• Yamalov Ural Buranbaevich, master
• Bashkir State Agrarian University

• MODELS (METHODS) CONFLICT RESOLUTION
• STYLES OF BEHAVIOR IN CONFLICT
• CONFLICT
• CONTRADICTION
• CONFLICT SITUATION

The article discusses the features of the course of the conflict. The outcome of a conflict situation will largely depend not only and not so much on the causes, factors and models of the course of the conflict, the degree of its development, but on the attitude of the participants themselves to the conflict situation.

• Algorithms for effective conflict management

Social conflict is the highest stage in the development of contradictions in relations between people, social groups, social institutions, which is characterized by the strengthening of opposing tendencies, the clash of various interests.

The world is arranged in such a way that conflicts arise in almost all spheres of human activity, which are most often based on emotions and personal hostility, and they are associated with aggression, threat, hostility. The conflict is determined by the fact that the conscious behavior of one of the parties: an individual, a group or an organization, conflicts with the interests of the other party. Conflict management is one of the most important functions of a leader (on average, they spend about 20% of their working time). To manage them, it is necessary to know the types of conflicts, the causes of their occurrence, the features of the course, as well as the consequences to which they can lead.

Social conflicts in the life of society are inevitable, since social development is carried out in the conditions of confrontation of various interests, attitudes, and aspirations. However, in a developed society, there are mechanisms for the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts within the framework of normalized relations.

Individuals and social groups participating in the conflict are called the subjects of the conflict. The issue that needs to be resolved, or the good, because of which there is a collision, is called the subject of the conflict. The cause of the conflict is the objective social circumstances that predetermine its occurrence. The reason for the conflict is a specific incident or social action that provokes a transition to open confrontation.

The difference between a conflict and peaceful confrontation, competition and rivalry for the possession of certain benefits lies in the sharpness of the conflict, which can take the form of open aggression and violent actions.

At the heart of any social conflict is an acute contradiction.

A contradiction is a fundamental incompatibility of important interests and aspirations (political, economic, ethnic, cultural) of individuals and social groups. Dissatisfaction with the current situation and readiness to change it is expressed in the growth of social tension. A conflict arises when one of the parties begins to openly pursue its aspirations to the detriment of the other, which causes an aggressive response.

The contradiction does not always go into the stage of an open conflict, it can be resolved peacefully or persist in society as an implicit opposition of ideas, interests, trends.

Based on various criteria, types of conflicts are distinguished:

• by duration: short-term and protracted conflicts;
• by coverage of participants: global, interethnic, national, local conflicts;
• by spheres of public life: economic, political, labor, socio-cultural, national-ethnic, family-domestic, ideological, spiritual-moral, legal-legal conflicts;
• in the sphere of contradictions: interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup conflicts, as well as conflicts of the group with the external environment;
• by the nature of development: deliberate, spontaneous;
• by means used: violent (military, armed) and non-violent conflicts;
• on social consequences: successful, unsuccessful, constructive, destructive conflicts.

Social conflict goes through several stages in its development:

1. pre-conflict situation - awareness by the parties of the existing contradiction and increasing social tension;
2. the conflict itself - open actions aimed at realizing the aspirations and satisfying the needs that caused the confrontation;
3. conflict resolution - the end of the confrontation, the elimination of the causes of the conflict or the reconciliation of the parties on the basis of a compromise;
4. after the conflict stage - the final elimination of contradictions, the transition to peaceful interaction.

Usually, a social conflict is preceded by a pre-conflict stage, during which contradictions between subjects accumulate and gradually become aggravated.

Before the conflict begins, the parties are aware of the existence of tension due to the dissatisfaction of some important needs, they are looking for ways to resolve the contradiction that has arisen, and they choose ways to influence the enemy.

Most often, social conflict arises due to differences in the level of material well-being, access to power, cultural goods, education, information, as well as differences in religious, worldview, moral attitudes and standards of behavior.

The severity of the pre-conflict situation and the way out of it are determined not only by the significance of the contradiction, but also by the socio-psychological traits of the participants in the conflict: the characteristics of temperament, intelligence, the level of general culture, and communication skills.

The reason for the start of the conflict is an incident - an event or social action aimed at changing the behavior of the opposing side and entailing a transition to open confrontation (verbal debate, economic sanctions, changes in legislation, etc.).

The next stage in the development of the conflict is its escalation, i.e. growth, increase in the scale, number of participants, publicity.

The directly conflict stage of social confrontation is characterized by a set of certain actions that the participants take in order to realize their interests and suppress the enemy.

All participants in a large-scale conflict play a certain role in it, although not all of them are necessarily in a state of confrontation with each other.

Witnesses to the conflict observe the events from the outside, without taking an active part in them.

Mediators are people who try to prevent, stop or resolve a conflict, look for ways to reconcile conflicting interests, and participate in organizing negotiations. Instigators are people who provoke the beginning and further development of the conflict.

Accomplices may not take a direct part in an open clash of opposing subjects, but by their actions contribute to its development, supporting one of the parties.

The resolution of a social conflict is the overcoming of the main contradiction in the interests of the parties, its elimination at the level of the causes of the conflict. The solution to the conflict can be achieved by the conflicting parties themselves without the help of any third parties, or by connecting to the decision of any third party (intermediary). Thus, the conflict resolution model is a set of certain methods for overcoming it. This is far from a randomly chosen method, but directly dependent on the testimony of the diagnostics of a particular conflict.

The models that are used in conflict resolution are formed on the basis of the cultural and legal attitudes in relation to conflict that exist in society, encouraging or prohibiting one or another way of resolving the conflict. The model for resolving any conflict is based on the use of various methods - violent (repression, demonstration of force, various forms of coercion) or peaceful (negotiations, agreements, compromises).

