Social movements and social conflicts. Social conflict: types and causes of conflicts What are the conflicts of social science

social conflict- this is the highest stage of the development of contradictions in relations between people, social groups, society as a whole, which is characterized by a clash of oppositely directed interests, goals, positions of the subjects of interaction. Conflicts may be covert or overt, but they are always based on a lack of agreement between two or more parties. 1

Structure of social conflict

The participants in the conflict are called the subjects of the conflict. Among them are the following:

parties to the conflict - direct participants in the conflict interaction;
accomplices - persons who directly contributed to the conflict; these are the ones who started the conflict;
instigators - persons pushing any side to the conflict;
witnesses - persons who observe the conflict from the outside and do not directly intervene in it;
mediators - people who by their actions try to prevent, stop or mitigate the intensity of the conflict.

The participants in the conflict may not be in direct confrontation, but they influence the course of the conflict. The good, the subject, the problem, the question about which the conflict flares up, is called the subject of the conflict. It should not be confused with the cause of the conflict - the objective circumstances that predetermine the emergence of the conflict. The reason for the conflict is some often even insignificant event, a fleeting fact that predetermines the conflict. Example: two friends began to conflict because of the problem of holding the evening - this is the subject of the conflict. The conflict was caused by disagreements - to go to the cinema or stay at one of the friends' houses and play computer games. And the reason for the conflict could be the sharp phrase of one of the friends, who said that he did not care about the opinion of a friend. 2

Of great importance for the sociological analysis of social conflicts is the identification of the main types. There are the following types of conflicts:

By the number of participants in the conflict interaction:

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

According to the direction of conflict interaction:

horizontal - between people who are not subordinate to each other;
vertical - between people who are subordinate to each other;
mixed - in which both those and others are represented. The most common are vertical and mixed conflicts, averaging 70-80% of all conflicts;

By origin:

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

According to their functions:

creative (integrative) - contributing to renewal, the introduction of new structures, policies, leadership;
destructive (disintegrative) - destabilizing social systems;

According to duration:

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

According to its internal content:

rational - covering the sphere of reasonable, business rivalry, redistribution of resources;
emotional - in which participants act on the basis of personal hostility;

According to the ways and means of resolving conflicts, there are:

peaceful
armed.

By taking into account the content of the problems that caused conflict actions, they distinguish:

economic,
political,
family household,
production,
spiritual and moral,
legal,
environmental,
ideological and other conflicts.

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

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

Direct conflict- this is the active part of the conflict, characterized by the presence of an incident, i.e. social actions aimed at changing the opponent's behavior.

The actions themselves are of two types:

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

The main mode of action in a hidden internal conflict is reflexive control, which means that one of the rivals, through "deceptive movements", tries to get the other person to act in this way. how beneficial to him.

Conflict resolution is possible only when the conflict situation is eliminated, and not only when the incident is exhausted. The resolution of the conflict can also occur as a result of the depletion of the resources of the parties or the intervention of a third party, creating an advantage for one of the parties, and, finally, as a result of the complete exhaustion of the opponent.

Successful conflict resolution requires the following conditions:

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

There are various conflict resolution methods:

conflict avoidance - leaving the "scene" of conflict interaction physically or psychologically, but the conflict itself is not eliminated in this case, since the cause that gave rise to it remains;
negotiations - avoid the use of violence, achieve mutual understanding and find a way to cooperate;
the use of intermediaries is a conciliatory procedure. An experienced mediator, which can be an organization and an individual, will help to quickly resolve the conflict there. where without his participation it would not have been possible;
postponing - in fact, this is the surrender of its position, but only temporary, since as the forces accumulate, the side will most likely try to return what was lost;
arbitration, or arbitration, is a method in which the norms of laws and law are strictly guided.

The consequences of conflict can be:

positive:

resolution of accumulated contradictions;
stimulation of the process of social change;
convergence of conflicting groups;
strengthening the cohesion of each of the rival camps;

negative:

tension;
destabilization;
disintegration.

Conflict resolution can be:

complete - the conflict ends completely;
partial - the conflict changes the external form, but retains motivation.

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

Sociology defines social conflict as the highest form of contradictions in society. In ordinary consciousness, conflict is a phenomenon that should be avoided. However, scientists discover many positive functions in it. The specificity and social role of the conflict are the subject of deep research and reflection of scientists.

concept

Conflictology defines social conflict as the highest point of conflict of interests between members and groups of society. The history of social conflicts goes back centuries. Already the first communities of people defended their interests in confrontations with each other. Defining the essence of this phenomenon, thinkers approach its definition in different ways. So, according to K. Marx, social conflict is the antagonism of classes, which inevitably ends in a revolution.

Lewis Coser, an American sociologist, believes that social conflict is the interaction of opponents, which proceeds in the form of a struggle for values, power, resources using various methods of causing various damage to an opponent.

The German sociologist Ralf Derendorf says that social conflict is a clash between social groups of varying intensity and manifestation, and class struggle is just one of its types. Thus, the understanding of social conflict always includes ideas about confrontation for something. The degree of expression may be different, but there is always opposition in it.

