Читать книгу Sociology - Anthony Giddens - Страница 149

The second enduring dilemma is that of consensus versus conflict. For all functionalist thinkers, society is treated as an integrated whole, composed of structures or institutions which mesh closely with one another. This is very much in accord with Durkheim’s focus on the constraining, ‘external’ character of ‘social facts’. However, the analogy here is not with the walls of a building but with the physiology of the human body.

The body consists of various specialized parts, such as the brain, heart, lungs, liver, and so on, each of which contributes to sustaining the continuing life of the whole organism. These necessarily work in harmony with one another; if they do not, the life of the organism is under threat. Similarly, for a society to have a continuing existence over time, its specialized institutions, such as the political system, religion, the family and the educational system, must all work in harmony with one another. This is a consensus perspective, which focuses on how societies hold together.

Those who focus mainly on conflict have a very different outlook. Their guiding assumptions can be seen in Marx’s theory of class conflict. According to Marx, societies are divided into classes with unequal resources and, since marked inequalities exist, there are divisions of interest that are ‘built into’ the social system. These conflicts at some point break out into active social change. Since Marx, others have identified gender and ethnic divisions or political differences as sources of conflict. For conflict theorists, society inevitably contains divisions and tensions regardless of which social groups are stronger than others.

As with the case of structure and action, it is unlikely that this theoretical dispute can be resolved fully. Yet, once more, the differences between consensus and conflict standpoints may not be as wide as it appears. All societies probably have some loose, general agreement on values, and all certainly involve conflict. As a general rule, sociologists always have to examine the connections between consensus and conflict within societies. The values held by different groups and the goals that their members pursue often reflect a mixture of common and opposed interests. For instance, even in Marx’s theory of class conflict, capitalists depend on a labour force to work in their businesses, just as workers depend on capitalists to provide wages. Open conflict is not continuous because what both sides have in common overrides their differences. For this reason, Max Weber argued that the future of the working classes lay in wringing concessions from capitalism, not in trying to overthrow it.

A useful concept for analysing the interrelation of conflict and consensus is ideology – ideas, values and beliefs which help secure the position of more powerful groups at the expense of less powerful ones. Power, ideology and conflict are always closely connected. Ideological dominance can often create the appearance of consensus, as the internalization of ideological notions leads people to accept gross inequalities of opportunity, status and condition. Those who hold power may depend mainly on the influence of ideology to retain their dominance but are usually able to use force when necessary. For instance, in feudal times, aristocratic rule was supported by the idea that a minority of people were ‘born to govern’, but aristocratic rulers often resorted to violence against those who dared to oppose their power.

In recent times, the so-called Arab Spring of 2010–12 saw the apparently stable societies of the Middle East and North Africa riven with protests and demonstrations which expressed pent-up frustrations and underlying conflicts of interest. In Libya, Bahrain and Syria, when appeals to national pride and shared solidarity had failed, the governing regimes turned to military force to try to put down the protests. The example shows that neither consensus nor conflict are ‘natural’; both are outcomes of social processes.