There are four principal ways (models) by which the conflicting parties can resolve their contradictions and get out of the state of conflict:

1. Power (one-sided dominance).
2. Compromise.
3. integral model.
4. Separation of the parties. A certain combination of these four methods is also possible (symbiotic model).

one sided domination(power model) - a method that involves the satisfaction of the interests of one of the conflicting parties at the expense of the interests of the other. Forceful methods of resolving the conflict, in fact, lead to the destruction or complete suppression of the interests of one of the parties to the conflict. In this case, various means of coercion are used, from psychological to physical. This is often a way of transferring blame and responsibility to the weaker party. Thus, the true cause of the conflict is replaced and the dominant will of a stronger subject is unilaterally imposed.

Separation of the parties to the conflict. In this case, the conflict is resolved by terminating interaction, breaking off relations between the conflicting parties, isolating them from each other (for example, divorce of spouses, separation of neighbors, transfer of workers to different areas of production). Separation of the conflicting parties can be done by their retreat, when they both leave the "battlefield". This is how, for example, a skirmish between bus passengers ends when one of them leaves at their stop or a quarrel between neighbors in a communal apartment, which stops after they are relocated.

Model of compromise- a way of reconciling conflicting interests, which consists in mutual concessions in the positions of the conflicting parties. It is important to know that the compromise model for resolving conflicts is based on concessions to conflicts precisely in their interests. Thus, the concept of compromise is used in different senses: in the ordinary sense, these are various concessions to each other, and in the conflict of logic, this is the mutual renunciation of the parties to the conflict from any part of their claims, the mutual sacrifice of interests, for the sake of reaching agreement.

The main advantage of the peaceful resolution of the conflict through compromise is the introduction of the conflict into a constructive framework and the establishment of a process of communication between the parties, finding certain points of agreement (compromise). Nevertheless, a compromise, according to the well-known Western conflict logger K. Lasswell, is “a patchwork quilt that the conflicting parties pull over themselves.” Compromise, as a model for resolving a conflict, is certainly preferable and more civilized than force or disunity, but it is not universal and has its limits of applicability. Do not think that on its basis you can easily resolve any conflict.

Integral model (integral strategy)- provides for the possibility of satisfying the interests of all conflicters, subject to the revision (revision) of their previously formed positions, the goals that they intended to achieve in the conflict. It is called integral not because it combines the qualities and advantages of previous models, but because it is able to integrate the interests of conflicters. When using it, no one sacrifices their interests. Each conflicter seeks to satisfy his interests, and therefore feels like a winner. To achieve such a desirable outcome, the conflictors must abandon their position, reconsider their goals that they set in this conflict.

As a rule, the integral model is achieved as a result of negotiations between the conflicting parties, ending with the adoption of an agreed decision. In order for the conflict to be truly resolved, it is important that the conflicting parties agree among themselves, so that they themselves find the most convenient way out of the conflict situation. In practice, conflicting parties usually enter into some sort of negotiation before resorting to violence or breaking up. The integral model of conflict resolution is an important discovery of the twentieth century in the field of public institutions. One of the many paradoxes of modern Russian society is that the most effective and rational way to resolve conflicts is used much less frequently than it should be. In Russia, most of our fellow citizens do not know that there is a similar model for resolving conflicts, and if they do, they do not like to use it. This is explained by a complex of reasons, among which we note the peculiarities of the mentality of Russians, expressed in an increased commitment to forceful decisions, with the peculiarities of education - we are always taught that the goal is above all and the Russians' misconceptions about adherence to principles. Many identify adherence to principles with stubbornness on their own, with a refusal to revise their position in a conflict, regardless of what this position is caused by. At the same time, it is overlooked that the interests of people and their groups are always more important than the goals that they set for themselves in order to achieve these interests. You need to be flexible in setting and changing your short-term goals, constantly looking after your long-term vital interests. Unfortunately, many do the opposite. Refusing to revise their positions, not taking into account the new conditions that have made them unreasonable, they continue to defend them, which complicates the achievement of fundamental interests.

There are also symbioses of conflict resolution methods - models that combine in a certain sequence - force, compromise, disengagement and integral models of conflict resolution.

In conclusion, it should be noted that it is difficult to foresee all the variety of conflict situations that life creates for us. Therefore, in resolving conflicts, much should be decided on the spot, based on the specific situation, as well as the individual psychological characteristics of the participants in the conflict.

Bibliography

1. Igebaeva F.A. Interpersonal conflict in the organization and its consequences. // Language and Literature in the Conditions of Bilingualism and Polylingualism. Collection of materials of the II All-Russian scientific-practical conference. - Ufa: RIC BashGU, 2012. S. 249 - 252.
2. Igebaeva F.A. Leader and his role in preventing conflicts in organizations // Development of modern society in Russia in the new economy. Materials of the V All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference. - Saratov: Publishing House "KUBiK", 2012. - P. 39 - 42.
3. Igebaeva F.A. Social conflicts and ways to solve them. Socio-economic development of society: education system and knowledge economy. Collection of articles IV International scientific-practical conference. Penza. 2007. - P.33 - 35.
4. Andreeva G.M. "Social psychology", M., 2011. - 678s.
5. Borodkin F.N. "Attention, conflict!", Novosibirsk, 2012. - 679p.
6. Ageev V.S. “Intergroup interaction. Socio-psychological problems”, M., 2013. – 456p.
7. Social Psychology. / Ed. Semenova V.E., 2015. - 888s.
8. Igebaeva F.A. The art of managing people is the most difficult and highest of all the arts in the collection: Science, technology and life - 2014 proceedings of the international scientific conference. editors v.a. iljuhina, v.i. zhukovskij, n.p. ketova, a.m. gazaliev, g.s.mal". 2015. pp. 1073 - 1079.
9. Igebaeva F.A. Conflicts in the organization and their consequences. In the collection: Zprávy vědeckė ideje - 2014. Materiàly X mezinàrodní vědecká-praktická konference. 2014. - S. 27 - 29.
10. Igebaeva F.A. Some ethical and organizational aspects of personnel management In the collection Problems and prospects of the Russian economy. VII All-Russian scientific and practical conference March 26-27, 2008. Penza. 2008. - P. 43 - 45.
11. Igebaeva F.A. Sociology: a textbook for university students. – M.: INFRA-M, 2012. – 236 p. – (Higher education – Bachelor’s degree).
12. Igebaeva F.A. Workshop on sociology: /F.A. Igebaev. - Ufa: Bashkir State Agrarian University, 2012. - 128p.
13. internet resource. Available at: http://www.studfiles.ru/preview/2617345/

