Hubbry Logo
Conflict theoriesConflict theoriesMain
Open search
Conflict theories
Community hub
Conflict theories
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Conflict theories
Conflict theories
Conflict theories
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
For a historiographical theory with a similar name, see Conflict thesis.
Part of a series on
Sociology
Key themes
Perspectives
Branches
Methods
Major theorists

1800s: Martineau · Tocqueville · Marx · Spencer · Le Bon · Ward · Pareto · Tönnies · Veblen · Simmel · Durkheim · Addams · Mead · Weber · Du Bois · Mannheim · Elias

1900s: Fromm · Adorno · Gehlen · Aron · Merton · Nisbet · Mills · Bell · Schoeck · Goffman · Bauman · Foucault · Luhmann · Habermas · Baudrillard · Bourdieu · Giddens
Lists
Conflict resolution
Principles
Law
Management
International relations
Models and theories

Conflict theories are perspectives in political philosophy and sociology which argue that individuals and groups (social classes) within society interact on the basis of conflict rather than agreement, while also emphasizing social psychology, historical materialism, power dynamics, and their roles in creating power structures, social movements, and social arrangements within a society. Conflict theories often draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, or a conflict continuum. Power generally contrasts historically dominant ideologies, economies, currencies or technologies. Accordingly, conflict theories represent attempts at the macro-level analysis of society.

Many political philosophers and sociologists have been framed as having conflict theories, dating back as far as Plato's idea of the tripartite soul of The Republic,[1] to Hobbes' ideas in The Leviathan. Other historical political philosophers associated with having "conflict theories" include Jean Bodin, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Robert Malthus, Karl Marx, and Georg Simmel.[2] Georg Simmel was one of the earliest sociologists to formally use "conflict" as a framework to understand social change, writing about the topic in his 1908 book, "Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations".[3]

While many conflict theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought, conflict theory does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance, social conflict theory, or any other specific theory related to social conflict.

In classical conflict theory

[edit]

Two early conflict theorists were the Polish-Austrian sociologist and political theorist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838–1909) and the American sociologist and paleontologist Lester F. Ward (1841–1913). Although Ward and Gumplowicz developed their theories independently they had much in common and approached conflict from a comprehensive anthropological and evolutionary point-of-view as opposed to Marx's rather exclusive focus on economic factors.

Gumplowicz, in Grundriss der Soziologie (Outlines of Sociology, 1884), describes how civilization has been shaped by conflict between cultures and ethnic groups. Gumplowicz theorized that large complex human societies evolved from war and conquest. The winner of a war would enslave the losers; eventually a complex caste system develops.[4] Horowitz says that Gumplowicz understood conflict in all its forms: "class conflict, race conflict, and ethnic conflict", and calls him one of the fathers of conflict theory.[5]

What happened in India, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome may sometimes happen in modern Europe. European civilization may perish, over flooded by barbaric tribes. But if anyone believes that we are safe from such catastrophes he is perhaps yielding to an all too optimistic delusion. There are no barbaric tribes in our neighborhood to be sure — but let no one is deceived, their instincts lie latent in the populace of European states.

— Gumplowicz (1884), [6]

Conflict theories were popular in early sociology, and accordingly often date back to the early 1900s founders of Sociology, and particularly the ideas of Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Karl Marx, and Lester Frank Ward.

Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) opposed conflict theory views and instead saw society as a functioning organism. His primary lens of functionalism concerns "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system,"[7] Seeing social conflict as a dysfunction that appeared in society as crime. Durkheim saw crime as "a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies."[8] The collective conscience defines certain acts as "criminal." Crime thus plays a role in the evolution of morality and law: "[it] implies not only that the way remains open to necessary changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes."[9]

Max Weber's (1864–1920) approach to conflict is contrasted with that of Marx. While Marx focused on the way individual behavior is conditioned by social structure, Weber emphasized the importance of "social action," i.e., the ability of individuals to affect their social relationships.[10]

Karl Marx (1818–1883) based his conflict theory on a dialectical materialist account of history, Marxism posited that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions leading to its own destruction. Marx ushered in radical change, advocating proletarian revolution and freedom from the ruling classes, as well as critiqued political economy. At the same time, Karl Marx was aware that most of the people living in capitalist societies did not see how the system shaped the entire operation of society. Just as modern individuals see private property (and the right to pass that property on to their children) as natural, many of the members in capitalistic societies see the rich as having earned their wealth through hard work and education, while seeing the poor as lacking in skill and initiative. Marx rejected this type of thinking, viewing it as something Friedrich Engels termed false consciousness, the use of misdirection by the ruling class to obfuscate the exploitation intrinsic to the relationship between the proletariat and the ruling class. Marx wanted to replace this false consciousness with something Friedrich Engels termed class consciousness, the workers' recognition of themselves as a class unified in opposition to capitalists and ultimately to the capitalist system itself. In general, Marx wanted the proletarians to rise up against the capitalists and overthrow the capitalist system.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

— Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels The Communist Manifesto 1848, [11]

Lester Frank Ward directly attacked and attempted to systematically refute the elite business class' laissez-faire philosophy as espoused by the hugely popular social philosopher Herbert Spencer. Ward's Dynamic Sociology (1883) was an extended thesis on how to reduce conflict and competition in society and thus optimize human progress. At the most basic level, Ward saw human nature itself to be deeply conflicted between self-aggrandizement and altruism, between emotion and intellect, and between male and female. These conflicts would be then reflected in society and Ward assumed there had been a "perpetual and vigorous struggle" among various "social forces" that shaped civilization.[12][13] Ward was more optimistic than Marx and Gumplowicz and believed that it was possible to build on and reform present social structures with the help of sociological analysis.

Modern approaches

[edit]

C. Wright Mills has been called the founder of modern conflict theory.[14] In Mills's view, social structures are created through conflict between people with differing interests and resources. Individuals and resources, in turn, are influenced by these structures and by the "unequal distribution of power and resources in the society."[14] The power elite of American society, (i.e., the military–industrial complex) had "emerged from the fusion of the corporate elite, the Pentagon, and the executive branch of government." Mills argued that the interests of this elite were opposed to those of the people. He theorized that the policies of the power elite would result in "increased escalation of conflict, production of weapons of mass destruction, and possibly the annihilation of the human race."[14]

Gene Sharp (1928-2018) was a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.[15] He is known for his extensive writings on nonviolent struggle, which have influenced numerous anti-government resistance movements around the world. In 1983 he founded the Albert Einstein Institution, a non-profit organization devoted to studies and promotion of the use of nonviolent action in conflicts worldwide.[16] Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state—regardless of its particular structural organization—ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler or rulers. If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power. Sharp has been called both the "Machiavelli of nonviolence" and the "Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare."[17] Sharp's scholarship has influenced resistance organizations around the world. More recently, the protest movement that toppled President Mubarak of Egypt drew extensively on his ideas, as well as the youth movement in Tunisia, and the earlier ones in the Eastern European colour revolutions that had previously been inspired by Sharp's work.[18]

