Only by knowing the essence and functions of the conflict is it possible to properly manage it and have a positive solution. This will be discussed in the article.

Definition of "conflict"

If you set yourself a goal, then from modern psychological literature you can glean more than a hundred definitions of this term with noticeable differences in formulation.

The most common ones worth mentioning are:

1. Conflict is the expression of subjective or objective disagreements that find expression in a duel between the parties.
2. Conflict is one of the most acute ways to resolve significant differences that arose during the interaction of its subjects and is associated with negative emotions.

Difference between contradiction and conflict

Apart from Yuri Rozhdestvensky, none of the experts consider disagreement to be a speech act. The famous linguist defines three stages of development of the clash of interests that caused the problematic situation. He believes that they are:

• difference of opinion;
• disagreements in discussions;
• open struggle in actions, expressed by conflict.

It follows that a contradiction is a dialogue, in other words, a speech act in which the parties express disagreements. Conflict should be considered speech acts of subjects that are aimed at causing harm to the enemy.

Composition, structure of the conflict

In order for the concept and functions of conflict to become clear, it is necessary to become familiar with its four main components: dynamics, structure and management.

The structure of this concept consists of:

• subject of dispute or object;
• subject(s), that is, specific individuals, organizations, groups participating in it;
• scale (it can be global, regional, local or interpersonal);
• the conditions in which the conflict occurs;
• tactics and strategies of the parties;
• possible outcomes of the conflict, results, consequences, as well as awareness of this.

A real conflict is a complex developing process that follows the following stages:

1. Subject situation. At this stage, objective reasons for starting it are born.
2. Conflict interaction. This stage represents an incident, or a temporary development of a difficult situation.
3. Full or partial resolution of a problem situation.

You should also consider what functions the conflict performs, depending on the consequences for its participants:

• constructive (the tension that arose during a difficult situation can be used to solve certain problems or goals);
• dialectical (finding the causes of the conflict);
• destructive (elimination of problems inhibits the emotional color of interaction).

These are the main functions of conflict, expressed in its consequences, but many authors identify several more, depending on their views.

Conflict management

Conflict can be managed - that is, deliberately influence the path of development of a problem situation. There are two aspects: external and internal. The first is that the manager/leader can act as a subject of management. Internal means control of one’s own behavior in conflict interactions.

Interpretation of the conflict function

Scientific literature demonstrates different attitude to the issue being described. As a negative phenomenon, a problematic situation needs to be resolved, and if possible, it is better to avoid it altogether. This opinion is contained in the works of the authors of the administrative school. And a group of specialists belonging to the school of “human relations” adhere to a similar idea. After all, the presence of problematic interactions in an organization meant mismanagement and ineffective work.

Today there is a belief that disagreement is common, and in some cases desirable, even in well-managed organizations. The positive functions of conflict are to discover different points of view, multiple sources of information, and reveal problem areas. But its negative manifestations include the possible occurrence of violence, disorganization, a slowdown in the pace of development, etc.

It should be concluded that the functions of conflicts are in the development of a group or individual, but can also lead to a negative sense of self and deterioration of work in a group or organization. Correct or illiterate management of a problem situation decides its role for the subjects; the destructive functions of the conflict can take over.

Conflict classifications

• between cultures (types of cultures);
• between government forms;
• between and within institutions;
• between associations.

Groups involved in a conflict may be divided into:

• groups based on common position;
• ethnic;

• interest groups;

• between individuals.

American philosopher Ralph Dahrendorf defined one of his most extensive classifications:

• by scale;
• on social consequences;
• by sources of occurrence;
• by forms of struggle;
• in relation to the subjects’ attitude to the conflict;
• according to the characteristics of the conditions of origin;
• according to the tactics used by the parties.

A. Dmitrov classifies social conflicts by area: political, economic, labor, education, social security, etc.

• integrative;
• innovative;
• activation of social connections;
• transformation of relationships;
• signaling about hotbeds of social tension;
• preventive;
• informational;
• adaptive;
• social change.

If the parties to a social conflict are able to resolve it, then this serves as an incentive for progressive changes in society.

The functions of social conflict serve to determine the importance of a given predicament. Regarding a specific subject, conflicts are divided into:

• External (intergroup, between subject and group, interpersonal);
• Internal (personal conflicts).

Psychologists also divide interactions of this kind into motivational, role, cognitive and others.

Kurt Lewin believed that motivational conflicts should be classified as intrapersonal. Examples of these include job dissatisfaction, lack of self-confidence, stress and overload at work. Berkowitz, Myers and Deutsch classified this same category as group.

Role conflicts, the essence of which is the problem of choosing a suitable option among several, are considered at the intergroup, interpersonal and intrapersonal levels. According to the works of Fred Lutens, intrapersonal conflicts should be divided into: goal, role and frustration.

Intergroup and interpersonal conflicts

Intergroup conflicts arise when the interests of certain groups clash. The impetus for the emergence of such a situation may be a struggle for resources or influence in an organization consisting of a number of groups with differing interests.

The most common are interpersonal conflicts. Most of them arise from the struggle for material values, although outwardly this looks like an imbalance in views or worldview. In other words, these are communication conflicts.

By nature, such situations are divided into:

1. Objective - real problems.
2. Subjective - assessment of actions or phenomena.

And according to the consequences they are classified as:

1. Constructive - rational changes.
2. Destructive - destruction.

Algorithm of actions for conflict management

To achieve results through proper conflict management, the manager must determine its type, as well as the causes and functions of conflicts.

He then applies the best of possible ways solutions.