Sociology of conflict

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

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

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

Subjects and participants of the conflict .......................................................... ..................................... 4

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

The main types of social conflicts .............................................................. ......................... 7

Conflict of Needs .................................................................. ................................................. .... eight

Conflict of interest................................................ ................................................. ......... nine

Value Conflict .................................................................. ................................................. ... eleven

The main stages of the development of the conflict .................................................... ........................... thirteen

Pre-conflict stage .............................................................. ................................................. thirteen

Stage of development of the conflict .................................................................. ............................................. sixteen

Stage of conflict resolution .............................................................. ......................................... 17

Post-conflict stage .............................................................. ............................................... nineteen

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

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

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

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

Conflicts between the individual group ....................................................... ............................. 34

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

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

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

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

Introduction

In our life we ​​face conflicts everywhere. Starting from banal quarrels in transport and 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 more and more new interests and values.

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

Mankind has been unable throughout history to make sure that there are no negative conflicts left, and there are more positive ones.

In this essay, I do not set myself the task of fully highlighting all the various types of conflicts - there are too many of them. And I do not have the opportunity to study in detail each of them. Political, interethnic, legal and economic conflicts are too broad concepts that deserve a separate in-depth study, 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 start studying conflicts and to write larger scientific papers in the future.

The 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, 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 life attitudes, over authority, over personal differences, etc. Thus, conflicts cover all spheres of people's life, the entire set of social relations, social interaction. The conflict is essentially one of the types of social impact, the subjects and participants of which are individuals, large and small social groups and organizations. However, conflict interaction involves the confrontation of the parties, i.e., actions directed against each other.

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

Subjects and participants in the conflict

The concepts of "subject" and "participant" of the 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 the 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 in addition to his (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 are certain forces pursuing their own personal interests in an alleged or real “foreign” conflict. Indirect participants can:

1. provoke conflict and contribute to its development

2. help reduce the intensity of the conflict or its complete cessation

3. support one or another 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

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

Often there are situations when it is quite difficult to determine the direct subjects of the conflict. A vivid example is ethno-political 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 military operations, or those who perceive each other as rivals and supports the position of its leaders in the conflict? Or are they all together as representatives and members of a particular social group?

Quite often, a conflict, having begun as an interpersonal one, with the appearance of its active adherents on each of its sides, turns into an intergroup one. 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 turns into a personal group conflict for him. In turn, a personal group conflict is often transformed into an intergroup conflict if the individual manages to split off some of its members from the opposing group, make them his adherents or acquire the latter from somewhere else. All these spillovers change the course of the conflict and therefore require careful consideration in its analysis.

Object of conflict

One of the indispensable elements of the conflict is the object, because of which a conflict situation is created. The object is a specific cause, motivation, driving force 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 various proportions between the parties to the conflict.

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

It is far from easy to determine the object in each particular conflict. Subjects and participants in the conflict, pursuing their real or imaginary goals, can hide, mask, replace the desired motives that prompted them to confrontation. For example, in a 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.

The definition of the main object is an indispensable condition for the successful resolution of any conflict. Otherwise, the conflict will either not be resolved in principle (deadlock), or will not be fully resolved, and in the interaction of subjects there will be embers for new collisions.

At the heart of a social conflict there 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 according to the reasons for their origin and the nature of perception.

The 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 puts forward the problem of resources or vital needs in one of the first places.

Conflicts over needs can be divided into two types: first, conflict over real or perceived scarcity of resources; secondly, because of the ratio of short-term and long-term needs.

Consideration of the conflict of needs in various spheres of human activity 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 are manifested in mass habits and cultural skills that are acquired by people in the course of their socialization, individual development, and upbringing.

At the same time, the problem of determining the priority of certain needs remains the most important problem of a socio-political nature. Not a single state, not a single political party can, in its practical policy, turn a blind eye to the needful, in fact essential conflicts that are associated not only with certain options for the use of resources, but also with the choice of certain options for the development of culture itself.

Resources as an object of conflicts are considered, perhaps, most often, mainly in terms of their possession or the desire to acquire them by subjects 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 this it is clear that we are talking about certain means of meeting the needs, the interests and goals arising from them.

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

Conflict of interest.

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

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

Status, acting as 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, for which it is also worth fighting if the current state of affairs prompts it. After all, it depends on him how - equal or unequal - the position of the subject in society, among other social subjects, how free or forced his relationship with them will be, to what extent his self-esteem will be preserved or infringed, etc.

On the part of society, the institutions and systems of distribution of vital goods that have developed in it have the greatest impact on the formation of interests. One way or another, the most essential task of organizing any social community is solved through distribution systems: correlating the result of activity and recognizing this result through remuneration. This should not mean only material or financial rewards. As a reward, a very wide range of not only property, but also spiritual benefits can be used, the provision of which means increasing the prestige of the person or social group being rewarded for what is considered or recognized as beneficial to society.

Through certain types of combination of benefits and rewards, society organizes the interests of social groups, directing them through some more or less stable channels. Interests are therefore directed not at an abstract society in general, but at a system of social institutions and, above all, at the institutions of distribution, which turn out to be the main instruments for regulating social status.

value conflict.

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

Values, understood, of course, not in a broad sense - as everything that is positively significant from the point of view of meeting human needs, but more narrowly - as something fundamentally important for a particular social subject and his life, very often act as an object of social conflicts, for which he is ready to fight resolutely. In general, they 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 on the basis of values, also unlike conflicts on the basis of resources, as a rule, arise due to the imposition of them by one social subject on another, forced involvement in them, or because of the neglect of them by other subjects.

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 there are no real reasons for the conflict;

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

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

a constructive conflict that arose on the basis of contradictions that actually exist between the subjects

Random conflict - a conflict that arose due to a misunderstanding or a random coincidence of circumstances;

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 participants who are not related to the conflict are involved in the conflict.