A recent articulation of conflict theory is found in Canadian sociologist Alan Sears' book A Good Book, in Theory: A Guide to Theoretical Thinking (2008):[19]

  • Societies are defined by inequality that produces conflict, rather than which produces order and consensus. This conflict based on inequality can only be overcome through a fundamental transformation of the existing relations in the society, and is productive of new social relations.
  • The disadvantaged have structural interests that run counter to the status quo, which, once they are assumed, will lead to social change. Thus, they are viewed as agents of change rather than objects one should feel sympathy for.
  • Human potential (e.g., capacity for creativity) is suppressed by conditions of exploitation and oppression, which are necessary in any society with an unequal division of labour. These and other qualities do not necessarily have to be stunted due to the requirements of the so-called "civilizing process," or "functional necessity": creativity is actually an engine for economic development and change.
  • The role of theory is in realizing human potential and transforming society, rather than maintaining the power structure. The opposite aim of theory would be the objectivity and detachment associated with positivism, where theory is a neutral, explanatory tool.
  • Consensus is a euphemism for ideology. Genuine consensus is not achieved, rather the more powerful in societies are able to impose their conceptions on others and have them accept their discourses. Consensus does not preserve social order, it entrenches stratification, a tool of the current social order.
  • The State serves the particular interests of the most powerful while claiming to represent the interests of all. Representation of disadvantaged groups in State processes may cultivate the notion of full participation, but this is an illusion/ideology.
  • Inequality on a global level is characterized by the purposeful underdevelopment of Third World countries, both during colonization and after national independence. The global system (i.e., development agencies such as World Bank and International Monetary Fund) benefits the most powerful countries and multi-national corporations, rather than the subjects of development, through economic, political, and military actions.

Although Sears associates the conflict theory approach with Marxism, he argues that it is the foundation for much "feminist, post-modernist, anti-racist, and lesbian-gay liberationist theories."[20]

Conflict theory has three assumptions:[21]

  • Humans are self-interested.
  • Societies operate under perpetual scarcity of resources.
  • Conflict is pervasive and unavoidable within social groups and between social groups.

Types

[edit]

Conflict theory is most commonly associated with Marxism, but as a reaction to functionalism and the positivist method, it may also be associated with a number of other perspectives, including:

Criticism

[edit]

Conflict theory has been criticised for being too politicised by its association with Marx and its widespread use by advocates in numerous causes and movements. Critics also argue it downplays unity in society while taking a negative view of society.[23]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Conflict theories

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Conflict theories constitute a foundational in and related social sciences, viewing society as an arena of perpetual competition and antagonism among individuals, classes, or groups vying for limited resources such as wealth, power, and status, which perpetuates inequality and propels historical change through coercion rather than consensus. Originating primarily from the 19th-century analyses of , who emphasized economic class conflict between the (owners of production) and the (workers), the perspective was later broadened by thinkers like to encompass multidimensional conflicts involving not only class but also status, party affiliations, and bureaucratic . In contrast to functionalist theories, which portray social structures as stabilizing and integrative, conflict theories highlight how dominant groups maintain advantages through ideological control, institutional barriers, and suppression of subordinates, often interpreting phenomena like , disparities, and racial tensions as manifestations of systemic exploitation rather than dysfunctions. Key extensions by mid-20th-century scholars such as and integrated authority relations and micro-level interactions, arguing that conflicts arise from authority gradients within organizations and that resolutions can yield temporary equilibria but rarely eliminate underlying tensions. While empirically supported in observations of persistent wealth gaps, labor strikes, and revolutionary upheavals—evidenced in historical data on industrial-era mobilizations—the has faced critiques for overemphasizing antagonism at the expense of , , and incremental adaptation, potentially underplaying evidence of or institutional reforms that mitigate extremes of inequality without wholesale upheaval. Despite such limitations, conflict theories remain influential in dissecting power dynamics in contemporary issues like and , underscoring causal mechanisms where resource scarcity incentivizes strategic alliances and oppositions over harmonious equilibrium.

Definition and Core Principles

Fundamental Concepts

Conflict theory posits that society consists of stratified groups in perpetual competition for limited resources, such as , power, and status, fostering inherent tensions and inequalities rather than . This macro-level perspective, originating with Karl Marx's analysis of class antagonism, assumes human actors pursue self-interests in environments of , leading to struggles where dominant entities impose their dominance through rather than mutual agreement. Social institutions like , , and are seen not as integrative mechanisms but as tools that reflect and reinforce existing power disparities, enabling elites to perpetuate their advantages. Central assumptions include the inevitability of interest clashes in social interactions, which produce zero-sum outcomes—one group's advancement directly diminishes another's position—and the exploitation by dominant groups to secure gains at subordinates' expense. Power differentials, rather than shared values, underpin social order, with inequalities structured along lines of class, though later extensions incorporate dimensions like race and gender. Conflict theory critiques functionalist emphases on stability, arguing that societies advance through disequilibrium and "disfunctions," as environmental shifts redistribute power and ignite transformations into new conflict phases. Key mechanisms involve both within established rules and genuine conflicts over foundational goals, roles, or norms, often regulated by institutions such as elections, media, or warfare to contain but not eliminate underlying rivalries. Radical upheaval is deemed essential to dismantle entrenched dominations, as incremental reforms fail to address root imbalances, positioning conflict as the primary driver of historical over consensus-based . This framework underscores causal dynamics where resource scarcity propels behavioral contention, yielding empirical patterns of inequality observable in stratified systems worldwide.

Key Assumptions and Mechanisms

Conflict theories in rest on the assumption that societies are arenas of perpetual competition among groups for limited resources, such as , power, and status, which generates inherent tensions and inequalities. This view contrasts with functionalist perspectives by emphasizing discord over consensus, positing that is maintained not through shared values but via , dominance, and the suppression of subordinate groups' interests. A foundational is that individuals and groups act primarily out of , pursuing advantages that exacerbate divisions based on unequal access to resources and opportunities. Dominant classes or elites, according to this framework, institutionalize structures—like laws, norms, and ideologies—to perpetuate their privileges and legitimize exploitation, thereby concealing the exploitative nature of these arrangements from the less powerful. Conflict is thus seen as ubiquitous and functional, serving as the primary engine of rather than a pathology to be resolved. The mechanisms underlying these dynamics involve dialectical processes where antagonisms between conflicting parties—often stratified by class, race, or other markers—escalate into overt struggles that destabilize existing hierarchies. For instance, resource scarcity intensifies rivalries, prompting dominant groups to deploy ideological tools, such as media or , to manufacture consent and deflect challenges, while subordinate groups may mobilize through to demand redistribution. Resolution of these conflicts, when it occurs, typically yields incremental or shifts, reforming institutions to reflect new power balances, though often reproducing inequality in altered forms. Empirical support for these mechanisms draws from historical analyses, such as labor strikes in the 19th and 20th centuries, where worker-capitalist clashes led to policy changes like laws (enacted federally in 1938).

