ࡱ> s X}jbjb  kkXy] <prrrrrr, t^pr(rppp bGLp THE FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL CONFLICT LEWIS COSER Basic statement: Conflict can be of social benefit. Coser develops this statement through the reformulation of Georg Simmel's classical work, Conflict. From this reformulation, Coser developed the following 16 propositions: Proposition 1: Group Binding Functions of conflict. (Coser) "A certain amount of discord, inner divergence and outer controversy, is organically tied up with the very elements that ultimately hold the group together. . . the positive and integrating role of antagonism is shown in structures which stand out by the sharpness and carefully preserved purity of their social divisions and gradations. Thus, the Hindu social system rests not only on the mutual repulsion of the castes. Hostility not only prevent boundaries within the group from gradually disappearing. . .often they provide classes and individuals with reciprocal positions which they would not find. . .if the causes of hostility were not accompanied by the feeling and the expression of hostility." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) ". . .when a social structure is no longer considered legitimate, individuals with similar object positions will come, through conflict, to constitute themselves into self conscious groups with common interests." Thus group formation through conflict. b) "Conflict serves to establish and maintain the identity and boundary lines of societies and groups." c) "Conflict with other groups contributes to the establishment and reaffirmation of the identity of the group and maintains its boundaries against the social world." d) "Patterned enmities and reciprocal antagonisms conserve social divisions and systems of stratification. Such patterned antagonisms prevent the gradual disappearance of boundaries between the subgroups of a social system and they assign position to the various subsystem with a total system." Proposition 2: Group Preserving Functions of Conflict and the Significance of Safety Value Institutions. (Coser) ". . .the opposition of a member to an associate is no purely negative social factor, if only because such opposition is often the only means for making life with actually unbearable people at least possible. If we did not even have the power and the right to rebel against tyranny, arbitrariness, moodiness, tactlessness, we could not bear to have any relation to people from whose characters we thus suffer. We would feel pushed to take desperate steps and these, indeed, would end the relation but do not, perhaps, constitute conflict. Not only because of the fact that. . .oppression usually increases if it is suffered calmly and without protest, but also because opposition gives us inner satisfaction, distraction, relief. . .Our opposition makes us feel that we are not completely victims of the circumstance." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Conflict is not always dysfunctional for the relationship within which it occurs, often conflict is necessary to maintain such a relationship. Without ways to vent hostility toward each other, and to express dissent, group members might react by withdraw. By setting free pent up feelings of hostility, conflicts serve to maintain a relationship." b) "Social systems provide for specific institutions which serve to drain off hostile and aggressive sentiments. These safety valve institutions help to maintain the system by preventing other wise probable conflict or by reducing its disruptive effects. They provide substitute objects upon which to displace hostile sentiments, as well as means for abreaction. Through these safety valves, hostility is prevented from turning against its original object. But such displacements also involve costs for both the social system and for the individual: reduced pressure for modifying the system to meet changing conditions, as well as dammed up tension in the individual, creating potentialities for disruptive explosion." Proposition 3: Realistic and Nonrealistic Conflict (Coser) "If the conflict is caused by an object, by the will to have or control something, by rage or revenge. . .it is qualified by the fact that, in principle, every end can be attained by more than one means. The desire for possession or subjugation, even for the annihilation of the enemy, can be satisfied through combinations and events other than fighting. Where conflict is merely a means determined by a superior purpose, there is not reason to restrict or even avoid it, provide it can be replaced by other measures which have the same promise of success. Where, on the other hand, it is exclusively determined by subjective feelings, where there are inner energies which can be satisfied only through fight, its substitution by other means is impossible; it is its own purpose and content. . ." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Nonrealistic conflicts arise from deprivations and frustrations stemming from the socialization process and from later adult role obligations, or the result, from a version of originally realistic antagonism which was disallowed expression." b) "Realistic conflicts arise when men clash with the frustrating agent themselves in expectation of attaining specific results, the Nonrealistic type consists of a release of tension in aggressive action directed against shifting objects. Realistic conflict is viewed by the participants as a means which might be abandoned if other means appear to be more effective for reaching the same end. The non realistic conflict leaves no such choice since satisfaction is derived from aggressive act itself." Proposition 4: Conflict and Hostile Impulses. (Coser) "Assuming that there indeed exists a formal hostility drive as the counterpart of the need for sympathy. . .No matter how much psychological autonomy one may be willing to grant the antagonistic drive, thesis autonomy is not enough to account for all phenomena involving hostility. . .Love and hate. . .seem to need some appealing structure of their objects with whose cooperation alone they yield the total phenomena that go by their name. . .It seems probable to me that. . .the hostility drive merely adds itself as a reinforcement. . .to controversies which are due to concrete causes. . .It is expedient to hate the adversary with whom one fights, just as it is expedient to love a person whom one is tied to." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Aggressive or hostile impulses do not suffice to account for social conflict. Hatred, just as love, needs some object. Conflict can occur only in the interaction between subject and object, it always presupposes a relationship." b) "Realistic conflict need not be accompanied by hostility and aggressiveness. Tensions in the psychological sense are not always associated with conflict behavior. Yet, it might be useful to hate the opponent. The propagandist expects that such hatred will reinforce the emotional investment in the conflict and hence strengthen the readiness to carry it out to the end." c) "Conversely, the main function of the mediator is seen as divesting conflict situations of Nonrealistic elements of aggressiveness so as to allow the contenders to deal realistically with the divergent claims at issue." Proposition 5: Hostility in Close Social Relationships.(Coser) "While antagonism by itself does not produce sociation, it is a sociological element almost never absent in it. . .This probably is often the situation in respect to the so called mixture of converging and diverging currents within a group. That is, the structure may be able to describe and understand it, do we put it together, post factum, out of two tendencies, one monistic, the other antagonistic. Erotic relations offer the most frequent illustrations. How often do they not strike us as woven together of love and respect, or disrespect. . .of love and an urge to dominate or the need for dependence. But what the observer or the participant himself divides into two intermingling trends may in reality be only one." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Antagonism is usually involved as an element in intimate relationships. Converging and diverging motivations may be so comingled in the actual relationship that they can be separated only for classificatory and analytical purposes, while the relationship actually has a unitary character, suigeneris." b) "Close social relationships, characterized as they are by frequent interaction and involving the total personality of the participants, may be said to include in their motivational structure an essential ambivalence in that they contain both positive and negative cathexes inextricably intertwined." Proposition 6: The Closer the Relationship the More Intense the Conflict (Coser) "A Hostility must excite consciousness the more deeply and violently , the greater the parties' similarity against the background of which the hostility arises. . .People who have many common features often do one another worse or worser wrong than comlete strangers do. . .we confront the stranger with whom we share neither characteristics nor broader interests, objectively; we hold our personalities in reserve. . .The more we have in common with another as whole persons, however, the more easily will our totality be involved in every single relation to him...Therefore, if a quarrel arises between persons in such an intimate relationship, it is often so passionately expansive... "The second type which is relevant here...is the case of a hostility whose intensification is grounded in a feeling of belonging together, of unity. . .[this shows] the peculiar phenomenon of social hatred. This hatred is directed against a member of the group, not from personal motives but because the member presents a danger to the preservation of the group. . .the two conflicting parties hate each other to only on the concrete ground which produced the conflict but also on the sociological ground of hatred for the enemy of the group itself...typical of this is the way the renegade hates and is hated. The recall of earlier agreement has such a strong effect that the new contrast is infinitely sharper and bitterer than if no relation at all had existed in the past...respect for the enemy is usually absent where the hostility has arisen on the basis of previous solidarity. And where enough similarities continue to make confusions and blurred borderlines possible, points of difference need an demphasis not justified by the issue but only by that danger of confusion." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "A conflict is more passionate and more radical when it arises out of close relationships. The coexistence of union and opposition in such relations makes for the peculiar sharpness of the conflict. Enmity calls forth deeper and more violent reactions, the greater the involvement of the parties among whom it originates." b) "In conflicts within a close group, one side hated the other more intensely the more it is felt to be a threat to the unity and identity of the group." C) "Greater participation in the group and greater personality involvement of the members provide treater opportunity to engage in intense conflicting behavior and hence more violent reaction against disloyalty are two facets of the same relation." Proposition 7: Impact and Function of Conflict in Group Structure. (Coser) "Contradiction and conflict not only precede unity but are operative in it at every moment of its existence. . .There probably exists no social unit in which convergent and divergent currents among its members are not inseparably interwoven. . . 'Conflict is designed to resolve divergent dualisms; it is a way of achieving some kind of unity. . .this is roughly parallel to the fact that it is the most violent symptom of a disease which represent the effort of the organism of free itself of disturbances and damages caused by the,...Conflict itself resolves the tension between contrasts." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Conflict may sere to remove dissociating elements in a relationship and to reestablish unity. Insofar as conflict is the resolution of tension between antagonists it ha stabilizing functions and becomes an integrating component of the relationship. However, not all conflicts are positively functional for the relationship, but only those which concern goals, values, or interests that do not contradict the basic assumptions upon which the relation is founded. Loosely structured groups and open societies, by allowing conflicts, institute safeguards against the type of conflict which would endanger basic consensus and thereby minimize the danger of divergences touching core values. The interdependence of antagonistic groups and the crisscrossing within such societies of conflicts, which serve to 'sew the social system together' by canceling each other out, thus prevent disintegration along one primary line of cleavage." Proposition 8: Conflict as an Index of Stability of Relationships. (Coser) 'It is by no means the sign of the most genuine and deep affection never to yield to occasion for conflict...On the contrary, this behavior often characterizes attitudes which lack the ultimate unconditional devotion...The felt insecurity concerning the basis of such relations often moves us, who desire to maintain the relations at all costs, to acts of exaggerated selflessness, to the almost mechanical insurance of the relationship through the avoidance on principle, of every possible conflict. Where on the other hand we are certain of the irrevocability and unreservedness of our feeling, such peace at any price is not necessary. We know that no crisis can penetrate to the foundation of the relationship." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "The absence of conflict cannot be taken as an index of the strength and stability of a relationship. Stable relationships may be characterized by conflicting behavior. Closeness gives rise to frequent occasions for conflict, but if the participants feel that their relationships are tenuous, they will avoid conflict, fearing that it might endanger the continuance of the relation. When close relationships are characterized by frequent conflicts rather than by accumulation of hostile or ambivalent feelings, we may be justified, given that such conflicts are not likely to concern basic consensus, in taking these frequent conflicts as an index of the stability of these relationships." b) "In secondary relationships, where we are initially justified in expecting relatively less intense conflicts owing to the segmental involvement of the participants, the presence of conflict may be taken as an index of the operation of a balancing mechanism." Proposition 9: Conflict with Out Groups Increases Internal Cohesion (Coser) "The group in a state of peace can permit antagonistic members within it to live with one another in an undecided situation because each of them can go his own way and can avoid collisions. A state of conflict, however, pulls the members so tightly together and subjects them to such uniform impulse that they either must get completely along with, or completely repel, one another. This is the reason why war with the outside is sometimes the last chance for a state ridden with inner antagonisms to overcome these antagonisms, or else to break up definitely. The fighter must pull himself together. That is, all his energies must be, as it were, concentrated in one point so that they can be employed at any moment in any required direction. 'The well known reciprocal relation between a despotic orientation and the warlike tendencies of a group rests on this informal basis: war needs a centralistic intensification of the group form, and this is guaranteed best by despotism." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Conflict with another group leads to the mobilization of energies of group members and enhance to increased cohesion of the group. Whether increase in centralization accompanies this increase in cohesion depends upon both the character of the conflict and the type of group. Centralization will be more likely to occur in the event of warlike conflict in differentiated structures requiring marked division of labor." b) "Despotism seems to be related to lack of cohesion, it is required for carrying out hostilities where there is insufficient group solidarity to mobilize energies of group members." c) "In groups engaged in struggle with an external enemy, the occurrence of both centralization and of despotism depends upon the group structure prior to the outbreak of the conflict." d) "Social systems lacking social solidarity are likely to disintegrate in the face of outside conflict, although some unity may be despotically enforced." Proposition 10: Conflict with Another Group Defines Group Structure and Consequent Reaction to Internal Conflict. (Coser) "Groups in any sort of war situation are not tolerant. They cannot afford individual deviations from the unity of the coordination principle beyond a definitely limited degree. The technique for this is sometimes an apparent tolerance....The Catholic Church attained the close unitary front it needed...by treating dissenters as long as possible as belonging to it, but the moment this was not possible any longer, expelling them with incomparable energy. For group structures of this sort, a certain elasticity of their form is of the greatest importance. A relatively small fighting group, in a situation of acute conflict, may benefit from a decline in its membership, as long as this decline purifies it of elements which tend to mediation and compromise...The majority group does not have to insist on such decisiveness of pro and con. Vacillating and conditional members are less dangerous to it because...its large volume can afford such peripheral phenomena without being affected in its center. But where, as in the smaller group, the periphery is closer to the center, every uncertainty of a member at once threatens the core and hence the cohesion of the whole. The slight span between the elements makes for the absence of that elasticity of the group which here is the condition of tolerance." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Groups engaged in continued struggle with the outside tend to be intolerant within. They are unlikely to tolerate more than limited departures from the group unity. Such groups tend to assume a sect-like character: they select membership in terms of special characteristics and so tend to be limited in size, and they lay claim to the total personality involvement of their members. Their social cohesion depends upon total sharing of all aspects of group life and is reinforced by the assertion of group unity against the dissenter. The only way they can solve the problem of dissent is through the dissenter's voluntary or forced withdrawal." b) "Groups of the church type, not involved in continuous struggle with the outside, tend to make no special claims on the personality of the membership and, because they set up no rigid criteria for membership, are morel likely to be large. Such groups are able to resist outside pressures successfully by exhibiting elasticity of structure and allowing an area of tolerated conflict within." Proposition 11: The Search for Enemies. (Coser) 'Groups, and especially minorities, which live in conflict and persecution, often reject approaches or tolerance from the other side. The closed nature of their opposition without which they cannot fight on would be blurred...A group's complete victory over its enemies is thus not always fortunate...Victory lowers the energy which guarantees the unity of the group; and the dissolving forces, which are always at work, gain hold. Within certain groups, it may even be a piece of political wisdom to see to it that there be some enemies in order for the unity of the members to remain effective and for the group to remain conscious of this unity as its vital interest." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Rigidly organized struggle groups may actually search for enemies with the deliberate purpose of the unwitting result of maintaining unity and internal cohesion. Such groups may actually perceive an outside threat although no threat is present. Under conditions yet to be discovered, imaginary threats have the same group integrating function as real threats." b) "The evocation of an outer enemy or the invention of such an enemy strengthens social cohesion that is threatened from within. Similarly, search for or invention of a disaster within may serve to maintain a structure which is threatened from the outside. Such scapegoating mechanisms will occur particularly in those groups whose structure inhibits realistic confrontation within." c) "There are shifting gradations between the exaggeration of a real danger, the attraction of a real enemy, and the complete invention of a threatening agent." Proposition 12: Ideology and Conflict. (Coser) "The parties' consciousness of being mere representatives of supra-individual claims, of fighting not for themselves but only for a cause, can give the conflict a radicalism and mercilessness which find their analogy in the general