There is no human community in which there would be no contradictions and clashes between its members. Man is no less inclined to hostility and clashes than to cooperation.

Rivalry often results in open clashes and conflicts. Let's define social conflict as an attempt to achieve rewards by removing, subordinating, or even physically eliminating rivals. Conflicts permeate the entire life of society, and we can observe them everywhere - from an elementary fight or family quarrel to wars between states.

The causes of social conflicts can be divided into two large groups. Let us designate them as personal and social. These two groups of reasons are interdependent.

The causes of social conflicts may be incompatibility of interests And goals relevant social groups. The presence of this reason was pointed out by E. Durkheim and T. Parsons.

Social conflicts can be caused by incompatibility of individual And public values. Each individual has a set of value orientations regarding the most significant parties social life. But while meeting the needs of some groups, obstacles arise from other groups. At the same time, opposing value orientations appear, which can become the cause of conflict. For example, different attitude to property: some believe that property should be state-owned, others advocate private property, and others strive for cooperative property. Subject to certain conditions, supporters different forms properties may conflict with each other.

The main social preconditions for conflicts are:

1) Social inequality- that is, the uneven distribution between members of society and groups of wealth, influence, information, respect and other social resources. Experts in the field of sociology of conflict note that the social position of people and the nature of their claims depend on access to the distribution of values ​​(income, knowledge, information, elements of culture, etc.). The desire for universal equality, as history has shown, cannot be considered as a good thing, because it leads to equalization and the extinction of many incentives for creative activity and initiative.

To be fair, it is worth noting that it is impossible to satisfy the interests and needs of everyone. Therefore, inequality, including social, irremovable. Conflict arises at such a degree of inequality when it is regarded by one of the social groups as very significant, preventing the satisfaction of its needs. The resulting social tension leads to social conflicts.

2) Social disorganization. Society is a system, that is, an organized integrity that has the ability to spontaneously adapt to emerging difficulties. However, there are such threatening crisis situations that social system falls into a state of total chaos and discord. In such cases, the established usual balance between the processes of destruction and creation is disrupted, and collapse begins social production, a crisis of political power, basic ideologies and accepted moral and cultural norms are depreciated and lose their attractiveness.

Anomie sets in - a state of uncontrollability - lack of norms. This results in an increase in aggression, insecurity of life, property and dignity of citizens, due to the weakening of social control and the legal system, disorganization of society and its legal institutions. In such a situation, the state and society lose the ability to restrain the negative energy of decay, and a kind of “war of all against all” begins. A conflict situation is being formed.

3) Cultural heterogeneity- i.e. coexistence in society various systems values, different ideas about the world, different behavioral standards (cf. the subculture of the criminal world with its specific values ​​that are opposite to the rest of law-abiding society).

But social preconditions in themselves do not necessarily lead
to conflicts. The subjects of conflicts are always ultimately specific people- either individuals or people in groups. In order for the social preconditions of the conflict to really lead to conflict, personal involvement and awareness of the injustice of the current situation are necessary.

4) Objective and subjective causes of social conflicts are linked together in the phenomenon social deprivation.

S. V. Sokolov defines deprivation as a contradiction between subjective expectations regarding the realization of one’s own interests and objective opportunities to realize them: “deprivation is the discrepancy between the interests-expectations (state of consciousness) of the subject and the real possibilities of satisfying them in practice”. Deprivation is felt by the individual as acute disappointment, is experienced with a feeling of oppression, and causes alienation of the individual from the society in which he lives. Deprivation that occurs when fundamental life needs are chronically unsatisfied is especially painful: the need for safety, food, treatment, etc.

On the other hand, the lack of necessary satisfaction of spiritual needs is also associated with deprivation: for example, believers should live in accordance with their religious ideas and norms, have the opportunity to pray, go to church, but society is not always ready to provide them with this, as was the case in the USSR in an era of forced atheism. American researchers C. Glock and R. Stark highlight the organismic deprivation experienced by disabled people and people suffering from serious illnesses, the severity of which can be minimized if society takes care of physically disabled people.

Deprivation is the reason social conflict precisely because it causes strong negative emotions. However, the dynamics of the development of deprivation can be multidirectional: the feeling of deprivation can increase until the formation of open conflict; it may remain at the same level or decrease.

A change in the state of deprivation occurs if the above-mentioned reasoning changes towards expansion or contraction:

Or if the needs and interests of people change (reduce, become primitive, or, conversely, expand), but the level of their satisfaction by society remains the same;

Or if the needs and interests remain the same, but the objective level of their satisfaction changes; or, finally, if there is a change in both needs and the quality of their satisfaction.

As deprivation increases, social tension also grows accordingly: large masses of people dissatisfied with their lives are ready to enter into open conflict according to catchphrase from the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”: “The proletarians have nothing to lose except their chains, but they will gain the whole world.” The conflict then becomes for deprived groups the only way achieve better satisfaction of your needs.

Thus, we can conclude that the main personal motive for the conflict is an unsatisfied need. There are many varied and very detailed typologies of human needs. We present here the simplest one.

Human needs can be divided into the following groups:

1) the needs of physical existence (food, material well-being, the need for procreation, etc.);

2) the need for security;

3) social needs (need for communication, recognition, love, respect, etc.);

4) higher needs (for creativity, spiritual growth, etc.). These
needs do not manifest themselves in all people, but if they express themselves, they are able to push aside all other needs, reducing them to a minimum.