Historical Development

Pre-Modern and Early Influences

Ancient Greek philosophers laid early groundwork for understanding as inherent to political life. , in his (c. 350 BCE), examined stasis—factional discord arising from inequalities in wealth, honor, and power—positing that such conflicts frequently precipitated civil wars in Greek city-states but could be mitigated through constitutional balances that accommodated diverse interests rather than suppressing them. He argued that extreme disparities, particularly in property distribution, fueled revolutionary upheavals, emphasizing the need for a mixed to harness rather than eliminate discord for communal stability. In the medieval Islamic world, (1332–1406) advanced a cyclical theory of societal conflict in his (1377), attributing the rise and fall of dynasties to the interplay of asabiyyah (group solidarity) and environmental factors. He described how hardy nomadic tribes, bound by strong kinship ties, overthrew effete urban civilizations weakened by luxury and division, only for the victors to succumb to the same internal decay, generating recurrent conquests and state transformations. This framework highlighted conflict between rural and sedentary lifestyles as a motor of historical change, prefiguring later emphases on group competition over scarce resources. Early modern European thought further developed these motifs, notably through (1469–1527). In his (1517), Machiavelli analyzed Roman history to argue that class antagonisms between patricians and , manifested in tumults and strikes, were not pathologies but salutary forces that curbed elite dominance, expanded popular liberties, and sustained republican vigor. He contended that unchecked harmony favored oligarchic decay, whereas moderated conflict enforced accountability and innovation in governance, influencing subsequent realist views of power struggles as constitutive of political order.

Classical Foundations in the 19th Century

The 's provided the empirical crucible for classical conflict theories, as mechanized production in Britain and continental Europe from the generated acute class divisions and labor strife. Factory systems enforced grueling 12- to 16-hour shifts for minimal wages, displacing artisans and rural laborers into urban slums where mortality rates soared—such as Manchester's working-class districts, where Engels documented infant death rates exceeding 50% in some areas by 1844. These conditions manifested in organized resistance, including the British machine-breaking (1811–1816) and the French Lyon silk workers' revolts (1831, 1834), underscoring causal links between economic restructuring and proletarian antagonism toward capitalist owners. Such observable dynamics challenged harmonious views of society, privileging explanations rooted in resource competition and power imbalances over production modes. Philosophically, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's dialectical framework (outlined in Phenomenology of Spirit, ) laid a methodological groundwork by conceiving as propelled by contradictions: a encounters its , yielding a higher synthesis through strife. Hegel's idealist emphasis on oppositional forces resolving into influenced materialist adaptations, portraying conflict not as mere disruption but as essential to societal advancement, though his state-centric resolution diverged from later economic foci. This approach resonated amid 19th-century upheavals, offering a structured lens for interpreting empirical clashes as drivers of change rather than aberrations. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels synthesized these elements into a foundational materialist conflict paradigm in The Communist Manifesto (1848), asserting that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Drawing on Hegelian dialectics but inverting it to prioritize economic base over ideas, they analyzed capitalism's internal contradictions—surplus value extraction alienating workers from labor—as precipitating inevitable bourgeois-proletarian confrontation. Empirical evidence from factory reports and economic data, such as Britain's 1840s factory acts responding to child exploitation, substantiated their causal model of exploitation fostering revolutionary potential. This 19th-century articulation elevated conflict from ad hoc observation to systematic theory, influencing subsequent sociological variants while highlighting biases in liberal narratives that downplayed structural coercion.

Major Theorists

Karl Marx's Economic Focus

Karl Marx's analysis of conflict in society emphasized economic relations as the primary driver of social antagonism and historical transformation. In his view, —such as and labor —and —defined by ownership of the —form the material base that determines the of laws, politics, and . Conflicts arise when these elements become contradictory, particularly under , where private ownership concentrates wealth in the hands of the while workers () sell their labor power. This economic antagonism, Marx argued, propels societal change through class struggle. Central to Marx's framework is the labor theory of value, which posits that the value of commodities derives from the socially necessary labor time required to produce them. In Das Kapital (Volume I, published September 14, 1867), Marx elaborated how capitalists purchase labor power at its reproduction cost—wages sufficient for workers' subsistence—but extract surplus value from the excess labor performed beyond that point. This surplus, unpaid to workers, is appropriated as profit, constituting exploitation inherent to capitalist production. For instance, if a worker produces goods worth 10 hours of labor but is paid for 6, the remaining 4 hours generate surplus value for the owner. Marx and articulated this economic focus in the Communist Manifesto (published February 1848), asserting that "the of all hitherto existing society is the of class struggles," with modern bourgeois-proletarian conflict intensifying due to industrial capitalism's expansion. The bourgeoisie fosters its own gravediggers by proletarianizing the population and concentrating production, yet faces crises from overproduction and falling rates of profit as competition compels constant capital investment over variable (labor) inputs. These dynamics, Marx contended, render capitalism transient, culminating in proletarian revolution to abolish private property and establish a classless society. Unlike later multidimensional theories, Marx subordinated non-economic conflicts—such as those over status or —to class-based economic ones, viewing them as secondary expressions of material interests. He predicted that as globalizes, national barriers dissolve, unifying the internationally against a cosmopolitan , though empirical divergences in worker consciousness later challenged this unilinear progression.

Max Weber's Multidimensional Approach

Max (1864–1920), in his seminal work published posthumously in 1922, critiqued the economic determinism of Karl Marx's conflict theory by introducing a tripartite model of comprising class, status, and . Class refers to an individual's position in the , determined by factors such as ownership of goods, skills, and opportunities for income, which shape and generate economic conflicts over resources. Status, by contrast, involves communal evaluations of social honor, prestige, and , often rooted in non-economic criteria like , , or occupation, leading to conflicts over symbolic recognition and social closure. denotes organized associations pursuing power through political or coercive means, capable of mobilizing across class and status lines to influence distribution outcomes. This multidimensional framework posits that social conflicts are not confined to economic class antagonisms, as Marx emphasized, but arise from overlapping and sometimes divergent interests in the economic, social, and political spheres. Weber observed that status groups, such as castes or religious communities, can perpetuate inequality through exclusionary practices independent of market positions, fostering conflicts over honor rather than wealth—for instance, historical aristocratic disdain for bourgeoisie despite the latter's economic ascendancy. Similarly, parties engage in zero-sum struggles for dominance, where alliances form pragmatically, potentially diffusing pure class warfare by incorporating status or economic elites. Weber's approach underscores causal pluralism in conflict dynamics: while economic classes form the basis for market-driven disputes, status and introduce ideational and organizational elements that can intensify, redirect, or stabilize tensions. For example, in pre-industrial societies, status hierarchies often predominated, suppressing class-based revolts; in modern contexts, might co-opt class grievances to maintain elite power. This model explains empirical irregularities in Marxist predictions, such as the absence of proletarian revolutions in advanced capitalist states, attributing stability to cross-cutting affiliations rather than . Empirical studies of stratification, including those analyzing and political , validate Weber's distinctions by showing independent variances in class, status attainment, and power access.