Causes of conflicts

Social conflict is a frequent phenomenon, and it can be associated with many reasons. Society is a sphere of permanent clash of interests of different parties, and the diversity of these interests becomes the source of so many causes of confrontation. The most common causes of social conflicts can be represented as follows:

interests and beliefs. Worldviews, dominant values, people's preferences - all this can cause social conflicts. A clash of views, religious beliefs, industrial interests can provoke confrontations of different strengths. We see how today inter-ethnic and religious differences can lead to armed defense of one's views. Contradictions in norms and values can cause very strong emotions in people. Psychological attitudes, stereotypes, ingrained worldview - all this is perceived by a person as part of his personality, therefore, an encroachment on them causes aggression and negativity. Conflicts of economic, cultural, political interests can also cause confrontation.

Needs. Ways to meet the needs of groups of some people may cause resistance in others. For example, satisfying the need for food, shelter, and security may threaten the needs of others for the same. Thus, the migration of population groups from war-ravaged territories to prosperous countries risks undermining the well-being of the inhabitants of these places. All of the above leads to the emergence of social conflicts.

Disorganization of society. Social and economic inequality, the struggle of ideologies, the presence of unemployment, orphanhood, the severity of the political struggle, the inequality of opportunities - all this very often becomes a source of social tension, which results in conflicts.

Theories of social conflict

The essence and causes of social conflicts are studied by sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers. As a result, there are several basic approaches to understanding the nature of this phenomenon.

The socio-biological theory of social conflict is based on Charles Darwin's postulates about evolution and understands conflict as a natural mechanism of the struggle for survival. G. Spencer, W. Sumner adhered to this point of view. They believed that conflict was inevitable until a balance was reached between the interests and needs of all people, which, in principle, was utopian.

The psychological approach believes that conflict is in the nature of human behavior. Modern society violates the personal interests of the individual, and this leads to conflict. The conflict is a tool for defending the rights of a person to his expectations and to meet his needs.

Marxist theory proceeds from materialistic views and believes that conflict is the result of class inequality, and it is due to the class struggle. When a balance of interests between all members of society is found, the confrontations will disappear. The cause of the conflict, according to K. Marx, G. Marcuse, R. Michels, is the inequality of living and working conditions, as well as the hereditary transfer of privileges and unequal starting opportunities.

Dialectical theories, today recognized as the most realistic and progressive, proceed from the fact that the social system is unstable, and this variability leads to conflicts. Researchers L. Koser, R. Dahrendorf, K. Boulding recognize that conflict not only has destructive consequences, but is also a productive mechanism for the development of society. They believe that social conflict is ubiquitous, it is the result of competition, but it can be overcome. The whole history of mankind, according to R. Dahrendorf, is a series of confrontations, from which society always comes out different.

Today, two main approaches to the study of conflict coexist in sociology: the first one studies its structure and types, the second one is focused on finding ways to avoid confrontations and studies the sphere of peace and harmony.

Kinds

The variety of causes of conflicts leads to the emergence of a large number of classifications of this phenomenon. Traditionally, researchers identify the following grounds for typology and types of social conflicts:

By areas of flow. Determining the area of development of the described phenomenon makes it possible to single out a socio-psychological conflict, socio-political, socio-economic and national-ethnic.
By duration. In this case, short-term and long-term conflicts are distinguished.
By frequency: one-time and recurring.
By influence on the development of society: progressive and regressive.
By type of relationship. There are conflicts between social groups - intergroup and intragroup, between peoples - interethnic, between states - interstate, between state coalitions - global.
According to the intensity of the flow. Allocate acute, protracted, hidden or latent conflicts.

Of greatest interest to researchers is the study of conflicts occurring in various areas, since each of them generates a special type of confrontation.

Public and socio-political conflicts

The political sphere often provokes social conflicts in society. Traditionally, these types of confrontations are associated with the fact that the government often interferes in other areas of people's lives, power structures can act as an intermediary between different groups in order to level the conflict.

There are such types of confrontations in the political sphere:

between branches of government. Between the opposing factions sometimes there are conflict situations because of the struggle for the possession of power.
between institutions of power. The government, parliaments, the senate often come into conflict with each other, this sometimes leads to the resignation of senior officials in the government or the dissolution of parliament, but more often conflicts are smoothed out, only to reappear later.
Between parties and political movements. The struggle for voters, for the opportunity to form a government always leads to intense competition between parties.
between the levels of executive power. Often there is a conflict of interests between individual structural units of power, which also provokes confrontation.

The public is not always a participant in such conflicts, more often it is assigned only the role of an observer. But in the rule of law, people have the opportunity to influence the resolution of a dispute.

Economic conflicts

The sphere of production, entrepreneurship and finance is one of the most controversial. Here, competition is not only not hidden, but even cultivated, and this is always a direct path to confrontations. Socio-economic conflicts often take place in the area of collision of welfare and labor systems.

Uneven income distribution is always a source of social tension and potential for conflict. Also, economic conflicts can exist along the lines of labor collectives, trade unions and the government. Workers' representatives may oppose the government under unfair legislation. So, at the beginning of the 20th century, such conflicts led to the widespread establishment of an 8-hour working day. But most often disputes arise between different economic entities. They can protect their property, the right to conduct business, to cover new market segments. The clash of property and commercial interests can cause conflicts that are resolved legally or transferred to the interpersonal level.

