INTRODUCTION
The
statistics
of war are so appalling that they raise a question everyone ought to ask: are
such levels of suffering, imposed by human beings on each other, really
necessary? Aren't there better ways of managing and resolving the differences
between people, and groups of people, about war and violent conflict? Conflict
is a characteristic of human existence. It is part of the dynamic of life that
drives us into the future. But it needs to be managed constructively. When
associated with violence, destruction and killing, it is no longer a healthy
part of living. Violent conflict solves few problems, creates many, and breeds
more unhealthy conflict to come.
Conflict has characteristics of its own, and it is possible to analyse its structure and behaviour. When conflict is understood, it's easier to find ways to predict it, prevent it, transform it, and resolve it.
Conflict has characteristics of its own, and it is possible to analyse its structure and behaviour. When conflict is understood, it's easier to find ways to predict it, prevent it, transform it, and resolve it.
CONCEPTUAL
CLARIFICATION OF TERM
CONFLICT
Conflict is a part of social interaction when state delegates on issues
on what concerns them, it becomes a conflictual situation. Conflict might be at
the class level, local government level, state or even international level.
Conflict do occurs when few or more parties does accept a particular situation
the party might be individual or within states. Conflict may be based on
companies or businesses that involves companies of two different state
DEFINITION
OF TERM
CONFLICT
THEORY
Conflict
theory suggests that human behavior in social contexts results from conflicts
between competing groups. Conflict theory originated with the work of Karl Marx
in the mid-1800s. Marx understood human society in terms of conflict between
social classes, notably the conflict in capitalist societies between those who
owned the means of economic production (factory or farm owners, for example)
and those who did not (the workers). Subsequent thinkers have described
different versions of conflict theory; a common theme is that different social
groups have unequal power, though all groups struggle for the same limited
resources. Conflict theory has been used to explain diverse human behavior,
such as educational practices that either sustain or challenge the status quo cultural
customs regarding the elderly, and criminal behavior.
DIFFERENT CONFLICT THEORIES
THEORIES OF SOCIAL CONFLICT
The
nature, causes and the impact of conflicts have been extensively written on by
scholars. Depending on the school of thought to which they represent, such
explanations have tended to place a lot of emphasis on one particular or a set
of related theories while diminishing the importance or explanatory relevance
of other competing theories the condition under which conflicts occur, and
sometimes the condition for their resolution. These theories are explained
below:
STRUCTURAL CONFLICT THEORY
This
theory has two main sub-orientations; the first is the radical structural
theory represented by the Marxist dialectical school with exponents like Mark
and Engels, V.I Lenin etc, the second is the liberal structuralism represent by
Ross (1993), Scarborough (1998) and the famous Johan Garltung (1990) on
structural violence. Structuralisms thus sees incompatible interests based on
competition for resources which in most cases are assumed to be scarce, as
being responsible for social conflicts (Collier, 2002:2)
The
solution to these types of conflict to the Marxists is that the contradictions
will end in a revolution-civil war, or some form of violence leading to the
overthrow of the exploitation system. Liberal structuralisms call for the
elimination of structural defects with policy reforms.
REALIST THEORY
Realist
theory originates from classical political theory and shares both theological
and biological doctrines about an apparent weakness and individual inherent in
human nature. It thus traces the roots of conflict to a flaw in human nature
which is seen to be selfish and engaging in the pursuit of personalized self
interest defined as power.
Morgenthau
(1973:4) and realist after him like Walt, argue that the imperfection in the
world, namely conflict, has its roots in forces that are inherent in human
nature, that human nature is selfish, individualistic and naturally
conflictive, that states will always pursue their national interests defined as
power, and that such interest will come into conflict with those of others
leading to the inevitability of conflict. Actors hence should prepare to deal
with the outcome and consequences of conflict since it is inevitable, rather
than wish there were none. This theory greatly justified the militarization of
international relations and the arms race. The theory has been accused of
elevating power and the state to the status of an ideology, hence has had
tremendous impact on conflict at the international level.
BIOLOGICAL THEORY
Biological
theories has given rise to what may be referred to as the innate theory of
conflict which contends that conflict is innate in all social interactions, and
among all animals, including human beings. It argue that humans are animals,
albeit higher species of animals, and would fight naturally over things they
cherish. John Dollard (1939). The thinking is that since our ancestors were
instructively violent beings, and since we evolved from them, we too must bear
destructive impulses in our generic make up. Thomas Hobbes, St Augustine,
Malthus and Freud are all classical biological theorists.
Further
alienation to biological theories are shown in the difference between “expected
need satisfaction “and “actual need satisfaction” (Davies,1962:6) , where
expectation does not meet attainment, the tendency is for people to confront
those they hold responsible for frustrating their ambition. This is the central
argument that Ted Robert Gurr’s Relative Deprivation thesis addressed stating
that “the greater the discrepancy, however marginal between what is sought and
what see
PHYSIOLOGICAL THEORY
Physiologists
share the biological and hormonal origins of aggression and conflict in
individuals with realists, but add by providing the conditions under which this
happens. Scott (1978) noted that the physiological sources of aggressive
behavior are a function of several factors including human nature and
environment.
In
essence, humans are naturally capable of being aggressive but do not display
violent behavior as an instinct. When violence occurs, there is the possibility
that it is being manipulated by a combination of factors within and outside the
individual’s control.
ECONOMIC THEORY
Economists
largely assume people in conflict to be fighting over, not about, something
that is material. The question then becomes; is the conflict a result of greed
(intention to ‘corner’ something) or of grievance (anger arising over feelings
of injustice). Collier (2003:4) printed out that some people (commonly referred
to as “conflict entrepreneurs”) actually benefit from chaos; while overwhelming
majority of the population are affected by the negative impacts of conflicts.