behavior of certain very selfless and very idealistically inclined persons...Such a conflict which is fought out with the strength of the whole personality while the victory benefits the cause alone, has a noble character...On the basis of this mutual agreement of the two parties, according to which each of them defends only his claims and cause, renouncing all personal or egotistic considerations, the conflict is fought with unattenuated sharpness, following its own intrinsic logic, and being neither intensified nor moderated by subjective factors. "The contrast between unity and antagonism is perhaps most visible where both parties really pursue any identical aim, such as the exploration of a scientific truth. Here any yielding...any peace prior to the wholly decisive victory would be treason against that objectivity for the sake of which the personal character has been eliminated from the fight. Ever since Marx, the social struggle has developed into this form...the personal bitterness of both general and local battles has greatly decreased...The violence of the fight, however, has not decreased for that. On the contrary, it has become more pointed...owing to the consciousness of the individual involved that he fights not only for himself, and often not for himself, and often not for himself at all, but for a great super personal aim." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Conflicts in which the participants feel that they are merely the representatives of collectives and groups, fighting not for self but for the ideals of the group they represent, are likely to be more radical and merciless than those that are fought for personal reasons." b) "Elimination of the personal element tends to make conflict sharper, in the absence of modifying elements which personal factors would normally introduce. The modern Marxian labor movement exemplifies the radicalizing effects of objectification of conflict. Strict ideological alignments are more likely to occur in rigid than in flexible adjustive structures." c) "Objectification of the conflict is likely to be a unifying element for the contending parties when both parties pursue the same purpose for example; in scientific controversies in which the issue is the establishment of truth." Proposition 13: Conflict Binds Antagonists (Coser) "If...a fight simply aims at annihilation it does approach the marginal case of assassination in which the admixture of unifying elements is almost zero. If, however, there is any consideration, any limit to violence there already exists a socializing factor, even through only as the qualification of violence. Kant said that every war in which the belligerents do not impose some restrictions in the use of possible means upon one another, necessarily...becomes a war of extermination. It is almost inevitable that an element of commonness injects itself into...enmity once the stage often violence yields to another relationship, even though this new relation may contain a completely undiminished sum of animosity between the two parties. 'One unites in order to fight, and one fights under the mutually recognized control of norms and rules." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Conflict may initiate other types of interaction between antagonists, even previously unrelated antagonists. It usually takes place within a universe of norms prescribing the forms in which it is to be carried out. Conflict acts as a stimulus for establishing new rules, norms, and institutions, thus serving as an agent of socialization for both contending parties. Furthermore, conflict reaffirms dormant norms and thus intensifies participation in social life." b) "As a stimulus for the creation and modification of norms, conflict makes the readjustment of relationships to changed conditions possible." Proposition 14: Interest in Unity of the Enemy. (Coser) "In view of the incomparable utility of unified organization for purposes of fight, one would suppose every party to be extremely interested in the opposed party's lack of such unity. Nevertheless, there are some contrary cases. The centralized form into which the party is pushed by the situation of conflict grows beyond the party itself and causes it to prefer that the opponent, too, take on this form. In the struggles of the last decades between workers and employers, this has been most unmistakably the case." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "In view of the advantages of unified organization for purposes of winning the conflict, it might be supposed that each party would strongly desire the absence of unity in the opposing party. Yet, this is not always true. If a relative balance of forces exists between the two parties, a unified party prefers a unified opponent." b) "Labor unions have often preferred to deal with employers' associations rather than with individual employers. Although strikes might spread further and last longer in such cases, both parties prefer that the form of the conflict be in line with their own structural requirements. Only by dealing with representative organizations of employers can workers feel sure that the result will not be jeopardized by independent operators; and, correlatively, employers will tend to prefer to deal with unified labor organizations, which are able to