To manage intrapersonal goal conflict, a manager must balance personal and organizational goals. For role conflict, you first need to understand the type of situation. There are a number of ways to resolve intrapersonal conflicts:

• compromise;
• sublimation;
• care;

• crowding out;
• reorientation;
• correction, etc.

Interpersonal conflicts can arise in any area of ​​relationships. Their management should be analyzed in internal and external aspects.

At all stages of managing this situation, likes and dislikes, causes and factors should be considered. There are two known ways to resolve this type of conflict: pedagogical and administrative. In most cases, conflicts, for example, between a subordinate and a boss, result in withdrawal or fighting. Both options are not suitable for solving them effectively.

Experts are considering a number of other possible options for how an individual can behave. One of the most popular is the two-dimensional model of Thomas and Killman. It is based on the appeal of the subjects of the conflict to their interests and the interests of the opposition. When analyzing interests, participants adhere to one of five types of behavior: leaving, fighting, concessions, cooperation, compromise.

Group conflicts

Group conflicts are no less common, but have a greater scale and impact. The manager must take into account that the reasons for such interaction lie in:

1. Violating group norms.
2. Violation of role expectations.
3. Incorrect internal personality attitude.

After a thorough analysis of the situation according to the parameters described above, it is necessary to consider the form in which it manifests itself.

The conflict between an individual and a group can be resolved in two ways:

1. The person who discovered the problem corrects the recognized errors.
2. An individual leaves the group as a result of a discrepancy between his interests and the interests of the group.

The conflict between the two groups is described in a variety of forms and causes. It can be expressed in a strike, a rally, negotiations or meetings. American psychologists and sociologists Arnold, Geldman, Dilton, Robbins and others especially carefully studied such situations between groups.

The “group-group” conflict can be resolved through negotiations or by concluding an agreement on comparing the positions and interests of the subjects.

So, there are constructive functions of conflict - fixing contradictions, resolving them, relieving tension and stabilizing. Their dominance depends on proper management of the situation. This is the only way to improve the current state of affairs.

The word “conflict” comes from (Latin – confliktus) meaning a clash of sides, opinions, forces. Conflict is a social phenomenon because it occurs in society between people. Every person throughout his life is faced with conflicts of various kinds, which cover all spheres of people’s life, the entire social relations, social interaction. Conflict, in fact, is one of the forms (types) of interaction between people, social groups, communities and institutions, in which the actions of one side, when faced with the interests of another, impede the realization of its goals. Conflict interaction involves confrontation between the parties, i.e. actions directed against each other.

Conflict is based on contradictions, but these two phenomena (contradictions and conflict) should not be identified. Contradictions can exist for quite a long period of time and not develop into a conflict. It must be borne in mind that opposites and contradictions turn into conflict when the forces that bear them begin to interact. Thus, a conflict is a manifestation of objective or subjective contradictions, expressed in the confrontation of parties, social subjects in order to realize their conflicting interests, positions, values ​​and views.

The confrontation may be more or less intense and more or less violent. “Intensity,” according to R. Dahrendorf, “means the energy invested by the participants and at the same time the social importance of individual conflicts.” The form of clashes - violent or non-violent - depends on many factors, including whether there are real conditions and opportunities (mechanisms) for non-violent resolution of the conflict and what goals are pursued by the subjects of the confrontation.

All social phenomena, events, as well as social communities (family, classes, social strata, political parties) can be viewed from the perspective of conflict, the result of which can be both struggle and disagreement, and cohesion and solidarity of people. This is the dual nature of the conflict, expressing its destructive and creative beginnings, and at the same time the dual role it plays in the development of society. Social conflict can be a factor in the destruction of society, or it can become a kind of engine for its development.

Makk R. and Snyder R. identified eight signs of conflict (they call five the main ones, emphasizing that if these signs are absent, there is no conflict):

A necessary condition for a conflict is the presence of at least two parties. Moreover, the parties are understood quite broadly. These can be individuals, groups, classes, even cultures. The conflict itself, its development, leads, in their opinion, to a situation in which there are really only two opponents;

The conflict arises due to the presence of two types of “deficit”: “positional” and “shortage of sources”. The first refers to the impossibility of simultaneous performance of one role or function by two subjects, which puts them in a competitive relationship. In the second case, we are talking about the insufficiency of any values, so that two subjects at the same time cannot fully satisfy their claims;

Conflict arises only if the parties seek to gain benefits at each other's expense. Thus, the success of one side means the failure of the other, and conflict behavior itself looks like a desire to eliminate, or at least bring the other side under control;

The actions of the conflicting parties must be aimed at achieving incompatible and mutually exclusive goals (values) and, therefore, collide;

An important aspect of conflict relationships is power. Conflict is always about an attempt to achieve, change or preserve public position- the ability to control and direct the behavior of the other party;

Conflict relationships are the basis of social processes and play an important social role;

The conflict process is a temporary tendency to disrupt the relationship between the parties;

Conflict relationships do not destroy the system, but rather contribute to changes in social norms and orientation.

When summarizing a number of points of view on conflict, two most well-known approaches can be distinguished.

The first one can be called structural; its main idea is that conflict is defined through a contradiction inherent primarily in the social structure (R. Dahrendorf, E. Babosov, M. Rutkevich, A. Dmitriev, etc.). For example, R. Dahrendorf By conflict he understands “all structurally produced relations, oppositions to norms and expectations, institutions and groups.” According to K. Boulding, conflict marks conscious and mature contradictions and clashes of interests.

The second approach is called functional. Its most famous supporter L. Koser believes that conflict is the behavior of the parties, which means their struggle for values ​​and claims to a certain status, power and scarce resources using a certain strategy with the aim of neutralizing or destroying the enemy, i.e. the emphasis is on the very actions of certain subjects of the conflict.

