Lewis Coser

• Who is Lewis Coser
• Origin of Conflict
• Conflict Functionalism
• Sources of conflict
• Concept and Theory: Integrating Forces of Conflict
• Role of Conflict in Society   
• Conflict and Social Organisation

Biographical Sketch

Lewis Alfred Coser, born on November 27, 1913, in Berlin, was an American sociologist of German descent. Originally named Ludwig Cohen, his family later changed their surname. Coser pioneered the application of functionalism to conflict analysis within sociology.

Politically engaged, he delved into the societal role of intellectuals through various influential works, including books, articles, and speeches, as well as through his personal activism. With over two dozen books to his name, his doctoral dissertation evolved into the renowned post-World War II sociology text, “The Functions of Social Conflict.” Despite his leftist leanings, Coser endeavoured to maintain a separation between his political views and his academic pursuits. In collaboration with Irving Howe, he established the radical journal “Dissent” in 1954 while concurrently editing a volume on Sociological Theory.

Coser’s academic career spanned institutions like the General College of the University of Chicago, the University of California, and Brandeis University, where he founded the sociology department. Subsequently, he taught at the State University of New York at Stony Brook for 15 years.

His fascination with the intersection of intellectuals with economic and power dynamics manifested in his 1966 work, “Men of Ideas: A Sociologist’s View,” offering a historical examination of the public intellectual. Praised as “engaging” and “provocative” by Lewis S. Feuer in The New York Times Book Review, the book underscored Coser’s analytical depth.

Coser’s research primarily centered on the forms and functions of social conflict. Drawing parallels to Georg Simmel, he argued that conflict could reinforce the cohesion of loosely structured groups. Moreover, he posited that intergroup conflict in unstable societies could facilitate societal reconstruction and integration.

Conflicts within a society, known as “intra-group” conflicts, can prompt individuals who tend towards isolation to become actively engaged. According to Coser, such conflicts serve a communicative purpose. While groups may initially overlook the perspectives of their adversaries, once conflict arises, the boundaries between them become clearer, empowering individuals in positions of influence to determine appropriate courses of action regarding opposing views.

Born into an upper middle-class family, he defied his background by joining the socialist movement in his youth. Fleeing to Paris during Hitler’s rise to power, he pursued studies in comparative literature and sociology at the Sorbonne, all while actively participating in Marxist politics. His academic pursuits were interrupted by World War II, during which he was interned in a South of France camp due to his German nationality.

Immigrating to the United States in 1941, he married Rose Laub, who had facilitated his visa. Both earned sociology doctorates from Columbia University and collaborated on scholarly endeavours. Throughout the post-war era, Dr. Coser engaged with leftist intellectuals in New York and contributed to various political publications, including Politics, Partisan Review, and The Progressive, despite not hesitating to critique leftist ideologies.

His political stance remained leftist, albeit anti-Communist, as evident in his autobiographical statement to ”Sociological Lives” in 1988, as reported in World of Sociology. “I have never felt uneasy about embodying, in Chairman Mao’s terms, both pink and expert,” he asserted.

Lewis Coser passed away in 2003 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Origin of Conflict

Many may conceive of conflict solely in terms of war or disputes, yet theorists have illuminated that conflict permeates society in various forms beyond overt violence. Conflict is a pervasive social phenomenon that extends beyond mere division; it can serve as a crucial mechanism for societal cohesion. The lineage of conflict theory in sociology traces back to Karl Marx’s seminal contributions in the 19th century, where he explored the dynamics of class struggle within capitalism. Marx posited that capitalism would sow the seeds of its own demise through the emergence of class consciousness, catalyzing societal transformation.

In response to Marx, Max Weber introduced a nuanced perspective, emphasizing that conflict is not solely rooted in economic factors but also emerges from the interplay between the state and the economy. Weber’s concept of legitimation highlights the necessity for systems of oppression to justify their existence in order to perpetuate themselves. Moreover, Weber expanded the understanding of class beyond Marx’s economic determinism, incorporating dimensions of status and power.

Subsequent scholarship has amalgamated insights from Marx and Weber, with figures like Lewis Coser contributing significant synthesis. Coser’s work is particularly noteworthy for its dual focus:

Firstly, the primary source of theoretical inspiration for Coser is Georg Simmel rather than Marx or Weber. While Coser occasionally references Marx and Weber to contextualize or expand upon Simmel’s ideas, the bulk of his work (1956) is built upon “a number of basic propositions” distilled from Simmel’s theories of social conflict. Thus, it can be argued that Coser’s theory serves as a variation of Simmel’s, with only the terminology altered.

Secondly, Coser stands out for being the first to explore the functional outcomes of conflict beyond Simmel’s contributions. Prior to Simmel, conflict was typically viewed as a catalyst for social change and fragmentation. Simmel introduced the idea that conflict is a natural and necessary aspect of society; Coser, however, popularized this notion within mainstream sociology, particularly in America.