Functions

According to its consequences, social conflict can be destructive or constructive. It can benefit society or have a devastating effect on it. The constructive functions of social conflict include:

development function. Even K. Marx wrote that as a result of conflicts, society carries out evolutionary development.
discharge function. The conflict situation allows the parties to express their claims and relieve tension, this helps to find rational constructive solutions to the problem later.
Equilibrium function. Conflicts contribute to achieving balance between different groups.
axiological function. Conflicts contribute to the reassessment of existing and the establishment of new norms and values.
integrative function. During a conflict, groups of people can express their opinions, find like-minded people and unite with them.

Destructive features include:

reduced cooperation between social communities;
increased hostility in society;
dissatisfaction of the population with life;
escalation of hostility, which can lead to open clashes.

Structure of social conflict

Any conflict necessarily has two opposing sides that represent different interests. Conflicts of social groups traditionally have the following structure:

Members. These are two or more social groups, each of which has its own views and interests. They can be direct and indirect, interested in the outcome of the confrontation to varying degrees.
Thing. The main question that causes controversy.
An object. Any conflict has an object, which can be property, power, resources, spiritual conquests: norms, ideas, values.
Wednesday. Usually, macro- and micro-environment of social conflict are distinguished. This is the entire context in which the confrontation is formed and takes place, this includes the social groups and institutions surrounding the participants, the strategies and tactics of their behavior, interests and expectations.

Flow stages

In any confrontation, three stages are usually distinguished, and the development of social conflicts is no exception. The first step is pre-conflict. Tension and the accumulation of contradictions build up gradually, usually at first there are minor frictions and disagreements, which gradually build up and become aggravated. At this stage, the parties weigh their resources, assess the possible consequences of an open confrontation. There is an accumulation of forces, the consolidation of supporters, the development of a strategy of behavior. This stage can last a very long time and proceed in a muffled form.

The second stage is the actual conflict. Usually the trigger for this stage is some kind of action, after which the parties go on an open offensive. Distinguish between emotional and rational conflict management.

The third step is conflict resolution. At this stage, events occur that should end with the end of the confrontation. A solution is possible only when the problem situation changes, otherwise the dispute turns into a protracted form and it becomes more and more difficult to settle it.

Conflict resolution methods

There are several methods that lead to the end of the confrontation and the solution of the problem. Among the main ones is a compromise. In this case, the resolution of social conflicts occurs through the agreements of the parties and finding a solution that suits everyone. At the same time, everyone makes certain concessions and a certain third position is found, with which the conflicting parties agree.

Consensus is another method of conflict resolution, which consists in negotiating and finding a solution that satisfies both parties. Usually it is achieved on some issues, while others are simply removed from the agenda, as the parties are satisfied with what has been achieved.

Restoration is a solution method that involves returning to the positions that the parties had before entering into the conflict.

Lecture:

social conflict

Despite the fact that conflicts leave unpleasant memories, it is completely impossible to avoid them, because this is one of the ways people interact. In the process of his life, a person finds himself in various conflict situations that arise even for a minor reason.

social conflict is a way of social interaction, which consists in the clash and confrontation of opposing interests, goals and methods of action individuals or groups.

According to their attitude to the conflict, people were divided into two groups. Some perceive it as stress and seek to eliminate the causes of the conflict. Others consider it a natural and inevitable form of human relations and are convinced that a person should be able to be in it without experiencing excessive tension and excitement.

The subjects of the conflict are not only the warring parties themselves, but also

instigators who encourage people to conflict,
accomplices, pushing participants with their advice, technical assistance to conflict actions,
mediators seeking to prevent, stop or resolve conflict,

witnesses watching events from the sidelines.

The subject of social conflict is any issue or benefit (money, power, legal status, etc.). BUT causes lie in social circumstances. For example, unfavorable working conditions can become a cause of conflict between an employee and an employer. Conflict is based on objective or subjective contradictions. The former, unlike the latter, are conditioned by processes that do not depend on the will and consciousness of the parties. Any minor occasion, arising by chance or created on purpose.

Consequences of social conflict

Despite the undesirability of conflicts, they still perform the functions necessary for society. Social conflicts are positive if

inform about the soreness of any part of the social system, about the existence of social tension and mobilize to solve existing problems;
stimulate changes and renewal of social relations, social institutions or the entire social system as a whole;
strengthen group cohesion or encourage actors in the conflict to cooperate.

negative parties to the conflict are

creation of stressful situations;

destabilization of social life;

distraction from the solution of their official tasks.

Types of social conflict

Types of social conflicts
By duration	short-term, long-term and long-term
By frequency	one-time and recurring
By level of organization	individual, group, regional, local and global
By type of relationship	intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup and international
By content	economic, political, legal, labor, family, ideological, religious, etc.
By factors	rational and emotional
According to the degree of openness	hidden and obvious
By shape	internal (with oneself) and external (with other people)

Stages of social conflict

In its development, social conflict goes through four stages or stages:

The conflict starts with pre-conflict situation consisting of two phases. In the latent (latent) phase, the conflict situation is just being formed, and in the open phase, the parties are aware of the emergence of a conflict situation and feel tension.

