Conflict Theory

According to conflict approach social inequality is viewed as the fundamental source of conflict in human society. However, we will restrict out discussion to the contributions of some major protagonists of this view. Karl Marx, Ralph Dahrendorf, G.E. Lenski and C. Wright Mills are some of the prominent conflict theories of social stratification sociologists, however, do not constitute a homogeneous group of thinkers. For Karl Marx ‘conflict’ is generated by economic inequality. Others perceive power inequality’ as the root cause of social conflict. Marx never gave theory of stratification; he gave a theory of social class on the basis of which we derive stratification or inequality in society. In the view of Marx, the concept of class is fundamental. A social class in Marx's terms is any aggregate of persons who perform the same function in the organisation.

Karl Marx explains the course of historical development in terms of conflict between the two contending classes. He emphasizes that history of all societies has been the history of class struggle. Marx outlines several phases of social development such as ancient civilization, feudalism and capitalism. He always talked of classes in all the historical periods except Primitive society. Ancient period had two classes of freeman and slave; Feudalism had the classes of feuds or lords and second of serfs or servants. In capitalism, there are two classes of capitalists and workers. In each society, powerful class exploits the powerless class. The conflict between these classes, according to Marx, leads to social change.

The division of human society into classes is caused by the objective economic differentiation of the people themselves. The class of oppressors or ‘haves’ is dominant because they are owners of the means of production. The have nots are property less and are dependent on the wages for their livelihood. Thus, division of people into two broad antagonistic classes is caused by their respective positions in the process of production. However, the fact that the capitalist class owns the means of production makes it dominant also in other spheres of social life such as politics, art and literature etc.

According to Marx, a revolution brought out by class struggle may bring an end to capitalism. He argues that capitalism creates seeds of its own destruction. It is the last phase of class based ‘stratified society’. The struggle between the two classes namely the bourgeois and proletariat would bring a revolutionary transformation of society. The victory of the have-nots may also abolish private property. Therefore, in the socialist society, which would replace the capitalist society, there will be no antagonistic classes and inequality.

Therefore, Marx presented a dichotomous model of class, he opined that with the development in capitalist system, and the middleclass will disappear. When despite of their hard work and labour they would not be able to attain their objectives, they will join hands with subordinate class (proletariats) and thus over-throw the ruling class (Bourgeoisie).

Before referring to criticism of Marxist theory of class, it is important to point out that although many thinkers explain in equality in the society, Marx was the only one who gave the ray of hope that this inequality will be demolished in the Post-Capitalist society. It should not, however, be understood in literal sense what Marx really meant was that class character of the state would disappear. When class hostility is no longer part of the social milieu, the administration or the state represents all of the members of the society and not just an elite ruling class. Thus, state no longer dominates or exploits, there is truly, “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Dahrendorf (1959) is also an advocate of conflict theory of social stratification. He, however, differs from Karl Marx. In his opinion, the Marxist framework is no doubt relevant for the understanding of capitalism. But the modern industrial or post-capitalist society has a different pattern of social stratification. Consequently, there is division of people into those who command and those who are subservient. Structures of super ordination and subordination determine status distinctions among the people. Authority structures based on coercion place people in high and low positions. Those persons who enjoy the positions of authority command over those who are working under them. They simply comply orders of their subordinates. The persons who have identical interests by way of commanding or by way of obeying the order may be described as ‘quasi-group’. However, if the interests are consciously articulated for directing behaviour, they acquire a manifest character. Dahrendorf defines social classes as organised or unorganized categories of people who share manifest or latent interests arising from their position in the authority structures. Thus, for Dahrendorf class-conflict is merely a conflict between groups arising out of relationships based on authority structures. According to Dahrendorf most people are not likely to be engaged in only one major conflict arising out of property relations. Recent patterns of change in social structure have created a plurality of interest groups, hence multiple bases of conflict. He also disapproves the Marxist view that with the abolition of classes, there would not be conflict in the society. Thus Dahrendorf attempts to reformulate Marx’s theory of social stratification. However, Dahrendorf view been challenged by a number of other scholars. According to Westergaard (1965) despite some changes, modern industrial societies are still not fundamentally different from the capitalist societies. The system is still largely built around the private ownership of the means of production and the wageworkers.

C. Wright Mills[4] (1956) view regarding role of elite in American society also highlights the elements of conflict. Mills argues that the American society is dominated by ‘power elite’ comprising of people from military, business corporations and politics. He explains the elite rule in America in industrial terms. The structure of institutions is such that those who are at the top of the institutional hierarchy largely monopolize power. Certain institutions occupy ‘pivotal positions’ in society and the elite comprise of those who hold ‘command posts’ in these institutions. In the United States, Mills identifies three: the major corporations, the military and the federal governments.

The three segments of the power elite resemble due to similarity of their social and educational backgrounds. According to Mills, the power elite enjoys unprecedented power. Despite the fact that the decisions of the power elite affect all the members of the American society, the power elite are not accountable for their actions directly to the public. The rise of the power elite has resulted into the decline of politics as a genuine public debate for alternative policy formulation. According to Mills, this is true of both ‘Democrats’ and ‘Republicans’. Consequently, the people are not provided with a choice of alternative policies. The masses are considered a passive lot controlled and managed by the power elite.

The above description of the elite rule in America by Mills hints at two levels of a conflicting situation. Firstly, there is a conflict between the three segments of the power elite, and secondly, the conflict is between the power elite and the masses. But this thesis of the elite rule in America has been questioned by Robert A. Dahl[5] (1961) and A. M. Rose(1967)[6]. Their view is that the centre of power in America is pluralistic and not elitist.

