Conflict functionalism of Simmel and Coser

1. Georg Simmel: conflict as sociation

Georg Simmel (1858–1918), a Berlin sociologist and philosopher, founded formal sociology: the study of the forms of interaction (superordination and subordination, competition, exchange, conflict) abstracted from their content. His essay Der Streit (“Conflict”) is a chapter of Soziologie (1908); it was translated by Kurt H. Wolff in Conflict and the Web of Group-Affiliations (1955).

Main propositions

1. Conflict is a form of sociation. It is a way of relating, not the absence of a relationship. Indifference, not conflict, is the opposite of association.
2. Society needs both harmony and conflict. “A certain amount of discord, inner divergence and outer controversy is organically tied up with the very elements that ultimately hold the group together.” A group of pure harmony is unreal and lifeless.
3. Conflict with outsiders increases internal cohesion and centralisation of the group.
4. Conflict in close relationships is more intense. The closer the relationship and the more of the personality involved, the more bitter the conflict (quarrels between relatives, between former comrades, the renegade).
5. Conflict can be an end in itself (hostility, the “fighting instinct”) or a means to an end; when it becomes objectified, fought for a cause beyond the individual, it is more radical and merciless.
6. Conflict creates associations and coalitions between parties who were previously unconnected.
7. Conflict establishes and maintains boundaries between groups and the identity of each.
8. The ending of conflict may occur through victory, compromise or conciliation, or the disappearance of its object.

Simmel’s related ideas include the tertius gaudens (“the third who rejoices”, who profits from a quarrel between two others) and divide et impera in triads, and the web of group affiliations: in modern society individuals belong to many intersecting groups, which limits the intensity of any one conflict.

2. Lewis Coser: The Functions of Social Conflict

Lewis A. Coser (1913–2003), a German-born American sociologist, wrote The Functions of Social Conflict (1956), which takes Simmel’s essay and restates it as sixteen propositions to be tested, combining them with Merton’s functional analysis. He followed it with Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict (1967). Coser defined social conflict as a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralise, injure or eliminate their rivals.

Realistic and non-realistic conflict

• Realistic conflict arises from frustration of specific demands and is directed at the presumed frustrating object; it is a means to an end and functional alternatives exist (a strike for higher wages, which can be settled by negotiation).
• Non-realistic conflict is not occasioned by rival ends but by the need for tension release of at least one party; the target is interchangeable (scapegoating, communal riots displaced from economic grievances).

Safety-valve institutions

Societies provide institutions that let hostility be released without destroying the relationship: duelling, carnival, satire, sports rivalry, the licensed abuse of certain kin. Coser warned that safety valves deflect hostility from its real source, so the underlying grievance remains and may build up.

Functions of conflict

1. Group-binding: conflict with out-groups defines and strengthens group boundaries and identity.
2. Group-preserving: open expression of hostility can prevent the break-up of a relationship.
3. Centralisation: external conflict concentrates decision-making.
4. Search for enemies: rigid groups may invent enemies to keep internal cohesion.
5. Ideology: conflict fought for a cause beyond individual interest is more intense.
6. Binds antagonists: conflict creates norms and rules regulating the parties (labour law grew out of industrial conflict).
7. Calls for allies: creates associations and coalitions.
8. Balance of power: conflict reveals the relative strength of parties and so allows accommodation.
9. Stimulates change: new norms, institutions and technologies; in economic life conflict prompts innovation.

Conflict in loose and tight structures

In flexible, pluralistic societies conflicts are many, cross-cutting and of low intensity; they tend to integrate. In rigid structures that suppress conflict, hostility accumulates and, when it breaks out, runs along a single line of cleavage and is disruptive. Toleration and institutionalisation of conflict is thus a stabilising mechanism.

3. Comparison with Dahrendorf

Dahrendorf treats conflict as the source of structural change and gives it no positive role in stability. Coser looks at the integrative and adaptive functions. Turner places Coser’s work as conflict functionalism and Dahrendorf’s as dialectical conflict theory. Both reject Parsons’s neglect of conflict; they differ on what conflict does.

4. Criticism

• Coser stays inside the functionalist framework and so underplays radical change.
• “Functions” are often asserted rather than measured.
• Simmel’s propositions are rich but loosely connected; their scope conditions are unclear.

How this is examined

“Explain the theory of conflict functionalism of George Simmel” (August 2024), “Explain the conflict theory of George Simmel” (October 2023), and “Explain the social conflict functionalism of Simmel” (April 2022). Write Simmel’s eight propositions first, then show how Coser systematised them, with realistic/non-realistic conflict and safety valves. Coser alone would make a good six-mark note.