When a need is not satisfied, a person experiences dissatisfaction, anxiety, fear, and others. negative emotions. The longer the state of dissatisfaction lasts, the stronger these emotions are, the more severe the person’s condition.

How does a person act in a situation of dissatisfaction? There are three possible behavior options:

1) you can retreat, stop striving to satisfy the need;

2) look for a workaround to satisfy the need;

3) achieve what you want through aggression.

The third path most often leads to conflicts (the second is also fraught with the emergence of a conflict situation if it leads to a clash with established norms in society). The object of aggression is the object that interferes with the satisfaction of the need. This could be a person, a group, society as a whole (since it is difficult to attack the entire society, aggression is directed at those “responsible” for the current situation in society). The one at whom aggression is directed responds with aggressive action. This is how conflict arises.

The object of aggression may be defined incorrectly, i.e. the culprit of the situation is considered to be someone who is not. This phenomenon is called false identification and is very common. False identification may occur involuntarily, as a result of error. However, it is possible to manipulate the consciousness of excited people and set them against undesirable individuals or groups, usually undertaken by those who benefit from such misinformation.

However, unmet needs in and of themselves do not lead to
to conflicts. If a person or group perceives its suppressed, disadvantaged position as something ordinary, familiar, inherent in the very “course of things,” then conflict may not arise. The basis for the emergence of a conflict is the awareness of the injustice of the current situation (naturally, from the point of view of the interested party). But even in such conditions, conflict does not always arise. Uncertainty of the consequences of a future conflict, fear of retaliation, disorganization (if we're talking about about communities) prevent the emergence of conflicts.

The role of unmet needs in the emergence of conflict is obvious if we are dealing with conflict between individuals or small groups. But what if we are talking about a conflict between states? What role do “unmet needs” play in this case? The “state” by itself cannot make decisions or enter into conflicts.

Only people can make decisions and enter into conflicts. The policy of any state is also determined by specific people - members of the government, presidents, etc. It is they who decide what is the “need” of a particular state in this moment. Therefore, even in such global conflicts as wars between states, the importance of personal incentives is very high. But in relation to such cases, it is better to talk not about “satisfying needs”, but about “protecting the interests” of the subjects of the conflict (remembering the subjective nature of the interpretation of these interests).

A society with social inequality built into its structure is potentially fraught with conflict. In every society there are groups whose needs are regularly not met and whose interests are ignored.

Society provokes conflicts not only through social inequality. Every society has certain cultural models that its members must conform to. Social role systems prescribe certain types of behavior. This leads to the fact that people who do not meet these standards find themselves either isolated or in a state of conflict with the social environment.

The degree of conflict in society increases in situations of anomie, political and economic crises. The instability of the situation and the uncertainty of norms lead, firstly, to the fact that more and more people do not satisfy their needs, and, secondly, it is easier for people to “step over” the boundaries of what is permitted, since these “frameworks” in an anomic society lose clarity (for example, serve Russia in the post-Soviet period).

An important feature of crisis societies is widespread feelings of insecurity and fear. And this is accompanied by an increase in aggressiveness, which not only provokes conflicts, but also intensifies their nature.

Sociology defines social conflict as the highest form of contradiction in society. In ordinary consciousness, conflict is a phenomenon that should be avoided. However, scientists have discovered many positive functions in it. The specifics and social role of conflict are the subject of deep research and reflection by scientists.

Concept

Conflictology defines social conflict as the highest point of conflict of interests between members and groups of society. The history of social conflicts goes back centuries. Already the first communities of people defended their interests in confrontations with each other. When defining the essence of this phenomenon, thinkers take different approaches to its definition. Thus, according to K. Marx, social conflict is the antagonism of classes, which inevitably ends in revolution.

Lewis Coser, an American sociologist, believes that social conflict is the interaction of opponents, which takes place in the form of a struggle for values, power, resources using various methods of causing various damage to one’s opponent.

German sociologist Ralf Derendorff says that social conflict is a clash between social groups of varying degrees of intensity and manifestation, and class struggle is only one of its types. Thus, understanding social conflict always includes ideas about confrontation over something. The degree of expression may vary, but there is always opposition in it.

Causes of conflicts

Social conflict is a frequent phenomenon, and it can be associated with many reasons. Society is an area of ​​permanent clash of interests of different parties, and the diversity of these interests becomes the source of so many reasons for confrontation. The most common causes of social conflicts can be presented as follows:

Interests and beliefs. Worldviews, dominant values, human preferences - all this can cause social conflicts. A clash of views, religious beliefs, and industrial interests can provoke confrontations of varying strengths. We see how today ethnic and religious differences can lead to armed defense of their views. Contradictions in norms and values ​​can evoke very strong emotions in people. Psychological attitudes, stereotypes, ingrained worldviews - all this is perceived by a person as part of his personality, therefore an encroachment on them causes aggression and negativity. Conflicts of interests, economic, cultural, and political, can also cause confrontation.

Needs. Some people's ways of meeting the needs of groups may cause resistance among others. For example, meeting the needs for food, shelter, and security may threaten the needs of others for the same. Thus, the migration of population groups from war-torn territories to prosperous countries risks undermining the well-being of the inhabitants of these places. All of the above leads to social conflicts.