For S. Robins, “conflict can be defined as a situation that occurs when the goal-directed behavior of one group in an organization blocks the goal-directed behavior of another.”

Krisberg L. defines conflicts as “a complex phenomenon involving many controversial issues both parties, and each party is also involved in many conflicts at the same time.”

English sociologist A. Giddens By conflict he means “a real struggle between active people or groups, regardless of the origins of this struggle, its methods and means mobilized by each side.”

IN Russian literature The definition of social conflict most often used is given by EAT. Babosov: “social conflict is an extreme case of aggravation social contradictions, expressed in diverse forms of struggle between individuals and various social communities, aimed at achieving economic, social, political, spiritual interests and goals, neutralizing or eliminating a real or imaginary rival and not allowing him to achieve the realization of his interests.”

Zaprudsky Yu.G. gives the following definition: “Social conflict is an explicit or hidden state of confrontation between objectively divergent interests, goals and development trends of social subjects, a direct and indirect clash of social forces based on opposition to the existing public order, a special form of historical movement towards a new social unity.”

Zaitsev A. defines social conflict as “a forceful dynamic effect carried out by two or more individuals or social groups based on a real or perceived divergence of interests, values ​​or lack of resources.”

Zdravomyslov A.G. gives his own understanding of conflict as the most important aspect of interaction between people in society, a kind of cell of social existence: “This is a form of relations between potential or actual subjects social action, whose motivation 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 conflict), or “conflict is a clash of interests various groups, communities of people, individuals.”

For G.I. Kozyreva social conflict –“this is an open confrontation, a clash of two or more subjects and participants in social interaction, the reasons for which are incompatible needs, interests and values.”

IN " Brief dictionary According to sociology, conflict is characterized as the highest stage of development of contradiction in a system of relations between people, social groups, social institutions, and society as a whole, which is determined by the strengthening of opposing tendencies and interests of social communities and individuals.

The Sociological Dictionary states that social conflict “develops and is resolved in a specific social situation in connection with the emergence of a social problem requiring resolution. They have very specific causes, their social bearers (classes, nations, social groups, etc.), and have specific functions, duration and degree of severity.”

Thus, social conflict is determined by the severity of the existing social contradiction. Conflict requires at least two parties because conflict is a form of interaction. Conflict is always an attempt to achieve, change or maintain something in order to control the behavior of the other party. The behavior of the parties to the conflict should, as a rule, be conscious, i.e. provide specific benefits at the expense of each other. A conflict presupposes a certain contact and communication between the parties. The participants in the conflict experience or define it as such. The feeling of an atmosphere of conflict in this regard can be considered a desirable value for the parties. Conflict cannot be considered without connection with its organic opposite, which is agreement (consensus).

Structure of the conflict is represented by the following elements: subjects (conflicting parties), subject, conflict action, means and methods of action, field of conflict, conflict situation.

Subjects and participants in the conflict . It must be borne in mind that the concepts of “subject” and “participant” of the conflict are not always identical. The subject is an “active party” capable of creating a conflict situation and influencing the course of the conflict in accordance with its interests. A participant in a conflict may, consciously or not fully aware of the goals and objectives of the confrontation, take part in the conflict, or may be accidentally or against his (the participant’s) will involved in the conflict. Consequently, the subject of the conflict, entering into confrontation, consciously pursues his goals and interests. As the conflict develops, the statuses of “participants” and “subjects” may change places.

The subjects of conflict can be individuals, groups, classes, national-ethnic communities, organizations, social institutions, public and political associations, states, international communities, united by a certain goal.

Vary depending on the level personal (individual) And collective subjects of conflicts.

It is necessary to distinguish direct And indirect participants in the conflict. The latter represent certain forces pursuing their own personal interests in a supposed or real “alien” conflict. Indirect participants can:

A) provoke conflict and contribute to its development;

B) contribute to reducing the intensity of the conflict or its complete cessation;

C) support one or the other side of the conflict or both sides at the same time. Indirect participants in the conflict constitute a certain part of the surrounding social environment in which conflicts occur, therefore the social environment can act as a catalyst for the conflict, or as a restraining or neutral factor in its development.

The concept " party to the conflict» may include both direct and indirect participants in the conflict. Sometimes indirect participants are called “third parties” or “third parties” for their special interest in the conflict.

Rank presupposes a deliberately more or less advantageous position occupied by one of the subjects of the conflict in relation to the opposing side. Borodkin F.M. and Koryak N.M. proposed the following method for determining the ranks of opponents (subjects of conflict):

1. First-rank opponent – ​​a person speaking on his own behalf and pursuing his own interests.

2. Opponent of the second rank - individuals defending group interests.

3. Opponent of the third rank - a structure consisting of groups directly interacting with each other.

4. The highest rank is government agencies acting on behalf of the law.

Force in a social conflict, this is the opportunity and ability of the parties to the conflict to realize their goals despite the opposition of the enemy (opponent). It includes the entire set of means and resources, both directly involved in the confrontation and potential.

Environment comprises physical environment (geographical, climatic, environmental and other factors) and social environment– certain social conditions in which the conflict develops.

The relations between the subjects of the conflict are determined by the chosen behavioral strategies. The classification of Thomas-Kilman, who identified five main strategies of conflict behavior: avoidance, adaptation, competition, compromise, cooperation, is generally accepted. Strategies of behavior in conflict are determined by the relationship between activity and conformity. As practice shows, none of the basic strategies can be considered universally optimal.