The next step is actual conflict . This is the main stage of the conflict, which also consists of two phases. In the first phase, the parties develop a psychological attitude to fight, they openly defend their rightness and seek to suppress the enemy. And the surrounding people (instigators, accomplices, mediators, witnesses) by their actions form the conditions for the course of the conflict. They can escalate, contain conflict, or remain neutral. In the second phase, there is a turning point and a reassessment of values. At this phase, there are several options for the behavior of the parties to the conflict: bringing it to the peak of tension, mutual concessions, or complete resolution.

The choice of the third variant of behavior indicates the transition of the conflict to completion stage confrontation.

Post-conflict stage characterized by the final settlement of contradictions and the peaceful interaction of the parties to the conflict.

Ways to resolve social conflicts

What are the ways to resolve the conflict? There are several of them:

Avoidance- avoidance of the conflict, hushing up the problem (this method does not resolve the conflict, but only temporarily softens or delays it).

Compromise- solution of the problem through mutual concessions that satisfy all the warring parties.

Negotiation- peaceful exchange of proposals, opinions, arguments aimed at finding a joint solution to an existing problem.

Mediation- involvement of a third party to resolve the conflict.

Arbitration- an appeal to an authoritative authority endowed with special powers and complying with legislative norms (for example, the administration of an institution, a court).

The word "conflict" (from lat. SOP/ICSHZ) means a clash of opposing views, opinions. The concept of social conflict as a collision of two or more subjects of social interaction finds a broad (polyvariant) interpretation among representatives of various areas of the conflictological paradigm. For example, in the view of K. Marx in a class society, the main social conflict manifests itself in the form of an antagonistic class struggle, culminating in a social revolution. According to L. Kozer, conflict is one of the types of social interaction. It is "a struggle for values and claims to status, power and resources, during which opponents neutralize, damage or eliminate their rivals" . In the interpretation of R. Dahrendorf, social conflict is a variety of intensity types of clashes between conflicting groups, in which the class struggle is one of the types of confrontation.

The concept of "conflict" is also ambiguously interpreted by modern Russian researchers. Some of them cite “mismatched interests” as the cause of the conflict, which is fundamentally wrong. Conflicting interests, as a rule, do not cause a conflict. So, if one subject likes to pick mushrooms, and another likes to fish, then their interests do not coincide, but a conflict situation does not arise. But if they are both avid fishermen and claim the same place by the reservoir, then in this case a conflict is quite possible. Obviously, in this case it is legitimate to talk about incompatible or mutually exclusive interests and goals of the parties to the conflict.

An analysis of the above definitions allows us to identify the following signs of social conflict:

collision of two or more subjects of social interaction;
the form of relations between the subjects of social action regarding the resolution of acute contradictions;
an extreme case of exacerbation of social contradictions, expressed in various forms of struggle between subjects;
open struggle of social subjects;
conscious clash of social communities;
the interaction of parties pursuing incompatible goals, whose actions are directed against each other;
clash of subjects based on real and imaginary contradictions.

The conflict is based on subjective-objective contradictions. But not every contradiction develops into a conflict. The concept of "contradiction" is broader than the concept of "conflict". Social contradictions are the main determinants of social development. They permeate all spheres of social relations and for the most part do not escalate into conflict. In order for objectively existing (periodically arising) contradictions to transform into a social conflict, it is necessary for the subjects of interaction to realize that this or that contradiction is an obstacle to achieving their vital goals and interests.

Objective contradictions - these are those that really exist in society, regardless of the will and desire of the subjects. For example, the contradictions between labor and capital, between the managers and the ruled, the contradictions of "fathers" and "children", etc.

In addition, in the imagination of the subject, there may be imaginary contradictions when there are no objective reasons for the conflict, but the subject is aware (perceives) the situation as a conflict. In this case, we can talk about subjective-subjective contradictions.

Contradictions can exist for quite a long period of time and not develop into a conflict. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that the conflict is based only on those contradictions caused by incompatible interests, needs and values. Such contradictions, as a rule, are transformed into an open struggle of the parties, into a real confrontation.

Collisions can arise for various reasons, for example, over material resources, over values and the most important attitudes in life, over power (domination problems), over status and role differences in the social structure, over personal (including emotionally -psychological) differences, etc. Thus, conflicts cover all spheres of people's life, the totality of social relations, social interaction.

The conflict, in fact, is one of the types of social interaction, the subjects and participants of which are individuals, large and small social groups and organizations. However, conflict interaction involves the confrontation of the parties, i.e., actions directed against each other. The form of clashes - violent or non-violent - depends on many factors, including whether there are real conditions and opportunities (mechanisms) for non-violent conflict resolution and what goals the subjects of confrontation pursue.

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

Coser L. Decree. op. - S. 32.
Cm.: Dahrendorf R. Elements of the theory of social conflict // Sociological research. - 1994. - No. 5. - S. 144.

Of particular interest is such a variety of social contradictions as social conflict. The theory of social conflict was first introduced in sociology by K. Marx. Proceeding from the main economic conclusion about the inevitable growth of contradictions between the level of development of productive forces and the nature of production relations, logically culminating in the rejection, denial of old forms of ownership, organization of labor and other components of production relations, K. Marx noted the inevitability of social (mainly class) conflicts. In fact, the total social conflict, ending with the denial of the old classes by the new ones, is a way of replacing one type of society (socio-economic formation) with another. Thus, in sociology, the theory of social conflict is the theory of social revolution.