If the mental state of the parties and the behavior of people in conflict situations corresponding to this state are taken as the basis for the classification, 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

The conflict is preceded by a pre-conflict situation. This is the growth of tension in relations between potential subjects of the conflict, caused by certain contradictions. Only those contradictions that are perceived by potential subjects of the conflict as incompatible oppositions 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 characteristic of the reasons causing the growth of social tension:

a) real "infringement" of the interests, needs and values ​​of people;

b) inadequate perception of the changes taking place in society or individual social communities;

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

Social tension essentially represents the psychological state of people and is latent (hidden) before the start of the conflict. 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 events leads to an increase in social tension.

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

the emergence of contradictions about a certain controversial object; growth of distrust and social tension; the presentation of unilateral or mutual claims, the reduction of contacts and the accumulation of grievances;

· the desire to prove the legitimacy of their claims and the accusation of the enemy of unwillingness to resolve controversial issues by "fair" methods; closing on their own stereotypes; the appearance of prejudice and hostility in the emotional sphere;

destruction of interaction structures; transition from mutual accusations to threats; growth of aggressiveness; the 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. In order for the conflict to become real, an incident is needed.

The incident is a formal reason for the start of a direct confrontation between the parties.

An incident can happen by chance, or it can be provoked by the subject (subjects) of the conflict. An incident may also be the result of a natural course of events. It happens that an incident is prepared and provoked by some "third force", pursuing its own interests in the alleged "foreign" conflict.

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

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

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

The incident becomes a signal for the beginning of an open confrontation. The choice of one or another option largely depends on the conflict setting (goals, expectations) of the parties.

Stage of development of the conflict

The beginning of an open confrontation of the parties is the result of conflict behavior, which is understood as actions aimed at the opposing side with the aim of capturing, holding the disputed object or forcing the opponent to abandon their goals or to 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) compromise behavior. 4

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

There are three main phases in the development of the conflict in its second stage.

1. The transition of the conflict from a latent state to an open confrontation of the parties. The struggle is still being waged with limited resources and is local in nature. There is a first test of strength. At this stage, 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 actions of the enemy, more and more resources of the parties are introduced. Almost all opportunities to find a compromise are lost. The conflict is becoming more and more unmanageable and unpredictable.

3. The conflict reaches its climax and takes the form of a total war with the use of all possible forces and means. At this phase, the conflicting parties seem to forget the true causes and goals of the conflict. The main goal of the confrontation is to cause maximum damage to the enemy.

Stage of conflict resolution

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 waging a struggle, on the reaction to the environmental conflict, on the symbols of victory and defeat, on the available and possible methods (mechanisms) finding consensus, etc.

At a certain stage in the development of the conflict, the conflicting parties may significantly change their ideas about their capabilities and the capabilities of the enemy. There comes a moment of “reassessment of values”, due to new relationships that have arisen as a result of the conflict, a new alignment of forces, the realization 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 of the 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 stage of conflict resolution, the following scenarios are possible:

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

2) the struggle goes on until the complete defeat of one of the parties;

3) due to lack of resources, the struggle takes on a protracted, sluggish character;

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 the pressure of a third force. 5

Social conflict will continue until there are obvious, clear conditions for its termination. In a fully institutionalized conflict, such conditions can be determined even 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 already in the course of 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 fought 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 participants in 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 of available agreements. In interpersonal and intergroup conflicts, the results of negotiations can take the form of verbal 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 "hostilities", but go to aggravate the conflict, trying to strengthen their positions in the negotiations. Negotiations involve a mutual search for a compromise by the conflicting parties and include the following possible procedures:

Recognition of the existence of a conflict;

Approval of procedural rules and regulations;

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

Exploring possible solutions to problems;

Search for agreements on each controversial issue and settlement of the conflict in general;

Documentation of all agreements reached;

Fulfillment of all accepted mutual obligations. 6

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

Post-conflict stage

The end of the direct confrontation of 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 it was possible to achieve the pursued goal during the conflict and subsequent negotiations;

By what methods and ways the struggle was waged;

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

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

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

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

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

Was the compromise imposed under forceful pressure (by one of the parties or by 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 outcome of the conflict.

If one or both sides believe that the signed peace agreements infringe on their interests, then the tension in the relationship 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 contentious issues that caused the conflict. The most durable is a peace concluded on the basis of consensus, when the parties consider the conflict to be fully resolved and build their relations on the basis of trust and cooperation.

Types of social conflicts.

Intrapersonal conflicts

The solution 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 designated 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. Variants are possible 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 features, determined by the existing system of social relations, culture and biological characteristics of the individual. Intrapersonal conflict, like any other social conflict, involves the conflict interaction of two or more parties. In one person, several mutually exclusive needs, goals, values, interests can simultaneously exist. All of them are socially determined, 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 a social conflict.

Any action of a person is both an interaction with the Other within himself and a counteraction to the Other as a participant in the dialogue. But the conflict is caused only by mutually exclusive tendencies of equal importance, when a person seems to split in two in making a decision, when the choice of one or another trend involves the forceful pressure of One on the Other, i.e., confrontation and violence.

Allocate a psychological conflict, when the barrier to certain actions lies in ourselves. These are the problems of choosing between two different aspirations:

a) conflict of needs (you want to eat and treat yourself);

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

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

One of the types of intrapersonal conflict is an unconscious internal conflict. It is based on any conflict situations that have not been fully resolved in the past, which we have already forgotten about. But on an unconscious level, we continue to carry the burden of problems unresolved 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 a past unresolved situation.

Competitiveness and rivalry pervade all spheres of our life, and often superiority for one means failure for another. Potential hostile tension breeds fear. The prospect of failure and the threat of losing a sense of self-respect can also be a source of fear. Market relations presuppose aggressive-competitive interaction, and Christian morality preaches the brotherly love of people to 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 behave far from the same way. Social psychology distinguishes four most common types of people's behavior in conflict situations: “The first type is aggressive behavior that contributes to the development of conflict; the second is behavior that indicates a tendency to compromise; the third is associated with a tendency to submit, that is, to make the decision of the opposite side; the fourth type shows a tendency to avoid conflict. 8 In real life, each of these types does not occur in its pure form, but most people, with certain reservations, can be attributed to one or another type of conflict behavior.

