Social conflicts in modern society. Conflicts in modern society Examples of social conflicts in the Russian Federation

Content
1. Introduction 2

2. Main aspects of social conflicts 2

2.1. Classification of conflicts 4

2.2. Characteristics of social conflicts 5

3. Stages of social conflicts 8

4. Social conflicts in modern society 12

4.1. Basic conditions of industrial conflicts 13

4.2. The evolution of the strike movement 16

5. Conclusion 19

6. References 21
1. Introduction
Social heterogeneity of society, differences in income levels, power,

prestige, etc. often lead to conflict. Conflicts are

An integral part of public life. The modern life of Russian society is especially rich in conflicts. All this leads to close attention to the study of conflicts. The widespread occurrence of this phenomenon served as the basis for this work.

Questions about the possibility of a society without conflicts is

Whether the conflict is a manifestation of organizational dysfunctions, an anomaly in social life, or whether it is a normal, necessary form of social interaction between people, this study illuminates to some extent.

The relevance of the topic is evidenced by the fact that the collision of points

Views, opinions, positions are a very frequent occurrence in production and

public life. Therefore, in order to develop the right line of conduct in various conflict situations, it is necessary to know what a conflict is and how people come to an agreement. Knowledge of conflicts improves the culture of communication and

Makes a person's life not only more peaceful, but also more stable in

Psychological attitude.

1 Conflict, especially social conflict, is a very interesting phenomenon in

Public life of people, and in this regard, it is not accidental that many prominent scientists who are engaged in a very wide range of sciences are interested in it. So Professor N.V. Mikhailov wrote: “Conflict is a stimulus and a brake on progress, development and degradation, good and evil.”

2 Einstein observed that nature is complex but not malicious. Nature

Conflicts are different: the conflicting parties can be malicious, benevolent or neutral, sometimes not knowing themselves, and even more so not knowing the true tendencies of the other side.
^ 2.Main aspects of social conflicts.
The social heterogeneity of society, the difference in income levels, power,

Prestige, etc. often lead to conflict. Conflicts are

An integral part of public life. This causes close attention of sociologists to the study of conflicts.

Conflict is a clash of opposing goals, positions, opinions and views of opponents or subjects of interaction. The English sociologist E. Gidens gave the following definition of conflict: “By conflict, I mean a real struggle between acting people or groups, regardless of what the origins of this struggle are , its methods and means mobilized by each of the parties”. Conflict is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Every society, every social group, social community is subject to conflicts to one degree or another. The wide distribution of this phenomenon and the heightened attention to it by society and scientists contributed to the emergence of a special branch of sociological knowledge - conflictology. Conflicts are classified according to their structure and research areas.

Social conflict is a special kind of interaction of social forces, with

Which action of one side, faced with the opposition of the other, makes it impossible to realize its goals and interests.

The main subjects of the conflict are large social groups.

The prominent conflictologist R. Dorendorf refers to the subjects of the conflict three types of social groups.

one). Primary groups are direct participants in the conflict. Which are in a state of interaction regarding the achievement of objectively or subjectively incompatible goals.

2). Secondary groups - tend to be uninvolved directly in the conflict. But they contribute to fueling the conflict. At the stage of exacerbation, they can become the primary side.

3). Third forces are interested in resolving the conflict.

The subject of the conflict is the main contradiction due to which and

For the sake of resolution of which the subjects enter into confrontation.

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 stage 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 the parameters that influence the conflict behavior and the specification of the forms of this behavior.

Much attention is paid to the concept of “strength” of the participants in conflicts. Force -

This is the ability of the opponent to realize his goal against the will of the interaction partner. It includes a number of heterogeneous components:

Physical force, including technical means used as an instrument of violence;

An informationally civilized form of the use of 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.;

Social status, expressed in socially recognized indicators

(income, level of power, prestige, etc.);

Other resources - money, territory, time limit, number of supporters, etc.

The stage of conflict behavior is characterized by the maximum

By using the power of the participants in conflicts, by using 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.

^ 2.1. Classification of conflicts.
All conflicts can be classified depending on the areas of disagreement.

In the following way.

1. Personal conflict. This zone includes conflicts occurring

Inside the personality, at the level of individual consciousness. Such conflicts may be associated, for example, with excessive dependence or role tension. This is a purely psychological conflict, but it can be a catalyst for the emergence of group tension if the individual seeks the cause of his internal conflict among the members of the group.

2. Interpersonal conflict. This zone includes disagreements between two

Or more members of the same group or multiple groups.

3. Intergroup conflict. A certain number of individuals that form a group (ie, a social community capable of joint coordinated action) come into conflict with another group that does not include individuals from the first group. This is the most common type of conflict, because individuals, starting to influence others, usually try to attract supporters to themselves, form a group that facilitates actions in the conflict.

4. Conflict of ownership. Occurs due to dual ownership

Individuals, for example, when they form a group within another, larger group, or when an individual enters simultaneously into two competitive groups pursuing the same goal.

5. Conflict with the external environment. The individuals who make up the group are under pressure from outside (primarily from cultural, administrative and economic norms and regulations). Often they come into conflict with the institutions that support these norms and regulations.

According to their internal content, social conflicts are divided into

Rational and emotional. Rational conflicts include such conflicts that cover the sphere of reasonable, businesslike cooperation, redistribution of resources and improvement of the managerial or social structure. Rational conflicts are also encountered in the field of culture, when people are trying to free themselves from obsolete, unnecessary forms, customs and beliefs. As a rule, those participating in rational conflicts do not go to the personal level and do not form in their minds the image of the enemy. Respect for the opponent, recognition of his right to a certain amount of truth - these are the characteristic features of a rational conflict. Such conflicts are not sharp, protracted, since both sides are striving, in principle, for one

And the same goal - to improve relationships, norms, patterns of behavior, a fair distribution of values. The parties come to an agreement, and as soon as the frustrating obstacle is removed, the conflict is resolved.

However, in the course of conflict interactions, clashes, his aggression

The participants often shifted from the cause of the conflict to the individual. In this case, the initial cause of the conflict is simply forgotten and the participants act on the basis of personal hostility. Such a conflict is called emotional. Since the appearance of an emotional conflict, negative stereotypes appear in the minds of people participating in it.

The development of emotional conflict is unpredictable, and overwhelmingly

Most of the time they are out of control. Most often this conflict

It stops after the appearance of new people or even new generations in the situation. But some conflicts (for example, national, religious) can transmit an emotional mood to other generations. In this case, the conflict continues for quite a long time.
^ 2.2.Characteristics of conflicts.
Despite numerous manifestations of conflict interactions in

Social life, they all have a number of common characteristics, the study of which allows us to classify the main parameters of conflicts, as well as to identify factors that affect their intensity. All conflicts are characterized by four main parameters: the causes of the conflict, the severity of the conflict, its duration and consequences. Considering these characteristics, it is possible to determine the similarities and differences in conflicts and the features of their course.
Causes of conflicts.

The definition of the concept of the nature of the conflict and the subsequent analysis of its causes is important in the study of conflict interactions, since the cause is the point around which the conflict situation unfolds. Early diagnosis of a conflict is primarily aimed at finding its real cause, which allows social control over the behavior of social groups at the pre-conflict stage.

It is advisable to start the analysis of the causes of social conflict with their

Typologies. The following types of reasons can be distinguished.

1. The presence of opposite orientations. Each individual and social group has a certain set of value orientations regarding the most significant aspects of social life. They are all different and usually opposite. At the moment of striving to satisfy needs, in the presence of blocked goals that several individuals or groups are trying to achieve, opposite value orientations come into contact and can cause a conflict.

2. Ideological reasons. Conflicts arising on the ground

Ideological differences are a special case of conflict

Orientation opposites. The difference between them lies in the fact that the ideological cause of the conflict lies in a different attitude towards the system of ideas that justify and legitimize the relationship of subordination, domination and in the fundamental worldviews of various groups of society. In this case, the elements of faith, religious, socio-political aspirations become a catalyst for contradictions.

3. Causes of conflicts, consisting in various forms of economic and social inequality. This type of causes is associated with a significant difference in the distribution of values ​​(income, knowledge, information, elements of culture, etc.) between individuals and groups. Inequality in the distribution of values ​​exists everywhere, but conflict arises only when there is such a magnitude of inequality that is regarded by one of the social groups as very significant, and only if such a significant inequality leads to the blockade of important social needs in one of the social groups.

The social tension that arises in this case can serve as a cause of social conflict. It is due to the emergence of additional needs in people, for example, the need to have the same number of values.

4. Causes of conflicts that lie in the relationship between the elements of the social structure. They appear as a result of the different places that structural elements occupy in a society, organization or ordered social group. The conflict for this reason can be associated, firstly, with different goals pursued by individual elements. Secondly, the conflict for this reason is associated with the desire of one or another structural element to take a higher place in the hierarchical structure.

Any of these reasons can serve as an impetus, the first stage of a conflict only if certain external conditions are present. In addition to the existence of the cause of the conflict, certain conditions must develop around it, serving as a breeding ground for conflict. Therefore, it is impossible to consider and evaluate the cause of the conflict without taking into account the conditions that affect the state of relations between individuals and groups that fall within the scope of these conditions to a different extent.
The severity of the conflict.

Speaking of acute social conflict, first of all, they mean

A conflict with a high intensity of social clashes, as a result of which a large amount of psychological and material resources are spent in a short time. An acute conflict is characterized mainly by open clashes that occur so often that they merge into a single whole. The severity of the conflict to the greatest extent depends on the socio-psychological characteristics of the warring parties, as well as on the situation requiring immediate action.

Acute conflict is much more short-lived than conflict with

Less violent collisions and with more breaks between them. However, an acute conflict is certainly more destructive, it causes significant damage to the resources of the enemy, their prestige, status and psychological balance.
duration of the conflict.

The duration of the conflict is of great importance for the warring parties. First of all, the magnitude and persistence of changes in groups and systems, which are the result of the expenditure of resources in conflict clashes, depend on it. In addition, in long-term conflicts, the expenditure of emotional energy increases and the likelihood of a new conflict increases due to the imbalance of social systems, the lack of balance in them.
Consequences of social conflict.

Conflicts, on the one hand, destroy social structures, lead to

Significant unreasonable expenditure of resources, and on the other hand, they are the mechanism that contributes to the solution of many problems, unites groups and ultimately serves as one of the ways to achieve social justice. The ambiguity in people's assessment of the consequences of conflict has led to the fact that sociologists involved in the theory of conflicts have not come to a common point of view about whether conflicts are beneficial or harmful to society.

Thus, many believe that society and its individual elements are developing

As a result of evolutionary changes, i.e. during continuous

Improvement and the emergence of more viable social structures based on the accumulation of experience, knowledge, cultural patterns and the development of production, and as a result, they suggest that social conflict can only be negative, destructive and destructive.

Another group of scientists recognizes the constructive, useful content

Any conflict, since conflicts create new

Qualitative definitions. According to the supporters of this point of view, any finite object of the social world from the moment of its inception carries its own negation, or its own death. Upon reaching a certain limit or measure, as a result of quantitative growth, the contradiction that carries negation comes into conflict with the essential characteristics of this object, in connection with which a new qualitative certainty is formed.

Constructive and destructive ways of conflict depend on the characteristics

His subject: size, rigidity, centralization, relationship with other problems, level of awareness. The conflict escalates if:

Competing groups are growing;

It is a conflict over principles, rights, or personalities;

The resolution of the conflict sets a meaningful precedent;

The conflict is perceived as win-lose;

The views and interests of the parties are not connected;

The conflict is poorly defined, non-specific, vague.

A particular consequence of the conflict may be the strengthening of the group

Interactions. Since interests and points of view within the group change from time to time, new leaders, new policies, new intra-group norms are needed. As a result of the conflict, new leadership, new policies and new norms can be quickly introduced. Conflict may be the only way out of a tense situation.

^ 3. Stages of social conflicts.
Any social conflict has a rather complex internal structure. It is advisable to analyze the content and characteristics of the course of a social conflict in four main stages: the pre-conflict stage, the conflict itself, the stage of conflict resolution, and the post-conflict stage.

1. Pre-conflict stage.

No social conflict arises instantly. emotional

Tension, irritation and anger usually build up over a period of time.

Time, so the pre-conflict stage is sometimes delayed. At this stage, we can talk about the latent (latent) phase of the development of the conflict.

A significant group of domestic conflictologists (A. Zaitsev,

A. Dmitriev, V. Kudryavtsev, G. Kudryavtsev, V. Shalenko) consider it necessary to characterize this stage with the concept of “social tension”. Social tension is a special socio-psychological state of public consciousness and behavior of individuals, social groups and society as a whole, a specific situation of perception and evaluation of events, characterized by increased emotional arousal, a violation of the mechanisms of social

Regulation and control.1 Each form of social conflict may have its own specific indicators of social tension. Social tension arises when the conflict has not yet taken shape, when there are no clearly defined parties to the conflict.

A characteristic feature of every conflict is the presence of an object,

The possession of which (or the achievement of which) is associated with frustration

The needs of two subjects involved in the conflict. This object must be fundamentally indivisible or appear as such in the eyes of the opponents.

The indivisible object is the cause of the conflict. The presence and size of such an object must be at least partially realized by its participants or opposing sides. If this does not happen, then it is difficult for the opponents to carry out an aggressive action, and, as a rule, there is no conflict.

Polish conflictologist E. Vyatr proposes to characterize this stage

With the help of the socio-psychological concept of deprivation. Deprivation is a condition characterized by a clear discrepancy between expectations and the ability to meet them. Deprivation over time can either increase or decrease, or remain unchanged.

The pre-conflict stage is the period in which the conflicting parties

Evaluate their resources before deciding to take action or retreat. These resources include material values ​​that can be used to influence an opponent, information, power, connections, prestige, etc. At the same time, there is a consolidation of the forces of the opposing sides, the search for supporters and the formation of groups participating in the conflict.

The pre-conflict stage is also characteristic in the formation of each of

Conflicting sides of a strategy or even multiple strategies. Moreover, the one that best suits the situation is used.

The strategy is understood as the vision of the situation by the participants in the conflict (or, as they say, “bridgehead”), the formation of a goal in relation to the opposing side, and, finally, the choice of a way to influence the enemy. With the right choice of strategy, methods of action, conflicts can be prevented.

2. Direct conflict ..

This stage is characterized primarily by the presence of an incident, i.e.

Social actions aimed at changing the behavior of rivals. This is an active, active part of the conflict. Thus, the entire conflict consists of a conflict situation that is formed at the pre-conflict stage and an incident.

Conflict behavior characterizes the second, main stage of development

Conflict. Conflict behavior is an action aimed at directly or indirectly blocking the achievement by the opposing party of its goals, intentions, interests.

The actions that make up an incident are divided into two groups, each of which

It is based on the specific behavior of people. To the first group

These include the actions of rivals in the conflict, which are open in nature. It can be verbal debate, economic sanctions, physical pressure, political struggle, sports competition, etc. Such actions, as a rule, are easily identified as conflict, aggressive, hostile.

The second group includes the hidden actions of rivals in the conflict.

The veiled, but nevertheless extremely active struggle pursues the goal of imposing an unfavorable course of action on the opponent and at the same time revealing his strategy. The main mode of action in a hidden internal conflict is reflexive control - a method of control in which the grounds for making a decision are transferred from one of the actors to another.

This means that one of the rivals is trying to transfer and implement in

The consciousness of another is such information that makes this other

Act in a way that is beneficial to the one who transmitted this information.

A very characteristic moment at the stage of the conflict itself is the presence of a critical point, at which the conflict interactions between the opposing sides reach their maximum sharpness and strength. One of the criteria for approaching the critical point can be considered integration, the single-mindedness of the efforts of each of the conflicting parties, the cohesion of the groups participating in the conflict.

It is important to know the time it takes to pass the critical point, because after that

The situation is most manageable. At the same time

Intervention at a critical moment, at the peak of a conflict, is useless or even dangerous. The achievement of a critical point and its passage largely depend on circumstances external to the participants in the conflict, as well as on resources and values ​​introduced into the conflict from outside.

3. Conflict resolution.

An external sign of conflict resolution may be the completion

Incident. It is a completion, not a temporary cessation. This means that conflict interaction between the conflicting parties is terminated.

Elimination, termination of the incident is a necessary but not sufficient condition for resolving the conflict. Often, having stopped active conflict interaction, people continue to experience a frustrating state, to look for its causes. In this case, the conflict flares up again.

The resolution of social conflict is possible only with a change

conflict situation. This change can take many forms. But the most effective change in the conflict situation, which allows to extinguish the conflict, is considered to be the elimination of the cause of the conflict. With a rational conflict, the elimination of the cause inevitably leads to its resolution, but for an emotional conflict, the most important moment of changing the conflict

It is also possible to resolve social conflict by changing

The demands of one of the parties: the opponent makes concessions and changes the goals of his behavior in the conflict.

