An integral part of the modern life of society are social conflicts in all their diversity. Examples of conflicts are found everywhere, from petty quarrels to international confrontations. The consequence of one of these confrontations - Islamic fundamentalism - is considered on the scale of one of the largest global problems, bordering on the threat of World War III.
However, studies in the field of the specifics of conflict as a socio-psychological phenomenon have shown that this is a sufficiently broad and complex concept to evaluate it unambiguously from a destructive point of view.
Conflict concept
The most common in scientific knowledge are two approaches regarding the nature of the conflict (Antsupov A. Ya.). The first defines conflict as a clash of parties, opinions or forces; the second - as a clash of opposing positions, goals, interests and viewssubjects of interaction. Thus, in the first case, examples of conflicts of a broader meaning are considered, which take place both in living and inanimate nature. 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 confrontation.
Structure and specifics of the conflict
The founder of the conflict paradigm in general in the humanities is L. Koser. One of the virtues 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 relations of a particular system or a condition for maintaining social unity.
The structure of the conflict is formed by its participants (opponents, opposing sides) and their actions, object, conditions/situation of the conflict (for example, 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 there is a struggle. 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 conflicts.
Examples of typologyconflicts
As N. V. Grishina notes, in everyday consciousness examples of conflicts include a fairly wide range of phenomena - from an armed clash and confrontation of certain social groups and up to marital disagreements. It does not matter whether it is a discussion in parliament or a struggle of personal desires. In modern science of science, one can find a huge number of different classifications, while there is no clear differentiation between the concepts of "types" and "types" of conflicts. Examples from both groups are 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 conflicts;
- 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 kinds of conflicts
The main types of conflicts are:
- 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 conflict between an individual and a group, are examples of social conflicts. The first social conflict, along with intrapersonal and animal conflict, was singled out as an independent type by the German sociologist G. Simmel. In somelater 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, people's differences in the value-semantic context, differences in life experience and behavior, limited certain capabilities of the human psyche, etc.
Intrapersonal conflict
Implies a subjectively experienced mismatch of certain tendencies in the self-consciousness of the individual (assessments, attitudes, interests, etc.), interacting with each other in the process of development (L. M. 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. So, for example, a person may not like his job, but be afraid to quit because of the prospect of remaining unemployed. A child may feel like skipping class and at the same time be afraid of being punished for it, etc.
In turn, this type of conflict can be of the following types (Antsupov A. Ya., Shipilov A. I.):
- motivational ("I want" and "I want");
- conflict of inadequate self-esteem ("I can" and "I can");
- role-playing (“should” and “should”);
- conflict of unfulfilled desire ("I want" and "I can");
- moral (“I want” and “need”);
- adaptive ("should", "can")
Thus, this classification distinguishes three main components of personalstructures that come into conflict with each other: "I want" (I want), "I must" (I must) 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 the conflict of Id (I want), Ego (I can) and Super-Ego (must). Also in this case, it is advisable to recall the transactional analysis of Eric Berne and the three positions of personality he identifies: Child (I want), Adult (I can), Parent (I must).
Interpersonal conflict
This type occurs in case of disagreements and clashes between individuals. Among its features, it can be noted that it proceeds according to the “here and now” principle, can have both objective and subjective reasons, and, as a rule, is characterized by high emotionality of the parties involved. The interpersonal type can also be subdivided into separate types of conflicts.
For example, depending on the specifics of the relationship of subordination between the participants, interpersonal conflicts can be divided into conflicts "vertically", "horizontally", and also "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 participants in the conflict occupy equal positions and do not obey each other - work colleagues, spouses, random passers-by, people in line, etc. Diagonal conflicts can arise between opponents who are indirectly subordinate - between the boss service and duty officer, between senior and junior, etc. (when participants are onpositions of different levels, but are not in subordinate relations with each other).
Also, interpersonal conflicts can include such types as family (marital, child-parent, conflict between brothers and sisters), household, conflict in the organization (we observe an example of organizational conflict whenever there is a collision in that or another production structure between its subjects within the framework of working interaction), etc.
