. Dahrendorf, can be divided into three types. 1) Primary groups are direct participants in the conflict who are in a state of interaction regarding the achievement of objectively or subjectively incompatible goals. 2) Secondary groups that strive to not be directly involved in the conflict, but contribute to inciting the conflict. At the stage of escalation of the conflict, they can become the primary party. 3) Third forces interested in resolving the conflict. 4. Functions of social conflicts Most people see conflict as an unpleasant thing. But you can look at conflicts differently and see potential progress in them. That is, conflicts as an integral part of social existence can perform two functions: positive (constructive) and negative (destructive). Therefore, as many researchers believe, the task is not to eliminate or prevent conflict, but to find a way to make it productive.L. Coser, in his classic work “Functions of Social Conflicts,” emphasized that conflict carries not only a destructive (destructive) function, it contains great positive potential. L. Coser identifies the main functions of conflict, which, in his opinion, have a beneficial effect on the current state of society and contribute to its development: a) the formation of groups, the establishment and maintenance of normative and physical boundaries of groups; b) establishing and maintaining a relatively stable structure of intragroup and intergroup relations; c) socialization and adaptation of both individuals and social groups; d) creating and maintaining a balance of power and, in particular, power; e) obtaining information about the environment (signals about certain problems and shortcomings); f) stimulation of rule-making and social control; g) promoting the creation of new social institutions. IN in general terms the possibility of conflict to play a constructive role is associated with the fact that conflict prevents “stagnation” and “death” of individual or group life and stimulates their movement forward. In addition, since the basis for the emergence of any conflict is the denial of previous relations between the parties, contributing to the creation of new conditions, the conflict simultaneously performs an adaptive function. The positive consequences of conflict for an individual may also consist in the fact that through it internal tension will be eliminated. The positive function of conflicts is that they often serve to express dissatisfaction or protest, informing the conflicting parties about their interests and needs. In certain situations, when negative relationships between people are controlled, and at least one of the parties defends not only personal, but also organizational interests as a whole, conflicts help to unite those around them, mobilize the will and mind to resolve fundamentally important issues, and improve the psychological climate in the team.More In addition, there are situations when a clash between team members, an open and principled dispute, is more desirable: it is better to warn in time, condemn and prevent the wrong behavior of a work colleague than to condone it and not react for fear of ruining the relationship. As M. Weber put it, “conflict purifies.” Such a conflict has a positive effect on the structure, dynamics and effectiveness of socio-psychological processes and serves as a source of self-improvement and self-development of the individual. However, conflict is most often associated with aggression, threats, disputes, and hostility. The negative functions of social conflicts include, first of all, the curtailment of interaction and communication between the conflicting parties, the increase in hostility between them as interaction and communication decrease. A frequent occurrence is the idea of ​​the other side as an “enemy”, the idea of ​​one’s goals as positive, and the goals of the other side as negative.

The functions of conflict are dual. The same conflict can play a positive and negative role in the lives of opposite, conflicting parties, and it can be constructive and destructive at different moments of its development. It is necessary to consider for which of the participants this conflict is constructive and for whom it is destructive. If the goal of one of the parties may be to eliminate the contradiction, then the goal of the other party may be to maintain the status quo, avoid conflict, or resolve the contradiction without confrontation.

So, in relation to the participants in the conflict, it can perform constructive and destructive functions.

Design features:

Conflict eliminates, in whole or in part, contradictions that arise due to imperfect organization of activities, management errors, fulfillment of duties, etc.

Conflict allows us to more fully assess the individual psychological characteristics of the people participating in it.

Conflict allows you to ease psychological tension, which is the reaction of participants to a conflict situation.

Conflict serves as a source of personality development and interpersonal relationships.

Conflict can improve the quality of individual performance.

When defending just goals, the authority of one of the participants increases, and the attitude of colleagues towards him significantly improves.

Interpersonal conflicts serve as a means of human socialization and contribute to the self-affirmation of the individual.

Destructive functions:

The pronounced negative impact of most conflicts on the mental state of the participants.

Conflicts that develop unfavorably can be accompanied by psychological and physical violence and injury to opponents.

Conflict is accompanied by stress.

Conflict forms a negative image of the other - the “image of the enemy.” Conflict often changes priorities so much that it jeopardizes the true interests of the parties and prevents the implementation of changes and the introduction of new things. In addition, there is an increase in emotional and psychological tension in the team, dissatisfaction, poor state of mind (for example, as a result, an increase in staff turnover and a decrease in labor productivity), and a lesser degree of cooperation in the future.

Conclusion Difficulties and conflicts inevitably arise in relationships between people; they are a natural part of our lives. It is widely believed that conflicts are something unfavorable and dangerous, that they should be avoided at all costs, and that good relationships between people are characterized by the complete absence of any conflicts . As a result of the great popularity of such views, people try to hide their conflicts from others and even from themselves. Thus, some conflicts exist on an internal, hidden level. Often, condemnation of the very fact of the existence of conflicts and the naive belief that one can live life without ever having a conflict with anyone is associated with insufficient distinctions between the conflict itself and the method of resolving it. But there are effective ways to resolve conflicts caused by differences in views, attitudes, and discrepancies in goals and actions. They strengthen relationships and are therefore extremely valuable. Joint successful resolution of contradictions can bring people closer together than many years spent in mutual exchange of pleasantries. However, along with this, there are also ways to resolve conflicts that poison life and destroy even stable long-term relationships.

List of used literature:

1. Verenko I.S. Conflictology / I.S.Verenko – M., 2002

2. Dmitriev A.V. Social conflict: general and special / A.V. Dmitriev - M, 2001.

3. Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of conflict / A.G. Zdravomyslov – M., 2004.

4. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology / A.I. Kravchenko - M., 2005

5. Lavrinenko V. N. Sociology / V. N. Lavrinenko - M., 2004

6. Sokolov S.V. Social conflictology. / S.V.Sokolov – M., 2001