Interpersonal conflicts

Interpersonal conflicts can be viewed as a clash of personalities in the process of their relationship. Such clashes can occur in a wide variety of spheres and areas (economic, political, industrial, socio-cultural, domestic, etc.). The reasons for such clashes are infinitely varied - from a convenient place in public transport to the presidential chair in government structures.

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

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

Individuals face in interpersonal conflicts, protecting not only their personal interests. They can also represent the interests of individual groups, institutions, organizations, labor collectives, 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 are opponents.

All interpersonal conflicts arising from the clash of goals and interests can be divided into three main types.

The first one presupposes a fundamental clash, in which the realization of the goals and interests of one opponent can be achieved only at the expense of infringing on the interests of another.

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

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

Interpersonal conflicts can also be divided into the following types:

a) rivalry - the desire for dominance;

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

c) discussion - discussion of a controversial issue.

The social heterogeneity of society, the difference in income levels, power, prestige, etc. often leads to social conflicts.

They are an integral part of social life and are always associated with the subjective consciousness of people, the inconsistency of their interests of certain social groups. Aggravations of contradiction give rise to open or closed conflicts only when they are deeply experienced by people and are realized as incompatibility of goals and interests.

Conflict- this is a clash of opposing goals, opinions, interests, positions of opponents or subjects of interaction.

social conflict- this is a confrontation between individuals or groups pursuing socially significant goals. It occurs when one side seeks to realize its goals or interests to the detriment of the other.

English sociologist E. Giddens gave the following definition of conflict: "by social conflict, I understand the real struggle between acting people or groups, regardless of what the sources of this struggle are, its methods and means mobilized by each side."

Conflict is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Every society, every social group, social community is subject to conflicts to one degree or another.

In science, there is a special branch of sociological knowledge that directly studies this social phenomenon - conflictology.

The main subjects of conflicts are social groups, since their needs, claims, goals can only be realized through the use of power. That is why such political forces as the state apparatus, political parties, parliamentary groups, factions, “influence groups”, etc. take part in conflicts. It is they who are the spokesmen for the will of large social groups and the main bearers of social interests.

In conflictology, much attention is paid to the concept of the strength of the participants in a social conflict.

Force- this is the ability of the opponent to realize his goal against the will of the interaction partner. It includes a number of different components:

1) physical force, including technical means used as an instrument of violence;

2) an information-civilizational form of the use of social force, requiring the collection of facts, statistical data, analysis of documents, study of expert examination materials in order to ensure complete knowledge about the essence of the conflict, about one’s opponent in order to develop a strategy and tactics of behavior, use materials that discredit the opponent, etc. d.;

3) social status, expressed in socially recognized indicators (income, level of power, prestige, etc.);

4) other resources - money, territory, time limit, psychological resource, etc.

The stage of conflict behavior is characterized by the maximum use of force by the participants in the conflict, the use of all means at their disposal. A significant influence on the development of the conflict is exerted by the surrounding social environment, which determines the conditions in which the social conflict proceeds.

It can act either as a source of external support for the participants in the conflict, or as a deterrent, or as a neutral factor.

Social conflict usually goes through major stages.

In conflictology, it is customary to distinguish the following stages of the course of the conflict:

1) a hidden stage, at which the contradictions between the participants in the conflict are not yet recognized and are manifested only in explicit or implicit dissatisfaction with the situation;

2) the formation of a conflict - a clear understanding of the claims, which, as a rule, are expressed to the opposite side in the form of demands;

3) incident - an event that takes the conflict to the stage of active actions;

4) active actions of the parties that contribute to the achievement of the highest point of the conflict, after which it subsides;

5) the end of the conflict, and it is not always carried out by satisfying the claims of the parties.

It is also necessary to remember that at any of these stages, the conflict can end either independently, or by agreement of the parties, or with the participation of a third party.

2. Types of conflicts

In modern sociological literature, there are many classifications of types of conflicts on various grounds.

From the point of view of the subjects entering into the conflict, four types of conflicts can be distinguished:

1) intrapersonal (can take the following forms: role - occurs when conflicting requirements are made to one person about what the result of his work should be; intrapersonal - can also arise as a result of the fact that production requirements are not consistent with personal needs or values );

2) interpersonal (can manifest itself as a clash of personalities with different character traits, attitudes, values ​​and is the most common);

3) between the individual and the group (occurs if the individual takes a position that differs from the position of the group);

4) intergroup.

Conflicts can be classified by spheres of life into political, socio-economic, national-ethnic and others.

Political- these are conflicts over the distribution of power, dominance, influence, authority. They arise from the clash of different interests, rivalry and struggle in the process of acquiring, redistributing and exercising political and state power.

Political conflicts are associated with consciously formulated goals aimed at winning leading positions in institutions in the structures of political power. The main political conflicts are:

1) between branches of government;

2) inside the parliament;

3) between political parties and movements;

4) between various links of the administrative apparatus.

Socio-economic- these are conflicts over the means of subsistence, the level of wages, the use of professional and intellectual potential, the level of prices for goods and services, access to the distribution of material and spiritual wealth.

National-ethnic- these are conflicts that arise in the course of the struggle for the rights and interests of ethnic and national groups.

According to the classification D. Katz conflicts are:

1) between indirectly competing subgroups;

2) between directly competing subgroups;

3) within the hierarchy and about remuneration.

Conflict Explorer K. Boulding identifies the following types of conflicts:

1) real (existing objectively in a certain social subsystem;

2) random (depending on minor points in relation to the fundamental contradictions that cause conflict);

3) substitutive (which are a visible manifestation of hidden conflicts);

4) based on poor knowledge (the result of inept management);

5) hidden, latent (participants for various reasons cannot fight openly);

6) false (creating only appearance).

The current view is that some conflicts are not only possible, but may even be desirable.

Accordingly, there are two types of conflicts:

1) the conflict is considered functional if it leads to an increase in the efficiency of the organization;

2) the conflict can also be dysfunctional and lead to a decrease in personal satisfaction, group cooperation and organizational effectiveness.