Object of conflict– any really existing element of the material world or social reality that is claimed by the conflicting parties (for example, a disputed territory, a vacant position, a bill under discussion, etc.). The object does not directly depend on the subject, since it has an “objective” nature. For example, K. Marx believed that the basis of social (class) conflict is the relationship of ownership of the means of production. According to L. Coser, the basis of conflicts is the scarcity of resources, from the point of view of R. Dahrendorf - power.

All objects are divided into three main types:

1. Objects that cannot be divided into parts and it is impossible to own them jointly with anyone.

2. Objects that can be divided in different proportions between the parties to the conflict.

3. Objects that both parties to the conflict can jointly own. This is a situation of “imaginary” conflict.

Identifying the object in each specific conflict is not easy. Subjects and participants in the conflict, pursuing their real or imaginary goals, can hide, mask, and replace the sought-after motives that prompted them to confrontation. For example, in political struggle the object of the conflict is the real power in society, but each of the subjects of political confrontation tries to prove that the main motive of his specific conflict activity is the desire to achieve the maximum possible benefits for his voters.

Manipulation of an object can bring significant benefits to one of the parties to the conflict and significantly complicate the situation of the other. For example, a person who committed murder may be acquitted by the court if the lawyer proves that his client was forced to use a weapon in self-defense. Difficulties in finding the actual object of the conflict most often arise in complex conflicts, when some contradictions are superimposed on others or some causes of the conflict are replaced by others. Sometimes the subject of the conflict himself is not fully aware of the real motives of the confrontation.

The subject of the conflict is a more “subjective” concept; it reflects the specific interests, goals, and values ​​of the subjects. The item reveals certain characteristics of the object that caused the confrontation. For example, in the USSR during the period of perestroika, there was a struggle between representatives of the communist regime and democratic forces for the abolition of Art. 6 of the USSR Constitution, which spoke about the leading role of the party. The object in this conflict was the Constitution, which was socialist in its essence, and the subject was a specific article, which during this period became the main obstacle to the democratization of society. Subject of the conflict - this is a real or imaginary problem that has become the cause of confrontation. In other words, it is a material or spiritual object public life, in relation to which the opposite direction of activity of the subjects is formed. They can be economic and social benefits, material and spiritual values, political regimes, legal institutions, political and public leaders, their programs, ideological doctrines, religious beliefs, human rights and freedoms, moral and aesthetic ideals, various traditions and much more that makes up elements social life.

Source of conflict- a situation or state that expresses opposing interests, goals and needs. These are subjective or objective experiences of the parties, methods of “struggle”, events within the conflict, contradictions of opinions or confrontation. The basis of the conflict- this is, if not an objective, then an objectified reason. The source of the conflict stems from the basis of the conflict, but expresses the subjective aspirations of the parties to eliminate the grounds for confrontation in accordance with each party’s understanding of justice and law. The basis of the conflict is usually outside the conflict situation itself.

Conflict zone (field)- includes the subject of the conflict, but is not limited to the latter. The subject, as noted, is the source and object of contradiction - conflict, and the field (zone) is everything that constitutes the sphere of conflict actions. The conflict zone is the area in which conflict interaction takes place; there is a subject area in which the source of conflict is the real basis for transforming the actions of subjects into opposition. In other words, this is a zone in which the source of the conflict can be understood as the basis of the conflict.

The main line of conflict or the core of the conflict- this is a sector of the field (zone), characterizing that element of interaction that determines the opposite position of the parties. In other words, this is a conflict-generating factor, primarily the opposition of opponents. Let's say the current Russian political regime and the socialist opposition is divided by many things, but the core of the conflict is the opposition’s rejection of the ongoing course towards capitalizing the country.

If the source of the conflict is a subjective or motivating motive for action, then cause of conflict - this is her practical motive. In some cases, there may be both a basis for the conflict and its source, but it itself matures in a hidden, latent form and is not expressed in practical actions. The source of the conflict, which becomes the motive for the confrontation, is transformed into the cause of the conflict. It is closely related to reason - the fact of a separate act that provoked a response. The reason and reason may be different. The reason for the conflict, as a rule, transforms one form of confrontation into another: usually from hidden to open, from implicit to explicit, acute.

We can distinguish: objective and subjective reasons. The objective reason is some form of development of events, one or another fact. A subjective reason is a deliberate action whose goal is to intensify the conflict. The first type can be called unintentional, and the second - intentional. Provocation is one of the deliberate reasons. This is an action that puts the opposing party in conditions in which the choice of response actions is extremely limited. However, provocation is not always about programming only the opponent’s actions. Often the development of events becomes unpredictable and uncontrollable. In this regard, both the provocateur and his victim can be victims of provocation.

Incident– this is a formal reason for the start of a direct clash between the parties. It can happen by accident, or it can be provoked by the subjects (subject) of the conflict. The incident may also result from the natural course of events.

Any conflict arises, proceeds and is resolved against the background conflict situation , which includes, first of all, an acute form of contradiction that forms the basis of the conflict; precisely one in which both opposites or one of them can no longer exist within the framework of the previous relationship, unity. One or both parties are not satisfied with, for example, social status; level of participation in the power system, ability to access the distribution of benefits, etc. In a word, as according to Lenin, some cannot govern in the old way, while others no longer want to live as before.

The presence of a conflict situation indicates the formation of conflict-generating factors, indicates the emergence of a conflict initiator (leader, group, organization), as well as the readiness to support it on the part of other entities with an existing focus on the conflict. A conflict situation in society is a situation of social tension when the legitimacy of the very in a broad sense words (social justification) of various social structures, values, order. The conflict situation is stimulated by crisis phenomena. A crisis in society can act as a condition for the emergence of a conflict situation, or it is the background against which the conflict unfolds.