In modern sociology there is a so-called conflictological paradigm. The most prominent representatives of this paradigm are the German sociologist R. Dahrendorf, the American sociologist L. Koser and others. The general features of this paradigm are the following conclusions. Social conflicts perform positive functions in society, being factors of social renewal. The basis of social conflict is the struggle for political power (K. Marx saw the causes of social conflict in economic changes). Social conflicts lead not to revolutions, but to reforms. In general, the conflictological paradigm represents a type of sociological thinking that considers social conflicts as a norm, as a natural phenomenon in the development of society, as an inevitable and positive process.

The opposite paradigm is functionalism, originating from the theories of O. Comte, G. Spencer, E. Durkheim. Representatives of this type of scientific thinking consider the absence of conflicts, deviations from social functions to be the normal state of society. G. Spencer, who considered society by analogy with an organism, analyzed the functions of various social institutions and their interrelations. E. Durkheim considered. that the basic social law of society is the solidarity of people (in a traditional society - mechanical solidarity based on neighborhood, in an industrial society - organic solidarity based on the division of labor). Representatives of the structural-functional analysis R. Merton and T. Parsons studied deviations in people's behavior and conflicts, however, considering them as social anomalies. In general, the functionalist paradigm tends to see social conflicts as a deviation from the laws of society, considering them as a negative, destructive phenomenon.

So what are social conflicts? Are they natural and inevitable? Are social conflicts positive (constructive) or negative (destructive)?

Ordinary consciousness associates conflict with any disagreement, contradiction, dispute or discussion. In fact, all of the above is only a prerequisite for the conflict, but not the conflict itself.

Social conflict is such a stage of social contradictions, which is characterized by the development of the struggle of various social groups, strata or movements for their interests into a struggle against other social groups, strata or movements. In another way, social conflict is a confrontation between social forces.

Let us single out the essential features of social conflict. Firstly, this is one of the stages of social contradiction (therefore, there is no reason to pass off any social contradiction as a social conflict; social contradictions always exist, but social conflicts sometimes happen). Secondly, this is the highest stage in the development of social contradictions. Thirdly, it is such a social contradiction when there is a shift of the object of contradictions from the interests that separate different groups to the opposite group. In other words, social conflict is characterized not by what the various social forces are fighting for, but by the one against whom this struggle is going on. The participants in the conflict themselves become the object of the conflict.

Not all conflict is social. A conflict is social if it is based on the opposition of social (class, national, religious, regional, professional, etc.) interests. At the same time, not every political conflict is simultaneously social. For example, if the conflict between legislative (parliament) and executive (government, president) power is due to the opposition of social (class, etc.) interests that these authorities express and defend, then it is social. But if this conflict is caused only by the desire to strengthen the power of one branch or another, then it is no longer social. Social conflicts exist at different levels. The first is social conflict at the level of society as a whole. The main social communities and strata of society are involved in this conflict. The second is a social conflict at the level of the region (territory, region, republic, etc.). The third is social conflict at the organizational level (enterprise, institution, informal association). The fourth is a social conflict at the level of intergroup (small groups - families, teams, departments, etc.) and interpersonal relations.

What are the causes and prerequisites of social conflict? Why do they arise? Social conflict is the highest stage in the development of social contradictions, therefore, its causes and prerequisites must be sought in these contradictions.

Do social contradictions inevitably develop into a stage of conflict? The answer to this question is of fundamental importance. The nature of social (national, class, regional, youth, etc.) policy and public psychology (mass moods, public opinion etc.). Social conflicts are inevitable if social contradictions in the previous stages are not resolved. Social conflicts do not arise if social contradictions are resolved.

If various social contradictions are ignored for a long time, if no attention is paid to them and no attempts are made to resolve them, then the object of contradictions moves from social interests to the subjects of contradictions. For example, the volume of a labor conflict is no longer considered wage delays, but those who are considered guilty of this (the administration of the enterprise, the government, etc.). Interethnic conflicts are characterized by the fact that their object is no longer national interests, but another ethnic community. Thus, social conflict is characterized by the personification of social contradictions. A conflict explanation of social contradictions is formed in the public consciousness (“we cannot achieve our rights, realize our interests, because we are to blame for this ...”, some social groups act as the culprits). Such a way of satisfying social interests is chosen as confrontation with other social groups.

Quite often, they try to prevent social conflict by suppressing social contradictions, trying in one way or another to "prohibit" them. The substitution of the resolution of social contradictions by their suppression or prohibition sooner or later inevitably leads to social conflict, only in more acute forms.

Thus, ignoring the problems that have accumulated in the sphere of interethnic relations has led to the fact that contradictions have acquired a conflict form in some regions of the former USSR. The prohibitive policy towards youth led in the second half of the 60s in a number of Western countries to the so-called youth riots. The immediate reason was in France a ban on visiting female hostels for male students.

A prerequisite for social conflict is a situation characterized by the fact that the interests of various social groups and strata take on the opposite form. In other words, the desire to realize the own interests of any social group turns out to be opposite to the interests of another social group. The opposition of social interests, the inability to realize the interests of some social groups without infringing on the interests of other groups, is called a conflict situation. The conflict situation is characterized by the growth of social tension and general social dissatisfaction. It is also marked by the growth of social disorganization, uncontrollability of social relations.

