Theories of Conflict

Running head: THEORIES OF CONFLICT
THEORIES OF CONFLICT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1THEORIES OF CONFLICT
Background Information
The Conflict Theorists have posed a challenge and critique to the theorization
provided by the Functionalist Theorists. The Functionalists have provided the idea that the
society is an integrated whole made up of several social parts, whereby all the constituent
parts function with a cooperative instinct in contributing to the benefit of the society.
According to the Functionalists the society is essentially characterized by harmony and the
constituent part work in a fashion to complement each other. Their view is extremely
beneficial in understanding the fashion in which the modern industrial societies function
marked by a mechanical solidarity and a division of labour which signaled a paradigmatic
shift from the pastoral mode of production that was prevalent in the erstwhile feudal age
(Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2017).
The Conflict Theorists have on the other hand provided a different picture of society
which is diametrically opposite to the view provided by the Functionalists. The Conflict
Theorists have opined that society is essentially hierarchical and the ones without any or
substantial influence, economic power and high social status are marginalized and dominated
by the ones having it. Hence the society comprises of two classes, the privileged ones and the
one lacking it. Based on this premise and understanding of the society, the Conflict Theorists
have criticized the Functionalists to be status quo oriented and also that their theoretical
premise lacks any mention of possibility of a social change (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2017).
Statement of Purpose
In this particular essay, the discussion shall be focusing upon Conflict Theories as
provided by three philosophers Max Weber, Karl Marx and C Wright Mills. The aim is to
provide an account of how they have conceptualized and comprehended Conflict, by means

2THEORIES OF CONFLICT
of explaining power and domination, and the solutions they have provided for the purpose of
eliminating the situation of conflict in the society. The following sections shall be providing
an account of the theorization provided by the three chosen philosophers and a section on
analysis providing an account of the definition of sociological imagination in the wider social
context.
Conflict theories of the chosen philosophers
Max Weber
The theorization of conflict Max Weber lacks class distinction per se, but the subtle
hint of it is very much evident in his works. According to him, the society is composed of
three spheres, Family, Market or Civil Society and that of the State which have been
hierarchically placed, based on the sphere of influence and the scope of its function in the
society. The Family has been placed at the lowest in the societal pyramid of Max Weber.
Family is concerned with the rudimentary socialization of an individual and that is the sphere
where an individual is imbibed with a world view. It is also the sphere of exchange of
emotional niceties. The second sphere is that of the civil society, also termed as the Market as
it is there that the economic interests are pursued by human beings. The sphere of civil
society or the market is a public sphere and is thus devoid of the emotional quotient that one
can find in the sphere of family. The third and the final sphere is placed at the topmost level
of the societal pyramid of Max Weber, and that is of the state (Swedberg, 2018). The role and
importance of the existence of the state has in the Weberian premise been explained by
means of providing the justification that the sphere of market or the civil society is the sphere
of conflict. Since the civil society is a sphere meant for reconciliation of the selfish economic
interests of the individual, there is every possibility that the sphere can turn out to be
oppressive and cause some individuals to be deprived of their right to pursue their economic

3THEORIES OF CONFLICT
interest. Hence the state ensures that the spirit of interdependence and an equitable
distribution of resources is maintained in the sphere of civil society by assuming the position
of supreme power and dominance in the society (Swedberg & Agevall, 2016). That enables
the state to cater to the welfare of all sections of the society and safeguard the weaker ones
from the stiff competition in the sphere of market. Thus the sphere of conflict being the
market has been attached a negative connotation in the Weberian premise and power and
domination being the prerogative of the State has been attached a positive connotation as it is
utilized for safeguarding the weak from conflict of interests, which implies the solution to the
situation of conflict that prevails in the society (Shaikh, Islam& Jatoi, 2018).
Karl Marx
Karl Marx has in his theorization provided a binary of classes and his theorization of
the society comprises of two spheres majorly, that of the civil society and that of the state.
Marx has provided that justification that conflict in society is not a result of the scarcity of
resources, but the concentration of the resources in the hands of the few who monopolize
over the factors of production and perpetrates their status quo of dominance over all spheres
of the society by the exercise of power over the powerless. Thus conflict, power and
domination are essentially negative in his theorization. Marx had said that the emergence of
conflict in the society in a direct result of the discovery of private property which dated back
to the age of slavery. Conflict in Marxian lexicon is but a conflict between the two classes,
the class of the haves who own private property and the class of the have nots, who do not
own private property (Wallace, 2017). The reason behind the class conflict is a result of the
exploitation of the labour provided by the have nots for generating the surplus value of the
haves. With the discovery of agriculture that the concept of surplus, profit and loss emerged
and as a result of it, whose legacy had been carried down through the ages of slavery,
feudalism and capitalism. The state in the capitalist age has assumed the shape of being the