Ralf Dahrendorf - Dahrendorf's Theory On Class Conflict

Dahrendorf's Theory On Class Conflict

Within the field of Sociology, Ralf Dahrendorf worked to develop conflict theory. This new theory attempted to bring together structural functionalism and Marxism. Dahrendorf states that capitalism has undergone major changes since Marx initially developed his theory on class conflict. This new system of capitalism, which he identifies as postcapitalism, is characterized by diverse class structure and a fluid system of power relations. Thus, it involves a much more complex system of inequality. Dahrendorf contends that postcapitalist society that has institutionalized class conflict into state and economic spheres. For example, class conflict has been habituated through unions, collective bargaining, the court system, and legislative debate. In effect, the severe class strife typical of Marx’s time is not longer relevant.Dahrendorf’s theory often took the opposite view of functionalists. Conflict theory said that “every society at every point is subject to process of change”. He believes that there is “dissension and conflict at every point in the social system” and “many societal elements as contributing to disintegration and change”. They believe order comes from coercion from those at the top. They believe that power is an important factor in social order. Dahrendorf believes that both conflict theory and consensus theory are necessary because they reflect the two parts of society. Consensus theory focuses on the value integration into society, while conflict theory focuses on conflicts of interest and the force that holds society together despite these stresses. Dahrendorf wanted to understand how conflict works. He did not believe the two theories could be combined and focused on developing the conflict theory. Dahrendorf’s thesis was “the differential distribution of authority invariably becomes the determining factor of systematic social conflicts”.

Dahrendorf believed that Marx’s theory could be updated to reflect modern society and Roman society. He rejects Marx’s two class system as too simplistic and overly focused on property ownership. Due to the rise of the joint stock company, ownership does not necessarily reflect control of economic production in modern society. Instead of describing the fundamental differences of class in terms of property, Dahrendorf claims that we must “replace the possession, or nonpossesion, of effective private property by the exercise of, or exclusion from, authority as the criterion of class formation”. A crucial component to Dahrendorf’s conflict theory is the idea of authority. Although it initially appears to be an individual issue and psychological, Dahrendorf argues that authority is related to positions not individuals. In this way, subordination and authority are products of expectation specified by society, and if those roles are not adhered to, sanctions are imposed. Dahrendorf expands on this idea with the notion that roles of authority may conflict when in different positions that call for different things. According to Dahrendorf, these different defined areas of society where people’s roles may be different are called imperatively coordinated associations. The groups of society in different associations are drawn together by their common interests. Dahrendorf explains that latent interests are natural interests that arise unconsciously in conflict between superordinates and subordinates. He defines manifest interests as latent interests when they are realized. Dahrendorf believed that the basis of class conflict was the division of three groups of society: quasi groups, interest groups, and conflict groups. Thus, society can be split up into the "command class" and the "obey class" and class conflict should refer to situations of struggle between those with authority and those without. Quasi groups are “aggregates of incumbents of positions with identical role interests”. Interest groups are derived from the quasi groups and they are organized with members, an organization, and a program or goal. The main difference between quasi groups and interest groups are that interest groups are able to organize and have a sense of “belonging” or identity. Darhendorf acknowledged that other conditions like politics, adequate personnel, and recruitment would play a role along with the groups. Unlike Marx, however, he did not believe that random recruitment into the quasi group, it would not start a conflict group. In contrast to Lewis Coser’s ideas that functions of conflict maintained the status quo, Dahrendorf believed that that conflict also leads to change (in social structure) and development. His belief in a changing society separated Dahrendorf’s ideas from Marx who supported the concept of a utopia.