The conflict situation is characterized by its uncertainty. It can stabilize over time if there are any means and ways of finding common interests, agreeing on the goals of opposing groups through negotiations. But a conflict situation (which can exist in a latent form for quite a long time) can develop into a social conflict. An incident can serve as an impetus for this. Incident- this is any action of a social group or its representatives directed against another social group or its representatives.

Conflict erupts when the other side takes retaliatory action. Thus, the opposition of interests develops into opposition, confrontation.

In its development, social conflict goes through several stages. The first of them is the stage of the development of the conflict. Over time, the conflict unfolds rapidly. Having flared up as a conflict between small groups of people, in a short time it can cover a huge mass of people, involve most of the various social groups. At this stage, the incident that initiated the conflict becomes an event that is vigorously discussed, affects the feelings, moods of people and pushes them to immediate action.

It should be noted that the incident can be accidental, unintentional, then the conflict arises spontaneously, spontaneously. But an incident can also be provoked, i.e. created deliberately, specifically to push people to respond. As you know, many wars began with provocations. Also, in a number of cases, interethnic conflicts flared up after provocations. The calculation of the organizers of the provocation is simple - people do not have time for a rational analysis of the situation, emotions push people to take immediate response.

The second stage is the climax of the conflict. Confrontation reaches at this stage the highest point of sharpness and scope. The most radical actions are taken, feelings and moods become the main regulators of social behavior. At the same stage, the conflict becomes more organized: the conflicting parties are involved or formalized in social movements, the actions of the parties involved in the conflict are controlled by organizations or leaders, a common ideology appears, and basic requirements are formulated. Sometimes the parties to the conflict also resort to violent means (use of weapons, hostage-taking, blocking of authorities or communications, etc.).

The third stage is the decline of the conflict. The affective state of the participants in the conflict begins to be replaced by a rational search for answers to the questions "what are the causes of the conflict" and "how to resolve the conflict". The dead-end nature of the confrontation is recognized. The ranks of active participants in the conflict are decreasing. But the process of conflict decline is longer than the deployment stage. The conflict can then escalate again if some new incident (accidental or provoked) occurs.

The fourth stage is the attenuation of the incident. Most of the participants in the conflict are gradually moving away from confrontation. At this stage, there is a search for ways to resolve the conflict (public dialogue, negotiations).

A common feature of social conflicts is that they flare up very quickly and fade very slowly. The last two stages occupy most of the existence of the conflict. Take, for example, the duration of ethnic conflicts in the post-Soviet space. The conflict over the political status of Nagorno-Karabakh unfolded in a matter of days, followed by armed clashes for several years. How long the attenuation of this conflict will continue, one can only speculate about this.

What circumstances determine the severity of the conflict? First, the aggravation of the conflict directly depends on the depth of the conflict situation. The more significant the social interests that cause this situation, the more vital they are for the social group, the more likely the conflict will become acute. For example, the delay in paying wages for months and even years has brought many people to the brink of physical existence. Therefore, the desperate situation led to the use of desperate forms of protest - hunger strikes, blocking railways, etc.

Secondly, the severity of social conflict depends on the degree of awareness of social groups, their real interests.

We have already said that in a conflict there is a shift of an object from social interests ("what we need") to some social groups ("who does not allow us to realize our interests"). The more such displacement occurs, the more acute the conflict becomes. At the same time, the participants in the conflict least of all think about how to look for ways to realize their interests and, moreover, how to harmonize them with the interests of the other side. The main goal is confrontation, the retreat of the opposite side, but not the search for ways to solve social problems. Note that in a social conflict it rarely happens that one side is right in everything, and the other is wrong in everything. But from the point of view of the conflicting parties, it turns out exactly like this ("we are right, but they are wrong"). And the more they are convinced of this (hence, they do not quite adequately represent their own and other people's social interests), the more the conflict takes on sharp, irreconcilable forms.

Thirdly, the severity of the conflict depends on the degree of internal cohesion of the conflicting parties.

The conflict unites the social group, the former contradictions within the group fade into the background. Group norms and values (national, class, professional, etc.) become universally recognized. They turn into a means of uniting people of their social identification ("I" dissolves into "We"). The social perception of the conflicting parties is characterized by a clear division of people into "We" and "They". The conflict is characterized by extreme intolerance towards dissidents in the ranks of the conflicting group, while "defectors" are hated more than representatives of the opposite side.

Excessive cohesion is associated with the phenomenon of mirror perception - mutually negative perceptions of each other, often arising on both sides of the conflict; everyone considers themselves, for example, to be highly moral and peaceful, and opponents to be malicious and aggressive

The internal cohesion of the conflicting group plays a dual role. On the one hand, it allows you to better "defend" and "attack" in the confrontation with another group. On the other hand, it focuses on how to resist, and not on how to realize their interests. The realization of social interests does not imply the escalation of the conflict, but its resolution. But the more acute the conflict, the less funds for its resolution.

Fourthly, the severity of the conflict depends on how the other side is a real, and not an imaginary participant in the confrontation.