Sociologists have come to recognize that groups need both discord and harmony, separation as well as association, and internal conflicts are not always disruptive. Rather than being inherently dysfunctional, a certain level of conflict is crucial for group cohesion and the maintenance of group dynamics.

In the 1950s, criticism of the Parsonsian framework within functionalist sociology was prevalent, especially regarding Parsons’ focus solely on the conflictual aspects of social reality. Subsequently, addressing these critiques became a sort of ceremonial rite for sociologists seeking theoretical redemption and ushered in a new dimension of conflict theory. By the 1960s and 1970s, these criticisms intensified, with functionalism, epitomized by Parsons and other proponents, being perceived as overly institutionalized and focused on equilibrium. Concurrently, conflict theory emerged as a viable alternative, showcasing significant diversity in theoretical perspectives.

Conflict Functionalism

The division within conflict theory is apparent in Lewis A. Coser’s perspective on conflict functionalism, which he contrasts with Ralf Dahrendorf’s dialectical conflict approach. Coser consistently criticizes Parsons’ functionalism for neglecting to address conflict and also critiques Dahrendorf and other dialectical theorists for downplaying the positive functions of conflict in maintaining social systems. According to Coser, conflict can be defined as “a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power, and resources in which opponents aim to neutralize, injure, or eliminate their rivals.”

Coser was the first sociologist to attempt to reconcile structural functionalism and conflict theory, focusing on uncovering the functions of social conflict. He debated with Georg Simmel that conflict could help solidify a loosely structured group. In a society experiencing disintegration, conflict with another society, known as inter-group conflict, may restore its integrative core.

Intra-group conflict within a society can involve otherwise isolated individuals in active roles. Conflicts also serve a communicative function. Prior to conflict, groups may be uncertain about their adversary’s position, but conflict often clarifies positions and boundaries between groups, enabling individuals to make more informed decisions regarding their adversaries. Similar to status consistency, conflicts along the same divides escalate the intensity of the conflict, while cross-cutting cleavages tend to mitigate its severity.

Role of Social Conflict in Social Change

The concept of social conflict’s functions in driving social change encompasses various aspects within social systems, including their relation to institutional rigidity, technological advancement, productivity, and the dynamics between social conflict and systemic changes. Coser suggests that conflict is innate to human nature, permeating not only human society but also extending to all living organisms and natural phenomena. While conflict manifests in the form of wars, it also manifests in everyday interpersonal relationships. However, Coser distinguishes human conflict by its goal-oriented nature, viewing it as a fundamental and constructive aspect of human existence. He delves into its nuances, such as varying levels of violence and the functional outcomes it produces.

Conflict serves to prevent the stagnation of social systems by catalysing innovation and creativity. Within society, conflicts among and within groups act as a catalyst, preventing the ossification of entrenched norms and fostering creativity. Conflict not only spurs the emergence of new norms and institutions but also stimulates economic and technological progress. Economic historians observe how conflict, such as labour disputes facilitated by trade unions, can drive technological advancements by raising wage levels.

Coser’s theory emphasizes the role of emotions in conflict, echoing Simmel’s notion of inherent aggressive impulses in humans. He highlights the presence of both love and hatred in close relationships, suggesting that proximity amplifies opportunities for resentment and conflict, which are natural components of human interaction rather than signs of instability. Coser argues that the nature of hostility and conflict varies sociologically and is instrumental in driving societal change.

Sources of Conflict

Many interpretations of conflict theory revolve around the unequal distribution of limited resources. Weber identified these resources as class, status, and power. Simmel also emphasized the impact of intersecting influences stemming from various structures of inequality. The differing social positions of individuals like Weber and Simmel may intersect with their similar class interests, becoming significant sources of social conflict.

Another fundamental source of conflict, as articulated by Karl Marx, revolves around a group’s perceived deprivation due to class distinctions. This sense of deprivation can lead to class consciousness and eventual conflict, driving social change. Marx focused on elucidating the structural transformations or mechanisms that would awaken the working class to this realization, such as increasing educational levels and the concentration of workers, both of which are structurally demanded by capitalism.

Contemporary iterations of conflict theory have refined the concept of deprivation, highlighting the shift from absolute to relative deprivation as pivotal in fostering critical awareness. This awareness can be further categorized into two components:

1. Absolute deprivation denotes the state of extreme poverty where individuals lack the means to secure life’s essentials such as food, shelter, and clothing, leading to a pervasive uncertainty. Those enduring such circumstances often lack both the resources and the inclination to engage in social upheaval or conflict.