Disorganization of society. Social and economic inequality, the struggle of ideologies, the presence of unemployment, orphanhood, the severity of political struggle, inequality of opportunities - all this very often becomes a source of social tension, which results in conflicts.

Theories of social conflict

The essence and causes of social conflicts are studied by sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers. As a result, several basic approaches to understanding the nature of this phenomenon appear.

The socio-biological theory of social conflict is based on the postulates of Charles Darwin about evolution and understands conflict as a natural mechanism of the struggle for survival. This point of view was shared by G. Spencer and W. Sumner. They believed that conflict was inevitable until a balance was achieved between the interests and needs of all people, which, in principle, was utopian.

The psychological approach believes that conflict is in the nature of human behavior. Modern society violates the personal interests of the individual, and this leads to conflict. Conflict is a tool for an individual to assert the rights to their expectations and satisfaction of needs.

Marxist theory is based on materialist views and believes that conflict is the result of class inequality and is caused by class struggle. When a balance of interests is found between all members of society, confrontations will disappear. The cause of the conflict, according to K. Marx, G. Marcuse, R. Michels, is the inequality of living and working conditions, as well as the hereditary transfer of privileges and unequal starting opportunities.

Dialectical theories, today recognized as the most realistic and progressive, proceed from the fact that the social system is unstable, and this variability leads to conflicts. Researchers L. Koser, R. Dahrendorf, K. Boulding recognize that conflict not only has destructive consequences, but is also a productive mechanism for the development of society. They believe that social conflict is omnipresent, it is the result of competition, but it can be overcome. The entire history of mankind, according to R. Dahrendorf, is a series of confrontations from which society always emerges different.

Today in sociology, two main approaches to the study of conflict coexist: the first explores its structure and types, the second focuses on finding ways to avoid confrontations and studies the sphere of peace and harmony.

Kinds

The variety of causes of conflicts leads to the emergence large quantity classifications of this phenomenon. Traditionally, researchers identify the following grounds for typology and types of social conflicts:

• By areas of flow. Determining the area of ​​development of the described phenomenon allows us to highlight the social psychological conflict, socio-political, socio-economic and national-ethnic.
• By duration. In this case, short-term and long-term conflicts are distinguished.
• By frequency: one-time and recurring.
• By influence on the development of society: progressive and regressive.
• By type of relationship. There are conflicts between social groups - intergroup and intragroup, between peoples - interethnic, between states - interstate, between state coalitions - global.
• According to the intensity of the flow. There are acute, protracted, hidden or latent conflicts.

The greatest interest for researchers is the study of conflicts occurring in various spheres, since each of them gives rise to a special type of confrontation.

Public and socio-political conflicts

The political sphere often provokes social conflicts in society. Traditionally, these types of confrontations are associated with the fact that power often interferes in other spheres of people’s lives; power structures can act as mediators between different groups in order to level out the conflict.

There are the following types of confrontations in the political sphere:

• Between branches of government. Conflict situations sometimes arise between opposing factions due to the struggle for power.
• Between institutions of power. The government, parliaments, and the Senate often come into conflict with each other, this sometimes leads to the resignation of senior officials in the government or the dissolution of parliament, but more often the conflicts are smoothed out, only to arise again later.
• Between parties and political movements. The struggle for voters, for the opportunity to form a government, always leads to intense competition between parties.
• Between the levels of executive power. Often a conflict of interests arises between individual structural units of government, which also provokes confrontation.

The public is not always a participant in such conflicts; more often it is assigned only the role of observer. But in rule-of-law states, people have the opportunity to influence the resolution of a controversial situation.

Economic conflicts

The sphere of production, entrepreneurship and finance is one of the most conflicting. Here competition is not only not hidden, but even cultivated, and this is always a direct path to confrontation. Socio-economic conflicts often occur in the area of ​​collision between welfare and labor systems.

Uneven distribution of income is always a source of social tension and the potential for conflict. Also, economic conflicts can exist between labor collectives, trade unions and the government. Labor representatives may confront the government under unjust legislation. Thus, at the beginning of the 20th century, such conflicts led to the widespread establishment of an 8-hour working day. But most often disputes arise between different economic entities. They can protect their property, the rights to do business, and to reach new market segments. The clash of property and commercial interests can cause conflicts that are resolved legally or transferred to the interpersonal level.

Functions

According to its consequences, a social conflict can be destructive or constructive. It can benefit society or have a destructive effect on it. The constructive functions of social conflict include:

• Development function. Even K. Marx wrote that as a result of conflicts, society carries out evolutionary development.
• Discharging function. A conflict situation allows the parties to express their grievances and relieve tension, which helps later find rational, constructive solutions to the problem.
• Balance function. Conflicts help achieve balance between different groups.
• Axiological function. Conflicts contribute to the reassessment of existing norms and values ​​and the establishment of new ones.
• Integrative function. During a conflict, groups of people can express their opinions, find like-minded people and unite with them.

Destructive functions include:

• decreased cooperation between social communities;
• increased hostility in society;
• population dissatisfaction with life;
• escalation of hostility, which can lead to open clashes.