Social conflict can also be resolved through exhaustion.

The resources of the parties or the intervention of a third force, creating an overwhelming advantage of one of the parties, and, finally, as a result of the complete elimination of the opponent. In all these cases, a change in the conflict situation will certainly occur.

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 analysis 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 seek to free themselves from hostility and mistrust towards each other. To achieve such a state is possible on the basis of a goal that is meaningful to each group 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 of the parties, negotiations with the participation of a third party, etc.

1) during negotiations, priority should be given to discussion of substantive issues;

2) the parties must strive to relieve psychological and social tension;

3) the parties must demonstrate mutual respect for each other;

4) negotiators should strive to turn a significant and hidden part of the conflict situation into an open one, publicly and convincingly revealing each other's positions and deliberately creating an atmosphere of public equal exchange of views;

5) all negotiators must show a propensity for sex

^ 4. Social conflicts in modern society.
In modern conditions, in essence, every sphere of public life

It gives rise to its own specific types of social conflicts. Therefore, we can talk about political, national-ethnic, economic, cultural and other types of conflicts.

Political conflict is a conflict over the distribution of power,

Domination, influence, authority. This conflict can be covert or open. One of the brightest forms of its manifestation in modern Russia is the conflict between the executive and legislative authorities in the country that has continued throughout the entire time after the collapse of the USSR. The objective causes of the conflict have not been eliminated, and it has entered a new stage of its development. From now on, it is being implemented in new forms of confrontation between the President and the Federal Assembly, as well as the executive and legislative authorities in the regions.

A prominent place in modern life is occupied by national-ethnic

Conflicts - conflicts based on the struggle for the rights and interests of ethnic and national groups. Most often, these are conflicts related to status or territorial claims. The problem of cultural self-determination of certain national communities also plays a significant role.

Socio-economic conflicts play an important role in the modern life of Russia, that is, conflicts over the means of subsistence, wage levels, the use of professional and intellectual potential, the level of prices for various benefits, and real access to these benefits and other resources.

Social conflicts in various spheres of public life can

Proceed in the form of intra-institutional and organizational norms and procedures: discussions, requests, adoption of declarations, laws, etc. The most striking form of expression of the conflict are various kinds of mass actions. These mass actions are realized in the form of presentation of demands to the authorities by dissatisfied social groups, in the mobilization of public opinion in support of their demands or alternative programs, in direct actions of social protest.

Mass protest is an active form of conflict behavior. It can be expressed in various forms: organized and spontaneous, direct or indirect, taking on the character of violence or a system of non-violent actions. The organizers of mass protests are political organizations and so-called “pressure groups” that unite people for economic purposes,

Professional, religious and cultural interests. Forms of expressing mass protests can be such as: rallies, demonstrations, picketing, civil disobedience campaigns, strikes. Each of these forms is used for specific purposes, is an effective means of solving very specific problems. Therefore, when choosing a form of social protest, its organizers must be clearly aware of what specific goals are set for this action and what is the public support for certain demands.

^ 4.1.Basic conditions of industrial conflicts.
Industrial conflicts, which have become one of the most important components of the crisis, dramatically change the socio-psychological atmosphere in society.

The sources of these conflicts are in the change in the immediate situation and, as a result, in the change in the attitude towards work. Because of this, the concept of work motivation can be used to analyze industrial conflicts.

The starting points of this concept are as follows.

Satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the work of each individual employee is determined by the combined effect of the four main motivational blocks. The first of these covers the relationship between the two role positions of the employee: those that arise from his duties in a given enterprise and workplace, and those that characterize him as a family member. The intermediary between these two functions is wages. The main interest of the employee is in the amount of wages, the main interest of the entrepreneur is in the quality and quantity of labor, in the level of qualification of the employee himself and in ensuring his interest and responsible attitude to the duties performed.

In the conditions of transition to a market economy, all the previously existing

The system of remuneration collapsed: employees of state enterprises and budgetary categories of workers found themselves in the most disadvantageous position. Along with the rate of inflation, structural adjustment and the threat of unemployment have a great influence on the level of wages. As a result of the action of the entire set of crisis factors, the motivational value of earnings did not increase, but decreased. In other words, “the amount of earnings is an important source of social well-being”

1. As a rule, most of the industrial conflicts begin with problems related specifically to wages.

The second motivational block is the perception and evaluation of the content of the work,

Attitude to what exactly has to be done in the workplace or in connection with production duties. In terms of the content of people's occupations, they differ to a much greater extent than in terms of earnings, especially if we take into account only those types of work that are related to wage work. A very large volume in the national economy is occupied by work that does not require unique qualifications, but involves significant expenditure of physical effort, and work in very unfavorable conditions that affect the health of workers. These jobs include mining professions in the coal industry, in the development of shale, in the extraction of minerals. It can hardly be considered an accident that the coal mining industry is the industry with the highest degree of social tension. The miners of Vorkuta and Kuzbass carried out the largest number of strikes and became the initiators of a new labor movement.

The third motivational block is the relationship between employees during

Collaboration. Some form of collaboration is necessary in almost all work.

The fourth component of motivation is connected with the meaning of the production activity itself. What am I working for? Everyone asks such a question. So, earnings, the content of labor, relations with comrades and the meaning of labor efforts - these are the four motivational blocks, the interaction of which determines the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with work, profession, work in general. It is clear that these same four blocs also contain the sources of production conflicts.

Now let's analyze how the production conflict develops from

The first manifestation of discontent before the strike - an extreme form

industrial conflict.

As a rule, everything starts with discontent, the source of which can

Not immediately and directly realized by the worker, and sometimes it is localized quite clearly and definitely.

The next step in the development of the conflict: explicitly expressed disagreement with

Appropriate actions of the administration, which, as a rule, does not meet with support from the administration. On the contrary, if dissatisfaction is expressed, then the administration is obliged to respond to this statement in order to prevent this dissatisfaction from acquiring the nature of public opinion. The management interprets the source of this dissatisfaction, either as something beyond the control and competence of the administration of a given shop or section, or as the result of the absurdity and intolerance of the worker. Therefore, it is extremely important for the further development of the production conflict who exactly expressed dissatisfaction.

The next step in the conflict is the reaction of the workers to defend the administration. If the conflict itself does not have deep grounds, then the whole matter may be limited to the expressed dissatisfaction on the one hand and the reaction of the administration on the other. If each of the parties remains at its point of view, then mutual dissatisfaction will accumulate, which will break through in some kind of incident.

At this stage, there is still the possibility of ending the conflict, but in

The reality is that it all depends on the general situation at a given production site. If dissatisfaction has already accumulated due to the totality of all reasons, then it is quite natural that the incident that has arisen becomes the subject of discussion.

The normal development from a simple conflict to a strike takes place precisely at this moment. The split of opinions in both groups about the incident becomes the basis for group solidarity and group opposition.

In the experience of the strike movement in Russia, another aspect was of particular importance.

intermediate phase. It was connected with relations with the old trade union structures. The former trade union activists, as a rule, tried to calm the situation in such conflicts and their actions were perceived as conciliatory, like the actions of administration agents in the working environment.

The immediate socio-political outcome of this kind of development

The events are extremely large. Its meaning lies in the nomination of new leaders and in the creation of the prerequisites for ensuring workers' control over the activities of the administration. After the strike took place, it becomes the most important event in the life of this team. It forces a radical change in the methods of management and administrative work and stimulates the organization to prevent such conflicts in the future, preventing them at an earlier stage and getting rid of persons in their own ranks whose positions were characterized by the protection of the interests of the administrative side.

Strikes become more important when they are included in

Political struggle, when demands of a political nature and

Political motivations become predominant.
^ 4.2. Evolution of the strike movement.
Strikes are one of the forms of manifestation of conflict in an enterprise or in

An entire branch of the national economy. The concept of “strike” is also used as a synonym, which means a mass action of workers and a stoppage of work; in English, the word “strike” is the equivalent. In Russian, the concept of a strike is used to refer to mass labor conflicts, since in them labor acts as an instrument of power, pressure on entrepreneurs. If workers are deprived of the opportunity to influence decisions and somehow share power, then they use the strike as an economic means of influence.

The most concise and at the same time rather generalized definition

The strikes were given by the American sociologist M. Waters. He defines a strike as a collective and complete refusal to work made by a group of workers under pressure on an individual, group or other organization.

K. Kerr and A. Siegel consider strikes to be an integral feature of the way of life of “socially isolated groups”.

Strikes, as a means of influencing the employer, have become

Apply at the dawn of the development of capitalism. History knows the facts of strikes of handicraft and industrial workers, serfs, which often ended in armed violent conflicts. The early forms of strikes are characterized by the predominance of prejudices and the underdevelopment of the self-consciousness of the workers.

Later, strikes were transformed into classical forms, which are characterized by the development of program requirements, a developed organizational structure, led by a formal organization. This form is associated with the organization of trade unions. The modern form of the strike arose after the Second World War, in the late 1950s. Its distinctive features from previous historical forms are as follows:

Increase in the number of participants while reducing activity (sometimes the strike is nationwide);

A high degree of organization (optimal time, place is chosen, the media are involved and a favorable public opinion is created);

Mass actions do not carry an emotional coloring (as a rule, these are peaceful demonstrations in the absence of acts of violence);

Various categories of workers participate in strikes;

Occur on the basis of labor legislation in compliance with all

formal procedures;

Creation of new means of strikes (picketing, strike with the release of products).

Thus, as noted by a specialist in labor conflicts V.N.

Shelenko, a modern strike is a pre-arranged,

An action pre-planned by the team, based on recognized leaders who head the governing bodies, enjoying the support of the population, the press, and local governments.

In our country, strikes have long been treated as

Extraordinary event. Practically in the USSR, starting from the 1930s and up to 1956, there were no strikes. And this is fully explained by the rigid totalitarian regime in this period of the history of the USSR. But already in 1956 in Sverdlovsk the indignation of the workers was provoked by poor working conditions, in 1962 in Novocherkassk the strike followed an increase in prices and a decrease in cooperative rates. In the 60s, similar cases were noted in Ryazan, Baku, Omsk, Krivoy Rog, Odessa, Kyiv, Lvov, and in the 70s - in Sverdlovsk, Kyiv, Vitebsk, Vladimir, Chelyabinsk, Baku and in several other cities. If we do not count strikes on a national basis, then their total number will exceed several hundred. Until recently, all these cases were carefully hushed up.

In modern Russia, the miners turned out to be the first professional detachment of the working class, which came out with an open social protest against the disastrous socio-economic situation. Specific features of the formation of mass labor conflicts and methods for their resolution were studied in the process of studying strikes in the mines of the Kuznetsk and Pechora coal basins.

The specific reasons for the strikes are multifaceted. Some are caused by external political, socio-economic factors, others are internal, which arise within the enterprise, region or industry. The second group of reasons is respectively divided into economic and non-economic. Among the first: low wages, unfair tariff rates, shortages of goods, rising prices and inflation; among the second: systematic violation of social justice, social insecurity of the rights of workers, disrespect for their personality, dignity, dissatisfaction with the conditions, organization and content of work, style of team management

As follows from the above, a strike is always a collective

Action. Collective actions take place only to the extent that individuals feel integrated into some kind of community, represent a “collective body”. The unifying beginning of the formation of people into social groups in the conditions of a strike is any common needs and interests. An interest is a concentrated expression of a need, a set of predispositions that includes goals, values, desires, and other orientations and inclinations that cause people to act in a certain direction.

A.K. Zaitsev identifies six group interests that can induce

People participate in the strike and therefore serve in this case

Group-forming factor. Actual interest, factually justified, objectively reflecting the position of the group in the social conflict and its possible outcome.

Value-oriented interest associated with understanding how it should be, and disagreement about a possible solution.

Interests associated with limited resources (money, materials,

privileges, etc.).

Inflated interests associated with an overestimation of the available forces and inadequate claims made by others.

Hypothetical, far-fetched, imaginary interest based on the group's distorted understanding of their position in social conflict.

Transmitted (i.e. transferred from outside) interest that is not

The real interest of this group is in the strike and represents in it the interest of other social groups. In this case, the group defending this interest is the object of manipulation by outside forces and subjects.

Specific scenarios and phases of the development of strikes as a form of social

The conflict is analyzed in detail in the works of A.K. Zaitsev and V.N. Shelenko.

Conflict resolution is such a change in behavior or properties

One or both participants, in which they no longer conflict with each other. There are two ways to resolve the conflict, within which options are also possible.

The first way: creating a threat to those participating in the conflict (strike) as

Conflict deterrent. The threat comes from any of the two parties, and from a third party (for example, the state). The Ackoff and Emery threat will be effective under the following conditions:

The threatened party is aware of the means of deterrence and realizes that the cost of retribution exceeds the expected gain from unleashing the conflict.

This side is convinced that the means of deterrence will be put into play only when it chooses an undesirable course of action.

The second way is communication.

One of the parties may resort to communication in order to influence

The behavior of another. The nature of communication can be informational,

Instructive, motivational direction.

The conflicting parties communicate with each other in an attempt to resolve the conflict or prevent it from escalating, i.e. are negotiating.

The second way is the most civilized. It avoids big

Losses, although associated with certain difficulties in its implementation.

In developed market economies, strikes usually end

Compromise based on a mutually beneficial agreement between the parties.

In modern Russia, a way out of a strike with the help of a reasonable

Compromise is significantly hampered by the low level of political culture and the lack of democratic traditions. Scientists in the humanities have repeatedly noted that the population of our country is characterized by a low degree of tolerance, tolerance for other people's opinions, positions, and lifestyles.
In most regions of the Russian Federation in the first quarter of 1997 there was a sharp

The aggravation of social tension in labor collectives, which caused a significant increase in collective labor conflicts, disputes and strikes. The main destabilizing factor influencing the growth of social tension is long-term delays in the payment of wages, which have recently become chronic.

The main demands of workers in the course of collective labor disputes and strikes were the repayment of arrears in wages and social benefits, their indexation and the implementation of state support for a number of industries and individual subjects of the Russian Federation. Political demands were also put forward: the resignation of the President and the Government of the Russian Federation, a change in the course of economic reforms, and an intensification of the fight against corruption and crime.

According to the State Statistics Committee, strikes lasting more than one shift (day) at 13628 enterprises and organizations of the Russian Federation, 670 thousand people took part in them, 3422 thousand man-days were not worked out, 1696 enterprises and organizations went on strike for less than one day, the number of workers involved was 237 thousand people. Compared to the corresponding period last year, the number of strikes increased by about 5 times, and the number of participants increased by 2.8 times. More than 90% of all strikes are in public education institutions. On the day of the All-Russian protest action organized on March 27, 1997, 2658 organizations of the Russian Federation were on strike, 413 thousand people took part in the strikes.

Conclusion
Summing up the study of social conflicts, it can be argued that

The existence of a society without conflict is impossible. One cannot categorically call conflict a manifestation of the dysfunction of organizations, deviant behavior of individuals and groups, a phenomenon of social life; most likely, conflict is a necessary form of social interaction between people.

Due to the fact that social conflict is a multifaceted phenomenon, in

It is presented in the work from different angles of viewing this problem. The main aspects of social conflicts are singled out and their characteristics are given according to their main components. So in this paper, the causes, severity, duration and consequences of conflict situations are revealed.

Based on research by leading experts in the field

Conflictology presents a classification of conflicts, which includes the division of conflicts according to their nature from specific psychological (personal, emotional) to socio-psychological (intergroup) and actually social (conflict of belonging).

In the course of studying the problem, the main stages of development and

The course of the social conflict on the material of mass protest movements of workers (strikes, strikes, protests).

So, we can conclude that since the conflicts in our lives

Inevitable, it is necessary to learn how to manage them, based on the experience gained in a very rich and diverse literature on this issue, the assimilation of theoretical and practical knowledge obtained within the framework of this area of ​​sociological thought, to strive to ensure that they lead to the lowest costs for society and participating personalities in them.
Bibliography
1. Druzhinin V.V., Kontorov D.S., Kontorov M.D. Introduction to the theory of conflict. - M.: Radio and Communication, 1989.

2. Zaitsev A.K. Social conflict in the enterprise. - Kaluga, 1993.

3. Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of conflict. - M.: Aspect Press, 1996.

4. Information on collective labor disputes (strike) of the Russian Federation in the first

Quarter of 1997 and the measures taken to resolve them / / Social conflict No. 3,1997.

5. Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Introduction to Management: Sociology of Organizations and Management. - Voronezh: Higher School of Entrepreneurs, 1995.

6. Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. - M.: Center, 1996.

7. Social conflict: modern research. Reference collection. Ed. N.L. Polyakova - M, 1991.

8. Social conflicts in modern society. Ed. S.V. Pronina - M.: Nauka, 1993.

9. Frolov S.S. Sociology. Textbook for universities. - M.: Nauka, 1994.

Introduction 2

The concept of social conflict, its classification and functions 3

Mechanism of social conflict 7

Social conflicts in modern Russia 9

Conclusion 15

List of used literature 16

Introduction

The possibility of conflict exists in all spheres of society.

Conflicts are born on the basis of daily differences of opinion, disagreements

and confrontation of different opinions, motives, desires, lifestyles, hopes,

interests, personality traits. Famous philosopher and sociologist Max Weber

was convinced that social conflict is omnipresent, and every society in every

its point is riddled with discord and conflict.

The problem of social conflicts became the subject of study of sociologists only in the 19

20th century Initially, a description of conflict situations, the study of the causes and

the consequences of conflicts have been dealt with by historians and philosophers (in most cases

on the example of armed clashes).

So, the outstanding philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that "the war of all against all" -

it is the natural state of society.

Within the framework of sociology, a special scientific direction has developed, which, in

currently referred to as "the sociology of conflict".

The concept of social conflict, its classification and functions.

The concept of "conflict" is characterized by an exceptional breadth of content and

used in various meanings. In the most general way, conflict is understood as an extreme case of exacerbation of contradictions. Social psychologists also emphasize that the intractable contradiction is associated with acute emotional experiences.

Real conflict is a socio-psychological process.

Social psychologists propose to define conflict as arising in the sphere of

communication clash caused by conflicting goals, ways of behavior,

attitudes of people, in the conditions of their desire, to achieve any goals

Or, similarly, a clash of personalities due to the incompatibility of needs, motives, goals, attitudes, views, behavior in the process and as a result of the communication of these personalities.

Conflicts should be distinguished from other forms of confrontation in society, which

may be a consequence of:

1. lack of agreement between the participants in the discussion,

2. conflicts of interest,

3. collisions,

4. rivalry,

5. competition.

It is important to emphasize that the conflict is a clash of interests of different

social actors, taking place publicly. Often the conflict has a political dimension (since social conflict affects management systems) - social conflict is fraught with political conflict. The accumulation of conflicts in society is called a crisis. Political conflict is associated with the mutual deviation of responsibility and power.

Western sociologists and philosophers recognize conflicts as the most important factors in social development. The English philosopher and sociologist G. Spencer believed

conflict "an inevitable phenomenon in the history of human society and an incentive

social development".

The German philosopher and sociologist G. Simmel, calling the conflict a “dispute”, considered it

psychologically conditioned phenomenon and one of the forms of socialization.

The classic of sociology, R. Dahrendorf, pointed out in his writings the close connection between conflict and the concepts of crisis and contradictions. The crisis, according to R. Dahrendorf, is the result of pathological changes in the content and forms of life of the population, serious changes in the control mechanism in politics, economics and culture, an explosion of mass discontent among citizens, a radical break with traditional norms and values. According to R. Dahrendorf, conflict is the most important side of the interaction of people in society; it is a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is due to opposing values ​​and norms, interests and needs. The essential side of social conflict is that these actors operate within some wider network of connections, which is strengthened or destroyed under the influence of the conflict.

Thus, under social conflict in modern sociology they understand any kind of struggle between individuals, the purpose of which is to achieve or maintain the means of production, economic position, power or other values ​​​​that enjoy social recognition, as well as the conquest, neutralization or elimination of a real or imaginary enemy.

Conflicts can be classified from various points of view, for example, from the standpoint of the causes of occurrence, the main forms of life (conflicts in the labor, religious, political, economic spheres of life), by groups of participants, by the degree of their involvement in the conflict, by duration, etc. .

Conflicts can be classified in two ways:

types of subjects (personal, group, organizational, nation as

specific macrogroup, the state as a specific institution) and

the flow of conflict within the system or outside the system.

In relation to the subject, the following types of conflicts are distinguished:

one). Intrapersonal conflict, which is expressed by the struggle of contradictions within

person accompanied by emotional tension. One of the most

common forms - role conflict, when to one person

There are conflicting demands about what should be

the result of his work.

2). Interpersonal conflict. This type of conflict is the most common.

Conflict between personalities arises where different schools collide,

manners, they can be fed by the desire to get something, unsupported

relevant possibilities. Interpersonal conflict can also

manifest itself as a clash of people with different character traits, views

and values.

3). Conflict between an individual and a group may arise if this individual

take a position different from that of the group. In the process of functioning

groups develop group norms, standard rules of behavior, which

adhere to by its members. Compliance with group norms ensures acceptance

or non-acceptance of the individual by the group.

4). Intergroup conflicts often arise due to the lack of clear coordination of functions and work schedules between groups. Intergroup conflicts often arise between informal groups.

Conflicts can be divided into:

Full-scale - an open social struggle in which the opposing sides, their interests, the object of the struggle, the strategy and tactics of behavior are clearly represented.

Incomplete conflict - involves a smaller number of participants, it has poorly structured interests and composition of the parties, it is less legalized and does not differ in open behavior (for example, a hidden or sluggish conflict of interests between the enterprise administration and workers that does not take the form of mass

strikes).

Flow conflicts are divided into:

Short-term (the subject of the conflict is exhausted in the process of contact relationships);

Long-term (protracted processes in relation to the expectations of the participants, often of a destructive nature).

By the nature of occurrence, conflicts are distinguished:

Business - have a production basis and arise in connection with the search for ways to solve complex problems, with an attitude to existing shortcomings, the choice of a manager's style, etc. They are inevitable.

Emotional - have a purely personal nature. The source of these conflicts lies either in the personal qualities of the opponents, or in their psychological incompatibility;

The subject side of the conflict depends on interests, actual motivation. So,

labor conflicts are associated with meeting the needs of specific goals in

the process of labor activity, political - with power relations,

environmental - generated by the global problems of modern behavior

participants.

Most people see conflict as an unpleasant thing, part of the curse of the family.

human. But you can treat conflicts differently - to see in them

potential progress. That is, conflicts as an integral part of social life can perform two functions: positive (constructive) and negative (destructive). Therefore, as many researchers believe, the task is not to eliminate or prevent conflict, but to find a way to make it productive.

The positive consequences of the conflict for the individual may also consist in the fact that internal tension will be eliminated through it. The positive function of conflicts is that they often serve to express dissatisfaction or protest, to inform the conflicting parties about their

interests and needs.

In certain situations where negative relationships between people

controlled, and at least one of the parties defends not only personal, but also organizational interests in general, conflicts help to unite others, mobilize the will, the mind to solve fundamentally important issues, improve the psychological climate in the team.

Mechanism of social conflict

On the way of the development of a contradiction into a conflict, a peculiar state develops, which can be called a pre-conflict situation. The latter directly precedes the conflict, develops into it. The pre-conflict state is very unstable: an insignificant, even random event can cause irreversible processes leading directly to an open conflict. At this stage, there is a combination of different circumstances that precede conflicts and often give rise to incompatible demands. At the same time, the satisfaction of the interests of one side prevents the satisfaction of the interests of the other.
An important moment in the origin of the conflict is the presence of an object, the possession of which is associated with the satisfaction of the needs of the parties drawn into the conflict. Thus, it can become a cause of conflict. This situation is usually recognized by the conflicting parties.
In the pre-conflict stage, the subjects, before deciding on open actions, evaluate their capabilities (material values, power, information, communications, etc.), take steps to consolidate the forces of the warring parties, search for supporters. In addition, the pre-conflict stage is the period of formation by each side of its strategy of action.
The conflict that has begun in the process of its development undergoes certain changes. This is due to the fact that the relations that develop at the beginning and at the end of the conflict differ significantly: the activity of the subjects manifests itself to varying degrees, unexpected turns of events may occur, etc. Additional reasons are created for the deepening and expansion of the conflict.
The process of growing conflict continues until the first tangible results of the confrontation appear. These results are comprehended, analyzed by the subjects of the conflict.
In the conflict itself, actions can be open, direct or hidden, mediated. They can be physical, psychological, ideological, etc. They manifest the specific behavior of people. These actions may be predictable or unpredictable, but they usually widen the scope of the conflict.
So, for the existence of a conflict, three conditions are required: an objectively developing conflict situation, the subjects of conflicts (the presence of a conflict situation alone is not enough if the parties are peaceful) and the presence of a reason for the conflict, i.e., a kind of “trigger” that contributes to the development of events.
The resolution of the conflict is possible only when the conflict situation changes, more precisely, if the root cause of the conflict is eliminated, when the attitude of the rivals towards each other changes and they stop seeing each other as opponents, when the requirements of the parties change and the rival makes concessions (but it is possible at the same time mutual concessions).
Conflict resolution can be complete or partial. Complete resolution means the end of the conflict, a radical restructuring of the entire image of the conflict situation. At the same time, the "image of the enemy" is transformed into the "image of a partner", the focus on the struggle is replaced by an orientation towards cooperation.
With a partial resolution of the conflict, only its external form often changes, but the internal incentives to continue the confrontation remain.
Successful conflict resolution is associated with certain conditions, namely:
timely and accurate diagnosis of its causes. In the course of this, objectively existing contradictions, interests, goals are revealed.

