Paradigm Shifts: Conflict and GST PDF

Shifting Paradigm II Rethinking Conflict, Functions and Social Systems Dr. Gbenga Adejare Conflict Paradigm This paradigm was developed, in part, as a reaction and/or an alternative to the dominance of structural functionalism in the 1950s and 1960s. It is based on the idea that conflict exists in a...

Shifting Paradigm II Rethinking Conflict, Functions and Social Systems Dr. Gbenga Adejare Conflict Paradigm This paradigm was developed, in part, as a reaction and/or an alternative to the dominance of structural functionalism in the 1950s and 1960s. It is based on the idea that conflict exists in all large societies due to class division and is the motor of major sociohistorical changes Its original contributors included Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx 2 Conflict Paradigm cont’d The main arguments are based on four C’s: 1. Conflict is inherent in the history of all societies 2. Class exists in every society 3. Contestation – functions can be contested by asking, “What group does this function best serve?” 4. Change is inevitable in the society. E.g., technological change or change as a result of social unrests. Ritzer and Stepnisky (2022:102) enunciated how “neoMarxian theories superseded” original conflict theories in the way they explain contemporary issues. We shall consider two key contributors to this development – C. Wright Mills and Ralf Dahrendorf. 3 Charles Wright Mills was born in Waco, Texas. He was a controversial sociologist whose work was majorly influenced by Karl Marx and Max Weber. He was critical of American society C. Wright Mills (1916 -1962) His best know contribution to theorizing focuses on elitism, from his book The Power Elite (1956) which speaks to the post-war power dynamics in America which led to complex military industry. His other influential books include White Collar (1951), The Sociological Imagination (1959), Listen, Yankee (1959), and The Marxists (1962) 4 The Power Elite – C.W. Mills 1 The dominance of the United State by a small group of powerful people who control the economy, military and politics. Long history of exploitation the masses by individuals (power elites) who have consolidated their wealth and power. Elites do not have any sense of accountability or moral obligation to the general masses. The whims of the power elites determine the fate of the collectivity of the United States. 5 The Power Elite – C.W. Mills 2 Centralization based on fused institutional powers – elite easily moved from one role to another at the top of each of the major institutional orders. Supremacy of corporate economic powers – Hierarchically, economic elites were at the top, followed by the political elites who were superior to military elites. 6 The Power Elite – C.W. Mills 2 No permanent membership – there is a heavy traffic of elites transiting across the three powerful institutions (military, economy, and politics). Cyclical movement of institutions and elites across historical boundaries – the romance of private corporations with the military is still a norm in contemporary sense: A documentary by The Fifth Estate: Whose police? RCMP unit acts as a private security force, critics say. 7 Ralf Dahrendorf (1929 -2009) 1 He was born Hamburg, Germany. Bagged PhD from both the University of Hamburg and London School of Economics. Imprisoned by the Nazis in 1945. Named Baron Dahrendorf by Queen Elizabeth II in 1993 for his illustrious career. Even though he refused to be labeled a Marxist, his work was heavily influenced by Marx. His thesis centres on the assumption that several positions in the society have different amounts of authority. 8 Ralf Dahrendorf (1929 -2009) 2 Authority can either be in terms of superordination or subordination. o Superordinate is one who uses authority to control a subordinate Because authority is (supposedly) legitimate, noncompliance to it often attracts negative sanctions Authority is positional, it does not reside in persons. Society is made up of imperatively coordinated associations of people organized in authoritative positions. Only two conflict groups can be formed in any association at every point in time: o Those who are superordinated and those who are subordinates 9 Ralf Dahrendorf (1929 -2009) 3 The use of 'interests' is vitally linked to Dahrendorf's contribution to contemporary conflict theorizing. o Groups at the top and those at the bottom constantly strive to protect their interest. E.g., Maximizing the interest of the state at the expense of the masses. Conflict may serve as a unifier of an interest group at either levels of authority. o E.g., the conflict between Israel and Palestine has led to different forms of alliances. o How could this assertion be reified in Canadian political climate? 10 Ralf Dahrendorf (1929 -2009) 4 In an interesting manner, Dahrendorf marries conflict and functionalism: o Conflict can be functional in how it can potentially reverse communication and cohesive mechanisms among different interest groups. o He went further to explain that conflict can be dysfunctional. Significantly, a conflict theorizer should be to interrogate and analyze the interface of latent interests and manifest interest. o Latent interests are unconscious interests that lead to objective role expectations while manifest interest are those interests that people are aware of. In sum, Dahrendorf believes that changes in the social structure are occasioned by the emergence of conflicting groups who struggle to protect their interests. 11 General System Theory 1 This theory is attributed to the work of Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998), an interdisciplinary theorist. Every system is situated in an environment. Complexity: the world, as a system is complex; humans have the responsibility to manage the complex world they live in. System selects its components. E.g., Canada decides on the countries of the world she relates with. The rule of contingency applies to every system: every system adapts based on needs. o Unlike the traditional functionalists, Luhmann believes that systems are constantly redefined based on environmental needs. 12 General System Theory 2 Autopoiesis: From two Greek words, auto (self) and poiesis (making), autopoiesis refers to the quality of a system to self-make or self-generate. Differentiation: A system has the capacity to make distinctions. o A system can distinguishes itself from its environment. o A system can make internal separations 13 Reflection Examine various ways by which conflicting interests can both be functional and dysfunctional. In what ways is the concept autopoiesis relevant in international politics? Is technological war functional? 14