Structure of social conflict

Any conflict necessarily has two opposing sides that represent different interests. Conflicts between social groups traditionally have the following structure:

• Participants. This is two or more social groups, each of which has its own views and interests. They can be direct and indirect, with varying degrees of interest in the outcome of the confrontation.
• Item. The main question that causes the controversy.
• An object. Any conflict has an object, which can be property, power, resources, spiritual conquests: norms, ideas, values.
• Wednesday. Usually, macro- and microenvironments of social conflict are distinguished. This is the entire context in which the confrontation is formed and takes place, this includes the social groups and institutions surrounding the participants, the strategies and tactics of their behavior, interests and expectations.

Stages of occurrence

In any confrontation, three stages are usually distinguished; the development of social conflicts is no exception. The first stage is pre-conflict. Tension and the accumulation of contradictions increase gradually; usually, minor frictions and disagreements arise first, which gradually intensify and escalate. At this stage, the parties weigh their resources, evaluate possible consequences open confrontation. There is an accumulation of forces, consolidation of supporters, development of a strategy of behavior. This stage can last a very long time and occur in a muted form.

The second stage is the conflict itself. Usually the trigger for this stage is some kind of action, after which the parties proceed to an open offensive. There are emotional and rational conflict management.

The third stage is conflict resolution. At this stage, events occur that should end with the end of the confrontation. A solution is only possible if the problem situation changes, otherwise the dispute becomes protracted and it becomes more and more difficult to settle it.

Conflict resolution methods

There are several methods that lead to the end of the confrontation and solution of the problem. Among the main ones there is a compromise. In this case, the resolution of social conflicts occurs through agreements between the parties and finding a solution that suits everyone. At the same time, everyone makes certain concessions and a certain third position is found with which the conflicting parties agree.

Consensus is another method of conflict resolution that involves negotiating and finding a solution that satisfies both parties. Usually it is achieved on some issues, while others are simply removed from the agenda because the parties are satisfied with what has been achieved.

Restoration is a solution method that involves returning to the positions the parties had before entering into conflict.

Sociology of conflict

Introduction........................................................ ........................................................ ........................... 3

The concept of conflict................................................... ........................................................ .......... 4

What is social conflict?........................................................ ...................................... 4

Subjects and participants in the conflict................................................................. ..................................... 4

Object of conflict................................................... ........................................................ ............. 6

Main types of social conflicts............................................................. ........................... 7

Conflict of needs................................................... ........................................................ .... 8

Conflict of interest................................................ ........................................................ ......... 9

Value conflict................................................... ........................................................ ... eleven

The main stages of conflict development.................................................................. ........................... 13

Pre-conflict stage................................................... ................................................. 13

Stage of development of the conflict................................................................... ............................................. 16

Conflict resolution stage......................................................... ........................................ 17

Post-conflict stage................................................... ............................................... 19

Functions of social conflict................................................................... ................................... 21

Types of social conflicts................................................................... ........................................... 23

Intrapersonal conflicts................................................................... ........................................ 23

Interpersonal conflicts................................................................ ............................................... 29

Conflicts between individuals and groups.................................................... ........................... 34

Intergroup conflicts................................................................ ............................................... 39

CONCLUSION................................................. ........................................................ ...................... 41

Footnotes........................................................ ........................................................ ........................... 42

List of used literature:........................................................ ........................... 43

Introduction

We encounter conflicts everywhere in our lives. Starting from banal quarrels in transport to armed clashes - all these are conflicts; over time, there are more and more different types of conflicts, as the development of society causes the emergence of ever new interests and values.

Conflicts have both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, conflicts do not allow society to ossify, they force it to rebuild and change, on the other hand, they become the causes of disagreements, quarrels, grievances and other clashes, even wars.

Throughout history, humanity has been unable to ensure that there are no more negative conflicts and more positive ones.

In this essay, I do not set myself the task of fully covering all possible types of conflicts - there are too many of them. And I do not have the opportunity to study each of them in detail. Political, interethnic, legal and economic conflicts are too broad concepts that deserve separate in-depth study and writing separate works.

In this essay I will try to reveal the very concept of conflict, describe the main types and some ways to resolve them. I will try to lay some foundation that can serve both to begin the study of conflicts and to subsequently write larger scientific works.

Concept of conflict

What is social conflict?

“The concept of “social conflict” unites those situations in which the interests of individuals do not coincide, and, while protecting these interests, they collide with each other” 1

The word “conflict” (from Latin - confliktus) means a clash (of parties, opinions, forces). The causes of collisions can be a variety of problems in our lives. For example, a conflict over material resources, values ​​and the most important attitudes in life, over power, over personal differences, etc. Thus, conflicts cover all spheres of people’s life, the entire set of social relations, social interaction. Conflict is essentially one of the types of social influence, the subjects and participants of which are individuals, large and small social groups and organizations. However, conflict interaction presupposes confrontation between the parties, i.e., actions directed against each other.

So, social conflict is an open confrontation, a collision of two or more subjects and participants in social interaction, the causes of which are incompatible needs, interests and values.

Subjects and participants of the conflict

The concepts of “subject” and “participant” of a conflict are not always identical. The subject is an “active party” capable of creating a conflict situation and influencing the course of the conflict in accordance with its interests. A participant in a conflict may consciously, or not fully aware of the goals and objectives of the confrontation, take part in the conflict, or may be accidentally or against his (the participant’s) will involved in the conflict. Consequently, the subject of the conflict, entering into confrontation, consciously pursues and defends his goals and interests. As the conflict develops, the statuses of “participants” and “subjects” may change places.