Borodkin F.M. and Koryak N.M. There are four types of conflict situations and four types of incidents based on the nature of their occurrence:

1. Objective, targeted (for example, new forms of teaching are being introduced and there is a need to change the structure of teaching and replace teaching staff).

2. Objective, non-targeted (the natural course of development of production comes into conflict with the existing organization of labor).

3. Subjective, goal-oriented (a person goes into conflict to solve his problems).

4. Subjective, non-targeted (accidentally colliding) interests of two or more parties - one ticket to a health resort, and several applicants.

Conflict action, interaction and behavior, means and methods form the conflict process itself, and also constitute one of its main structural elements. The literature identifies some types of conflict interaction: disagreement and dominance, which are put forward in the following forms of conflict behavior: confrontation, rivalry, competition. Conflict behavior is understood as actions aimed at the opposing side with the aim of seizing, holding a disputed object or forcing the opponent to abandon his goals or change them. Conflictologists identify several forms of collective behavior:

a) active conflict behavior (challenge);

b) passive-conflict behavior (response to a challenge);

c) conflict-compromise behavior;

d) compromising behavior.

So, conflict is understood as a form of confrontation between subjects, generated mainly by contradictions of a subjective and objective nature between interests.

Functions of social conflicts in the literature are considered within the framework of two mutually exclusive paradigms: the perception of conflict as a dialectical-creative factor (the most common) and the idea of ​​conflict only as a destructive phenomenon. The first paradigm stems from the recognition of the natural nature of conflict. Conflicts can lead to the successful resolution of social contradictions, the structuring of social subjects, and the formation of new value systems. The second is from the perception of it as a pathology. From this point of view, conflicts should be avoided in every possible way, and if they arise, try to stop as soon as possible.

The functions of conflict should be considered as a natural relationship between the latter and the social process. From this perspective, the question of functions presupposes, firstly, the clarification of objective consequences for society; secondly, analysis of forms of expression and the relationship of conflict with the nature of social structures; thirdly, the assessment of conflict is always relative, since it has different consequences for different participants, and can also be assessed differently depending on the point of view and the dominant value system.

The nature of conflicts, scale and severity, methods of resolution, and, consequently, functions depend on the type of society, the historical stage of its development, and the level of culture.

Sociology and conflictology identify two main functions of conflict – positive and negative.

Positive can be called a function that reduces or eliminates pre-existing social contradictions and tensions. It promotes increased efficiency of interaction between people involved in a conflict, satisfaction of their specific needs, and leads to a more rational and fair distribution of benefits, rights or responsibilities in a social group.

The positive functions of conflict include the following:

1. Conflict reveals and resolves contradictions that arise in relations between people and thereby contributes to social development. Timely identified and resolved conflict can prevent more serious conflicts leading to serious consequences.

2. In an open society, conflict performs the functions of stabilization and integration of intragroup and intergroup relations, and reduces social tension.

3. Conflict greatly increases the intensity of connections and relationships, stimulates social processes, gives society dynamism, encourages creativity and innovation, and promotes social progress.

4. In a state of conflict, people are more clearly aware of both their strengths and the interests opposing them, and more fully identify the existence of objective problems and contradictions of social development.

5. Conflict promotes learning about the environment social environment, on the relationship between the power potential of competing formations.

6. External conflict promotes intra-group integration and identification, strengthens the unity of the group, nation, society, and mobilizes internal resources. It also helps to find friends and allies and identifies enemies and ill-wishers.

7. Internal conflicts (in a group of organizations, societies) perform the following functions:

Creating and maintaining a balance of power (including power);

Social control over compliance with generally accepted norms, rules, values;

Creating new social norms and institutions and updating existing ones;

Adaptation and socialization of individuals and groups;

Group formation, establishment and maintenance of normative and physical boundaries of groups;

Establishing and maintaining a relatively stable structure of intragroup and intergroup relations;

Establishing an informal hierarchy in a group and society, including identifying informal leaders.

8. The positive functions of conflict also lie in the fact that it reveals the positions, interests and goals of the participants and thereby contributes to a balanced solution to emerging problems.

Negative can be called a function that does not eliminate or weaken social contradictions, but rather strengthens them. This occurs, as a rule, as a result of a clash of illusory interests, a spontaneous release of hostility and prejudice. A characteristic feature of destructive conflicts is that they are based on strong emotions, as a result of which they often take on an irrational form.

Conflict has negative functions:

When it leads to disorder and instability;

When a society fails to provide peace and order;

When the struggle is carried out using violent methods;

When the conflict results in large material and moral losses;

When there is a threat to the life and health of people.

Meanwhile, according to modern ideas, conflict also has integrative effects: it allows one to identify problems and contribute to their solution, strengthens intra-group unity, and inter-group cooperation of close groups.

In the diversity of the consequences of conflicts, some of their common functions are realized. For example, Zaprudsky Yu. divided all functions into two groups: “material” and “spiritual”, and then, “distracting from the differences in material and spiritual properties,” noted the three most important common functions inherent in any conflicts: “signaling, differentiating and dynamic "

Considering that conflict is a form of expression of contradiction, its manifestation and resolution, D.P. Zerkin notes the following general functions of conflicts:

1. informational-cognitive - any conflict signals the presence of a problem that requires a solution, allows it to be known, since it is revealed in the totality of facts perceived by people.

2. integrative - conflict promotes integration, unification of people, and therefore, the establishment of balance and stability in society.