Social conflicts are not always caused by the interests of those social groups that participate in this confrontation. Some social forces, in order to win, actively involve other social groups in the conflict. This is done by creating the image of a common enemy. So. Quite often, the national elite resorts to nationalist or chauvinistic slogans to gain political power. Thus, the entire nation or its majority is involved in an interethnic conflict. There is a rallying of the nation around the elite, which in words stands up for national interests, but in reality often pursues narrow group interests. In the same way, the political elite or counter-elite seeks to use for their own purposes, under attractive slogans, mining or other professional movements. The more difficult it is to figure out who is really the opponent of the social interests of a particular group, the more participants are captured by the social conflict.

Fifth, the severity of social conflict depends on the choice of means used in the confrontation. Both violent (use of weapons, street riots, blocking vital facilities and communications, terrorist acts, use of armed forces, etc.) and non-violent (protests, demonstrations, rallies, strikes, etc.) can be used in the conflict. facilities. The more means inadequate for a given situation are used by one side or another, the more extremism (the use of extreme means) in the actions of the conflicting parties, the more the social conflict acquires the character of a fierce and irreconcilable confrontation.

What is the significance of social conflict in the social dynamics of society? Usually the significance of the conflict is assessed from diametrically opposite sides. Supporters of functionalism tend to believe that social conflicts affect changes in society negatively. They bring destruction, disorder, violate the stability of the social system. Supporters of the conflictological paradigm see social conflicts as catalysts for social change. As a result of conflicts, transformations take place, obsolete forms of social life are discarded, and new forms of life come to replace them.

In both of these approaches, despite their opposite, one feature is revealed: the role of the social conflict itself is assessed, and not the way to resolve it.

Social contradiction in itself does not lead to social change. Changes occur as a result of the resolution of social contradictions. If social contradictions are not resolved, then they either lead to prolonged stagnation or develop into social conflict.

Social conflict, as the highest stage of social contradictions, also leads to social changes, but only when it finds its resolution. But the social conflict itself always carries a huge destructive potential. Firstly, any, even a minor conflict, leaves a negative mark in the souls of people. Secondly, the social cost of the conflict can be too high: both material resources are wasted (strikes, for example, lead to certain economic damage) and human resources (time is taken away from people, their abilities are wasted on confrontation). Thirdly, people, including innocent people, can suffer in a social conflict.

Therefore, the best option for social change is the timely resolution of social contradictions, without bringing the matter to their development into a social conflict. But if the conflict could not be avoided, then the only option for social change is to find ways to resolve it.

Almost every country claims to care only about maintaining peace, but, distrustful of others, arm itself in self-defense. And here is the result: a planet where in developing countries there are 8 soldiers per doctor, where 51 thousand nuclear warheads are prepared, where $ 2 billion is spent daily on arming and maintaining the army (Sivard, 1996). International conflicts are subject to the same patterns as domestic ones.

What is the outcome of social conflict? The following options are possible. The first (and desirable) outcome of a social conflict is its resolution. What does conflict resolution involve? This is a gradual movement from the confrontation of the conflicting parties to the coordination of their social interests. These are social changes that do not lead to the triumph of the interests of one side or another, but determine the finding of a new model of social interaction in which the interests of both sides will be realized.

The second option for the outcome of a social conflict is the victory of one and the defeat of the other side. Ideology zero sum games(the gain of one side is equal to the loss of the other) is obsolete. This outcome does not lead to positive social change. Society is a single social system, therefore the interests of various social groups do not exist on their own, but are organically interconnected. The infringement of the interests of a part of the whole (communities, layers) leads to the infringement of the interests of the whole (society). The infringement of the interests of society as a whole leads to the infringement of the interests of the "winning" group as well. Many proofs can be cited to show how "victory" in inter-regional, class, etc. conflicts, the victor's dictate of his will to the vanquished does not lead to an improvement in the life of not only the vanquished, but also the victorious side.

Social change is never the result of the actions of only one side of the conflict. The goal of each conflicting party is the realization of its own, private interests. The realization of common (public) interests is not a consequence of victory in the conflict, but of its resolution. It should be taken into account that in any social conflict, any of its parties, in their interests and aspirations, are "right" and "not right" at the same time. In this case, no one can be absolutely right (although in the minds of the conflicting parties there is a firm conviction that they are right). Therefore, the victory in the conflict does not lead to the triumph of truth.

Historical experience proves that victory in social conflict not only does not lead to positive social changes, but also lays the foundation for future social conflicts. The defeated side will sooner or later try to take revenge, restore its rights and realize its interests. Thus, victory in ethnic conflicts, even a century later, leads to a new conflict.

The option of victory may seem the most effective and radical form of the outcome of a social conflict, therefore it can be very tempting for both political power and public opinion. But the strategy of victory only drives the conflict deeper and creates the prerequisites for new conflicts in the future.

In modern developed societies, the ideology and practice of the game with a non-zero sum is affirmed - a game in which the total payoff is not necessarily equal to zero. By cooperating, both sides of the conflict can win; competing, both can lose

The third option for the outcome of a social conflict is the mutual destruction of the parties and, as a result, the destruction of society as a social system. This outcome of the conflict is the most destructive and negative. Society is splitting into opposite camps, it is losing its stability and orderliness. As a result, the entire social structure of society is destroyed. If in the second variant there is an appearance of victory, then in the third variant there is no such victory either.