The task of conflict management is to prevent its growth and reduce negative consequences.

Social conflicts in modern Russia

The interests of the two parties directly collide in the conflict:

for example, two applicants for one place, two national-ethnic

communities or states over a disputed territory, two political

However, a closer examination of the situation reveals that this

open clash of interests is associated with a more complex system

relations. So, contenders for one place are not just

individuals of equal size, having the same rights and claims to

position. Each of the applicants is supported by a specific group

of people. If the position or position about which it flares up

competition, is related to power, to the ability to dispose of others

people, then this position is prestigious, appreciated enough

high in public opinion. Therefore, it is not excluded that

an open confrontation between two opposing contenders can be

initiated by a third party or a third party, which for the time being

time remains in the shadows.

Three aspects of the problems of political power in conflicts can be traced

Russian society:

Conflicts in the power itself, confrontation between different

political forces for the possession of power;

The role of power in conflicts in various spheres of society,

which somehow influence the foundations of the existence of power itself;

The role of government as an intermediary.

The main conflicts in the sphere of power in modern conditions are as follows:

Conflicts between the branches of government (legislative,

executive, judicial);

Conflicts within the parliament (as between the State Duma

and the Federation Council, as well as within each of these bodies);

Conflicts between political parties and movements;

Conflicts between the links of the administrative apparatus, etc.

A potential source of fierce power struggles are new

social groups claiming a higher position in the political

life, the possession of material goods and power.

The executive branch is increasingly pursuing policies

based on their understanding of the situation and in the interests of self-preservation.

Opinion polls show that the degree of distrust in the current authorities

high enough.

If in most industrialized countries in social conflicts

there is a contradiction between the welfare system and the labor system, then

in Russia, the division of the struggle goes not only and not so much along the lines of "workers-

entrepreneurs," how much along the line "labor collectives - the government."

Along with demands for higher wages, higher living standards, liquidation

debts, the demands of the collectives connected with

defending their right to the property of enterprises. Since the main

the subject of the redistribution of property are the bodies of state

authorities, then socio-economic actions are directed with their edge

against government policy both in the center and in individual regions.

Serious prerequisites for conflicts contain social and

economic relations between medium and small businesses and

power structures. Reasons: corruption; uncertainty of the functions of many

civil servants; ambiguous interpretation of laws.

In the social conflicts of Russia, an important place is occupied by interethnic and

interethnic conflicts. These conflicts are the most complex among

social conflicts. To social contradictions, linguistic and cultural

historical memory is added to the problems, which deepens the conflict.

Russia is a multinational country with more than 120 peoples. In

many republics within the Russian Federation, the indigenous population

constitutes a minority. Only in 5 republics its number exceeds

50% (Chuvashia, Tyva, Komi, Chechnya, North Ossetia).

The peculiarity of interethnic conflicts in Russia is due to the main

way by the fact that the awakened national self-consciousness is often exacerbated

interethnic conflicts destabilize the socio-political situation

in the country. For the first time in history, the moral well-being of the Russian people, their

self-consciousness is significantly impaired when each other,

not even a large number of people, can appear before him as

In the development of the conflict, in its transition to the stage of extreme aggravation

much depends on how exactly the most initial, initial

events leading to the development of the conflict, what importance is attached

conflict in the mass consciousness and in the minds of the leaders of the respective

public groupings. To understand the nature of the conflict and its nature

development, the “Thomas theorem” is of particular importance, which states: “If people

perceive some situation as real, then it will be real

and by its consequences. For conflict, this means that if

there is a mismatch of interests between people or groups, but this mismatch

is not perceived, not felt and not felt by them, then such a mismatch

interests do not conflict. Conversely, if between people there is

common interests, but the participants themselves feel hostility towards each other, then

relations between them will necessarily develop according to the pattern of conflict, and not

cooperation.

Feeling of hostility of intentions, reaction to imaginary or real

threat, a state of oppression give rise to preventive or protective actions

the side that feels the disadvantage and associates it with actions

some other groups or people. Thus the imaginary becomes

real.

When considering the causes of a particular conflict, it is necessary to have

in view of the fact that every conflict is somehow personified. Each of

parties to the conflict have their own leaders, leaders, leaders, ideologists,

who voice and broadcast the ideas of their group, formulate

“their” positions and represent them as the interests of their group. At

it is often difficult to figure out whether this or that leader is nominated by

the current conflict situation or he himself will create this situation, because

he - thanks to a certain type of behavior takes the position of a leader, leader,

"spokesperson" of the people, ethnic group, class, social

stratum, political party, etc. Anyway, in any conflict

The personal characteristics of leaders play an exceptional role. In each

specific situation, they may pursue a case to aggravate the conflict or

find means to resolve it.

As a rule, the leader is not alone. It is supported by a certain group, but

this support is almost always subject to some conditions.

Certain members of a "support group" are in a relationship at the same time

rivalry or competition for positions in the lead. Hence,

but also with how he will perceive in his own environment, how

his support is strong among his own supporters and

like-minded people.

World experience allows us to highlight some of the most characteristic

sources on the basis of which the causes of conflicts are formed: wealth,

power, prestige and dignity, i.e. those values ​​and interests that have

meaning in any society and give meaning to the actions of specific individuals,

involved in conflicts. In different historical contexts, priority

corresponding values ​​can be modified, but the content side

things from this does not change very significantly. This fully applies to

First, the idea of ​​social differentiation allows every Russian

openly strive not only to get rid of poverty, but also

get rich. In mass consciousness and in practical life relations

wealth is not just a certain amount of money or property, but

the possibility of expanding the limits of their activities and influence.

The second, no less important source of conflict is the struggle for

power. It is no less attractive than wealth as such, at least

because damask steel and gold are constantly arguing with each other. empirical

power positions are expressed by state and non-state

positions and positions that allow you to control the allocation of resources to

the basis of the right of disposal, to determine access to the flows of meaningful information,

participate in decision making. The field of power will create a specific environment

communication, entry into which is one of the most important motives of political

activities.

In particular, these feelings are aggravated in situations where a person

gets the opportunity to dispose of the means of violence: to give

arrest orders, determine the movement of military formations, give

orders to use weapons. Conflicts in the political space have

as much of an engaging force as conflicts over wealth,

but they tend to be framed in more grandiloquent phraseology associated

with declarations on general - national, state -

interests and interests of progress in general.

Thirdly, the sources of conflict include the desire to achieve

various forms of prestige. The real embodiment of prestige is fame

decisions, demonstrating respect for the person and their potential.

Prestige in very rare cases can be won without the support of power and

wealth, therefore, is, to some extent, a secondary source

conflict. But. the fact is that both wealth and power seem to accumulate

support from public opinion. Struggle for power and wealth

may start with conflicts over prestige - reputation building, or

on the contrary, discrediting this or that person or group of people in the eyes of

public opinion. This is where the idea of ​​the so-called

the fourth power, which is concentrated in the media.

Finally, fourthly, it is important to point out the desire to preserve

human dignity. These are values ​​such as respect and

self-respect, competence, professionalism, representativeness,

recognition, moral qualities of the individual. If everything is reduced to

the previous three sources of conflict, it turns out to be a rather bleak

a picture of an almost indispensable affirmation of evil and vice, destruction

morality in society.

In the struggle for wealth, power and glory, a person should not forget about

the boundaries of their choice, separating the humane, humane, cultural beginning

from the inhuman and immoral. And these boundaries run inside everyone

specific individual. Whoever crosses these boundaries loses first of all

the right to self-respect, and at the same time undermines one's personal

dignity, their civil and professional honor.

