Conflict Theory
Dr Guy Hungerford, University of New South Wales
Presented at Professional Development Day, August 8, 2008
At the heart of the differences between functionalism
and conflict theory is a different conception of the nature
of “society” and “the social”. The way that Durkheim
writes about society, one is continually called upon to
think of society as a distinctive entity in itself. Hence
the analogy to the human body, with different social
institutions playing the role of different organs; while
to some extent the heart has a different and separate
identity from the lungs, if one takes a broader view,
it’s very clear that these are different components of an
entity that is fundamentally the same thing. Therefore,
when something adversely affects the heart, the lungs
are affected to, if only indirectly; no part of the body
can prosper long if another part is terminally unwell.
Similarly, functionalists would tend to say that a society
in which any one institution is “sick” (the government,
the army, schools, the family, the media., &c) will
suffer overall.
On the contrary, conflict theorists do not see the society
as a single, united whole. Instead, society is made up
of different groups who have competing or conflicting
interests and some of whom would in fact be better
off if others were to do less well. Rather than the kind
of harmonious co-operation between different bodily
organs envisaged by functionalists, conflict theorists
see a sort of involuntary co-operation much like that
between a parasite and its host. This arrangement may
work for both parasite and host, but for the host it
would work even better if the parasite were not there.
Hence, functionalists tend to assume that what is,
ought to be – or will “naturally” change. Societies
remain the same when the circumstances in which they
exist are stable, and when those circumstances become
unstable, the society adapts until it once again fits its
circumstances. In this way, functionalism structurally
resembles the theory of evolution – tortoises are very
unlike giraffes but each is well adapted to the particular
environment that it is found in. Therefore, if we find
a society that is much the same as it was ten years
ago, then as functionalists we might say, this is a well-
adapted society, and however different it might be
from some nominal ideal, it cannot and should not be
changed to something else, because then it would be
less well adapted to its circumstances.
Culturescope Volume 87 November 2008
Whereas conflict theory says that what is, is a
consequence of the struggle between different classes.
If a society is stable over a long period of time, this does
not at all indicate that it is therefore a “good” society or
that it ought to somehow be left to follow its “natural”
course. This is because conflict theorists see history as
the product of struggle. A stable society may be stable,
for example, much in the way that a prison is stable
– all of the power is concentrated in a few hands and
therefore nothing changes, but this does not mean that
there are not reasons why it could or should change
to something different or something better. Unlike
functionalism, which tends to picture the sociologist
as a neutral observer, looking dispassionately at society
much as a botanist might look at plants, conflict theory
calls on the sociologist to make judgements about
societies; is this a good society, a just society, a fair and
free society? Are resources and life chances distributed
equitably? Not only does conflict theory call on the
sociologist to make a judgement about the society that
they study, it often goes even further and calls on them
to take action to do something to change it for the
better, or to advocate certain kinds of changes as being
improvements.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways; the point is to change it.” – Marx.
Change
It is in their understanding of the causes of change that we
see one of the largest differences between functionalism
and conflict theory. Functionalists see society adapting
in response to changes that come from outside of
itself (such as climate change) or within itself (such as
social movements like feminism or reconciliation), in
order to best meet the needs of the society as a whole.
Conflict theorists see the main engine of change as a
changing balance of power between different groups
and especially different classes. Feminism therefore is
not seen as a product of some abstract “social evolution”
or expression of social forces to meet newly developing
social needs; it would be interpreted by conflict
theorists as the result of action taken by feminists
against patriarchy. Entrenched power is challenged
by such social movements and tries to defend itself,
29
Conflict Theory (continued)
and therefore requires willful and sometimes violent
struggle in order to overthrow it. Conflict theorists
often make use of the metaphors of war to describe
such movements and this is no accident; in a sense,
they see society as a kind of battleground for endless
war between competing interests. Indeed, war itself is
seen as an expression of class interests.
Class
“Class” is a central concept for conflict theory. Marx
(the first and most important of the conflict theorists)
divides social phenomena up into an economic “base”
and a political and cultural “superstructure”. All
important changes happen in the base; changes in the
superstructure happen as a consequence of changes
in the base. Thus class, being the grouping of people
according to their economic interests, is the most
important grouping, and changes in the power of
classes are the source of the most far-reaching changes.
Durkheim saw industrialisation as a kind of advance
for society but also a source of considerably new
problems and challenges because of the social upheaval
involved. He wrote about the modern social era with
a kind of concerned hopefulness, looking for solutions
to the social unrest and individual sense of dislocation
that came with the massive urbanisation of the modern
era. Marx, on the contrary, saw industrialisation and
modernisation as an important opportunity, because
it put large numbers of people with common class
interests in geographical proximity to each other.
Where the exploited peoples of the past had been
spread thinly across the whole terrain of nations, now
they were focused into the big cities – the centres
of political, administrative and economic power in
nations. Far from wanting to ease tensions and resolve
problems, Marx thought that these tensions should be
made use of in order to drive rapid social change, in
order to overthrow the inequalities and injustices of the
preceding society and produce a communist Utopia.
However, one need not be a Marxist or a communist
in order to adopt some part of the conflict theory
approach. The three key elements which can most
readily be separated from the communist agenda are:
1. That conflict theory makes judgements about the
society that it observes
2. Conflict theory sees social change as the product of
struggles in which human agency plays the key role.