3. Compromise and consensus as a form of completion of social conflict

An external sign of conflict resolution may be the end of the incident.

Elimination of the incident is necessary, but this is not a sufficient condition for resolving the conflict. Complete resolution of the conflict situation is possible only when the conflict situation changes.

This change can take many forms, but the most radical change is the one that removes the causes of the conflict.

It is also possible to resolve a social conflict by changing the demands of one side: the opponent makes concessions and changes the goals of his behavior in the conflict.

In modern conflictology, two types of successful conflict resolution can be distinguished: compromise and consensus.

Compromise is a way to resolve the conflict, when the conflicting parties realize their interests and goals through either mutual concessions, or concessions from the weaker side, or from the side that managed to prove the validity of its claims to the one who voluntarily renounced part of his claims.

Consensus- the presence between two or more individuals of similar orientations in any respect, one or another degree of agreement and consistency in actions. It is easy to see that it is precisely at the stage of conflict resolution that such a situation is possible under certain conditions.

M. Weber considers consensus as an integral characteristic of any human community, as long as it exists and does not break up.

He contrasts consensus with solidarity, arguing that behavior based on consensus does not require it as a condition.

At the same time, it must be remembered that consensus does not completely exclude the conflict of interests between the parties. Also, the consensus does not completely rule out the possibility of a new conflict flaring up.

According to M. Weber, consensus is an objectively existing probability that, despite the absence of a preliminary agreement, the participants in one form or another of interaction will treat each other's expectations as significant for themselves. Thus, consensus is not always associated with conflict behavior.

It is easy to see that Weber's interpretation considers this social phenomenon in the broadest sense of the word.

From this we can conclude that consensus is not always generated by conflict, just as conflict does not always end in consensus.

With this understanding of consensus, behavior based on consent is different from behavior based on contract. At the same time, consensus is the primary form - it arises in the minds of people.

The treaty is secondary, since it is the normative consolidation of consensus.

Achieving consensus in society presupposes achieving political consensus.

It is usually understood as a state of agreement in relation to a particular political course in general or its individual aspects.

At the same time, such consent is not identical with joint actions and does not necessarily imply cooperation in the implementation of the relevant goals and objectives. The very degree of agreement in consensus may be different, although it is understood that it must be supported, if not by an overwhelming, then at least by a significant majority.

Varying from problem to problem, the degree of consensus is usually higher in views on provisions of a more general, abstract nature.

That is why the conflicting parties, for more successful negotiations, need to start them with such topics, as this will give them more chances to find a common consensus.

In order to maintain consensus in society, three circumstances must be taken into account.

First, the natural willingness of the majority to follow the laws, regulations, and norms in force.

Secondly, a positive perception of institutions designed to implement these laws and regulations.

Thirdly, the feeling of belonging to a certain community, which contributes to a certain leveling of the role of differences.

Typology of conflicts

Factors of interethnic regional conflicts

Conditions and factors of social conflict

Conditions and factors of conflicts

Sources of conflict

Causes of social conflict

Causes and sources of social conflict

Determinants and typology of social conflicts

Issues for discussion

1. What is conflict and what is its structure?

2. Which elements of the conflict structure are objective, which are subjective?

3. What are the main approaches to understanding the dynamics of the conflict?

4. What is the essence of the latent period in the dynamics of the conflict?

5. Prove that conflict is a multidimensional dynamic phenomenon.

6. Graphically depict the structure of the conflict, the dynamics of the conflict.

In general philosophical terms, the concept "cause" means a phenomenon whose action causes or produces some other phenomenon, which is called an effect. In society, as well as in nature, there is an infinite number of cause-and-effect relationships and dependencies. And conflicts here are no exception, they can also be generated by a variety of reasons: external and internal, universal and individual, material and ideal, objective and subjective, etc.

Causes of the conflict- these are problems, phenomena, events that precede the conflict and, in certain situations that develop in the course of the activities of the subjects of social interaction, cause it.

It should also be noted that it is necessary to distinguish the cause of the conflict from its cause. cause of conflict serves as a phenomenon that contributes to its occurrence, but does not determine the emergence of conflict with necessity. In contrast to the reason, the reason arises by chance and can be created quite artificially, as they say, “from scratch”. The reason reflects the natural connection of things. So, an unsalted (oversalted) dish can serve as a reason for a family conflict, while the true reason may be the lack of love between spouses.

Among the huge variety of causes of conflicts, general and particular causes can be distinguished. General groups of causes:

1) socio-political and economic reasons related to the socio-political and economic situation in the country;

2) socio-demographic reasons, reflecting differences in the attitudes and motives of people, due to their gender, age, belonging to ethnic groups, etc.;

3) socio-psychological causes reflecting socio-psychological phenomena in social groups: relationships, leadership, group motives, collective opinions, moods, etc.;

4) individual psychological reasons, reflecting the individual psychological characteristics of the individual: abilities, temperament, character, motives, etc.

Among the most common reasons social conflicts are:

Different or completely opposite perception of goals, values, interests and behavior by people;

Unequal position of people in imperatively coordinated associations (some - govern, others - obey);

Discord between people's expectations and actions;

Misunderstandings, logical errors and generally semantic difficulties in the communication process;

Lack and poor quality of information;

The imperfection of the human psyche, the discrepancy between reality and ideas about it.

Private Causes directly related to the specifics of a particular type of conflict. For example, dissatisfaction with the conditions of labor relations, violation of work ethics, non-compliance with labor laws, limited resources, differences in goals and means to achieve them, etc.

Let us dwell on the causes of conflicts determined by the labor process. After all, for many labor collectives they are the leading source of conflict situations.

There are several ways or methods to determine the causes of conflict behavior. As an example, consider one of them - conflict mapping method. Its essence consists in a graphical display of the components of the conflict, in a consistent analysis of the behavior of the participants in conflict interaction, in the formulation of the main problem, the needs and fears of the participants, and ways to eliminate the causes that led to the conflict.

The work consists of several stages.