One of the reasons for the aggravation of conflicts between large groups of people in

Russia is the accumulation of dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs,

an increase in claims, a radical change in self-consciousness and social

well-being. As a rule, at first the process of accumulation of dissatisfaction

goes slowly and subtly until some event occurs which

plays the role of a kind of trigger that brings out this feeling

dissatisfaction.

Such dissatisfaction, which takes on an open form, stimulates

the emergence of a social movement in which leaders are put forward,

programs and slogans are being worked out, an ideology of protecting interests is being formed.

At this stage, the conflict becomes open and irreversible. He either

becomes an independent and permanent component of public life,

either ends with the victory of the initiating side, or is decided on the basis of

mutual concessions of the parties.

The usual development of the conflict assumes that each of the parties is capable of

take into account the interests of the opposing side. This approach creates the possibility

relatively peaceful deployment of the conflict through negotiation

process and making adjustments to the previous system of relations in

direction and scale acceptable to each of the parties.

At the same time, in our country it often happens that the party initiating

conflict, comes from a negative assessment of the previous state of affairs and

declares only its own interests, not taking into account

interests of the opposite side. The opposing side is forced into this

take special measures to protect their interests. As a result

both parties may suffer some damage, which is attributable to

opposing side in the conflict.

Conclusion

Summing up the study of social conflicts, it can be argued that the existence of a society without conflicts is impossible. One cannot categorically call conflict a manifestation of the dysfunction of organizations, deviant behavior of individuals and groups, a phenomenon of social life; most likely, conflict is a necessary form of social interaction between people.

So, we can conclude that since conflicts are inevitable in our lives, we need to learn how to manage them, based on the experience gained in a very rich and diverse literature on this issue, the assimilation of theoretical and practical knowledge obtained within the framework of this area of ​​sociological thought, strive to that they result in the least possible cost to society and the individuals involved.

Bibliography:

"Sociology". S.S. Frolov "Logos"., M., 1996

"Sociology" A.A. Radugin., K.A. Radugin "Center"., M., 1997

"Sociology" Textbook. "Knowledge"., M., 1995

"Sociology of conflict" A.G. Zdravomyslov JSC "Aspect press"., M., 1994

Tver State Agricultural Academy

Correspondence department of the Faculty of Economics

Training period3 years

Direction social conflicts in contemporary Russia render contradictions in interethnic and interethnic ...

Social values ​​in contemporary Russia

Abstract >> Sociology

On the psyche of a child of marital conflicts. The family can live, ... the time of wars, interethnic and religious conflicts- the most vulgar, the most banal ... their format projection on social reality contemporary Russia. The concept of essence is defined...

Social politics in contemporary Russia (2)

Coursework >> Economics

Capable of improving social politics. Chapter 2 Features social policies in contemporary Russia§one. State policy ... to increase income differentiation, social tension, exacerbation social conflicts and eventually fall...

Conflicts in contemporary society

Abstract >> Sociology

And the concept social conflict; - identify causes social conflicts in Russia; - explore social conflicts in contemporary Russia. Object of study - social conflict Subject of study - social conflicts in the post-Soviet...

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

INTRODUCTION

I. MAIN ASPECTS OF SOCIAL CONFLICTS

1.1 Classification of conflicts

1.2 Characteristics of conflicts

II. CONFLICTS IN MODERN SOCIETY

2.1 Conflicts in the socio-political sphere

2.2 Conflicts in the socio-economic sphere

2.3 Conflicts in the sphere of interethnic, interethnic relations

CONCLUSION

LIST OF SOURCES USED

INTRODUCTION

Relevance. To date, the problem associated with the study of conflicts has the right to exist. Not only professional psychologists and sociologists, but also politicians, leaders, teachers, social workers, in a word, all those who in their practical activities are connected with the problems of human interaction, are of great interest to the problems of the emergence and effective resolution of conflicts, negotiations and the search for agreement. This ever-increasing interest is largely due to the growing tension in various areas of social interaction, with the urgent need for various public structures and individuals to provide practical assistance in resolving conflicts.

Our society was not prepared for this difficult situation. Orientation towards “conflict-free” development made the issue of conflicts unpromising. This led not only to its actual exclusion from the field of its scientific research, but also to the fact that mechanisms for dealing with conflicts have not been formed in society. Attempts to copy the experience of foreign conflictologists, especially in the field of social and industrial problems, which are not designed for universal application in any socio-cultural conditions, turn out to be of little success.

To some extent, this contradiction - the awareness of the need for scientific understanding and practical work with conflicts and unpreparedness for it also applies to psychologists. At the same time, the problem of conflict is fundamental to psychological science. In many theoretical approaches, psychological conflicts, their nature and content become the basis of explanatory models of personality. Contradictions, conflicts, crises experienced by a person are the source of personality development, determine its life constructive or destructive scenario. They play no lesser role in social life, both in his interpersonal relations and in intergroup interaction. Thus, the problem of conflict passes through different areas of psychological knowledge. There is no need to talk about the practical interest that is associated with working with conflicts.

The object of the control work is conflicts in society.

The subject of this work is the main aspects of social conflicts and conflicts in modern society.

Purpose: to study the structure of the conflict.

The following tasks follow from this goal:

1. Study literary sources

2. Consider the classification of the conflict and their characteristics.

To write a term paper, a general scientific method was used, which allows you to study the main aspects of social conflicts in the development of a specific historical and taking into account social practice.

I.MAIN ASPECTS OF SOCIAL CONFLICTS

1.1 Classification of conflicts

Social heterogeneity of society, difference in income levels, power, prestige, etc. often lead to conflict. Conflicts are an integral part of social life. This causes close attention of sociologists to the study of conflicts.

A conflict is a clash of opposing goals, positions, opinions and views of opponents or subjects of interaction. Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. - M.: Center, 1996., p. 117. The English sociologist E. Gidens gave the following definition of conflict: “By conflict, I mean a real struggle between active people or groups, regardless of what the origins of this struggle are, its methods and means mobilized by each of the parties.” Conflict is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Every society, every social group, social community is subject to conflicts to one degree or another. The wide distribution of this phenomenon and the heightened attention to it by society and scientists contributed to the emergence of a special branch of sociological knowledge - conflictology. Conflicts are classified according to their structure and research areas.

Social conflict is a special type of interaction of social forces, in which the action of one side, faced with the opposition of the other, makes it impossible to realize its goals and interests.

The main subjects of the conflict are large social groups. The prominent conflictologist R. Dorendorf refers to the subjects of the conflict three types of social groups.

1) Primary groups - direct participants in the conflict. Which are in a state of interaction regarding the achievement of objectively or subjectively incompatible goals.

2) Secondary groups - tend to be uninvolved directly in the conflict. But they contribute to fueling the conflict. At the stage of exacerbation, they can become the primary side.

3) Third forces are interested in resolving the conflict.

The subject of the conflict is the main contradiction because of which and for the sake of resolving which the subjects enter into confrontation.

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 stage 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 the parameters that influence the conflict behavior and the specification of the forms of this behavior.

Much attention is paid to the concept of “strength” of the participants in conflicts. Strength is the ability of the opponent to realize his goal against the will of the interaction partner. It includes a number of heterogeneous components:

Physical force, including technical means used as an instrument of violence;

An informationally civilized form of the use of 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.;

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

Other resources - money, territory, time limit, number of supporters, etc. Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology. - M.: UNITI, 1999.

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.

All conflicts can be classified depending on the areas of disagreement as follows.

1. Personal conflict. This zone includes conflicts occurring within the personality, at the level of individual consciousness. Such conflicts may be associated, for example, with excessive dependence or role tension. This is a purely psychological conflict, but it can be a catalyst for the emergence of group tension if the individual seeks the cause of his internal conflict among the members of the group.

2. Interpersonal conflict. This zone includes disagreements between two or more members of the same group or groups.

3. Intergroup conflict. A certain number of individuals that form a group (ie, a social community capable of joint coordinated action) come into conflict with another group that does not include individuals from the first group. This is the most common type of conflict, because individuals, starting to influence others, usually try to attract supporters to themselves, form a group that facilitates actions in the conflict.

4. Conflict of ownership. Occurs due to the dual membership of individuals, for example, when they form a group within another, larger group, or when an individual is simultaneously in two competitive groups pursuing the same goal.

5. Conflict with the external environment. The individuals who make up the group are under pressure from outside (primarily from cultural, administrative and economic norms and regulations). Often they come into conflict with the institutions that support these norms and regulations.

