Abstract This paper looks at classical theorists such as Karl Marx and Max Weber, as well as modern theorists such as Ralph Dahrendorf, Lewis Coser, Randall Collins and Immanuel Wallerstein. The different views they have of conflict theory are then be applied to the war in Iraq. Once an understanding of conflict theory is established based on how these particular theorists choose to view it, a comparison and contrast of the beliefs that they hold is discussed as well.
From the Paper "Classical theorists include Karl Marx and Max Weber. Karl Marx is basically the father of conflict theory, and many of the conflict and other social theories around today came from his beliefs and opinions. Marx believed in a materialist view of history, and saw the most important part of a social life as being the work that individuals were doing. This was especially true of work that resulted in the basic necessities such as shelter, clothing, and food. The value of society therefore resulted from human labor, and everything that men and women were doing to create society and shape it actually created the conditions for their very own existence (McClelland, 2000)."
Abstract This paper looks at the differences and the similarities between Karl Marx's and Lewis Coser's theories concerning social conflict. The paper explains how these similarities and differences are underscored by their different views of the relationship between the various segments of society and the nature of societal relationships as a whole. The paper also looks at which theory best explains the present conflict in Iraq and concludes that Marx's theory is best suited for this particular conflict.
From the Paper "On the one hand, a Marxian analyses of societal conflict views conflict as symptomatic of sociological dysfunction and a sign of bias and error within the nature and structure of the system. Coser on the other hand sees conflict as a necessary and positive factor in the overall process of retaining balance between the components of a society which is essentially in harmony and fundamentally sociologically homogenous. The difference is in emphasis and tenor; while Marx would see contemporary capitalist society in a negative and exploitive light, Coser views society positively and sees conflict as an adjustment mechanism to maintain balance in a system that is essentially functional. This difference becomes obvious in a cursory overview of the Marxian view of society."
Abstract This paper reviews the book by Lewis Coser "The Functions of Social Conflict". The paper examines the strong internal cohesion in the American society resulting from the U.S.-Iraq War. The paper contends that that conflict is functional for society as it causes the strengthening of unity and patriotism, traits that illustrate solidarity among Americans as the country fights its war against terrorism.
From the Paper "The emergence of conflict between or among groups of people that are characteristically different from each other in terms of beliefs, values, and feelings towards an issue or problem creates unity within each group in the same way that the conflict divides these groups. This is especially true when the consequences of the conflict are too valuable to be ignored and can be detrimental to the functioning of both groups. Lewis Coser, in his book entitled, "The Functions of Social Conflict," discusses both the benefits and detriments of social conflict within society-what makes conflict functional or dysfunctional for the welfare of society or the common good. Analyzing social conflict from a sociological perspective, adopting Georg Simmel's discussion on conflict in particular, Coser puts forth one of the strongest arguments in the book, which posits that social conflict has a function within society, and this is to bring internal cohesion among its members."
Abstract This paper discusses Lewis Coser's book "The Functions of Social Conflict", claiming that social conflict can actually have a positive influence on the social fabric of the society. The paper examines the idea that both conflict and collaboration have social elements and are necessary for the continued existence of social groups.
Outline
Summary
Critical Observations
The Main Proposals from the Book
Conclusion
From the Paper "Primarily the book, "The Functions of Social Conflict" has dual rationale. First and foremost, the book refines Simmel's projected elements of social conflict. This refinement is extremely helpful, as well as, educational. The second purpose of the book has been to present many experientially checkable proposals. However, it is not apparent whether the proposals made by the writer have been experientially checked or not. As mentioned previously, the book falls short of offering any experimental information and can be categorized as a book completely based on theory. One cannot consider this to be a major conundrum about the book in so far as the book is clear and unequivocal about this issue. Nevertheless, it is common knowledge that majority of the hypothetical and speculative conducts in social sciences have had two primary troubles."
This paper compares the essays of historians, David M. Kennedy, John Shy, and Lewis Coser, who wrote in the 1970s, to determine who best represents the American experience with war.
Abstract This paper discusses essays written in the 1970s at the time of the Vietnam War, which seems veritable light years away in terms of military and political changes related to the current terrorism on the colossal and destructive scale of 9/11/01. The author feels that the essay by Kennedy best reflects the big-picture view of America, its peoples, its geography, its politics, and its wars fought. The paper relates that Kennedy asserts, given this nation has not had to defend its own boundaries, Americans have developed an attitude that, when Uncle Sam goes to war, he totally wipes out the enemy with massive force, such as WWII's massive landing at Normandy, France.
From the Paper "Examples of how small our armies were compared to those in Europe are offered: in 1897, when the French Army of conscripts number more than half a million, and the German Army of conscripts numbered just less than half a million, Americans had an army of 27,000 volunteers. Until WWI, the U.S. Army was all-volunteer ? and the stark comparison with Europe's standing armies makes Kennedy's point about geography isolating America from conflict."
Abstract In this article, the writer concentrates research efforts on whether there are specific theorists and theories that could be applied to the current Iraq war and perhaps help others to understand it better. The writer first looks at the issue from the point of view that there are theorists, both classical and modern, who have strong views on war. The writer explains that this is largely due to conflict theory, which is that life is largely characterized more by conflict than it is by consensus. Those who uphold this theory have different ways of looking at it and the purpose of this paper is to look at classical theorists such as Karl Marx and Max Weber, as well as modern theorists such as Ralph Dahrendorf and Lewis Coser. The different views they have of conflict theory is then applied to the war in Iraq.
From the Paper "The United States went to work in Iraq to try to remove Hussein from power, but also to help the Iraqi people understand that this type of treatment is not necessary. There may be people in the United States that are treated this way, but in general the government does not treat the United States citizens in anything like the way Hussein treated his people. Most of the people in Iraq were too afraid to rise up against Hussein, for fear of terrible punishment. Because of this, the United States troops could not get a great deal of help at first, but as the war went on and it began to look as though the United States would win, the Iraqi citizens begin to offer a helping hand. They were beginning to realize that they were finally actually going to be free."
"Another conflict theorist, Max Weber, did not go along with the theories of Karl Marx. He believed that there was more than just a ruling class and a normal class of people. Instead of two classes, he believed that there were four, and that they were determined by power, social status, and class."