3. differentiating – conflict is a factor of social differentiation – the flip side of integration.

4. stimulating the adaptation of the social system or its individual elements, including subjects, to a changing environment.

TEST

discipline: "Sociology"

“Causes, functions and subjects of social conflicts”

Work completed

group student

Checked:

Introduction……………………………………………………….3

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

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

Structure of social conflict……………………………10

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 being formed in society between the elite, representing various groups of new owners, and the huge mass of people who have been removed from property and from power.

Conflicts in modern conditions are 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 psychologically stable. 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 for analyzing and resolving conflicts of various kinds.

The main goal of this work is to study social conflict as a 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 the close attention of 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 difficult-to-resolve contradictions are 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 that arises from a lack of power, status or means necessary to satisfy values ​​and claims, and involves the neutralization, infringement or destruction of the goals of rivals.”

Later, K. Fink gave a definition of 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 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.

Real conflict is a 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. competitions.

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 the mutual deviation of responsibility and power.

Western sociologists and philosophers recognize conflicts as the most important factors in 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 conflict a “dispute,” considered it a psychologically determined phenomenon and one of the forms of socialization.

The classic of sociology R. Dahrendorf pointed out in his works 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 to achieve or preserve the means of production, economic position, power or other values ​​that enjoy public recognition, as well as to conquer, neutralize or eliminate 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 “enemy” 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.

- poor development of legal norms governing 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 a 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 (clash), 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, West German sociologist R. Dahrendorf, put political factors at the basis of social conflicts: 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 achieving 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, shelter, 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) formation of groups, 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 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 a team.

Moreover, 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.

There is a widespread belief in everyday life 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 of the conflicts exist in the internal, hidden plane.

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:

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

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

Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of conflict / A.G. Zdravomyslov - M., 2004.

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

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

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

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 may prevail. 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 your 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 with the theory 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 the conflict as such, but the nature of the social structure and social system itself.

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. Conflict, like cooperation, has social functions. A certain level of conflict is not necessarily dysfunctional, but is an essential component of both the process of group formation and 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Territorial aggression;

Dominance aggression;

Sexual aggression;

Parental aggression;

Child aggression;

Moralistic aggression;

Robber's aggression;

Aggression of the victim towards the robber.

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

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

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

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

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

Marxist sociology has made significant adjustments to the prevailing ideas about the processes of social development. The materialist understanding of history is set out by K. Marx in his book “On Critique political economy"(1859), where the structure of society is represented by four main elements:

Productive forces;

Relations of production;

Political superstructure;

Forms of social consciousness.

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

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

Collective inequality of living and working conditions;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Satisfying the basic biological and psychological needs of the majority of society;

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

Coincidence of individual motivations with social attitudes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Europe, the 1960s also saw a renewed interest in the conflict. In 1965, a German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf published the work "Class structure and class conflict", and two years later an essay entitled "Beyond Utopia". His concept "conflict model of society" built on a dystopian, real vision of the world - a world of power, conflict and dynamics. If Coser argued the positive role of conflicts in achieving social unity, then Dahrendorf believed that in every society there is disintegration and conflict, this is a permanent state of the social organism: “All social life is a conflict because it is changeable. There is no permanence in human societies because there is nothing stable in them. Therefore, it is in conflict that the creative core of all communities and the possibility of freedom are found, as well as the challenge to rational mastery and control over social problems.”

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

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

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

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

Conflict helps clarify the problem;

Conflict enhances an organization's ability to change;

Conflicts can enhance morality by deepening and enriching relationships between people;

Conflicts make life more interesting, awaken curiosity and stimulate development;

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

Conflicts improve the quality of decisions;

Conflicts contribute to the production of new creative ideas;

Conflicts help people understand who they really are.

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

What's new with Lewis Coser:

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

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

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

Any society is subject to change at every moment;

Social change is omnipresent;

Every society experiences social conflict at every moment;

Social conflict is omnipresent;

Every element of society contributes to its change;

Any society relies on coercion of some of its members by others.

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

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

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

Conflict is inseparable from social life;

It is in the nature of man to strive for constant enmity with his own kind;

Conflict can be overcome or limited;

All conflicts have common development patterns;

The key concept of conflict is competition;

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

In a genuine conflict, there must be awareness between the parties and the incompatibility of their desires.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 Main stages of analysis of social conflict

Conflict does not arise suddenly. The reasons for it accumulate, sometimes ripening quite long time.

In the process of ripening conflict, 4 stages can be distinguished:

1. Hidden stage- caused by the unequal position of groups of individuals in the spheres of “having” and “being able”. It covers all aspects of life conditions: social, political, economic, moral, intellectual. Its main reason is the desire of people to improve their status and superiority;

2. Stage of tension the degree of which depends on the position of the opposing side, which has great power and superiority. For example, tension is zero if the dominant party takes a position of cooperation, tension is reduced - with a conciliatory approach, and very strong - if the parties are intransigent;

3. Antagonism stage which manifests itself as a consequence of high tension;

4. The stage of incompatibility resulting from high tension. This is actually a conflict.

The emergence of a conflict does not preclude the continuation of previous stages, since the hidden conflict continues on private issues and, moreover, new tensions arise.

The conflict is more or less clearly limited in time and therefore it seems possible to determine which event is considered the beginning (commencement) of the conflict itself.

The first stage of analysis conflict is considered to be its development in time, from the moment of initiation to the beginning of observation of it. The following issues need to be examined here:

The subject of the conflict and its object;

List of participants;

Historical roots;

Immediate reason;

The level of tension between the parties at the starting point of the conflict.