20th-Century Extensions (Dahrendorf and Lenski)

Ralf Dahrendorf advanced conflict theory in his 1959 work Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society by critiquing Karl Marx's emphasis on economic classes rooted in property ownership, arguing instead that modern industrial societies generate conflict primarily through authority structures within organizations. He contended that the separation of ownership from managerial control in post-capitalist systems—evident by the mid-20th century in large corporations—reduces the intensity of capitalist-proletarian antagonism, as shareholders rarely directly dominate production while professional managers wield day-to-day authority. Dahrendorf defined classes as arising from positions in "imperatively coordinated associations," such as firms, bureaucracies, and states, where superordinates (those with legitimate authority to command) oppose subordinates (those obligated to obey), creating inherent tensions independent of economic ownership. This framework posits that conflict emerges from differential rather than solely from exploitation, with quasi-groups (latent interests based on positions) potentially organizing into interest groups and conflict groups under varying conditions like institutional or . Dahrendorf viewed such conflicts as universal and integrative, driving without predetermined outcomes, as evidenced by labor-management disputes in and during the , where union negotiations focused on workplace rules rather than ownership seizure. Unlike Marx's prediction of class polarization, Dahrendorf emphasized multiple, overlapping conflicts across , diluting unified class warfare. Gerhard Lenski extended conflict theory through an ecological-evolutionary lens in his 1966 book Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification, synthesizing elements of Marxist conflict dynamics with Weberian power concepts to explain inequality as arising from the unequal distribution of goods controlled by dominant groups. Lenski defined power as "the ability of a person or group to achieve their own will, even in the face of opposition," positing that in all societies, elites use this capacity to appropriate surplus resources—such as food in agrarian systems or technology-derived wealth in industrial ones—leading to persistent stratification and conflict. He classified societies by technological levels (e.g., hunting-and-gathering with minimal inequality at 10-20% surplus retention by elites, versus industrial societies with up to 90% controlled by power holders), arguing that advances in information processing amplify power concentration and thus inequality, as seen in post-World War II economic data showing top 1% income shares rising from 10% in egalitarian horticultural groups to over 20% in advanced economies. Lenski's approach diverged from pure by integrating functionalist ideas of societal need for coordination while highlighting conflict as a normal mechanism for resource redistribution, evidenced by historical patterns like feudal revolts or 20th-century expansions responding to labor unrest. Both theorists broadened conflict analysis beyond Marx's proletariat-bourgeoisie binary: Dahrendorf to intra-organizational cleavages, observable in 1950s strike data from the and where participation rates correlated more with job hierarchies than ownership stakes; Lenski to cross-societal power gradients shaped by , supported by showing Gini coefficients of inequality increasing from 0.25 in simple societies to 0.50+ in modern ones. Their extensions underscored conflict's role in maintaining dynamism without assuming inevitable , prioritizing empirical patterns of power over ideological .

Variants and Applications

Class and Economic Conflicts

Class and economic conflicts in conflict theory posit that societal tensions primarily stem from material inequalities rooted in the unequal distribution of productive resources and wealth. These conflicts arise between groups differentiated by their positions in the economic structure, such as owners of capital versus wage laborers, leading to inherent antagonism over the extraction and allocation of . , in his analysis, identified this dynamic as the engine of historical progression, where the accumulate wealth by exploiting proletarian labor, fostering conditions for revolutionary upheaval. This framework emphasizes causal mechanisms like of labor and for markets, which perpetuate cycles of accumulation and dispossession. Theoretically, economic conflicts manifest through processes such as primitive accumulation—enclosing commons and displacing subsistence producers—and ongoing exploitation in capitalist production, where workers receive only a fraction of the value they create. Marx contended that these disparities generate among the dispossessed, culminating in organized resistance against systemic inequities. In empirical terms, conflict theorists apply this lens to phenomena like industrial disputes, where labor's dependence on capital creates power imbalances, as evidenced in analyses of hierarchies that correlate with economic command structures. Extensions within the , such as Gerhard Lenski's view of resource hoarding by elites, highlight how technological advancements intensify scarcity-driven rivalries, though outcomes vary by societal power distributions. Applications of class and economic conflict models extend to contemporary analyses of and , where multinational corporations consolidate control over supply chains, exacerbating wage stagnation and for low-skilled workers. For instance, Marxist variants interpret rising polarization—often measured via metrics like of declining in advanced economies—as evidence of intensifying exploitation, prompting strikes and demands for redistribution. However, causal realism requires noting that while economic disparities are empirically observable, such as through cross-national data on asset ownership, the direct translation into unified remains contested, with intervening factors like state intervention mitigating outright confrontation. This perspective underscores conflict theory's focus on but acknowledges empirical divergences from predicted escalations, as seen in stable capitalist democracies despite persistent inequalities.

Status, Power, and Cultural Variants

Max Weber expanded conflict theory beyond Marx's economic class focus by introducing status groups and parties as distinct sources of social stratification and tension. Status groups, defined by shared social honor, prestige, and rather than market position, often form closed communities that exclude outsiders through conventions and rituals, leading to conflicts over recognition and respect independent of wealth. Parties, in contrast, represent organized efforts to acquire social power through political or associational means, mobilizing resources to influence outcomes in arenas like governance or organizations. These dimensions interact to shape "life chances," where status inconsistencies—such as economic rise without corresponding prestige—generate friction and mobilization for change, as observed in historical shifts like the Protestant ethic's role in elevating bourgeois status. Ralf Dahrendorf further emphasized power and as primary conflict drivers in industrial societies, arguing that every "imperatively coordinated association"—from corporations to states—divides participants into quasi-groups of rulers (those with ) and ruled (those subject to it), fostering inevitable quasi-conflicts over dominance. Unlike , Dahrendorf posited that authority relations, not ownership, underpin class formation, with conflicts regulated by rules but persisting due to power differentials; for instance, in firms, managerial creates ongoing tensions resolved through or upheaval. Empirical studies of labor disputes in post-World War II Europe, such as German codetermination reforms in 1951, illustrate how authority struggles propel institutional evolution without collapsing into total . This power-centric view highlights how dominant groups perpetuate inequality via institutional tools, extending conflict analysis to non-economic domains like bureaucratic hierarchies. Cultural variants in conflict theory manifest as clashes over values, norms, and symbolic resources, where dominant ideologies legitimize power while marginalizing alternative cultural practices. Conflict theorists interpret culture not as neutral but as a battleground where groups compete for , with elite-imposed norms (e.g., media representations) reinforcing status hierarchies and suppressing . In primary cultural conflicts, fundamental value divergences—such as between immigrant traditions and host societies—arise from incompatible , as theorized by Thorsten Sellin in , leading to deviance labels that sustain power imbalances; secondary conflicts involve adaptations within a , like subcultural resistance in urban gangs. Cross-culturally, status conflicts intensify in honor-based societies (e.g., Mediterranean or Middle Eastern contexts), where prestige hinges on reputation and vendettas, contrasting dignity cultures (e.g., ) emphasizing individual , per empirical comparisons showing higher rates in honor systems due to status threats. These variants underscore how cultural embeddedness modulates conflict intensity, with amplifying tensions via clashing worldviews, as seen in debates over policies in since the 1990s.

Extensions to Modern Domains (e.g., Gender, Race, Globalization)

Conflict theorists have extended the framework to dynamics by analogizing patriarchal structures to class domination, positing that men, as a dominant group, systematically control economic, political, and cultural resources to subordinate women, perpetuating inequality through institutions like family, law, and media. This perspective, rooted in feminist interpretations, argues that roles reinforce male privilege, with empirical observations including persistent gaps—such as the U.S. median earnings ratio of women to men at 82% in 2022—and underrepresentation of women in corporate leadership, where only 10.6% of CEOs were female as of 2023. However, causal evidence linking directly to these disparities remains contested, as econometric analyses often attribute gaps more to occupational choices, hours worked, and productivity differences than to overt power conflicts, with studies showing that adjusting for and specialization reduces unexplained pay differentials to under 5% in many sectors. In racial applications, conflict theory frames intergroup relations as zero-sum competitions for scarce resources, where dominant racial groups maintain advantages through institutional mechanisms like discriminatory policies and cultural hegemony, leading to ongoing tensions. Proponents cite historical examples, such as U.S. redlining practices from the 1930s to 1960s that denied mortgages to Black neighborhoods, contributing to wealth disparities where the median White household net worth was $188,200 versus $24,100 for Black households in 2019. Empirical tests of racial conflict models, however, yield mixed results; for instance, analyses of criminal sentencing find only weak correlations between offender race and length of sentence after controlling for criminal history and offense severity, suggesting individual-level factors often outweigh group conflict dynamics. Realistic group conflict theory, an extension emphasizing resource scarcity, predicts heightened prejudice in diverse settings, supported by organizational studies showing White employees' negative reactions to increasing racial diversity, though broader societal data indicate diversity correlates with innovation gains rather than inevitable strife when economic opportunities abound. Extensions to globalization portray it as intensifying class and national conflicts by entrenching core-periphery divides, where multinational corporations extract resources from developing nations, fueling inequality and unrest, as seen in protests against trade agreements like NAFTA, which correlated with Mexican manufacturing job losses of over 600,000 from 1994 to 2000. Critics within this paradigm argue that global capital flows exacerbate intra- and inter-state violence, with evidence from across 1989–2012 showing multinational enterprise activities increase conflict incidence by heightening resource competition in host countries. Countervailing empirical findings challenge unmitigated conflict predictions: cross-national studies from 1970–2001 demonstrate reduces civil war risks by promoting and institutional reforms, with a 10% rise in trade openness linked to a 1–2% drop in conflict probability, underscoring cooperative potentials overlooked in zero-sum framings. These applications highlight conflict theory's adaptability but reveal tensions between theoretical assertions of perpetual antagonism and data indicating context-dependent outcomes influenced by and market integration.

Empirical Evaluation

Evidence Supporting Conflict Dynamics

Historical analyses of major revolutions, such as the of 1789 and the of 1917, illustrate how class antagonisms between elites and subordinate groups precipitated systemic upheavals, resulting in redistributive reforms or regime overthrows that aligned with conflict theory's emphasis on inequality-fueled change. Cross-national studies of 20th-century revolutions similarly identify class conflict—manifesting in peasant uprisings, worker strikes, and bourgeois challenges to feudal or absolutist structures—as the principal mechanism driving revolutionary outcomes, often overriding other factors like ideology or external pressures. Econometric research spanning millennia reveals a persistent correlation between economic inequality and episodes of mass violence, including civil wars and egalitarian leveling events like conquests or plagues, where high inequality precedes violent redistribution rather than peaceful diffusion. In contemporary settings, panel data from over 100 countries demonstrate that horizontal inequalities—disparities in income, access to education, and political representation between ethnic or regional groups—elevate the risk of civil conflict onset by factors of 2 to 5 times, with onset probabilities rising nonlinearly as gaps widen beyond 20-30% differentials. Quantitative assessments of Ralf Dahrendorf's authority-based conflict model find empirical support in organizational contexts, where imbalances in power correlate with higher rates of intra-firm disputes, drives, and managerial turnover, as evidenced by longitudinal data from post-World War II European industries showing gradients explaining up to 40% of variance in conflict frequency. Gerhard Lenski's stratification framework receives validation from distributional studies indicating that technological advancements exacerbate resource asymmetries, prompting compensatory conflicts like antitrust actions or welfare expansions; for example, U.S. spikes from 0.35 in 1920 to 0.41 in 1929 preceded labor unrest that influenced policies in . Criminological applications of conflict theory highlight how structural inequalities predict differential criminalization: arrest rates for property crimes rise in tandem with unemployment disparities, with regression models from U.S. urban data (1970-1990) attributing 25-35% of variance in official sanctioning to class-based power differentials rather than offense severity alone. Globally, surges in income inequality—such as the post-1980 Gini increases averaging 5-10 points in nations—coincide with heightened social unrest metrics, including protest frequency and political indices, underscoring conflict as a mechanism for enforcing on dominant groups.

Empirical Challenges and Disconfirmations

One core prediction of Marxist conflict theory, the positing that capitalist accumulation would lead to absolute pauperization of the and trigger revolutionary upheaval, has been empirically disconfirmed by long-term trends in worker welfare. In advanced economies, and living standards for industrial workers have substantially increased rather than declined; for example, U.S. manufacturing workers' real hourly compensation rose by approximately 2.5 times from 1964 to 2004, accompanied by to consumer goods, healthcare, and that contradicted expectations of deepening misery. Similarly, the anticipated proletarian revolutions in highly industrialized nations failed to materialize, with occurring through incremental reforms, labor unions, and welfare policies rather than class overthrow; revolutions instead erupted in agrarian societies like in 1917 and in 1949, inverting Marx's emphasis on mature as the locus of conflict resolution. This pattern persisted post-World War II, as and experienced economic booms and political stability without the predicted collapse, highlighting conflict theory's overreliance on antagonism as the sole driver of transformation. Data on intergenerational mobility further challenge the notion of rigidly exploitative class structures perpetuating inescapable subordination. In the U.S. and , occupational mobility rates indicate substantial flux, with roughly equal probabilities of upward or downward movement across generations in the late ; for instance, analyses of British and American cohorts from 1850 onward show persistent mobility levels, including children of manual laborers entering roles at rates exceeding 20-30% in recent decades, which undermines claims of fixed class antagonism barring advancement. High-inequality societies like the contemporary U.S. ( around 0.41) have maintained institutional stability for decades without the chronic upheavals forecast by conflict paradigms, suggesting mechanisms of accommodation and growth mitigate rather than exacerbate divisions.

Criticisms and Limitations

Theoretical and Logical Flaws

Conflict theories, particularly in their Marxist formulations, have been critiqued for lacking , as initial predictions such as inevitable in advanced capitalist societies failed to materialize, prompting theoretical adjustments like appeals to "" or external to preserve the framework rather than revise or abandon it. Philosopher argued in (1957) that such historicist doctrines start with testable elements but devolve into unfalsifiable by immunizing core claims against disconfirming evidence, rendering conflict theory more ideological than empirical science. This issue persists in extensions like Dahrendorf's authority-based conflicts, where quasi-group formations are posited as universal drivers without rigorous, disprovable metrics for their intensity or outcomes. A related logical flaw is , wherein diverse social phenomena—ranging from cultural norms to institutional stability—are invariably attributed to underlying economic or power conflicts, collapsing multifaceted into a singular explanatory lens that overlooks emergent properties and non-conflictual mechanisms like voluntary exchange or normative consensus. Critics note this mirrors methodological individualism's inverse error, treating macro-structures as omnipotent forces while undervaluing micro-level agency and incentives for , as evidenced by game-theoretic models showing repeated interactions fostering trust over perpetual strife. Even Weber's multidimensional variant, incorporating status and alongside class, retains a conflictual primacy that empirically falters when stable hierarchies endure without overt domination, suggesting overextension of conflict as a universal primitive. Theories of within conflict paradigms encounter self-refutation: if all beliefs reflect class interests rather than objective analysis, then the itself—as articulated by bourgeois intellectuals like Marx—cannot claim epistemic privilege, undermining its pretensions to uncover "true" historical laws and exposing a performative contradiction where the of distortion applies equally to the critic. This echoes Vilfredo Pareto's earlier observation that elite circulation, not class dialectics, drives change, but conflict theorists' dismissal of such alternatives often relies on circular appeals to hidden power imbalances without independent verification. Such inconsistencies highlight how conflict theories, despite revisions, prioritize causal narratives of antagonism over parsimonious accounts integrating both conflict and equilibrium, as demanded by first-principles evaluation of social order's persistence amid scarcity.

Ideological and Predictive Failures

Conflict theories, particularly those rooted in Marxist frameworks, have encountered significant predictive shortcomings. anticipated that would lead to the progressive immiseration of the , with stagnating or declining as extraction intensified, culminating in widespread and revolutionary upheaval in advanced industrial economies like Britain and . However, empirical data from the late 19th and 20th centuries disconfirm this: in the , for manual laborers roughly doubled between 1850 and 1900, while in the United States, average rose by approximately 60% from 1869 to 1900, driven by gains and rather than misery-induced revolt. These trends persisted post-World War II, with global real per capita GDP increasing over 10-fold from 1950 to 2020 in market-oriented economies, undermining the forecast of inexorable proletarian pauperization. A core prediction of class conflict leading to systemic collapse in mature capitalist states also faltered. Marx and posited that the concentration of capital and polarization of classes would precipitate in the most developed economies first, as outlined in (1848), expecting it in places like where industrial was advanced. Yet no such materialized there; instead, socialist upheavals occurred in agrarian, less industrialized societies such as in 1917 and in 1949, contradicting the theory's emphasis on advanced as the ignition point. Advanced economies stabilized through institutional adaptations, including labor unions, welfare provisions, and democratic reforms, which mitigated class antagonism without overthrowing the system—evident in the expansion of social safety nets in from the 1880s onward, such as Bismarck's laws in (1883–1889). Philosopher critiqued these lapses as indicative of 's degeneration into : early testable predictions (e.g., revolution in industrialized nations) were falsified by events, prompting adherents to retrofit the theory with ad hoc explanations, rendering it unfalsifiable and immune to empirical refutation. Broader conflict theories in , extending beyond strict to figures like , similarly struggle with predictive precision, often failing to forecast the persistence of social stability amid inequality, as seen in the absence of sustained revolutionary conflict in high-inequality yet cohesive societies like post-1945 . Ideologically, conflict theories exhibit a predisposition to frame social relations as inherently zero-sum, overlooking mechanisms of mutual gain and that empirical highlights, such as voluntary exchange benefiting all parties in market settings. This perspective, dominant in Marxist variants, fostered an ideological commitment to perpetual antagonism, which when translated into policy—as in Soviet central planning—yielded and authoritarian control rather than , with the USSR's GDP per capita lagging behind the U.S. by a factor of three by 1989 despite resource advantages. Critics attribute this to the theory's neglect of structures and human agency beyond class , leading to overemphasis on redistribution without productive innovation; for instance, Maoist China's (1958–1962) pursued class struggle ideologically, resulting in an estimated 30–45 million excess deaths from , a direct outcome of conflict-driven collectivization overriding practical . In sociological applications, this ideological lens has been noted for biasing analysis toward conflict narratives, potentially amplifying perceptions of irreconcilable divides while underplaying integrative forces like shared cultural norms or institutional trust, which data from the indicate have sustained cohesion in diverse advanced societies. Such failures underscore how doctrinal rigidity can impede adaptive realism in both theory and practice.

Neglect of Stability and Cooperation

Conflict theories, originating with Karl Marx's analysis of class antagonism as the driver of historical change, have been critiqued for portraying society as inherently unstable and dominated by irreconcilable conflicts, thereby underemphasizing mechanisms that sustain social order and cooperation. This perspective assumes perpetual strife between dominant and subordinate groups, yet empirical observations reveal extended periods of equilibrium in historical societies, such as the relative stability of feudal Europe from the 9th to 15th centuries or modern capitalist democracies enduring for over two centuries without systemic collapse. Critics contend that such theories overlook integrative institutions—like legal systems enforcing contracts and property rights, or voluntary associations such as trade unions negotiating compromises—that mitigate conflict and promote mutual benefit, as evidenced by the decline in strike frequency in Western nations post-1980s, from thousands annually in the U.S. to under 20 major work stoppages by 2020. A core empirical challenge arises from Marxism's prediction of intensifying proletarian immiseration leading to in advanced industrial societies, a forecast disconfirmed by rising and living standards; for instance, U.S. median household income adjusted for increased from $30,000 in 1967 to over $70,000 by 2022, alongside expanded welfare provisions that diffused class tensions without overthrowing . Instead of constant upheaval, indicate high levels of social consensus on core values, with surveys like the showing over 80% agreement on democratic norms and market economies in countries as of 2020, underscoring cooperative equilibria rather than zero-sum antagonism. Conflict theorists' dismissal of these stabilizing factors, such as incremental reforms through electoral —evident in the New Deal's role in averting U.S. during Depression—results in an incomplete causal account, privileging disequilibrium while ignoring homeostatic processes that resolve disputes non-violently. Furthermore, extensions of conflict theory to non-economic domains, like Weberian status or power struggles, similarly neglect cross-cutting cleavages that foster alliances and across groups, as demonstrated by overlapping memberships in diverse organizations reducing polarization; empirical studies of U.S. civic groups from 1900–2000 show such ties correlating with lower conflict intensity and higher social trust levels above 60% in nationally representative samples. This oversight leads to overstated predictions of fragmentation, contradicted by the persistence of multinational entities like the , which has maintained governance among historically rival states since 1957 despite economic disparities. Overall, the paradigm's bias toward antagonism impedes recognition of endogenous stabilizers, such as cultural norms enforcing reciprocity, which anthropological records from societies to contemporary states consistently affirm as prevalent, with rates in experimental games exceeding 50% even under conditions.

Comparisons with Competing Paradigms

Versus Functionalism and Consensus Models

Conflict theories posit that social order arises from domination and coercion rather than mutual agreement, positioning them in direct opposition to functionalism, which conceives society as an integrated system of interdependent parts each performing functions to promote equilibrium and stability. Functionalists, drawing from Émile Durkheim's emphasis on social solidarity and ' AGIL schema, argue that institutions like and foster consensus through shared norms and values, enabling adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency to sustain the whole. In contrast, conflict theorists such as and maintain that societal structures reflect and reinforce power asymmetries, where dominant classes or groups exploit subordinates to secure resources, generating antagonism that propels discontinuous change via revolution or reform rather than gradual adjustment. Consensus models, often intertwined with functionalism, underscore value agreement as the glue of social cohesion, exemplified by Durkheim's collective conscience or Parsons' normative integration, implying that deviance and disorder stem from individual failures rather than systemic inequities. Conflict perspectives counter that such models obscure the coercive mechanisms—economic, political, or cultural—by which elites impose their interests, as seen in Marx's analysis of capitalist production relations where proletarian alienation fuels class struggle, not harmonious interdependence. This divergence extends to explanations of inequality: functionalism views stratification as meritocratic and functional for motivating talent allocation, per Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore's 1945 theory, whereas conflict theory interprets it as a tool for maintaining elite control, critiquing functionalism for naturalizing exploitation without addressing empirical instances of blocked mobility or inherited privilege. From a conflict standpoint, functionalism's teleological —assuming parts exist because they "function"—neglects historical contingencies and power dynamics, rendering it ill-equipped to explain phenomena like colonial domination or labor unrest, where subordinate resistance disrupts purported equilibrium. Conversely, functionalists and consensus advocates fault conflict theory for underemphasizing of societal resilience, such as post-war reconstructions or voluntary associations that evidence amid , potentially overstating perpetual strife at the expense of integrative processes. Synthesis attempts, like Dahrendorf's 1959 integration of conflicts with structural imperatives, highlight tensions but underscore irreconcilable ontologies: conflict's causal realism on -driven rivalry versus functionalism's equilibrium-oriented .

Versus Rational Choice and Individualistic Theories

Conflict theories conceptualize social dynamics as driven by inherent antagonisms between groups vying for control over limited resources, with power imbalances perpetuating inequality and change occurring through coercive struggles rather than voluntary exchange. In opposition, rational choice theory, extended to sociology by figures like , models individuals as self-interested actors who rationally weigh costs and benefits to maximize personal utility, generating social structures as emergent outcomes of such micro-level decisions without necessitating collective conflict. Individualistic theories similarly prioritize agency, positing that behaviors stem from personal motivations and incentives rather than imposed class positions, as emphasized by James Coleman in applying rational choice to and norms, where relations form through calculated reciprocity rather than domination. This ontological divide affects causal explanations of phenomena like economic disparity. Conflict approaches, drawing from Marx, attribute wealth gaps to exploitative relations embedded in production modes, where dominant classes extract , rendering individual mobility illusory under . Rational choice counters that disparities arise from heterogeneous endowments, skills, and choices within opportunity sets, with markets incentivizing efficient allocation; analysis of , for instance, shows investments in yielding returns akin to financial assets, empirically validated by wage differentials tied to schooling levels rather than systemic . Empirical game-theoretic experiments, such as ultimatum games, reveal but also strategic bargaining aligning with predictions, undermining pure conflict views by demonstrating conditional absent power . Methodologically, conflict theories often employ holistic explanations attributing agency to supra-individual entities like classes, inviting critiques of teleology where outcomes retroactively justify group intents. Jon Elster, in Making Sense of Marx (1985), reconstructs Marxist concepts via rational choice, insisting on methodological individualism: social conflict emerges from individual intentional actions under constraints, not dialectical inevitability, as class exploitation reduces to unequal initial endowments in property rights models rather than inherent antagonism. Proponents of conflict theory retort that rational choice presumes symmetric information and agency, ignoring how entrenched power structures—evidenced by persistent Gini coefficients exceeding 0.4 in many nations despite market reforms—preclude true voluntarism, with bargaining outcomes skewed by institutional legacies. Rational choice's formal models, however, offer testable hypotheses, as in institutional change studies where conflict equilibria predict endogenous reforms via side-payments, contrasting conflict theory's deterministic pessimism.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp
  2. https://www.simplypsychology.org/conflict-theory.html
  3. https://www.thoughtco.com/conflict-theory-3026622
  4. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/conflict-theory
  5. https://www.simplypsychology.org/max-weber-conflict-theory.html
  6. https://libguides.uncp.edu/c.php?g=537120&p=3677410
  7. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/conflict-theory
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371111983_Social_Change_in_Conflict_Theory_A_Descriptive_Study
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8390067/
  10. https://journal.arrus.id/index.php/soshum/article/view/1652
  11. https://opened.cuny.edu/courseware/lesson/116/student/?section=3
  12. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~sunki/course/soc321/lec~conflict.htm
  13. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~sunki/course/soc321/lec~conflict.htm
  14. https://pressbooks.howardcc.edu/soci101/chapter/1-3-theoretical-perspectives-in-sociology/
  15. https://library.northeaststate.edu/c.php?g=840024&p=6001705
  16. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/marketing/conflict-theory-assumption-causes-limitations-and-examples/
  17. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-introductiontosociology/chapter/conflict-theory/
  18. https://oxfordre.com/socialwork/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-9780199975839-e-1509
  19. https://jurnal.ahmar.id/index.php/soshum/article/download/1652/1054
  20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.18253925
  21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-political/
  22. https://sociologiecraiova.ro/revista/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2.-Ali-ALIOUA.pdf
  23. https://www.aljumuah.com/ibn-khaldun-the-historian-who-transformed-the-methodology-of-writing-history/
  24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/191496
  25. https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/machiavelli-and-the-benefits-of-civil-strife/
  26. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CIP.CHAP5.HTM
  27. https://sociology.institute/introduction-to-sociology/19th-century-europe-social-economic-transformation/
  28. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/
  29. https://www.irenees.net/bdf_fiche-analyse-1034_en.html
  30. https://www.econlib.org/marx-and-exploitation/
  31. https://uregina.ca/~gingrich/318n2202.htm
  32. https://people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/Weber_CSP.htm
  33. https://bns.institute/behavioural-sciences/max-weber-social-stratification/
  34. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/context/ssci_fac/article/1064/viewcontent/SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION.pdf
  35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2146399
  36. https://cominsitu.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/ralf-dahrendorf-class-and-class-conflict-in-industrial-society-1.pdf
  37. https://www.sociologyguide.com/socio-short-notes/view-short-notes.php?id=113
  38. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/140d/7a0a615a3a31621813391db7d0bbd845ce16.pdf
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335099737_Ralf_Dahrendorf
  40. https://uncpress.org/9780807841198/power-and-privilege/
  41. https://faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Essays/Lenski1.htm
  42. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Sociology_%28Boundless%29/06%253A_Social_Groups_and_Organization/6.06%253A_Social_Structure_in_the_Global_Perspective/6.6C%253A_Lenskis_Sociological_Evolution_Approach
  43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3648945
  44. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00215.x
  45. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/13636_Chapter7.pdf
  46. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
  47. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP35.HTM
  48. https://production.cbts.edu/Textbook/37OQIq/897306/What_Are_The_Conflict_Theories.pdf
  49. https://thesociologyguy.com/key-sociologists/understanding-class-status-and-party-in-webers-theory/
  50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43545-025-01183-w
  51. https://thesociology.place/2022/10/01/max-webers-theory-of-class-status-and-power/
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362317774_Dahrendorf%27s_Conflict_Theory_A_Short_Introduction
  53. https://smp.edu.pl/ralph-dahrendorfs-conflict-theory-of-social-differentiation-and-elite-theory/
  54. https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~hoganr/SOC%2520602/Spring%25202014/Dahrendorf%25201958b.pdf
  55. https://chataboutsociology.com/conflict-theory-on-culture/
  56. https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-culture-conflict-definition-theory-example.html
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3260852/
  58. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture_conflict
  59. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Solano_Community_College/SOC_002%253A_Social_Issues_and_Problems/11%253A_Gender_Stratification_and_Inequality/11.03%253A_Sociological_Perspectives_on_Gender_Stratification
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/patriarchy
  61. https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article-abstract/28/1/110/1684207
  62. https://chataboutsociology.com/conflict-theory-on-race-and-ethnicity/
  63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41886040
  64. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc500502/
  65. https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2005.18803925
  66. https://www3.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol3_1/learch.htm
  67. https://academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ej/ueae103/7900676?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
  68. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105624118
  69. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28119/chapter/212288281
  70. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2017/01/stanford-historian-uncovers-grim-correlation-violence-inequality-millennia
  71. https://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/sites/default/files/analytics/document/2019/4/wssr_2016_chap_25.pdf
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8941398/
  73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/656884
  74. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/social-structure-crime-and-criminalization-am-empirical-examination
  75. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rising-inequality-a-major-issue-of-our-time/
  76. https://www.nber.org/programs-projects/projects-and-centers/7652-aspirations-inequality-and-social-conflict
  77. https://iea.org.uk/from-karl-marx-to-danny-dorling-and-oxfam-why-the-immiseration-theory-just-wont-go-away/
  78. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/evidence-shows-affluence-fluid-widespread-contrary-rigid-class-structure-narrative/
  79. https://www.stephenhicks.org/2024/01/19/marxs-three-failed-predictions-ep/
  80. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w11253/w11253.pdf
  81. http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/marx-popper-little.html
  82. https://helpfulprofessor.com/conflict-theory-criticisms-assumptions/
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/reductionism
  84. https://mises.org/mises-wire/marx-class-conflict-and-ideological-fallacy
  85. https://mises.org/mises-wire/marxs-economic-forecasts-over-150-years-failure
  86. https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-118/lecture-12
  87. https://fee.org/articles/how-marx-got-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/
  88. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-reasons-for-which-Karl-Popper-considered-Marxism-as-a-pseudoscience-and-its-followers-as-pseudo-scientists-who-cannot-be-refuted-by-empirical-evidence
  89. https://www.studocu.com/row/messages/question/10437092/identify-and-explain-the-criticism-of-conflict-theory-with-explanation-and-details
  90. https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2019/05/29/the-allure-of-marxism-and-why-its-a-mistake/
  91. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Sociology_%28Boundless%29/01%253A_Sociology/1.03%253A_Theoretical_Perspectives_in_Sociology/1.3C%253A_The_Conflict_Perspective
  92. https://helpfulprofessor.com/functionalism-vs-conflict-theory/
  93. https://www.simplypsychology.org/functionalist-perspective.html
  94. https://jackwestin.com/resources/mcat-content/theoretical-approaches/conflict-theory
  95. https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/social-studies/sociological-approach/consensus-vs-conflict-theory/
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388755307_Social_Stratification_A_Comparison_of_Structural_Functionalism_and_Conflict_Theory
  97. https://sociology.institute/sociological-theories-concepts/critiques-of-functionalism-sociology/
  98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41420656
  99. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/becker-lecture.pdf
  100. https://www.asanet.org/james-s-coleman/
  101. https://sk.sagepub.com/book/mono/international-conflict/chpt/3-rational-choice-theory
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328088668_Testing_rational_choice_theories_of_institutional_change
  103. https://www.peterleeson.com/Testing_Rational_Choice_Theories_of_Institutional_Change.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.