At the first stage, the problem is described in general terms. If, for example, we are talking about inconsistency in work, that someone does not “pull the strap” along with everyone, then the problem can be displayed as “load distribution”. If the conflict arose due to a lack of trust between the individual and the group, then the problem can be expressed as "communication". At this stage, it is important to determine the very nature of the conflict, and yet it does not matter that this does not fully reflect the essence of the problem. The problem should not be defined in the form of a double choice of opposites “yes or no”, it is advisable to leave the possibility of finding new and original solutions.

At the second stage, the main participants in the conflict are identified. You can enter individuals or entire teams, departments, groups, organizations into the list. To the extent that the people involved in the conflict have common needs in relation to this conflict, they can be grouped together. A combination of group and personal categories is also allowed.

For example, if a conflict map is drawn up between two employees in an organization, then these employees can be included in the map, and the remaining specialists can be combined into one group, or the head of this unit can also be singled out separately.

The third stage involves listing the basic needs and fears associated with them, all the main participants in the conflict interaction. It is necessary to find out the motives of behavior behind the positions of the participants in this matter. The actions of people and their attitudes are determined by their desires, needs, motives, which must be established.

The term "fear" means concern, anxiety of the individual when it is impossible to realize one of their needs. In this case, one should not discuss with the participants in the conflict how justified their fears and concerns are until they are mapped. For example, one of the participants in the conflict had a fear about something that, when drawn up, seems unlikely. At the same time, there is a fear, and it must be entered into the map, its existence must be recognized. The advantage of the cartography method is that it is possible to speak out in the process of drawing up a map and reflect irrational fears on it. Fears can include the following positions: failure and humiliation, fear of making a mistake, financial ruin, the possibility of being rejected, loss of control over the situation, loneliness, the possibility of being criticized or condemned, loss of a job, low wages, fear that he (the participant in the conflict) will be commanded that you have to start all over again. Using the concept of "fear", it is possible to identify motives that are not called aloud by the participants in the conflict. For example, for some people it is easier to say that they do not tolerate disrespect than to admit that they need respect.

As a result of drawing up the map, the points of convergence of interests of the conflicting parties are clarified, the fears and concerns of each of the parties are more clearly manifested, and possible ways out of the situation are determined.

- clash of oppositely directed goals, interests, positions, opinions or views of the subjects of interaction.
There are several points of view on the conflict in public relations, extreme positions are as follows:
1) conflict in social relations is always present (in various forms). The conflict between individual elements of the social structure is the normal state of society. Dangerous are only conflicts in the acute stage of development. The task of the parties to the conflict is to understand the opposite side and bring the positions of the parties closer by searching for a compromise. This point of view is characteristic of the conflictological approach;
2) the conflict is dangerous for society. It must be extinguished by all possible methods and at any cost a compromise must be reached. Compromise, agreement between opposing, different positions, opinions, directions, etc., achieved through mutual concessions. After reaching a compromise, it is necessary to move from conflict to cooperation. (Cooperation is a mutually beneficial development of the process.). This point of view can be conditionally designated functionalist.
Between these extreme points of view there are a number of others.
Based on a different understanding of the role of conflict in society, these two approaches consider the mutual influence of cooperation and conflict in different ways. From the point of view of the conflictological approach, cooperation arises directly from the structure of the conflict. Successful conflict resolution in any case leads to cooperation, in one form or another. From the point of view of the functional approach, cooperation does not follow at all from the structure of the conflict. Cooperation arises only if it is successfully resolved, otherwise the conflict passes into a latent (hidden) phase and subsides, while no cooperation of the parties arises.
Majority social conflicts arises from one or another basis of social inequality, or, more precisely, from social differentiation on these grounds.
The main signs of conflict:
1) the presence of a situation that is perceived by opposite parties as a conflict;
2) the presence of opposite goals, needs, interests and methods of achieving them among the participants in the conflict;
3) the interaction of the conflicting parties and the results of this interaction;
4) use of pressure and force.
The main causes of the conflict:
1) allocation of resources;
2) interdependence of people and organizations;
3) differences in goals and objectives;
4) differences in ideas and values;
5) communicative differences (differences in the ways and methods of mutual communication).
The structure of the conflict and the stages of its development. Conflictology has developed two models for describing the conflict: procedural and structural. The procedural model focuses on the dynamics of the conflict, the emergence of a conflict situation, the transition of the conflict from one phase to another, the forms of conflict behavior, and the final outcome of the conflict. In the structural model, the emphasis shifts to an analysis of the conditions that underlie the conflict and determine its dynamics. The main purpose of this model is to establish parameters that influence conflict behavior and specify the forms of this influence.