30
3. Where functionalists see a social reality that is above
and separate from the individuals who compose it
at the level of the whole society, conflict theorists
see that social reality existing at the level of groups
who have common interests.
Atttractions and Dangers
Conflict theory is attractive, then, if we see social
problems or social situations which seem deeply
problematic and we want an explanation more satisfying
than “it’s natural” or “it happens for a reason”. Conflict
theorists say it happens for a reason but the reason is to
do with human agency (rather than impersonal “social
forces”) and that through our decisions and our actions
we can do something to improve the world.
However, this attraction also has pitfalls – it tends to
create a very black-and-white picture of the world,
blaming some for all its ills and making others into
victims. There is also the tendency to ascribe “false
consciousness” to others who do not want to pursue
the conflict theory agenda.
Conflict Theory Applied to Vietnam:
For conflict theorists, the Vietnam war tends to be seen
as a symbol of how the powerful work to maintain their
power. Vietnam became a colony of France because
the French had modern weapons and the Vietnamese
did not; ie, this change in Vietnamese society is a
consequence of a struggle in which one side wins (the
French) and another loses (the Vietnamese). Then
Japan invades because Vietnam has valuable resources
and Japanese military power in the region has eclipsed
the French. Then at the end of WW2, rather than
allowing the Vietnamese to govern themselves, the
victorious powers (America and Britain) try to set up
a puppet government to serve their own interests. In
each of these changes, conflict theorists would see the
workings not of some abstract or impersonal “social
forces” but specific interests – not only French or
British or American national interests but specific class
interests within those countries.
The Doi Moi seems to pose a challenge to the conflict-
theory interpretation of Vietnam because it seems to
be a clear functional improvement over the previous
system. Still, conflict theorists would argue that the
catalyst for this particular change must still be particular
The Journal of the Society and Culture Association Inc.
Conflict Theory (continued)
people, striving to maintain their advantage, even if the
result produces social benefit. For example, economic
stagnation in Vietnam may have been producing social
unrest which if allowed to develop further would have
undermined the political position of the ruling clique
– so they acted to forestall that instability.
Conflict Theory in Japan
The post-war situation in Japan is in some ways parallel
to that of Vietnam. Having accepted the surrender of
the Japanese government, the Americans wanted to
create a stable and peaceful democracy in Japan but
without overly disturbing the peace and stability of the
country. While they broke up some power structures
– especially in the military – others were allowed to
remain unchanged – particularly the zaibatsu. Hence,
the democracy which was supposedly modelled on that
of America resulted in a very stable system indeed – the
same party (the LDP) won every election until 1993!
American military experts speak of Japan as “the
unsinkable aircraft carrier”. This reflects the fact that
Japan is an extremely useful ally to America, even
though the country has been demilitarised. The pacifist
clause in the Japanese constitution could be interpreted
as a functional response to the dysfunctional, excessive
militarism that lead to the war – or it could be seen as
an expression of specific interests. According to conflict
theory, whoever has the power, gets the results that suit
them best.
Capitalism has been very successful in Japan, and yet in
many ways the stresses and challenges of the society still
fall heavily on the lower and middle classes, while the
benefits go to the same six families who were dominant
even before the war.
Contemporary Practice in Sociology
Contemporary practice can be divided into four
main categories, with some overlap between them:
macrosociology, microsociology, empirical sociology,
and postmodernism.
Macrosociology includes all “grand theories” of
society. Any attempt to explain the structure or nature
of society as a whole is a type of macrosociology.
Both functionalism and conflict theory fall into this
category.
Culturescope Volume 87 November 2008
Microsociology eschews “grand narratives” or
explanations of whole social structures. Sociologists in
this vein argue that such approaches tend to simplify
complex specificities away in order to make the reality
fit their theory. By using the same theoretical framework
to explain churches, schools, prisons, armed forces,
families, governments, &c, they tend to exaggerate the
similarities between these very diverse structures while
ignoring or minimising the differences. There is a good
case to be made for this kind of approach but I think
it is still best to start by looking at macrosociological
approaches because typically this approach is a reaction
to flaws that only become clear once one has a thorough
understanding of those “grand theories”. The response
makes sense only in context of what it is a response to.
Empirical sociology is the approach that studies the
social world by recording numbers of people, amounts
of income, responses to surveys, and so on. This can
be combined either with macro or micro sociological
theory, or left to stand alone as data without a particular
theory attached to it. This kind of social research is more
hands-on than other sociological work but tends to
cluster around theoretically interesting phenomena; in
many cases things are not studied because the answer is
likely to be what one would guess it to be. For example,
do we need a study to see if incomes are higher in the
eastern suburbs than the western suburbs?
Postmodernism includes a vast range of different
approaches. Some, such as Foucauldian theory, can be
seen as variations on modernist approaches. Others,
like the work of Derrida, are entirely novel. All are
intensely complex and difficult to get right; experts
frequently disagree with each other about the basic
intent and meaning of even the most commonly read
texts and theorists. For this reason I believe it is largely
unsuitable for secondary students; summaries tend
to be either too abstract to make sense of or actually
wrong in substance. The best preparation a student can
have to embark on a tertiary study of postmodernism
is a strong grounding in “modern” ideas.
31