2. On the other hand, relative deprivation pertains to a feeling of being disadvantaged in comparison to others or certain groups. While the necessities of life may be accessible, the perception of others’ comparative prosperity fosters a sense of missing out or falling behind.

Individuals encompassed by both categories possess the emotional and material capacities to participate in social change and conflict. However, it is not solely relative deprivation that incites action; rather, it is the transition from absolute to relative deprivation that can ignite discontent. As individuals ascend socioeconomically, they may amass resources and subsequently feel a sense of loss or deprivation if economic transformations fail to match their escalating expectations.

Concepts and Theory: The Integrating Forces of Conflict

Coser argues for two distinct types of functional outcomes stemming from conflict: internal conflict within a group and external conflict involving entities outside the group. An instance of internal conflict is exemplified by the tensions among indigenous communities, where the conflict occurs within the same societal framework but involves different groups. On the other hand, external group conflicts encompass events such as national wars, where a nation engages in conflict with external entities.

When analysing the repercussions of internal group conflict, Coser focuses on the lower-level, more frequent conflicts that have the potential to escalate into violence. Essentially, Coser emphasizes the role of conflict in maintaining group cohesion and underscores its functional significance. He suggests that conflict, serving as a mechanism to establish identity, ensure stability, and bolster cohesion, can be categorized into these two types:

            1.         Internal Conflict

            2.         External Conflict

1. External Conflict: Coser argues that external conflict plays a crucial role in shaping a group’s identity, drawing from the ideas of Simmel and Marx. Marx posits that conflict fosters class consciousness, while Simmel suggests that it delineates boundaries between groups, fostering group consciousness and a sense of distinctiveness within a social framework. Moreover, Coser distinguishes between conflict in terms of hostile sentiments and actual conflict, suggesting that the former is more integral to group formation. He contends that external conflict not only strengthens a group but also heightens members’ awareness of their identity by providing a stark contrast with a negative reference group. Additionally, it encourages greater participation among group members.

2. Internal Conflict: Coser builds upon the ideas of Durkheim, Mead, and Marx, contending that the dynamic between group cohesion and conflict with individuals deemed ‘deviant’ serves to clarify expected behaviours within the group. He suggests that internal conflicts play a pivotal role in shaping the group’s identity, as manifested through norms that dictate acceptable conduct. Furthermore, Coser posits that internal conflicts contribute to a group’s resilience, unity, and stability.

Drawing from Simmel’s perspective, Coser emphasizes the significance of internal conflict as a mechanism for managing tensions and preventing the disintegration of groups, particularly during times of stress. He echoes Simmel’s assertion that without the capacity for opposition within society, individuals may resort to drastic measures, highlighting the psychological relief and satisfaction derived from engaging in opposition.

Additionally, Coser underscores the importance of internal conflict in maintaining stability within societies characterized by loose structures. He suggests that the continual occurrence of various conflicts intersecting within such societies plays a role in sustaining their stability over time.

Conclusion: Based on the above description, it is argued by Coser that contrary to the beliefs of many previous theorists, conflict can yield both cohesive and divisive outcomes. The nature of conflict varies depending on whether it occurs between distinct groups (external) or within a group, among factions (internal). In cases of internal conflict, its functionality depends on factors such as its reduced violence, increased frequency, lack of threat to fundamental group assumptions, and low density of interactional networks within the group. Under these circumstances, internal conflict can result in:

• the release of built-up hostilities,
• the establishment of norms regulating conflict, and
• the delineation of clear lines of authority and jurisdiction, particularly regarding the issues that fuel conflict.

In contrast, external conflict tends to be more violent and can lead to:

• reinforced group boundaries,
• heightened social solidarity, and
• enhanced utilization of power and authority.

Violent conflict is likely to result in the above outcomes.

Role of Conflict in Society

Throughout human history, conflict has consistently captivated the attention of both individuals and societies. It emerges as a natural consequence of the societal formation process, initiated by actions that impact others, leading to reactions and interactions that can either unite or divide. Conflict, as a form of disassociative social interaction, manifests both positive and negative consequences, often serving the interests of individuals within society.

Cooley (1902) expressed the notion that conflict is integral to societal vitality, with progress arising from the struggle as individuals, classes, or institutions seek to fulfill their respective ideals. Simmel (1955) similarly observed that a completely harmonious group is practically unattainable, highlighting the necessity of both harmony and disharmony for societal formation and growth. Sorel (1908) emphasized the role of conflict in revitalizing a social system’s energies and creative forces.

From these perspectives, it becomes evident that while violent confrontations can be viewed as noble and civilizing, it is unlikely that civilized individuals will entirely relinquish violence as a means to advance worthy causes.

According to Mack and Young (1959), conflicts at their core often lead to the elimination or annihilation of the opposing party. However, in human societies, most conflicts culminate in some form of agreement, accommodation, or even the merging of opposing elements.