control unruly or autonomous members. In opposing a diffuse crowd of enemies, one may more often gain isolated results which fix a more enduring relationship. This explains the apparent paradox that each opponent may see the advantage of his enemy as his own advantage." Proposition 15: Conflict Establishes and Maintains Balance of Power. (Coser) "The most effective prerequisite for preventing struggle, the exact knowledge of the comparative strength of the two parties, is very often attainable only by the actual fighting out of the conflict." (Simmel) Coser's reformulations: a) "Conflicts consists in a test of power between antagonistic parties. Accommodation between them is possible only if each is aware of the relative strength of both parties. However, paradoxical as it may seem, such knowledge can most frequently be attained only through conflict, since other mechanisms for testing the respective strength of antagonists seem to be unavailable." b) "Consequently, struggle may be an important way to avoid conditions of disequilibrium by modifying the basis for power relations." Proposition 16: Conflict Creates Associations and Coalitions. (Coser) "Conflict may not only heighten the concentration of an existing unity, radically eliminating all elements which might blur the distinctness of its boundaries against the enemy, it may also bring persons and groups together which have otherwise nothing to do with each other...Unification for the purpose of fighting is a process which is experienced so often that sometimes the mere collation of elements, even when it occurs for no purpose of aggression or other conflict, appears in the eyes of others as a threatening and hostile act. 'The unifying power of the principle of conflict nowhere emerges more strongly than when it manages to carve a temporal or continual area out of competitive or hostile relationships. Under certain circumstances the contrast between ordinary antagonism and momentary association for purposes of fight can be so pointed that it is precisely the depth of the mutual hostility of the parties which forms the direct cause of their joining up. "Unification for the exclusive purpose of defense probably occurs in most coalitions of extent groups, especially when the groups are numerous and heterogeneous. This defense purpose is the collectivistic minimum, because even for the single group and the single individual it constitutes the least avoidable test of the drive for self preservation. Evidently, the more numerous and varied are the elements which associate, the smaller is the number of interests in which they coincide." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Struggle may bring together otherwise unrelated persons and groups. Coalitions and temporary associations, rather than more permanent and cohesive groups, will result from conflicts where primarily pragmatic interests of the participants are involved. Such alignments are more likely to occur in flexible structures than in rigid ones, because, in rigid societies, suppressed conflicts, if they break out, tend to assume a more intense and hence more ideological character. Coalitions and associations give structure to an individualistic society and prevent it from disintegration through atomization." b) "The more the unified elements differ in culture and structure, the smaller the number of interests in which they coincide. Just to the extent that unification is not grounded in prior attraction based on common characteristics will the meaning of unification correspondingly confine itself to coalition and the purpose at hand." c) "The unifying character of conflict is seen more dramatically when coalitions and instrumental associations produce agreement out of relationships of competitions or hostility. Unification is at a minimum level when coalitions are formed for the purpose of defense. Alliance, then, for each particular group reflects the most minimal expression of the desire for self preservation." d) "Most coalitions between already existing groups, especially between numerous groups or between those that differ widely from each other, are formed for defensive purposes only, at least in the view of those who enter the alliance. Alliance, even when not formed for the purpose of conflict, may seem to other groups a threatening and unfriendly act. This very perception, however, leads to the creation of new associations and coalitions, thus further stimulation social participation." 2001 Church of the Nazarene. All rights reserved. X}$01efPQ454 5 6 E F m n (pssuuvvdxexyy5{6{!}"}#}W}X}45fg WX7 8 w w x V#W#n#o#$$%%#&$&--0-1-w.x.// 00Y0Z0P1Q122222t6u66699999e<f<l===@@AAAAXCYCDDDDiEjEEEE K K!K"KMM6O7OgOhORR)R*RSSUUUUUU.\/\F\G\\]]]]]^^____AcBcYcZc/e0eeeee h h!h"hpiqilllmmmmmmYoZooo'p(pssuuvvdxexyy5{6{!}"}#}W}X}/ =!"#$% [4@4NormalCJOJPJQJmH <A@<Default Paragraph FontXy            n+f6jAN\Y!doXyGz m X}|w 2E]]mX}}X}~fkIN$   $ puNTW^ !!"!" ###$#(())) )v+}+R,W,|--....22455555995=A=====AAGG GG`KeK NNNNPPQQTT&X,X/X6XZZ[[ ]$]9_?_B_I_aadd ddhhiiiiiikk l%lppqqqqZy=J8:   hqnp_"j"b%h%8&>&=,E,,,--1124hBqBBBjPyPQU5]8]hh(lDnEqVqrr"y#yAyZyWilliam Brian Moul9Macintosh HD:Desktop Folder:Moul Files:courses:281:Simmel@"y"y6B"y"yXy@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial3Times"qhgFgFd 3 20z William Brian MoulWilliam Brian Moul Oh+'0h  $ 0 <HPX`' ssWilliam Brian MouldillNormal William Brian Mould1llMicrosoft Word 8.0d@F#@~"@~" d ՜.