Social Conflict and the Theory of Social Change Author(s): Lewis A. Coser Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Sep., 1957), pp. 197-207 Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/586859 . Accessed: 14/11/2013 12:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Wiley and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.210.85.113 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:31:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOCIAL CONFLICTAND THE THEORY OF SOCIAL CHANGE LewisA. Coser r NHIS paperattempts to examinesome of the functionsof social conflict in the processof social change. I shallfirst deal with i somefunctions of conflictwithin social systems, more specifically with its relationto institutionalrigidities, technical progress and pro- ductivity, and will then concernourselves with the relation between social conflictand the changesof social systems. A centralobservation of GeorgeSorel in hisReflections onViolence which has not as yet been accordedsufficient attention by sociologistsmay serve us as a convenientspringboard. Sorel wrote: We are today facedwith a new and unforeseenfact a middleclass which seeks to weakenits own strength.The race of bold captainswho made the greatnessof modernindustry disappears to make way for an ultracivilized aristocracywhich asks to be allowed to live in peace. The threateningdecadence may be avoidedif the proletariathold on with obstinacyto revolutionaryideas. The antagonisticclasses influence each other in a partlyindirect but decisive manner. Everything may be savedif the proletariat,by their use of violence, restore to the middle class somethingof its former energy.l Sorel'sspecific doctrine of classstruggle is not of immediateconcern here.What is importantfor us is the idea that conflict(which Sorel calls violence,using the wordin a veryspecial sense) prevents the ossification of the social systemby exertingpressure for innovationand creativity. ThoughSorel's call to actionwas addressedto the workingclass and its interests,he conceivedit to be of generalimportance for the total social system;to his mind the gradualdisappearance of class conflictmight well lead to the decadenceof Europeanculture. A social system, he felt, was in need of conflictif only to renew its energiesand revitalize its creativeforces. This conceptionseems to be moregenerally applicable than to class strugglealone. Conflictwithin and between groupsin a society can prevent accommodationsand habitual relations from progressively impoverishingcreativity. The clash of valuesand interests,the tension betweenwilat is and what some groupsfeel ought to be, the conflict I 97 This content downloaded from 128.210.85.113 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:31:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LEWIS A. COSER betweenvested interestsand new strata and groupsdemanding their share of power, wealth and status, have been productiveof vitality; note for examplethe contrastbetween the 'frozenworld' of the Middle Ages and the burstof creativitythat accompaniedthe thaw that set in with Renaissancecivilization. This is, in effect, the applicationof John Dewey's theory of con- sciousnessand thoughtas arisingin the wake of obstaclesto the inter- actionof groups.'Conflict is the gadflyof thought.It stirsus to observa- tion and memory.It instigatesto invention.It shocksus out of sheep- like passivity,and sets us at noting and contriving.... Conflictis a sznequa nonof reflectionand ingenuity.'2 Conflictnot only generatesnew norms,new institutions,as I have pointedout elsewhere,3it may be said to be stimulatingdirectly in the economic and technologicalrealm. Economic historiansoften have pointed out that much technologicalimprovement has resultedfrom the conflictactivity of tradeunions through the raisingof wage levels. A risein wagesusually has led to a substitutionof capitalinvestment for labourand hence to an increasein the volumeof investment.Thus the extreme s-<echanizationof coal-miningin the United Stateshas been partlyexplained by the existenceof militantunionism in the American coalfields.4>A recent investigationby Sidney C. Sufrin5points to the effectsof unionpressure, 'goading management into technicalimprove- ment and increasedcapital investment'. Very muchthe samepoint was made recentlyby the conservativeBritish Economist which reproached Britishunions for their 'moderation'which it declaredin part respon- sible for the stagnationand low productivityof Britishcapitalism; it comparedtheir policy unfavourablywith the more aggressivepolicies of Americanunions whose constant pressure for higherwages has kept the Americaneconomy dynamic.6 This point raisesthe questionof the adequacyand relevancyof the 'human relations'approach in industrialresearch and management practice.The 'humanrelations' approach stresses the 'collectivepurpose of the total organization'of the factory,and eitherdenies or attemptsto reduceconflicts of interestsin industry.7But a successfulreduction of industrialconflict may have unanticipateddysfunciional consequences for it may destroyan importantstimulus for technologicalinnovation. It often has been observedthat the effectsof technologicalchange have weighedmost heavily upon the worker.8 Bothinformal and formal organizationof workersrepresent in part an attempt to mitigatethe insecuritiesattendant upon the impactof unpredictableintroduction of change in the factory.9But by organizingin unions workersgain a feeling of security through the effective conduct of institutionalized conflictwith managementand thus exert pressureon managementto increasetheir returns by the inventionof furthercost-reducing devices. The searchfor mutualadjustment, understanding and 'unity'between I98 This content downloaded from 128.210.85.113 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:31:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOCIAL CONFLI CT AND SOCIAL CHANGE groupswho find themselvesin differentlife situations and havedifferent life chancescalls forth the dangerthat Sorelwarns of, namelythat the furtherdevelopment of technologywould be seriouslyimpaired. The emergenceof inventionand of technologicalchange in modern Westernsociety, with its institutionalizationof scienceas an instrument for making and remakingthe world, was made possible with the gradualemergence of a pluralisticand hence conflict-chargedstructure of humanrelations. In the unitaryorder of the medievalguild system, 'no one was permittedto harm othersby methodswhich enabledhim to producemore quicklyand more cheaplythan they. Technicalpro- gress took on the appearanceof disloyalty.The ideal was stable con- ditionsin a stableindustry.'10 In the modernWestern world, just as in the medievalworld, vested interestsexert pressurefor the maintenanceof establishedroutines; yet the modernWestern institutional structure allows room for freedomof conflict.The structureno longerbeing unitary,vested interests find it difficultto resistthe continuousstream of change-producinginventions. Invention,as well as its applicationand utilization,is furtheredthrough the ever-renewedchallenge to vested interests,as well as by the con- flictsbetween the vestedinterests themselves.1l Once old formsof traditionaland unitaryintegration broke down, the clashof conflictinginterests and values, now no longerconstrained by the rigidityof the medievalstructure, pressed for new formsof unification and integration.Thus deliberatecontrol and rationalizedregulation of 'spontaneous'processes was requiredin militaryand political,as well as in economicinstitutions. Bureaucratic forms of organizationwith their emphasison calculable,methodical and disciplinedbehaviour12 arose at roughly the same period in which the unitary medieval structure broke down. But with the rise of bureaucratictypes of organization peculiarnew resistancesto change made their appearance.The need for relianceon predictabilityexercises pressure towards the rejectionof innovationwhich is perceivedas interferencewith routine.Conflicts in- volvinga 'trialthrough battle' are unpredictablein theiroutcome, and thereforeunwelcome to the bureaucracywhich muststrive towards an ever-wideningextension of the areaof predictabilityand calculabilityof results.But social arrangements which have become habitual and totally patternedare subjectto the blight of ritualism.If attentionis focused excIusivelyon the habitualclues, 'peoplemay be unfittedby being fit in an unfit fitness',13so that their habitual training becomes an in- capacity to adjust to new conditions.To quote Dewey again: 'The customaryis taken for granted;it operatessubconsciously. Breach of wont and use is focal; it forms''consciousness''.'14 A group or a system which no longer is challengedis no longer capable of a creativere- sponse.It maysubsist, wedded to the eternalyesterday of precedentand tradition,but it is no longercapable of renewal.15 I99 This content downloaded from 128.210.85.113