An integral part of modern society is social conflict in all its diversity. Examples of conflicts are found all over us, from minor quarrels to international confrontations. The consequence of one of these confrontations - Islamic fundamentalism - is considered on the scale of one of the largest world problems, bordering on the threat of World War III.
However, studies in the specifics of the conflict as a socio-psychological phenomenon have shown that this is a sufficiently broad and complex concept to evaluate it uniquely from a destructive point of view.
Concept of conflict
The most common in scientific knowledge are two approaches regarding the nature of the conflict (A. Antsupov). The first defines conflict as a clash of parties, opinions or forces; the second - as a clash of opposing positions, goals, interests and views of the subjects of interaction. Thus, in the first case, examples of conflicts of a broader significance that occur both in living and inanimate nature are considered. In the second case, there is a limitation of the circle of participants in the conflict by a group of people. Moreover, any conflict includes certain lines of interaction between subjects (or groups of subjects), which develop into a confrontation.
The structure and specifics of the conflict
The founder of the conflict paradigm as a whole in humanitarian knowledge is considered L. Coser. One of the merits of his theory is the recognition of the fact that there are examples of conflicts of positive functional significance. In other words, Coser argued that conflict is not always a destructive phenomenon - there are cases when it is a necessary condition for creating internal connections of a particular system or a condition for maintaining social unity.
The structure of the conflict is formed by its participants (opponents, warring parties) and their actions, subject matter, conditions / situation of the conflict (an example is a crush in public transport) and its outcome. The subject of the conflict, as a rule, is closely related to the needs of the parties involved, for the satisfaction of which the struggle is taking place. In general, they can be combined into three large groups: material, social (status-role) and spiritual. Dissatisfaction with certain needs that are significant for an individual (group) can be considered as a cause of conflict.
Conflict typology examples
As N.V. Grishina notes, in everyday consciousness, examples of conflicts include a fairly wide range of phenomena - from armed conflict and confrontation between certain social groups and even to marital disagreements. It doesn’t matter if it is a discussion in parliament or a struggle of personal desires. In modern science, one can find a huge number of different classifications, while there is no clear differentiation between the concepts of “types” and “types” of conflict. Examples from both groups are more often used as synonyms. Meanwhile, in our opinion, it is more expedient to single out three main aspects in the typology of conflicts:
- types of conflicts;
- types of conflict;
- forms of conflict.
The first aspect seems to be the broadest in scope. Each of the types can include several types of conflicts, which, in turn, can occur in one form or another.
Types and types of conflicts
The main types of conflicts include:
- intrapersonal (intrapersonal);
- interpersonal (interpersonal);
- intergroup;
- conflict between an individual and a group.
Thus, the emphasis in this case is on the subjects (participants) of the conflict. In turn, interpersonal, intergroup conflicts, as well as the conflict between an individual and a group are examples of social conflicts. The first social conflict, along with intrapersonal and zooconflict, was singled out by the German sociologist G. Simmel as an independent type . In some later concepts, intrapersonal conflict is also included in the concept of social, which, however, is a debatable point.
Among the main causes of social conflicts, it is customary to single out limited resources, diverging people in a value-semantic context, differences in life experience and behavior, limited certain abilities of the human psyche, etc.
Intrapersonal conflict
This implies the subjectively experienced mismatch of certain trends in the self-identity of the person (assessments, attitudes, interests, etc.) that interact with each other in the development process (L. Mitina, O. V. Kuzmenkova). In other words, we are talking about a clash of certain motivational formations that cannot be satisfied (realized) at the same time. For example, a person may not like his job, but he is afraid to quit because of the prospect of remaining unemployed. A child may be tempted to skip a lesson and at the same time be afraid to be punished for it, etc.
In turn, this type of conflict can be of the following types (Antsupov A. Ya., Shipilov A.I.):
- motivational (“want” and “want”);
- a conflict of inadequate self-esteem (“can” and “can”);
- role ("necessary" and "necessary");
- conflict of unrealized desire (“I want” and “I can”);
- moral (“want” and “need”);
- adaptive (“necessary”, “I can”).
Thus, this classification distinguishes three main components of the personality structure that enter into a confrontation with each other: “I want” (I want), “I must” (necessary) and “I am” (I can). If we compare this concept with the well-known personality structure developed by Sigmund Freud in the framework of psychoanalysis, we can observe a conflict of Eid (I want), Ego (can) and Super-Ego (necessary). Also in this case, it is advisable to recall the transactional analysis of Eric Berne and the three positions of personality distinguished by him: the Child (I want), Adult (I can), Parent (necessary).
Interpersonal conflict
This type occurs in the event of disagreements and clashes between individuals. Among its features, it can be noted that it proceeds according to the principle of “here and now”, can have both objective and subjective reasons, and also, as a rule, is characterized by high emotionality of the parties involved. Interpersonal type can also be divided into separate types of conflicts.
For example, depending on the specifics of the subordination relations between the participants, interpersonal conflicts can be divided into conflicts “vertically”, “horizontally”, as well as “diagonally”. In the first case, we are dealing with subordinate relations, for example, a leader - an employee, a teacher - a student. The second case occurs when the parties to the conflict occupy equal positions and are not subordinate to each other - work colleagues, spouses, casual passers-by, people in the queue, etc. Diagonal conflicts can arise between opponents who are indirectly subordinate - between the boss services and those on duty in part, between the senior and the younger, etc. (when the participants are in different positions at the level, but are not subordinated to each other).