+,D՜.+,@ hp  'University of Waterloo13zb  Title 6> _PID_GUID'AN{BBA96680-8DD5-11D6-B847-000393100C20}  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F=}!1TableWordDocument SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjXObjectPool=}!=}! FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8Root Entry F!@1TableWordDocument SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjXObjectPool=}!=}!0Tableo( N{BBA96680-8DD5-11D6-B847-000393100C20} Oh+'0h  $ 0 <HPX`' ssWilliam Brian MouldillNormal William Brian Mould2llMicrosoft Word 8.0d@ @~"@M"  FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8 ՜.+,D՜.+,@ hp  'University of Waterloo13zb  Title 6> _PID_GUID'Ad [4@4NormalCJOJPJQJmH <A@<Default Paragraph Fonty            O+6ALNY\doyGz  <>_klMNOVWXopopqW X o p   CD12rs " "^"_"S)T)k)l)**N+O+H,I,,,--../ /22225555588999<<====??L@M@AAAAB BDGEG\G]GIIqKrKKKLNMNdNeNOOTQUQQQ&R'RiXjXXXYY[[[["\#\|_}___jakaaa4b5bDdEd\d]deehh*i+iiiijjkkllcldl5p6p'r(r?r@rttuuqwrw]y^y_yyy! "! "!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u! "! "! "!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u !u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u!u<>_klMNOVWXopopqW X o p   CD12rs " "^"_"S)T)k)l)**N+O+H,I,,,--../ /22225555588999<<====??L@M@AAAAB BDGEG\G]GIIqKrKKKLNMNdNeNOOTQUQQQ&R'RiXjXXXYY[[[["\#\|_}___jakaaa4b5bDdEd\d]deehh*i+iiiijjkkllcldl^y_yy |w 2E]]m }X}~UnknownWilliam Brian Moul William Moul#NTX_O U X _  <A!% . !!W"\"F#L#X#_#()K)Q)T)[)++,,--....2225@5555599p=|=====BBhhh*iiyyA AD Af Al An @@@@@ @@@@B@@@@@@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial3Times"qhgF gFd 3 20zh William Brian MoulWilliam Brian Mouls X}jbjb  kky]t  <%6$8$8$8$8$8$8$,&'td$d$  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvw#LV###j6$r(r6$##6$6$@ G "6$ THE FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL CONFLICT LEWIS COSER Basic statement: Conflict can be of social benefit. Coser develops this statement through the reformulation of Georg Simmel's classical work, Conflict. From this reformulation, Coser developed the following 16 propositions: Proposition 1: Group Binding Functions of conflict. (Coser) "A certain amount of discord, inner divergence and outer controversy, is organically tied up with the very elements that ultimately hold the group together. . . the positive and integrating role of antagonism is shown in structures which stand out by the sharpness and carefully preserved purity of their social divisions and gradations. Thus, the Hindu social system rests not only on the mutual repulsion of the castes. Hostility not only prevent boundaries within the group from gradually disappearing. . .often they provide classes and individuals with reciprocal positions which they would not find. . .if the causes of hostility were not accompanied by the feeling and the expression of hostility." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) ". . .when a social structure is no longer considered legitimate, individuals with similar object positions will come, through conflict, to constitute themselves into self conscious groups with common interests." Thus group formation through conflict. b) "Conflict serves to establish and maintain the identity and boundary lines of societies and groups." c) "Conflict with other groups contributes to the establishment and reaffirmation of the identity of the group and maintains its boundaries against the social world." d) "Patterned enmities and reciprocal antagonisms conserve social divisions and systems of stratification. Such patterned antagonisms prevent the gradual disappearance of boundaries between the subgroups of a social system and they assign position to the various subsystem with a total system." Proposition 2: Group Preserving Functions of Conflict and the Significance of Safety Value Institutions. (Coser) ". . .the opposition of a member to an associate is no purely negative social factor, if only because such opposition is often the only means for making life with actually unbearable people at least possible. If we did not even have the power and the right to rebel against tyranny, arbitrariness, moodiness, tactlessness, we could not bear to have any relation to people from whose characters we thus suffer. We would feel pushed to take desperate steps and these, indeed, would end the relation but do not, perhaps, constitute conflict. Not only because of the fact that. . .oppression usually increases if it is suffered calmly and without protest, but also because opposition gives us inner satisfaction, distraction, relief. . .Our opposition makes us feel that we are not completely victims of the circumstance." (Simmel) Coser's reformulation: a) "Conflict is not always dysfunctional for the relationship within which it occurs, often conflict is necessary to maintain such a relationship. Without ways to vent hostility toward each other, and toX}  5CJ$01efPQ454 5 6 E F m n (pssuuvvdxexyy5{6{!}"}#}W}X}45fg WX7 8 w w x V#W#n#o#$$%%#&$&--0-1-w.x.// 00Y0Z0P1Q122222t6u66699999e<f<l===@@AAAAXCYCDDDDiEjEEEE K K!K"KMM6O7OgOhORR)R*RSSUUUUUU.\/\F\G\\]]]]]^^____AcBcYcZc/e0eeeee h h!h"hpiqilllmmmmmmYoZooo'p(pssuuvvdxexyy5{6{!}"}#}W}X} / =!"#$%What I refer to as Simmel's paradox is Proposition 15 below