The fourth option for the outcome of a social conflict is its transformation (transformation) into another social conflict. As a rule, the outgrowth of one social conflict into another occurs at the last stages - the decline and attenuation of the confrontation. One social conflict can be a detonator for others if appropriate conflict situations have matured in society. For example, ethnic conflict can cause religious conflict, labor conflict - class conflict, etc. Then, spontaneously or through the efforts of social circles interested in continuing the conflict, a new social conflict begins to rise. Both those groups that were involved in the old conflict and new groups take part in this conflict. A second conflict may give rise to a third conflict, and so on. This is how a whole chain of social conflicts appears ( permanent conflict).

Thus, if it was not possible to prevent social conflict, then it is necessary to strive to resolve it. What is the technology for resolving social conflict?

The conflict in the first two stages takes over the feelings and moods of people to a greater extent than their mind. The actions of the conflicting parties may be uncontrolled, affective. Therefore, the first step in resolving a social conflict is to counter spontaneous or organized emotional mutual infection of people. Otherwise, first of all, people must be calmed down, their ardor must be cooled down. The first, wrong step taken in haste (in verbal or behavioral form) can lead to unpredictable and irreparable consequences. The second stage is the separation of the parties at a certain distance from each other. It is very important to stop actions aimed at humiliating and insulting each other. Nothing will provoke a conflict more than hurting the honor and dignity of a person or group to which he belongs. The third stage is to convince the participants in the conflict that there can be no winner in it, but both sides can lose. The fourth stage is the switching of the attention of the participants of the conflict from the subject of the conflict to the subject of the conflict. It is very important that the parties to the conflict stop blaming each other and begin to find out what is really at the heart of the conflict. It is necessary that the conflicting parties realize not only their true interests, but also the true (and not apparent) interests of the opposite social group. At the same time, it will be found that both sides are right in something and wrong in something. The return to interests creates an opportunity to move on to the fifth stage - negotiations.

If at the first stages of conflict resolution it is recommended to limit the communication of opponents, then at the subsequent stages, on the contrary, only communication can become a regulator of relations. Social experiments have shown that communication reduces distrust, and this allows people to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.

Negotiations between representatives of the conflicting parties (with the participation, as a rule, of a third party not involved in the conflict, playing the role of an arbitrator) should generally come down to finding an answer to the question "what to do" and not "who is to blame." The results of the negotiations may be as follows.

Compromise. Each party refuses to realize those of its interests that are detrimental to the interests of the other party. This is a mutual concession to each other to the extent that it does not affect the fundamental, vital interests of social groups.

Unilateral concession. One of the parties may make concessions, foreseeing even greater losses for itself if the conflict continues. At the same time, it can count on the same steps in the future from the other side.

Search for new forms of interaction. Compromise and unilateral concession do not completely eliminate the causes of social conflict. In the future, there remains the danger of a resumption of social conflict if changes do not occur in society that themselves do not leave room for a conflict situation. Therefore, in negotiations, one should strive not only to talk about one's own and other people's interests, but also to work out such a variant of social changes that would not lead to the opposite of social interests. For example, negotiations between participants in labor conflicts (employers and employers) can be reduced not only to questions about the amount of wages, but also to new forms of labor organization, in which not only employees, but also employers were interested in increasing each other's income. Social partnership, formed in a number of countries after numerous labor conflicts, indicates the possibility of a fundamentally different option for resolving a social conflict. The subject of negotiations between the participants in an interethnic conflict may be the question of the form of government. As historical experience shows, the optimal form of resolving such a conflict, satisfying the interests of all parties to the conflict, may be a new type of state - a federal structure.

Social changes, the emergence of new forms of economic, political, spiritual life as a result of resolving social conflicts - this is the best way out of social confrontation.

In modern society, to prevent and resolve conflicts, it is necessary to use new social, information, intellectual technologies, for example, socionics and socioanalysis. Technologies based on the latest scientific discoveries are more effective today than relying on archaic technologies of military-religious, patriarchal societies.

Brief summary:

Social movements are an important parameter in the social diagnostics of society.
Social movements are aimed at protecting the interests of social groups, at increasing or maintaining their social status.
Social movements can be progressive, conservative or regressive, reactionary.
Social movements act as a factor of social dynamics, a source of social renewal of society.
Social conflict is the confrontation of social forces (groups, communities, layers).
A positive outcome of a social conflict is the coordination of the social interests of the warring parties, the construction of a new model of social interaction, in which the interests of the two groups will be realized.
Non-zero-sum games are games in which the total payoff is not necessarily zero. By cooperating, both players can win; competing, both can lose.
Dialogue communication reduces distrust and allows reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. For the prevention and resolution of social conflicts, it is necessary to use innovative communication technologies.

Practice set

Questions:

What social technology for preventing or resolving social conflicts do you consider the most effective?
What type of social movement is the environmental movement?
What are the movements that advocate a partial or complete return to the old order called?
Are all communities of people organized into social movements?
How do you assess the role of social movements in the development of modern society?
Are social conflicts constructive or destructive?
Is social contradiction a source of social dynamics?
Is it true that conflicts are always based on the real, objective interests of the conflicting parties?

Topics for term papers, abstracts, essays: