Conflict theory of R. Dahrendorf by Dr Saroj

1. Conflict theory
RALPH DAHRENDORF
BY DR SAROJ
 Conflict theory is based on the idea of KARL MARX
 For Marx the conflict clearly Arieses because all things of value to
man result from human labour. According to MARX capitalists
exploit workers for their labour and do not share the fruits of these
labour equally .
 Conflict theory seeks to scientifically explains general contours of
conflict in society
- how conflict starts and varies
-and the effect of conflict
 The central concern of conflict theory are unequal distribution of
scarce resources and power.
 Conflict theorist usually work with Weber’s trinitarian system of
stratification class, status and power
 Conflict theorist generally see power as the central feature of society
(against functionalism)
 Where power is located and who uses (who does not) are thus
fundamental to conflict theory.
 Basic sources of conflict:
Unequal distribution of scarce resources
Weber identified those resources as class, status and power.
Simmel pointed out the importance of the crosscutting influences
that originates with the different structures of inequality. He believed that
conflict is necessary for unity which can also lead to social change. He
opposed the view that conflict could be destructive.
C.W. Mills who coined the term sociological imagination also used
conflict theory to examine systems of power and the ways to which
government, military and corporations formed a power elite in the
UNITED STATES in the 1950s.
Conflict theorists see inequality as inherently unfair, persisting only
because groups who are economically advantaged use their social point of
shaping the beliefs of other members of the society by controlling public
information and holding power in institutions such as education and
religion that shape what people think and know.
Conflict theory has been criticized for neglecting the importance of
shared value and consensus in the society.
RALPH DAHRENDORF
 BORN: May 1929, Hamburg, Germany

2.  Died: 2009 Cologne, Germany
 Education: University of Hamburg
 Influence: Talcott Parsons, Karl Popper, Immanuel Kant, etc
 Ralph Dahrendorf critically evaluated Marx and gave his own theory
of class and class conflict.
 He criticized Marx from five different perspectives. He has given five
different dimensions and said that his theory is not valid in
contemporary time.
 C. Wright Mills also criticized Marx and his theory of conflict.
 In his book “Class and Class conflict in Industrial society”
Dahrendorf questions the relevance of Marx conception of capitalism
in present era. Basically he was talking about modern industrial
capitalism while Marx was on 19th
century capitalism which cannot
suits to 20th
century capital structure analysis.
 So according to Dahrendorf Marx analysis of capitalism becomes
outdated especially in the context of societies of modern U.S. and
U.K.
 When Marx was portraying the condition of capitalism
extreme exploitation of worker was there in Europe
Workers were living in extreme poverty
They were in hand to mouth situation
Working conditions were dangerous
Living in slums in very unhygienic conditions
The two main elements of capitalism for Marx are Private property in
means of production and regulation of production process by private
contract.
Dahrendorf criticism of Marx from five different dimensions are as
follows:
Conflict transformed as society changed
DECOMPOSITION OF CAPITAL
 Capital is not concentrated in few hands anymore rather this capital is
dispersed. One or few people are not controlling capital (as Marx
said). In modern capitalist structure MNC or joint stock companies
have millions of share holders. So the ownership of these companies
are jointly owned.
 In old capitalist structure those who had ownership of forces of
production they were also controlling the forces of production. They
were dictating the process of production.
 In modern capitalism multiple number of owners and even the
workers or employees could own shares of the company.
 So there is separation of ownership and control. Essentially it is this
control is a source of conflict. The control in the organization will be

3. on the basis of authority structure and authority relations. Essentially
the control is exercised by management and management is different
from owners. Now ownership is not the source of control. Managers
gives command to workers, both are salaried personnel but different
in authority one is commanding (dominating) and later is following
the orders (subjection).
DECOMPOSITION OF LABOUR:
Marx believed that with the growth of capitalism the workers will
become more and more unsullied, impoverished and homogeneous and
thus will act in unison against a unified capitalist class. On the contrary
workers have become more and more differentiated. Complex division of
labour required different set of skills results in heterogenization of
labours. Not only is there is a sharp distinction between unskilled,
semiskilled workers, there is also a proportion of highly skilled workers is
increasing. Earning and functions differ widely among them.
Common values will be missing and common class identity or solidarity
will not be there which hampers the possibility of revolution. (though it
does not eliminate the possibility of class conflict)
EMERGENCE OF THE NEW MIDDLE CLASS: (White collar
salaried workers) although the salaried employee occupied a middle
position in terms of income and prestige. Dahrehdorf believes that those
in the bureaucratic hierarchy belongs to ruling class and white collar
worker and others to the working class.
EXPANSION OF MIDDLE CLASS AND SOCIAL MOBILITY
Apart from the decomposition of capital and labour and the emergence of
a new middle class, social mobility has also mitigated against the
homogenization of classes. Due to increase in production and lifestyle
upliftment social mobility and expansion of middle class becomes
possible.
RISE OF WELFARE STATE IN MODERN SOCIETIES
State is formulating those laws and policies which curve evil practices of
capitalism. There is reformation of capitalism. By regulating working
hours, fixing minimum wages, providing proper working conditions,
recognizing trade unions, making labour welfare laws and policies, etc
the working class has been able to secure considerable benefits.
DAHRENDORF THEORY OF CONFLICT
Authority: legitimization of power (Weber)

4. Is the ability of an individual to make others obey his
commands
Domination is possession of authority
Another group who excluded from authority : subjected group
Power: exercise with coercion (without willingness obeying commands).
Group A Group B
Exercising authority commanding authority
Combining the elements of authority, domination and objection, the
domain of enquiry, the Imperatively Coordinated Association is
defined.
ICA: Any association in which live members are subject to authority
relations will be called an Imperatively Coordinated Association. In
ICA there is asymmetry relations in terms of domination and subjection.
Within ICA the authority is confined to a specific organization or group.
For eg. The manager of factory A cannot have authority over workers of
factory B, it is confined to his factory only.
Follwing Marx’s ideas on the existential basis of consciousness, class
consciousness and false consciousness, Dahrendorf distinguishes between
latent and manifest interest.
Latent interests Manifest interests
Latent interests transforms into manifest interest if people becomes aware
Invisible (people are unaware of
this interest (similar to Marx false
consciousness)
Interest group : they become aware
of similar interest it transforms into
interest groups (fight for interest)
The collectivity of individual
having common latent interests is
called a quasi group
The collectivity which shares
manifest interests is called interest
groups,.
If latent interests become manifest due to structural dynamics of
opposition, quasi groups beocme interest groups.
Dahrendorf Social Class
QUASI GROUP INTEREST GROUP
LATENT INTERESTS MANIFEST INTEREST

5. Social classes are such organized or unorganized collectivites which
share latent or manifest interests which arise from the authority structure
of ICA.
 Social class does not encompass all or even most members of a
society as a whole. It has relevance only for the given ICA.
 Given the authority structure of an ICA of domination and subjection,
only two classes are emergent.
 Social classes are always conflict groups.
Group conflict is the antagonistic relationship between organized
collectivites as is based on patterns of social structure. In a given I.C.A.
class conflict which arised from the authority structure is endemic and
ubiquitous.
Dahrendorf believes that the intensity of class conflict decreases to the
extent that conditions for class organization are present and vice versa.
For example if the workers have opportunities of forming unions and
negotiate with management , the worker management conflicts will
be less intense. SimilarilyStates where people freely form parties and
civic association will have less intese conflict.
Intensity of group conflict will diminish when the classes in different
associations are not superimposed. For example the factory workers
are also not from an ethnic minority or low caste. If there is
superimposition of the two the conflict will be more intense.
Conflict is not merely positional, it is interactive; not only structural but
also processual.
The presence and acting out of class conflict has consequences for
structural change in forms of change in institutions, norms and values.