It is also necessary to distinguish between direct and indirect participants in the conflict. The latter represent certain forces pursuing their own personal interests in a supposed or real “alien” conflict. Indirect participants can:

1. provoke conflict and contribute to its development

2. contribute to reducing the intensity of the conflict or its complete cessation

3. support one or the other side of the conflict or both sides at the same time.

In the sociology of conflict, the concept of “party to the conflict” is often used. This concept can include both direct and indirect participants in the conflict. Sometimes indirect

The participants, for their special interest in the conflict, are called "third party" or "third party".

Situations often arise when it is quite difficult to identify the direct subjects of the conflict. A striking example is ethnopolitical conflicts (Chechen or Ossetian-Ingush), when it is not easy to answer the question of who represents the parties to the conflict: the leaders of the opposing sides, or those who are directly involved in power operations, or those who perceive each other as rivals and supports the positions of their leaders in the conflict? Or are they all together as representatives and participants of a certain social group?

Quite often, a conflict, having begun as interpersonal, with the appearance of active adherents on each of its sides, turns into intergroup conflict. Just as often one can observe the opposite picture: having become involved in a conflict as part of a certain group, a person begins to lead his own line in it, as a result of which it becomes a personal group one for her. In turn, a personal group conflict often transforms into an intergroup conflict if an individual manages to separate some of its members from the opposing group, make them his own adherents, or acquire the latter from somewhere else. All these “spillovers” change the course of the conflict and therefore require careful consideration when analyzing it.

Object of conflict

One of the indispensable elements of conflict is the object due to which a conflict situation is created. The object is the specific reason, motivation, driving forces of the conflict. All objects are divided into three main types:

1. Objects that cannot be divided into parts , and it is impossible to own them jointly with anyone.

2. Objects that can be divided in different proportions between the parties to the conflict.

3. Objects that both parties to the conflict can jointly own.

Identifying the target in each specific conflict is far from easy. Subjects and participants in the conflict, pursuing their real or imaginary goals, can hide, disguise, and replace the sought-after motives that prompted them to confrontation. For example, in political struggle, the object of the conflict is the real power in society, but each of the subjects of political confrontation tries to prove that the main motive of his specific conflict activity is the desire to achieve the maximum possible benefits for his voters.

Determining the main object is an indispensable condition for the successful resolution of any conflict. Otherwise, the conflict will either not be resolved in principle (a deadlock situation), or will not be resolved fully, and in the interaction of the subjects there will remain smoldering coals for new clashes.

The basis of a social conflict may be not one, but several controversial issues (problems). Each issue should be considered as a disagreement, a contradiction that requires its solution. Controversial issues must be identified and grouped in accordance with the reasons for their origin and the nature of perception.

Main types of social conflicts.

Depending on the motivation of the conflict, three blocks of social conflicts are distinguished:

Conflict of needs

The current situation in the world brings the problem of resources or vital needs to one of the first places.

Conflicts over needs can be divided into two types: first, conflict due to real or perceived resource limitations; secondly, due to the relationship between short-term and long-term needs.

Consideration of the conflict of needs in various spheres of human life and society shows that needs cannot be reduced only to the sum of external requirements arising from social and economic conditions. They represent certain core lines of organization of the entire system of interaction in society. They manifest themselves in mass habits and cultural skills that are acquired by people in the course of their socialization, individual development, and education.

At the same time, the problem of determining the priority of certain needs remains the most important problem of a socio-political nature. Not one state, not one Political Party In its practical policy, it cannot turn a blind eye to need-based, essentially essential conflicts that are associated not only with certain options for using resources, but also with the choice of certain options for the development of culture itself.

Resources as an object of conflict are considered, perhaps most often, mainly in terms of their possession or the desire of subjects to acquire them in the interests of replenishing their resource potential. Resources include everything that can be effectively used, that is, usefully used to meet the needs of the subject, realize his interests and goals. From here it is clear that we are talking about certain means of ensuring needs, the interests and goals arising from them.

Resources - material (finance, equipment, technology, land, its subsoil, etc.) and spiritual (culture, science, education, etc.) - constitute a typical object of conflict. Especially when their distribution in society is uneven, disproportionate, unfair, making it easier for some social subjects to access them and making it difficult for others, or even providing some at the expense of others. The latter, experiencing infringement and difficulties in ensuring their own resource potential, have every reason to oppose this state of affairs, thus finding themselves in confrontation with those who are satisfied with it.

Conflict of interest.

What needs and interests have in common is that in both cases we are dealing with people's aspirations that directly affect their social and economic behavior. However, if needs orient people's behavior towards the possession of those goods that turn out to be vitally necessary or stimulate vital ways of human activity, then interests are those incentives for action that stem from the mutual attitude of people towards each other.

The immediate subject of social interest is not the good itself, but those positions of the individual or social layer that provide the opportunity to obtain this good. Both in everyday speech and in theoretical analysis, interests are much more often connected with social position, which fixes for a certain time the totality of opportunities provided to an actor by society. It is social position that outlines the boundaries of what is accessible and possible for an individual and a social group.

Status, being an object of struggle between certain social subjects, acts for them mainly not as a means, but as a condition for ensuring their normal life, which is also worth fighting for if the current state of affairs prompts it. After all, it depends on him what - equal or unequal - the position of the subject will be in society, among other social subjects, how free or forced his relationships with them will be, to what extent his self-esteem will be preserved or infringed, etc.