Let's try to combine these two models. Usually in social conflict There are 4 stages: pre-conflict, conflict, conflict resolution and post-conflict. In turn, each of these stages can be divided into a number of phases. The first pre-conflict stage is divided into two phases. The initial phase is characterized by the formation of a conflict situation - the accumulation and aggravation of contradictions in the system of interpersonal and group relations due to the emerging sharp divergence of interests, values ​​and attitudes of the subjects of conflict interaction. At this stage, we can talk about the latent (latent) phase of the development of the conflict.
The second phase begins with an incident or occasion, i.e. some external event that sets the conflicting parties in motion. At this phase, the conflicting parties become aware of the incentive motives, i.e. the opposites of their interests, goals, values, etc. In the second phase of the first stage, the conflict from the latent stage passes into the open one and is expressed in various forms of conflict behavior.
Conflict behavior characterizes the second, main stage in the development of the conflict. Conflict behavior is actions aimed at directly or indirectly blocking the achievement by the opposing side of its goals, intentions, interests. To enter this phase, it is necessary not only to realize one's goals and interests as opposed to the other side, but also to form an attitude to fight against it. The formation of such an attitude is the task of the first phase of conflict behavior. The conflict of interest in this phase takes the form of sharp disagreements, which individuals and social groups not only seek to resolve, but also exacerbate in every possible way, continuing to destroy the former structures of normal interconnections, interactions and relationships. In the emotional sphere, this phase is characterized by an increase in aggressiveness, a transition from prejudice and hostility to outright hostility, which is mentally fixed in the "image of the enemy." Thus, conflict actions sharply exacerbate the emotional background of the conflict, while the emotional background, in turn, stimulates conflict behavior.
In modern conflictology, much attention is paid to the concept of “strength” of the participants in conflicts. Strength - the ability of the opponent to realize his goal against the will of the interaction partner. It includes a number of heterogeneous components: 1) physical force, including technical means, used as an instrument of violence; 2) an informational form of the use of force, requiring the collection of facts, statistical data, analysis of documents, study of expert examination materials, etc. in order to ensure complete knowledge about the essence of the conflict, about one’s opponent in order to develop a strategy and tactics of behavior, use materials that discredit the opponent, etc.; 3) social status, expressed in socially recognized indicators (income, level of power, prestige, etc.); 4) other resources - money, territory, time limit, number of supporters, etc. The stage of conflict behavior is characterized by the maximum use of the strength of the participants in conflicts, the use of all the resources at their disposal.
An important influence on the development of conflict relations is exerted by the surrounding social environment, which determines the conditions in which conflict processes take place. The environment can act either as a source of external support for the participants in the conflict, or as a deterrent, or as a neutral factor. ,
The first stage of conflict behavior generates a tendency to intensify the conflict, but it can stimulate its participants to find ways to resolve the conflict. The looming turning point in the development of the conflict is characteristic of the second phase of conflict behavior. At this phase, a kind of “revaluation of values” takes place. The fact is that before the conflict began, the parties had a certain image of the conflict situation, ideas about the opponent and his intentions and resources, about the reaction of the external environment, etc. It is this image, i.e. the ideal picture of the conflict situation, and not the reality itself, is the direct psychological reality of the conflict behavior of the parties. But the course of conflict interaction could significantly change the perceptions of the parties about themselves and each other, and about the external environment. It may also be that the conflicting parties, or one of them, have exhausted their resources. All this, like many other things, serves as an incentive to develop a decision on the strategy and tactics of further behavior. Consequently, the phase of “revaluation of values” is also the phase of “choice”.
Conflicting groups can choose the following programs of behavior: 1) achieving their goals at the expense of another group and thereby bringing the conflict to a higher degree of tension; 2) reduce the level of tension, but preserve the conflict situation itself, turning it into a latent form through partial concessions to the opposite side; 3) look for ways to completely resolve the conflict. If the third program of behavior is chosen, the third stage in the development of the conflict begins - the stage of resolution.
The resolution of the conflict is carried out both through a change in the objective situation, and through a subjective, psychological restructuring, a change in the subjective image of the situation that has developed with the warring party. In general, partial or complete resolution of the conflict is possible. Complete resolution means the end of the conflict at the objective and subjective levels, a radical restructuring of the entire image of the conflict situation. In this case, the “image of the enemy” is transformed into the “image of the partner”, and the psychological attitude to fight is replaced by an orientation towards cooperation. With a partial resolution of the conflict, only the external conflict behavior changes, but the internal incentives to continue the confrontation remain, restrained either by strong-willed, reasonable arguments, or by the sanction of a third party.

Modern conflictology has formulated the conditions under which a successful resolution of social conflicts is possible. One of the important conditions is the timely and accurate diagnosis of its causes. And this involves the identification of objectively existing contradictions, interests, goals. An analysis carried out from this point of view makes it possible to outline the “business zone” of the conflict situation. Another, no less important condition is the mutual interest in overcoming contradictions on the basis of mutual recognition of the interests of each of the parties. To do this, the parties to the conflict must strive to free themselves from hostility and mistrust towards each other. Such a state can be achieved on the basis of a goal that is meaningful to each group, while at the same time uniting the opposing groups in the past on a broader basis. The third, indispensable condition is the joint search for ways to overcome the conflict. Here it is possible to use a whole arsenal of means and methods: direct dialogue between the parties, negotiations through an intermediary, negotiations with the participation of a third party, etc.
Functions of the conflict (according to L. Kozer)
1. Establishing clear boundaries for a particular group.
2. Centralization of decision-making in the group.
3. Group integration.
4. Soft conflicts prevent harder ones.
5. Soft conflicts make it easier to change the entire social system, replace the old obsolete ones and create new necessary social norms.
There is no single typology of conflicts in sociology. The selection of individual types depends on the criteria on which they are built.
Depending on the direction of conflicts, they are divided into horizontal, occurring between objects located at the same level of social space, and vertical, arising between participants occupying different status positions.
The situation of the conflict can end either with the victory of one of the parties in the conflict, or with the achievement of a certain compromise. In the event that one of the parties won the conflict, it is possible that the conflict will simply move into a latent (latent) phase. As a rule, the losing side has a thirst for revenge, which is fraught with the transition after a while of the conflict again into an open phase.
Universal ways to resolve conflicts
1. Institutionalization and structuring of the conflict, i.e. establishing regulations, rules that may include a ban on the use of violent actions and on the involvement of new participants, as well as the involvement of authoritative persons trusted by both parties to resolve the conflict.
2. Legitimation of the conflict resolution procedure, i.e. recognition by all parties of the legitimacy and fairness of the procedure for resolving the conflict.
3 Conflict reduction, i.e. its weakening by transferring to a softer level of confrontation.
Extremism, compromise, tolerance. When resolving a conflict, it is necessary to strive to find a certain compromise. At the same time, the tolerant attitude of the parties to the conflict towards each other is of considerable importance. Tolerance- tolerance for someone else's way of life, behavior, customs, feelings, opinions, ideas, beliefs. Significant difficulties in resolving the conflict arise when at least one of the parties takes an extremist position - an extreme position on any issue, consisting in an unwillingness to make even the slightest compromise.
Social legislation and, in general, the social policy of the state should strive to localize existing conflicts and prevent the emergence of their acute centers, since in such cases social instability arises.
Social conflicts in Russia, as in other countries of the world, are quite diverse. They can be divided into global and local in terms of intensity and distribution area. Global conflicts, as a rule, are more intense, affect a significant proportion of the country's population, and occur over a large area.