Lastly, the theoretical approach is provided by Gerhard Lenski (1966)[7]. Lenski claims for working out a synthesis of the functionalist and the radical (conflict) approach. However, his approach is concerned more with the dialectics of the distributive system, particularly regarding power and privilege.

According to Lenski, there are two laws of distribution, which apply predominantly to the primitive and the developed societies, respectively. A primitive society does not produce any surplus beyond the level of production necessary for its subsistence. The developed societies produce surplus, more than what is required for subsistence.

In a primitive society, there is minimal social inequality. Such a society merely produces the barest minimum for its survival. Its members cooperate rather than compete in the process of production. Once the society, in course of its development, starts producing surplus, ‘social inequality’ comes into being. There is competition among its members for cornering maximum share from its production. In the struggle, for getting maximum share from the surplus produced the privileged groups extract maximum share. In the ultimate analysis the more powerful section turns to be more privileged.  According to Lenski’s approach those who enjoy power are able to extract more surpluses. There is more production and surplus if there is corresponding degree of social inequality and Economically advanced societies bear more social inequality and vice-versa.

However, some specific or contingent factors also play an important role in determining social inequality. These may include among others physical environment, war, epidemics, etc. Lenski identifies three such variables.

Lenski’s contention regarding his approach as a synthesis of the functionalist and the radical approaches does not seem to be a sound one. His approach turns to be a ‘conflict theory’ of power, and the functionalist stance in it appears to be quite subdued. One of the major weaknesses of Lenski’s approach is that it ignores the possibility that instead of political power controlling the distribution of resources, control over strategic resources grants political power to those who enjoy such control.

INDIAN Society -CONFLICT VIEWPOINT

We have noted that for Marx economic factor is the main basis of social stratification. We have also noted that Dahrendorf, Mills and Lenski consider power as the main basis of social inequality.

The Marxian approach has been adopted by a large number of scholars including D.P. Mukherjee (1958), A.R. Desai (1959), Charles Bettelheim (1968), V.I. Pavlov (1964), and R.P. Dutta (1986). It is generally viewed that the caste stratification in Indian society corresponds with the class stratification. The upper castes are the dominant classes because they own land (means of production). The scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes constitute the class of wage earner.

So far as social stratification in Indian society is concerned, a large number of studies explain the main attributes of Indian power elite Yogendra Singh (1980) points out that the composition of the Indian elite has changed substantially over time. The dominance of the upper caste urban-professional elite has been weakened by the developments of the post-independence period. After 1967 particularly, the middle peasant castes have a major say in power politics. This has been possible for them after they have consolidated their economic standing in the early years after Independence. As rightly pointed out by Beteille (1969b, 1981) their numerical strength has made them powerful in parliamentary democracy. From this perspective the newly emerged middle peasant castes are increasingly trying to challenge the traditional political hegemony of the upper castes.

CONFLICT AND FUNCTIONAL THEORIES- A COMPARISION

The conflict theory of social stratification has emerged as an antithesis of the functionalist approach. The conflict theory is a different approach somewhat diametrically opposed to the functional theory of stratification.

According to the functionalists, social stratification arises out of the needs of the society, and not out of the needs or desires of particular individuals. By contrast, conflict theorists approach the problem of social inequality from the standpoint of the position of various classes and groups within the society. Their needs and desires, rather than the needs of the society as a whole, become the root-cause of social inequality. Conflict theorists, see social inequality as arising out of the monopolistic control over the goods and services by a minority of people. The means by which scare goods and services are produced are owned by the capitalists.

Secondly, the conflict theory of social stratification differs from the functional approach on the question of change and stability in the society. The functionalists ‘justify’ social stratification declaring it as a functional necessity. As such social stratification performs certain positive functions in all societies. Therefore, social stratification is not only indispensable to all human societies, but it is also a great source of stability. However, the conflict theorists look at social inequality and class hierarchy as the main source of social change.

Functional theorists also believe that social system is in a dynamic equilibrium. Various aspects of social stratification such as class, power and status and ‘orders’ of social relations, hence social stability becomes their main concern. In contrast, the conflict theory outlines that society is inherently unstable because of its inherent contradictions and class-antagonism. According to this approach conflicts emanating from social inequality lead to change in the structure of society.

Finally, the main concern of the functionalists is to know how different aspects of society are interrelated with each other and how this brings about cohesion and stability in the system. So far as social stratification is concerned role-allocation is made on the basis of societal needs and ability of the incumbents. Rewards are differentially given based upon a man’s position in the society.

In short, while the functionalists highlight the common goals shared by the members of a society; the conflict theorists stress upon the basic factors, which divide the society into the rich and the poor people. The functionalists stress upon the common advantages, which are brought out from social relationships; the conflict theorists emphasize the domination exercised by the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. Furthermore, while the functionalists consider consensus as the basis of social unity the conflict theorists observe that coercion of the poor by the rich is the cause of social inequality. Finally, whereas the functionalists look at human society as a social system, the conflict theorists consider it as a stage in the evolution of struggle for power and privilege. This is, however, not to emphasize that all the conflict theorists totally deny the validity of the functionalist approach. There are some functionalists who acknowledge the importance of conflict in human society. In fact, ‘conflict is seen as the necessary background phenomenon in the emergence of ‘integration’, and similarly integration is viewed as the basis of conflict by developing inconsistencies and contradictions.