On the part of society, the formation of interests is most influenced by the institutions and systems of distribution of life goods that have developed in it. One way or another, through distribution systems, the most essential task of organizing any social community is solved: correlating the result of activity and recognizing this result through remuneration. At the same time, one should not keep in mind only material or financial reward. A very wide range of not only property, but also spiritual benefits can be used as reward, the provision of which means increasing the prestige of the rewarded person or social group for what is considered or recognized as useful for society.

Through certain types of combinations of benefit and reward, society organizes the interests of social groups, directing them along certain more or less stable channels. Interests are therefore directed not at abstract society in general, but at the system social institutions and above all on the institutions of distribution, which turn out to be the main instruments for regulating the social situation.

Value conflict.

Modern culture presupposes a fairly broad framework of tolerance, that is, the possibility of communication and joint action of people or groups committed to different worldview systems and different value orientations. However, tolerance and mutual recognition are not yet the dominant modes of relationships between value systems. Quite often, value systems act as self-sufficient sources of motivation, operating on the basis of dividing human communities into “us and others.” It is in this case that we observe a value conflict. The differences between “us and others”, between “us and them” acquire decisive significance and become the dominant factor in individual and group motivation. Value confrontations and priorities - and this is their peculiarity - are based on faith. Knowledge is also built in accordance with faith, i.e. a system of rational arguments that explain and justify the original symbols of faith - the postulates on the basis of which the this system values.

Values, understood, of course, not in a broad sense - as everything that is positively significant from the point of view of satisfying human needs, but more narrowly - as something fundamentally important for a certain social subject and his life activity, very often act as an object of social conflicts, for which he is ready to fight decisively. They generally cannot act as a means to ensure one or another of his needs, interests, aspirations, as is the case with resources, but serve for him only as an end in itself, an expression of his understanding of himself, his own essence, with the loss of which he himself disappears as something independent, self-determining, worthy of recognition and respect from other subjects. Conflicts based on values, also in contrast to conflicts based on resources, as a rule, arise due to their imposition by one social entity on another, forced inclusion in them, or due to a disdainful attitude towards them on the part of other entities.

Taking into account the motivation of the conflict and subjective perceptions of the conflict situation, the following types of conflicts are distinguished:

1. false conflict - the subject perceives the situation as a conflict, although real reasons for conflict no;

2. potential conflict - there are real grounds for a conflict to arise, but one of the parties or both parties, for one reason or another (for example, due to lack of information) have not yet recognized the situation as a conflict;

3. true conflict - a real conflict between the parties. In turn, true conflict can be divided into the following subtypes:

· constructive conflict, which arose on the basis of contradictions that actually exist between subjects

· accidental conflict - a conflict that arose due to a misunderstanding or an accidental coincidence;

· displaced conflict - a conflict that arose on a false basis, when the true cause of the conflict is hidden

· an incorrectly attributed conflict is a conflict in which the true culprit, the subject of the conflict, is behind the scenes of the confrontation, and the conflict involves participants who are not related to the conflict.

If the classification is based on the mental state of the parties and the behavior of people in conflict situations corresponding to this state, then conflicts are divided into rational and emotional. Depending on the goals of the conflict and its consequences, conflicts are divided into positive and negative, constructive and destructive. 2

Pre-conflict stage

A conflict is preceded by a pre-conflict situation. This is an increase in tension between potential subjects of conflict caused by certain contradictions. Only those contradictions that are perceived by potential subjects of conflict as incompatible opposites of interests, goals, values, etc., lead to an aggravation of social tension and conflicts.

Social tension is also not always a harbinger of conflict. This is a complex social phenomenon, the causes of which can be very different. Here are some of the most typical reasons causing the growth of social tension:

a) real “infringement” of people’s interests, needs and values;

b) inadequate perception of changes occurring in society or individual social communities;

c) incorrect or distorted information about certain (real or imaginary) facts, events, etc. 3

Social tension is essentially a psychological state of people and, before the start of a conflict, is of a latent (hidden) nature. The most characteristic manifestation of social tension during this period is group emotions.

One of the key concepts in social conflict is also “dissatisfaction”. The accumulation of dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs and the course of developments leads to increased social tension.

The pre-conflict stage can be divided into three phases of development, which are characterized by the following features in the relationship between the parties:

· the emergence of contradictions regarding a certain controversial object; growing mistrust and social tension; presentation of unilateral or mutual claims, reduction of contacts and accumulation of grievances;

· the desire to prove the legitimacy of one’s claims and accusing the enemy of unwillingness to resolve controversial issues using “fair” methods; being locked into one's own stereotypes; the emergence of prejudice and hostility in the emotional sphere;

· destruction of interaction structures; transition from mutual accusations to threats; increase in aggressiveness; formation of the image of the “enemy” and the attitude to fight.

Thus, the conflict situation is gradually transformed into an open conflict. But the conflict situation itself can exist for a long period of time and not develop into a conflict. For a conflict to become real, an incident is necessary.

An incident is a formal reason for the start of a direct clash between the parties.

An incident can happen by accident, or it can be provoked by the subject(s) of the conflict. The incident may also result from the natural course of events. It happens that an incident is prepared and provoked by some “third force”, pursuing its own interests in a supposed “foreign” conflict.