Interpersonal conflicts can also include such types as family (marital, child-parent, conflict between brothers and sisters), domestic, conflict in the organization (we see an example of organizational conflict whenever there is a collision in a production structure between its subjects in the framework of working interaction), etc.
Intergroup conflict
Intergroup conflicts include collisions between individual representatives of different social groups (large, small and medium), as well as between these groups as a whole. In this case, it is also possible to single out a type of conflict in the organization (examples: between employees and management, administration and trade unions, students and teachers, etc.), domestic (if several representatives of two or more groups are involved in the conflict - for example, in communal apartments, in line, public transport, etc.).
You can also highlight such examples of social conflicts at the intergroup level, as interethnic, intercultural and religious. Each of these species covers a wide population and is characterized by a significant length in time. In addition, isolated species may have a cross-cutting character. A separate category is represented by international conflicts (examples of which we constantly observe in the news), including between individual states and their coalitions.
The conflict between the individual and the group
This type usually occurs when an individual in a group refuses to act like the rest of its members, thereby demonstrating non-conformist behavior. Or he commits a certain act, which in this group is considered unacceptable, which provokes a conflict. An example is the feature film by Roland Bykov “Scarecrow” (1983), in which the main character, Lena Bessoltseva, comes into conflict with the class. Also a striking example of non-conformist behavior in a group that provokes conflict is the tragic fate of the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno.
Forms of conflict
This category implies the presence of a certain specificity of the actions that form the conflict. Among the main forms in which the course of the conflict is possible, the following can be distinguished (Samsonova N.V.): dispute (polemic), claim, conviction, boycott, strike, sabotage, strike, abuse (abuse), quarrel, threat, enmity, encroachment , coercion, assault, war (political conflicts). Examples of disputes and polemics can also be found in scientific communities, which once again proves the possibility of a constructive nature of the conflict.
For all types of conflicts, three main theoretical approaches can be considered:
- motivational;
- situational;
- cognitive.
Motivational approach
From the point of view of this approach, the hostility of a certain person or group is a reflection, first of all, of its internal problems. So, for example, from the position of Freud, autogroup hostility is an inevitable condition for any intergroup interaction, having a universal character. The main function of this hostility is a means of maintaining the internal stability and cohesion of the group. A separate place in this case is occupied by political conflicts. Examples can be found in the history of the formation of the fascist movement in Germany and Italy (the idea of ​​racial superiority), as well as in the history of the struggle against “enemies of the people” during the period of Stalinist repressions. Freud linked the mechanism of the formation of autogroup animosity towards “strangers” with the Oedipus complex, the instinct of aggression, as well as emotional identification with the group leader - “father” and others. From the point of view of morality, such facts cannot be regarded as a constructive conflict. Nonetheless, examples of racial discrimination and mass terror clearly demonstrate the possibility of rallying members of one group in the process of confrontation with others.
In the theoretical concept of aggressiveness of the American psychologist Leonard Berkowitz, one of the key factors of intergroup conflicts is relative deprivation. That is, one of the groups assesses its position in society as being more disadvantaged in comparison with the position of other groups. At the same time, deprivation is relative in nature, since a disadvantaged position in reality may not correspond to reality.
Situational approach
This approach is focused on external factors, the situation that determine the occurrence and specificity of the conflict. So, in the studies of the Turkish psychologist Muzafer Sheriff it was found that the hostility of one group towards another is significantly reduced if, instead of competitive conditions, they are provided with conditions for cooperation (the need to carry out joint activities, in which the result depends on the common efforts of all participants). Thus, the Sheriff concludes that the factors of the situation in which the groups interact are decisive in determining the cooperative or competitive nature of intergroup interaction.
Cognitive approach
In this case, the emphasis is on the dominant role of the cognitive (mental) attitudes of the parties to the conflict relative to each other. So, in a situation of intergroup conflicts, the hostility of one group towards another is not necessarily due to an objective conflict of interest (which was stated in the realistic theory of conflicts as part of a situational approach). Accordingly, it is not the cooperative / competitive nature of the situation that becomes a decisive factor in interpersonal and intergroup interaction, but the group attitudes that arise during it. By themselves, common goals lead to the resolution of conflicts between opponents - it depends on the formation of social attitudes that unite groups and help overcome their confrontation.
Tajfel and Turner developed a theory of social identity, according to which conflicts between groups are not a necessary consequence of social injustice (as opposed to a motivational approach). Faced with this injustice, individuals have the opportunity to choose their own ways to overcome it.
Conflictological culture of personality
Regardless of whether there are international conflicts, examples of which most clearly demonstrate the destructive nature of the conflicting behavior of the parties; or if it is a minor quarrel between colleagues at work, the optimal way out is extremely significant. The ability of the warring parties finds compromises in a difficult controversial situation, restrain their own destructive behavior, and see the possible prospects for further cooperation with real opponents - all these factors are the key to a possible favorable outcome. At the same time, no matter how important the total role of state policy, the economic, cultural and legal system in society was, the sources of this tendency are in separate concrete individuals. Just like a river begins with small streams.
It is a conflictological culture of personality. The corresponding concept includes the ability and desire of the individual to prevent and resolve social conflicts (Samsonova N.V.). In this case, it is advisable to recall the concept of “constructive conflict”. Examples of modern conflicts (given their aggravated and widespread nature) demonstrate, rather, the absence of any constructive conflict interaction. In this regard, the concept of a conflictological culture of an individual should be considered not only and not so much as one of the conditions for the optimal resolution of controversial situations in society, but also as a most important factor in the socialization of the personality of every modern individual.