Schematically it will look like this:

Subject of the conflict. This concept reflects the everyday perception of the main contradiction in the conflict. The subject of conflict is understood as an objectively existing or imaginary problem that serves as a cause of discord between the parties. This could be a problem of power, the possession of any values, a problem of primacy or incompatibility. The search for ways to resolve a conflict must begin with defining its subject, and this is often not easy to do. In complex and intricate conflicts, the subject of the conflict may not have clear boundaries and become fluid.

Object of conflict. Another essential element of a conflict is its object, which is not always possible to immediately identify in each case. The main contradiction or subject of conflict is easier to determine. 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. To become an object of conflict, this value must be at the intersection of the interests of various social actors seeking control over it. There is an opinion that the conflict may not have an explicit object. Along with “objective” conflicts, “objectless” conflicts are distinguished, which are not based on mutual desires for control over something. Thus, a conflict may begin because a random passer-by makes a remark to a bully. There is no object here that both subjects would like to possess; rather, one violates the moral ideas of the other. Such conflicts include a situation in which the relationships of individuals are imbued with unreasonable mutual hatred and even the desire to destroy each other.

Analysis of the parties to the conflict is a difficult matter. Among them, it is necessary to highlight the direct participants, their allies and those who are indirectly interested in supporting the parties to the conflict; determine the degree of involvement in the conflict of all its participants.

For example, the analysis of an international conflict requires taking into account in detail the characteristics of all participants from various points of view, namely:

Resources (forces);

Levels of aspirations and goals.

At resource analysis(forces) should be taken into account: material resources (mineral reserves, production level); ideological (moral and political unity of the people, willingness to defend the interests of the state); military (composition of the armed forces, equipment, weapons); political (type of state, political regime, stability of the regime, leader of the country); foreign policy (alignment of forces in one’s own coalition, balance of forces in the enemy’s coalition).

Level of aspiration. The goals of the parties must be considered from the point of view of the possibilities of achieving them by either party. You have to evaluate your own resources, the enemy’s resources and his possible reactions.

Among historical roots conflicts include territorial disputes, national contradictions, religious confrontations, economic and other disagreements.

The immediate cause of the conflict is a description of the specific events that led to the conflict. They may be: the adoption of an administrative act that infringes on the rights of one of the groups; planned provocations; adoption of customs restrictions, etc.

Tension level(or stability) in the relationship between the parties at the starting point of the conflict. It can be represented in the form of the degree of satisfaction of various social groups with government policies, the level of organization of social groups, and the possibility of their pressure on the policies of the authorities. Social tension is an indicator of conflict, the psychological state of significant social groups, and group emotions.

Second stage of analysis - studying the course of the conflict, as well as events that bring a fundamentally new quality to the development of the conflict (rallies, strikes, decisions of informal bodies, etc.). These events promote it to a new stage of escalation: they either accumulate some quality for a leap, or artificially delay its progress. A particular difficulty in analyzing the course of the conflict is determining its transition into a crisis.

A crisis- this is a situation of sudden aggravation that requires prompt decisions.

The graph below shows a sudden escalation that can occur at any level of tension.

The third stage of analysis conflict is the breakdown of its course into time intervals.

Any conflict dictates the definition of a time horizon and time intervals within this horizon. Each event under consideration must be assigned to an interval grid and escalation level.

Fourth stage of analysis - conflict forecasting.

A forecast is a probabilistic scientifically based judgment regarding the unobservable state of an object at a certain point in time. Forecasting is a development based on predictive techniques, historical and logical analysis, a systematic approach, deductive conclusions, etc.

The task of forecasting mainly includes obtaining an answer to the question: what will happen if certain events take place.

The fifth stage of analysis is conflict resolution . This is a process of problem solving, its goal is to resolve the conflict in its very essence, to get to its real causes. This is the process of recognizing needs and values ​​that cannot be agreed upon, such as fear for one's own safety, people's anger due to lack of sufficient social recognition, etc.

These concerns, not just material interests (such as higher pay), usually lie at the root of the most intractable conflicts.

1.3. Causes of social conflicts. Typology of conflicts

Most common reasons social conflicts are:

Different or completely opposite perceptions of people's goals, values, interests and behavior;

The unequal position of people in imperatively coordinated associations (some control, others obey);

Discord between people's expectations and actions;

Misunderstandings, logical errors and generally semantic difficulties in the communication process;

Lack and poor quality of information;

The imperfection of the human psyche, the discrepancy between reality and ideas about it.

The universal source of conflict is the incompatibility of the parties' claims due to the limited possibilities of satisfying them.

Lack of livelihood is at the heart of all economic conflicts. Of course, if all people's needs were met, there would be no conflicts. But then the very development of society would stop. Life is woven from contradictions that lie at the heart of any conflict.

There is a certain pattern in the emergence of conflicts: The poorer a society is and the more scarce consumer goods are, the more often conflicts arise in it.

At the same time, the following cause-and-effect relationship is noted: In a poor society with a totalitarian regime, conflicts are a very rare phenomenon.

The importance of the typology of social conflicts is due to the need to regulate the process of their occurrence.

There are various classifications of conflicts:

1. In accordance with the organization of society, conflicts are formed at the level of:

Individuals, between them;

Groups of individuals;

Large systems (or subsystems);

Division of society into classes and strata;

Society as a whole;

At regional or global levels.

2. B social psychology There is a multivariate typology of conflict depending on the criteria that are taken as a basis, i.e. the conflict could be:

Intrapersonal (between family sympathies and a leader’s sense of duty);

Interpersonal (between the manager and his deputy, as well as between employees regarding the distribution of bonuses, etc.);

Between an individual and the organization to which he belongs;

Between organizations or groups of the same or different status.