The incident marks the transition of the conflict to a new quality. In the current situation, there are three main options for the behavior of the conflicting parties.

The parties (sides) strive to resolve the contradictions that have arisen and find a compromise;

One of the parties pretends that “nothing special happened” (avoiding the conflict);

The incident becomes a signal for the start of open confrontation. The choice of one option or another largely depends on the conflicting attitude (goals, expectations) of the parties.

Stage of development of the conflict

The beginning of open confrontation between the parties is the result of conflict behavior, which is understood as actions aimed at the opposing side with the aim of capturing, holding a disputed object or forcing the opponent to abandon his goals or change them. There are several forms of conflict behavior:

a) active conflict behavior (challenge);

b) passive-conflict behavior (response to a challenge);

c) conflict-compromise behavior;

d) compromising behavior. 4

Depending on the conflict setting and the form of conflict behavior of the parties, the conflict acquires its own logic of development. Evolving conflict tends to create additional reasons for its deepening and expansion.

Three main phases can be distinguished in the development of the conflict at its second stage.

1. Transition of the conflict from a latent state into open confrontation between the parties. The fight is still being carried out with limited resources and is local in nature. The first test of strength occurs. At this phase, there are still real opportunities to stop the open struggle and resolve the conflict by other methods.

2. Further escalation of confrontation. To achieve their goals and block the enemy’s actions, more and more new resources of the parties are introduced. Almost all opportunities to find a compromise are missed. The conflict is becoming increasingly unmanageable and unpredictable.

3. The conflict reaches its climax and takes the form of a total war using all possible forces and means. At this phase, the conflicting parties seem to forget real reasons and the goals of the conflict. The main goal of the confrontation is to inflict maximum damage on the enemy.

Conflict resolution stage

The duration and intensity of the conflict depend on many factors: on the goals and attitudes of the parties, on the resources at their disposal, on the means and methods of fighting, on the reaction to the environmental conflict, on the symbols of victory and defeat, on the available and possible ways(mechanisms) for finding consensus, etc.

At a certain stage in the development of the conflict, the conflicting parties’ ideas about their capabilities and the capabilities of the enemy may change significantly. There comes a moment of “reassessment of values”, caused by new relationships that have arisen as a result of the conflict, a new balance of power, the awareness of the impossibility of achieving goals or the exorbitant price of success. All this stimulates a change in tactics and strategies of conflict behavior. In this situation, one or both conflicting parties begin to look for ways out of the conflict and the intensity of the struggle, as a rule, subsides. From this moment the process of ending the conflict actually begins, which does not exclude new aggravations.

At the conflict resolution stage, the following scenarios are possible:

1) the obvious superiority of one of the parties allows it to impose its conditions for ending the conflict on the weaker opponent;

2) the fight is on until one of the parties is completely defeated;

3) due to a lack of resources, the struggle becomes protracted and sluggish;

4) having exhausted resources and not identifying a clear (potential) winner, the parties make mutual concessions in the conflict;

5) the conflict can also be stopped under pressure from a third force. 5

The social conflict will continue until obvious, clear conditions for its termination appear. In a fully institutionalized conflict, such conditions can be determined before the start of the confrontation (for example, as in a game where there are rules for its completion), or they can be developed and mutually agreed upon during the development of the conflict. If the conflict is partially institutionalized or not institutionalized at all, then additional problems of its completion arise. There are also absolute conflicts, in which the struggle is waged until the complete destruction of one or both rivals.

There are many ways to end a conflict. Basically, they are aimed at changing the conflict situation itself, either by influencing the parties to the conflict, or by changing the characteristics of the object of the conflict, or by other means.

The final stage of the conflict resolution stage involves negotiations and legal registration available arrangements. In interpersonal and intergroup conflicts, the results of negotiations can take the form of oral agreements and mutual obligations of the parties. Usually one of the conditions for starting the negotiation process is a temporary truce. But options are possible when, at the stage of preliminary agreements, the parties not only do not stop “fighting”, but escalate the conflict, trying to strengthen their positions in the negotiations. Negotiations involve a mutual search for compromise by the conflicting parties and include the following possible procedures:

Recognizing the existence of a conflict;

Approval of procedural rules and regulations;

Identification of the main controversial issues (drawing out a protocol of disagreements);

Study possible options problem solution;

Search agreements for each controversial issue and conflict resolution in general;

Documentation of all agreements reached;

Fulfillment of all accepted mutual obligations. 6

Negotiations may differ from each other both in the level of the contracting parties and in the differences existing between them. But the basic procedures (elements) of negotiations remain unchanged.

Post-conflict stage

The end of direct confrontation between the parties does not always mean that the conflict is completely resolved. The degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the parties with the concluded peace agreements will largely depend on the following provisions:

To what extent was it possible to achieve the pursued goal during the conflict and subsequent negotiations;

What methods and methods were used to fight;

How great are the losses of the parties (human, material, territorial, etc.);

How great is the degree of infringement on the self-esteem of one or another party;

Was it possible to relieve the emotional tension of the parties as a result of the conclusion of peace;

What methods were used as the basis for the negotiation process;

To what extent was it possible to balance the interests of the parties;

Was the compromise imposed under forceful pressure (by one of the parties or some “third force”), or was it the result of a mutual search for ways to resolve the conflict?

What is the reaction of the surrounding social environment to the results of the conflict.