It is commonly argued that the origins of states, social structures, and many societal institutions stem from periods of warfare and struggle. While conflict is typically seen as disruptive, it also serves constructive purposes, benefiting both individuals and societies. For example, inter-group conflicts can foster cooperation between groups.

Moreover, conflict can serve to unify a society or group in response to external threats. It also prevents societal stagnation by stimulating innovation and creativity.

Horton and Hunt (1964) elaborate on the effects of conflict, stating that it is a significant form of interaction that impacts both individual personality development and social organization. They note that conflicts are inherent at both the individual and group levels, driving self-consciousness and group cohesion. At the individual level, every challenge or problem can be seen as a conflict, while at the group level, conflict influences organizational dynamics.

In moments of overt conflict, groups often experience a peak in unity and solidarity. When facing external conflicts, such as those with other groups, there’s a tendency for integration within the group. This integration serves a dual purpose: it allows members to channel their hostilities outward, alleviating internal tensions, while also compelling them to cooperate and unite against the common external threat. While external conflict may create division between a group and its adversaries, it also fosters alliances with other groups.

Echoing Georg Simmel’s early insights on social conflict, which emphasized how conflict can both bind members tightly together and drive them apart, Lewis A. Coser further explored the positive functions of conflict in industrial society. He argued that conflict plays a constructive role in society by fostering unity, a concept he elaborated on as follows:

• The dynamics of conflict intricately shape the social hierarchy within a community. Through competition, warfare, and individual struggles, individuals and groups establish their positions of dominance and submission.
• Contrary to popular belief, conflict isn’t universally detrimental. It serves as a primary channel for group interaction and has historically contributed to the advancement and diffusion of culture.
• Ultimately, conflict can pave the way for peace when one party emerges victorious. It also serves to highlight social issues, fostering a new equilibrium among competing forces and often leading to the development of non-violent crisis resolution techniques.
• Moreover, conflict strengthens morale, fosters unity, and encourages collaboration both within and between groups. It keeps members vigilant about their interests and fosters the evolution of new norms and institutions, particularly within economic and technological spheres.
• Within bureaucratic frameworks, conflict prevents stagnation and formalism, ensuring continued adaptability. Additionally, it drives societal transformation, particularly from a Marxist perspective, as conflicts between established interests and emerging groups drive progress and vitality.
• Ultimately, conflict theorists argue that societal advancement relies on conflict as oppressed groups strive for improvement, potentially leading to a new consensus and higher societal order.

Conflict and Social Organisation

Emile Durkheim, often credited as the progenitor of functionalism, introduced an approach that diverged from conflict theory. Coser critiques Durkheim’s perspective as conservative, suggesting it overlooks various societal dynamics, particularly the conscious presence of social conflict. Durkheim’s portrayal of violence and dissent tends to pathologize them, viewing them as disruptions to social stability rather than avenues for positive societal transformation. Despite Coser’s dismissal of Durkheim’s organicism, his own work is replete with organic analogies, aligning somewhat with George Simmel’s organicist views. Moreover, Coser extends his analysis to regard conflict as a process that, under certain conditions, serves to uphold the integrity of society or its essential components. This perspective constructs an image of society wherein conflict plays a functional role in maintaining social cohesion or preserving vital societal functions.

• The social realm can be conceptualized as a complex system comprised of interconnected components.
• Within social systems, disparities, tensions, and conflicting interests among these interconnected components are evident.
• The dynamics within and among these components operate under varied circumstances, aiming to sustain, alter, and enhance or diminish the system’s cohesion and flexibility.
• Numerous phenomena like violence, dissent, deviance, and conflict, often perceived as detrimental to the system, can, under certain conditions, bolster the system’s foundation of cohesion and its ability to adapt to its surroundings.

Coser builds upon certain assumptions to outline a series of contrasts regarding how conflict serves the social system, along with providing propositions on when conflict can result in the disruption and disintegration of the social order. Drawing from Simmel’s incisive examination, Coser broadens the perspective established by Simmel, integrating ideas from Marx, Weber, and modern conflict literature.

Conclusion: Coser’s contribution has significantly addressed the limitations of Dahrendorf’s analysis by incorporating Simmel’s ideas into conflict theory. He acknowledges the presence of forces, coercion, constraint, and conflict but shifts the focus towards examining their integrative and adaptive outcomes. Coser highlights the importance of understanding conflict in terms of its functional roles and the requirements it fulfills, drawing inspiration from Simmel’s organic model rather than Marxian dialectics. In this perspective, conflict is seen as a vital process that fosters integration and adaptation within social systems.

References and Readings:

Sociological Theory, by  Ritzer G, https://amzn.to/3Da3pcm

Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings, by  Coser Lewis A, https://amzn.to/41IcLEe