3. The following classifications of conflicts are also possible:

Horizontally (between employees who are not subordinate to each other);

Vertically (between people subordinate to each other);

Mixed (in which both are presented).

The most common conflicts are vertical and mixed. They make up 70-80% of all the rest.

4. In H. Bisno we find six types of conflicts:

5. American researcher M. Deutsch also identifies six types of conflicts:

A genuine conflict - a clash of interests exists objectively, is recognized by the participants and does not depend on any changeable factor;

Random or conditional conflict - it is based on random, easily changeable circumstances, but they are not realized by the conflicting parties;

Displaced conflict – the perceived causes of the conflict are only indirectly related to its objective underlying causes;

Misattributed conflict - either unintentionally or deliberately, a conflict is attributed to the wrong parties between whom it actually occurs;

Latent conflict - due to objective reasons, a conflict should take place, but is not actualized;

False conflict - it has no objective basis; it arises from misconceptions or misunderstandings.

6. Ronald Fisher (R.J. Fisher) identifies three types of conflict:

Economic conflict is based on the motives of possessing limited resources, including territory, and is one of the forms of real conflict;

Conflict of values ​​– formed around incompatible preferences, principles that people believe in and which correlate with group identification (culture, religion, ideology);

Powerful conflict is when one side seeks to maximize its influence on the other side through force.

7. Joseph Himes (J.S. Himes) proposed his typology of social conflicts, the main criterion of which is the breadth of the masses involved and the degree of impact on society:

Private conflicts - in which the state or government does not play a major role (gang wars; interreligious, interethnic, interclan, intertribal, interregional clashes; conflict between workers and managers, etc.);

Civil disobedience:

Riots – actions directed against the government (political demonstrations, strikes);

Collusion;

Internal war (uprising, riot, Civil War, revolution);

Social control – government actions to counter collective conflicts;

Power interaction implies the presence of a conflict continuum. R.J. Doolittle sees it this way:

R. Doolittle considers it most optimal for the conflict to take place in the cooperation zone. Competition promotes the pursuit of mutually exclusive goals. In a fight, participants define themselves as enemies.

1.4. Functions of social conflicts

Civilized conflict requires maintaining forceful interaction within the framework of cooperation and competition. Fighting means the conflict moves into an uncivilized framework. This leads to the division of 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.

Concept "pathology" makes sense only in connection with the concept "norm" and means something abnormal from the point of view of a legal or moral norm within the framework of specific features of society.

There are five simple and four complex forms of pathological conflict.

Simple pathological forms of conflict:

Sabotage;

Bullying (stalking);

Verbal and physical aggression.

Difficult:

Protest;

Revolution;

Detailed typology of violence proposed by American researcher Joseph Himes.

Towards violent actions The researcher, in particular, includes the following:

International Wars;

Urban race riots;

Organized crime in major cities;

Murders by order;

Train and bank robberies, kidnappings, etc.

The other pole of conflict actions is non-violent actions, conventionally classified as constructive. The classification of nonviolent actions (198 methods) was compiled by the American professor J. Sharp.

Towards methods of nonviolent protest and persuasion he refers in particular to:

Public performance;

Slogans, cartoons and symbols;

Prayers and services;

Stripping as a sign of protest;

Destruction of your property;

Refusal of honors;

Excommunication;

Absenteeism;

Emigration as a sign of protest;

Non-consumption of boycotted goods;

Withdrawal of bank deposits;

Waiver of taxes;

Prisoners' strikes;

Boycott elections;

Refusal of membership in international organizations;

Hunger strike;

Road blocking;

Desire for imprisonment and many others.

Constructiveness, as a rule, is narrowed to the concept of “social norm”. Going beyond this norm is a destructive social pathology.

Constructive (positive) functions of conflict. These include:

Function of defusing tension between antagonists, “exhaust valve”;

“communicative-informational” and “connecting” functions, during which people can check each other and get closer;

Function as a stimulant and driving force of social change;

L. Coser: “Groups or systems that are not challenged are no longer capable of creative response.”

Function of promoting the formation of socially necessary balance;

Guarantees for the development of society by revealing opposing interests, the possibilities of their scientific analysis and determining the necessary changes;

Assisting in the reassessment of previous values ​​and norms;

Providing assistance to strengthen the loyalty of members of this structural unit.

Destructive (negative) functions of conflict, those. conditions that interfere with achieving goals. These are like:

Dissatisfaction, poor morale, increased staff turnover, decreased productivity;

Reduced degree of cooperation in the future, disruption of the communication system;

Absolute loyalty to one's group and unproductive competition with other groups in the organization;

The idea of ​​the other side as an enemy, of one's goals as positive, and of the other side's goals as negative;

Curtailment of interaction between conflicting parties;

An increase in hostility between the conflicting parties as communication decreases, an increase in mutual hostility and hatred;

Shift of emphasis: giving more importance to winning the conflict than solving the problem;

Possibility of preparing for a new round of conflict; consolidation in the social experience of an individual or group of violent methods of solving problems.

However, when assessing the constructiveness and destructiveness of conflict functions, it is necessary to keep in mind the following:

Lack of clear criteria for distinguishing between constructive and destructive conflicts. The line between constructive and destructive functions sometimes loses its clarity when it comes to assessing the consequences of a particular conflict;

The vast majority of conflicts have both constructive and destructive functions;

The degree of constructiveness and destructiveness of a particular conflict may change at different stages of its development;

It should be taken into account for which of the participants in the conflict it 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). Therefore, the functions of conflict from the perspective different participants may be assessed differently.