If one or both parties believe that the signed peace agreements infringe on their interests, then tensions between the parties will continue, and the end of the conflict may be perceived as a temporary respite. Peace concluded as a result of mutual depletion of resources is also not always able to resolve the main controversial issues that caused the conflict. The most durable peace is one concluded on the basis of consensus, when the parties consider the conflict to be completely resolved and build their relations on the basis of trust and cooperation.

Types of social conflicts.

Intrapersonal conflicts

The resolution of intrapersonal conflicts primarily depends on the person himself, on the ability and opportunity to live in harmony (in harmony) with himself and the environment. Such conflicts can be conditionally described as conflicts “between what we have and what we would like to have.” Other variants of such conflicts: “between what you want and what you don’t want”, “between who you are and who you would like to be”, etc. From an evaluative point of view, intrapersonal conflicts can be represented as a struggle between two positive or two negative tendencies or as a struggle between positive and negative tendencies in the psyche of one subject. There are options when trends contain both positive and negative aspects at the same time (for example, a proposed promotion involves an undesirable move to a new place of residence).

Personality is a stable system of socially significant traits determined by the existing system of social relations, culture and biological characteristics of the individual. Intrapersonal conflict, like any other social conflict, involves conflict interaction between two or more parties. Several mutually exclusive needs, goals, values, and interests can simultaneously exist in one person. All of them are socially conditioned, even if they are purely biological in nature, since their satisfaction is associated with a whole system of certain social relations. Therefore, intrapersonal conflict is also a social conflict.

Any human action represents both interaction with the Other within himself, and opposition to the Other as a participant in the dialogue. But conflict is caused only by mutually exclusive tendencies of equal importance, when a person seems to be bifurcated in making a decision, when the choice of one or another tendency presupposes forceful pressure from One on the Other, i.e., confrontation and violence.

There is a psychological conflict when the barrier to certain actions lies within ourselves. These are problems of choosing between two different aspirations:

a) conflict of needs (you want to eat and need to be treated);

b) conflict between social norm and need (love and norm);

c) conflict of social norms (duel and church). 7

One type of intrapersonal conflict is unconscious internal conflict. It is based on any conflict situations that were not fully resolved in the past, which we have already forgotten. But on an unconscious level, we continue to carry the burden of unresolved problems in the past and involuntarily reproduce old conflict situations, as if trying to solve them again. The reason for the resumption of an unconscious internal conflict may be circumstances similar to the previous unresolved situation.

Competition and rivalry permeate all areas of our lives, and often excellence for one means failure for another. Potential hostile tension creates fear. The source of fear can also be the prospect of failure and the threat of losing a sense of self-esteem. Market relations presuppose aggressively competitive interaction, and Christian morality preaches the brotherly love of people for each other. Advertising stimulates our needs, and real life becomes an obstacle to their satisfaction. Under such conditions, the human environment becomes one of the main sources of intrapersonal conflicts.

It is easy to see that in approximately the same conflict situations different people They don't behave the same way. Social Psychology identifies the four most common types of behavior of people in conflict situations: “The first type is aggressive behavior that contributes to the development of conflict; the second is behavior indicating a tendency to compromise; the third is associated with a tendency to submit, that is, to accept the decision of the opposite side; the fourth type shows a tendency to avoid conflict.” 8 In real life, each of these types is pure form does not occur, but most people, with certain reservations, can be classified as one or another type of conflict behavior.

Interpersonal conflicts

Interpersonal conflicts can be considered as a clash of personalities in the process of their relationships. Such clashes can occur in a variety of spheres and areas (economic, political, industrial, sociocultural, everyday, etc.). The reasons for such clashes are infinitely diverse - from a convenient seat in public transport to the presidential seat in government agencies.

Interpersonal conflicts arise both between people meeting for the first time and between people who are constantly communicating. In both cases, the personal perception of the partner or opponent plays an important role in the relationship. An obstacle to finding agreement between individuals can be a negative attitude formed by one opponent towards another. An attitude represents the readiness, predisposition of a subject to act in a certain way. This is a certain direction of the manifestation of the psyche and behavior of the subject, readiness to perceive future events. It is formed under the influence of rumors, opinions, judgments about a given individual (group, phenomenon, etc.).

When interacting with other people, a person primarily protects his personal interests, and this is normal. The conflicts that arise are a reaction to obstacles to achieving goals. And how significant the subject of the conflict seems to be for a particular individual will largely depend on his conflict attitude.

Individuals encounter interpersonal conflicts, protecting not only their personal interests. They can also represent the interests of individual groups, institutions, organizations, labor collectives, and society as a whole. In such interpersonal conflicts, the intensity of the struggle and the possibility of finding compromises are largely determined by the conflict attitudes of those social groups whose representatives the opponents are.

All interpersonal conflicts that arise due to clashes of goals and interests can be divided into three main types.

The first one involves a fundamental clash in which the realization of the goals and interests of one opponent can only be achieved by infringing on the interests of the other.

The second one affects only the form of relations between people, but does not infringe on their spiritual, moral and material needs and interests.

The third represents imaginary contradictions that can be provoked either by false (distorted) information or by incorrect interpretation of events and facts.

Interpersonal conflicts can also be divided into the following types:

a) rivalry - the desire for dominance;

b) dispute - disagreements about finding the best solution to joint problems;

c) discussion - discussion of a controversial issue.