He also pointed out that while the prospect of pecuniary gains is seldom the
principal incentive for rebellion, it can become for some insurgent groups, a
preferred state of affairs.
PSYCHO-CULTURAL CONFLICT THEORY
The
role of culturally induced conflict is emphasized by this theory. It contends,
therefore that even though there are different forms of identities, the one
that is based on people’s ethnic origin and the culture that is learned on the
basis of that ethnic origin is one of the most important ways of explaining
violent conflict. Identity is thus seen to be the reason for social conflicts
that take long to resolve despite the belief that ethnicity is the biggest
source of identity-based conflicts , this school of thought agree that this
does not mean that conflict is unavoidable wherever there are ethnic
differences.
HUMAN NEEDS THEORY
The position of human needs theory is similar
to that of Frustration-Aggression and Relative deprivation theory. Its main
assumption is that all humans have basic human needs which they seek to
fulfill, and that the denial and frustration of these needs by other groups or
individuals could affect them immediately or later, thereby leading to conflict
(Rosati et al. 1990). ‘Basic human needs” in this sense comprise physical,
psychological, social and spiritual needs. In essence, to provide access to one
(e.g. food) and deny or hinder access to another (e.g. freedom of worship) will
amount to denial and could make people to resort to violence in an effort to
protect these needs
Even
though needs scholars identity a wide range of human needs, some of which they
consider to be basic human needs, they are agreed on the fact that the
frustration of these needs hampers the actualization of the potentials of
groups and individuals, subsequently leading to conflict
RELATIONAL THEORY
Relational
Theories attempt to provide explanations for the violent conflicts between
groups by exploring sociological, political, economic and historical
relationships between such groups. Thus, the belief here is that cultural and
value differences are as well as group interests all influence relationships
between individuals A number of conflicts grow out of a past history of
conflict between groups that has led to the development of negative
stereotypes, racial intolerance and discrimination. Such a history of negative
exchanges between groups may make it difficult for efforts to integrate
different ethnic and religious groups within the society to succeed because
their past interactions make it difficult for them to trust one another. Within
the West African sub-region for instance, it has been difficult to get groups
like the Hausa/Fulani, Igbo and the Yoruba in Nigeria
SYSTEMIC THEORY
Systemic
theories provide a socio-structural explanation for the emergence of violent
social conflicts. The position of this theory is that reason(s) for any social
conflict lie in the social context within which it occurs. As Johnson
(1966:12-13) noted in the case of political violence, “any analytical
penetration of the behavior characterized as ‘purposive political violence’
must utilize as its tool a conception of the social context in which it
occurs.” This paradigm turns our focus to social factors and the effects of
large scale (usually sudden) changes in social, political and economic
processes that would usually guide In trying to cope with the different
challenges and crises of modernization, most governments that find it difficult
to gain the legitimacy needed to attract support from the people usually resort
to unconstitutional means and force rather than processes that are in line with
the rule of law, in an effort to surpass the legitimate demands of the people,
prevent opposition and civil society groups from criticizing policies that they
do not agree with, and generally attempt to dictate the terms on which peace
will be attained.
CONCLUSION
There
are however similarities among the social theories which the various theorists
agree. One of such areas is that all of them recommend approaches that
recognize the needs and interests of both sides, hence strategies that are
non-confrontational and those that remove feelings of bitterness in the process
of settling disputes between individuals, groups or nations.
In
conclusion, Kelman (1993:3) shows the way forward in his observation that each
perspective only adds to the pool of available knowledge on conflict resolution
processes: “Although (they are) analytically distinct as static points of
departure, there is sufficient overlap among…conflict orientations to blur
their fine points of distinction”.
Conflict
scholars can thus combine one or more points of view in the process of
analyzing social conflicts or helping political leaders to develop the right
policies for dealing with them
REFFERENCES
Azar, E ‘Protracted International
Conflicts: Ten Propositions’. Quoted in Rabie M. (1994),
Conflict Resolution and Ethnicity, London: Prager.
Burton,
John (1990) Conflict: Human Needs Theory.
London: Macmillan.
Cohen,
Percy S. (1968) Modern Social Theory.
London: Heinemann.
Collier, Paul (2003), Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and
Development Policy.
Washington: The World Bank,
Coser,
Lewis: The Functions of Social Conflict.
New York: Free Press.
This is a very interesting concept to be taken into further consideration. There is only one thing I would like you to pay attention at - follow conflict resolution essay conflict origins and ways out for more details!
ReplyDeleteThis is Great found it real helpful
ReplyDeletethis is quit useful politics really comes about conflicts
ReplyDeleteSocial media has developed a lot of influence on the people all over the world. This is because this channel usually contains the information which is useful and easily accessible. I’m greatly pleased that the author has realized that this is one of the matters which call for public attention. In Text Citations Editing Help
ReplyDeleteThis is just perfect concept
ReplyDeleteThis is a totally plagiarized work from the University for Peace reader: "Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies in West Africa" edited by Shedrack Gaya Best written by Stephen Ademola Faleti published in 2006.
ReplyDeletePlease acknowledge source.
Good job
ReplyDeleteuseful information indeed
ReplyDeleteUSEFUL THANK YU
ReplyDeleteVery useful information thank you
ReplyDeleteAm very happy to go through it,I have gotten so much in it and it has been a help to me to understand what the concept and causes of conflict.it is a simple presentation.bravo!!!
ReplyDelete