Intergroup conflict
It is customary to refer to intergroup conflicts clashes between individual representatives of different social groups (large, small and medium), as well as between these groups as a whole. In this case, one can also single out such a type as a conflict in an organization (examples: between employees and management, administration and trade union, students and teachers, etc.), domestic (if several representatives of two or more groups participate in the conflict - for example, in communal apartments, queues, public transport, etc.).
It is also possible to single out such examples of social conflicts at the intergroup level as interethnic, intercultural and religious. Each of these species covers a wide strata of the population and is characterized by a significant length in time. In addition, selected species may have an intersecting 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.
Conflict between individual and group
This type usually occurs when an individual in a group refuses to act like the rest of its members, thereby demonstrating nonconformist behavior. Or he commits a certain act, which is considered unacceptable in this group, which provokes a conflict. An example is the feature film Scarecrow (1983) by Rolan Bykov, in which the main character, Lena Bessoltseva, comes into conflict with the class. Also a striking example of nonconformist behavior in a group that provokes conflict is the tragic fate of the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno.
Shapes of conflict
This category implies the presence of certain specific 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 (controversy), claim, condemnation, boycott, strike, sabotage, strike, abuse (swearing), quarrel, threat, enmity, encroachment, coercion, attack, 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.
Three main theoretical approaches can be considered for all types of conflicts:
- motivational;
- situational;
- cognitive.
Motivational approach
From the point of view of this approach, the hostility of a certain person orgroup is a reflection primarily of its internal problems. So, for example, from Freud's position, 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 the "enemies of the people" during the period of Stalin's repressions. Freud linked the mechanism of formation of autogroup hostility towards "strangers" with the Oedipal complex, the instinct of aggression, as well as with emotional identification with the leader of the group - the "father", etc. From the point of view of morality, such facts cannot be considered as a constructive conflict. The examples of racial discrimination and mass terror, however, clearly demonstrate the possibility of rallying members of one group in the process of confrontation with others.
In the theoretical concept of aggressiveness by the American psychologist Leonard Berkowitz, relative deprivation is one of the key factors in intergroup conflicts. That is, one of the groups assesses its position in society as more disadvantaged than the position of other groups. At the same time, deprivation is relative, since the disadvantaged situation in reality may not correspond to reality.
Situational approach
Thisthe approach is focused on external factors, the situation that cause the emergence and specificity of the conflict. Thus, in the studies of the Turkish psychologist Muzafer Sherif, it was found that the hostility of one group towards another is significantly reduced if, instead of competitive conditions, they are provided with conditions of cooperation (the need to perform joint activities in which the result depends on the joint efforts of all participants). Thus, Sheriff concludes that the factors of the situation in which 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 participants in the conflict relative to each other. Thus, in a situation of intergroup conflicts, the hostility of one group towards another is not necessarily due to an objective conflict of interests (which was stated in the realistic theory of conflicts within the framework of the situational approach). Accordingly, it is not the cooperative/competitive nature of the situation that becomes the decisive factor in interpersonal and intergroup interaction, but the group attitudes that arise in the process. 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 social identity theory, according to which conflicts between groups are not a necessary consequencesocial injustice (as opposed to the motivational approach). Faced with this injustice, individuals have the opportunity to independently choose one or another way to overcome it.
Conflict culture of personality
Regardless of whether there are international conflicts, examples of which most clearly demonstrate the destructive nature of the conflict behavior of the parties; or we are talking about a minor quarrel between colleagues at work, the optimal way out seems to be extremely significant. The ability of the warring parties to find compromises in a difficult controversial situation, to restrain their own destructive behavior, to see 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 and cultural-legal system in society, the origins of this trend are in individual specific individuals. Just like a river starts with small streams.
We are talking about the conflictological culture of the individual. 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 (considering their aggravated and large-scale nature) demonstrate, rather, the absence of any constructiveness of conflict interaction. In this regard, the conceptconflictological culture of the individual should be considered not only and not so much as one of the conditions for the optimal resolution of contentious situations in society, but also as the most important factor in the socialization of the personality of each modern individual.