According to their internal content, social conflicts are divided into rational and emotional. Rational conflicts include such conflicts that cover the sphere of reasonable, businesslike cooperation, redistribution of resources and improvement of the managerial or social structure. Rational conflicts are also encountered in the field of culture, when people are trying to free themselves from obsolete, unnecessary forms, customs and beliefs. As a rule, those participating in rational conflicts do not go to the personal level and do not form in their minds the image of the enemy. Respect for the opponent, recognition of his right to a certain amount of truth - these are the characteristic features of a rational conflict. Such conflicts are not sharp, protracted, since both sides strive, in principle, for the same goal - to improve relationships, norms, patterns of behavior, and a fair distribution of values. The parties come to an agreement, and as soon as the frustrating obstacle is removed, the conflict is resolved Conflictology / Ed. A.S. Carmine. - St. Petersburg: Lan, 1999.

However, in the course of conflict interactions, clashes, the aggression of its participants is often transferred from the cause of the conflict to the individual. In this case, the initial cause of the conflict is simply forgotten and the participants act on the basis of personal hostility. Such a conflict is called emotional. Since the appearance of an emotional conflict, negative stereotypes appear in the minds of people participating in it.

The development of emotional conflict is unpredictable, and in the vast majority of cases they are uncontrollable. Most often, such a conflict stops after the appearance of new people or even new generations in the situation. But some conflicts (for example, national, religious) can transmit an emotional mood to other generations. In this case, the conflict continues for quite a long time.

1.2 Characteristics of conflicts

Despite the numerous manifestations of conflict interactions in social life, they all have a number of common characteristics, the study of which makes it possible to classify the main parameters of conflicts, as well as to identify factors that affect their intensity. All conflicts are characterized by four main parameters: the causes of the conflict, the severity of the conflict, its duration and consequences. Considering these characteristics, it is possible to determine the similarities and differences in conflicts and the features of their course.

1. Causes of conflicts

The definition of the concept of the nature of the conflict and the subsequent analysis of its causes is important in the study of conflict interactions, since the cause is the point around which the conflict situation unfolds. Early diagnosis of a conflict is primarily aimed at finding its real cause, which allows social control over the behavior of social groups at the pre-conflict stage.

2.Consequences of social conflict

Conflicts, on the one hand, destroy social structures, lead to significant unreasonable expenditure of resources, and on the other hand, they are the mechanism that contributes to the solution of many problems, unites groups and, ultimately, serves as one of the ways to achieve social justice. The ambiguity in people's assessment of the consequences of conflict has led to the fact that sociologists involved in the theory of conflicts have not come to a common point of view about whether conflicts are beneficial or harmful to society.

Thus, many believe that society and its individual elements develop as a result of evolutionary changes, i.e. in the course of continuous improvement and the emergence of more viable social structures based on the accumulation of experience, knowledge, cultural patterns and the development of production, and therefore suggest that social conflict can only be negative, destructive and destructive.

Another group of scientists recognizes the constructive, useful content of any conflict, since as a result of conflicts new qualitative certainties appear. According to the supporters of this point of view, any finite object of the social world from the moment of its inception carries its own negation, or its own death. Upon reaching a certain limit or measure, as a result of quantitative growth, the contradiction that carries negation comes into conflict with the essential characteristics of this object, in connection with which a new qualitative certainty is formed.

Constructive and destructive ways of conflict depend on the characteristics of its subject: size, rigidity, centralization, relationship with other problems, level of awareness. The conflict escalates if:

Competing groups are growing;

It is a conflict over principles, rights, or personalities;

The resolution of the conflict sets a meaningful precedent;

The conflict is perceived as win-lose;

The views and interests of the parties are not connected;

The conflict is poorly defined, non-specific, vague.

A particular consequence of the conflict may be the strengthening of group interaction. Since interests and points of view within the group change from time to time, new leaders, new policies, new intra-group norms are needed. As a result of the conflict, new leadership, new policies and new norms can be quickly introduced. Conflict may be the only way out of a tense situation.

3. Conflict resolution

An external sign of conflict resolution may be the end of the incident. It is a completion, not a temporary cessation. This means that conflict interaction between the conflicting parties is terminated. Elimination, termination of the incident is a necessary but not sufficient condition for resolving the conflict. Often, having stopped active conflict interaction, people continue to experience a frustrating state, to look for its causes. In this case, the conflict flares up again.

The resolution of social conflict is possible only when the conflict situation changes. This change can take many forms. But the most effective change in the conflict situation, which allows to extinguish the conflict, is considered to be the elimination of the cause of the conflict. With a rational conflict, the elimination of the cause inevitably leads to its resolution, but for an emotional conflict, the most important moment in changing the conflict situation should be considered a change in the attitudes of rivals relative to each other.

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

A social conflict can also be resolved as a result of the depletion of the resources of the parties or the intervention of a third force that creates an overwhelming preponderance of one of the parties, and, finally, as a result of the complete elimination of the rival. In all these cases, there is certainly a change in the conflict situation. Conflictology / Ed. A.S. Carmine. - St. Petersburg: Lan, 1999.

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 analysis 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 seek to free themselves from hostility and mistrust towards each other. To achieve such a state is possible on the basis of a goal that is meaningful to each group 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 of the parties, negotiations with the participation of a third party, etc.

1) during negotiations, priority should be given to discussion of substantive issues;

2) the parties must strive to relieve psychological and social tension;

3) the parties must demonstrate mutual respect for each other;

4) negotiators should strive to turn a significant and hidden part of the conflict situation into an open one, publicly and convincingly revealing each other's positions and deliberately creating an atmosphere of public equal exchange of views.

II. CONFLICTS IN MODERN SOCIETY

In modern conditions, in essence, each sphere of public life gives rise to its own specific types of social conflicts. Therefore, we can talk about political, national-ethnic, economic, cultural and other types of conflicts.

The nature of social conflicts has long been associated with its transitional state and the contradictions that underlie the conflicts that develop under new conditions in the new Russian state and society after the collapse of the USSR. Although in some of them (for example, in inter-ethnic ones) one can also find “residual” contradictions that go back to the totalitarian past, they also received their main impulses from the processes of transition to the market and market relations.

The deep roots of the conflict situation in Russia can be traced, first of all, through the relationship of inequality of large social groups - subjects of relevant interests. The intensive formation of new social groups, primarily the class of owners and entrepreneurs, the “new Russians”, who created their own political organizations, the consolidation of the former nomenklatura on a new basis and the formation of the corresponding political and ruling elite, etc., became the basis for the emergence of many conflicts. There is a new social contradiction in society between the elite, representing various groups of new real owners who dominate market relations, and a huge mass of the people, removed from property in the course of privatization, and from power itself in the course of the political struggle for power.

Conflicts in Russia are particularly acute, with frequent use of violence, and so on. And it's not just the lack of institutional foundations for regulation and the legitimacy of the decisions made. In Russia, a “confrontational political culture” has historically established itself, carrying intolerance towards dissidents and those who act differently. The totalitarian ideology and the formulas “who is not with us is against us”, “if the enemy does not surrender, he is destroyed” and others have taken deep roots in everyday consciousness. Such a political “culture” seems to be reproduced in various structures and institutions of society, state power, not only making it difficult, but sometimes even making it impossible to move from a state of confrontation to dialogue.

The social conflict in the transitional society of Russia was the result and practical expression of such an aggravation of social contradictions in the course of deepening its crisis state, which leads to a clash of various political and social forces and communities - classes, demographic and professional groups, nations, ethnic groups and ethnic groups, movements and etc. - on the basis of awareness by the individuals that make up these communities and forces, the opposition of their interests, goals and social positions in their confrontation with the other side. It is in conditions of crisis and economic decline, rampant inflation that objective opposites quickly develop into subjective confrontations. In the course of the development of opposites into conflict, amorphous quasi-groups, united by the supposed unity of interests arising on the basis of common social positions, are transformed into interest groups with conscious goals and formulated programs Conflictology / Ed. A.S. Carmine. - St. Petersburg: Lan, 1999.

Social conflicts in Russia are usually highly emotionally colored, they contain a lot of irrational (especially in interethnic conflicts), far-fetched in the individual's ideas about his own interests as opposed to the interests of the other side. But these representations constitute reality, they move and aggravate the conflict. In any case, they really express, albeit not always clearly, completely, albeit deformed, the essence, the main features of the social contradictions underlying this conflict.

Finally, conflicts in Russia are called social, although they are formed in various spheres of society and are usually referred to as political, socio-economic, spiritual, national, etc. In a broad, general theoretical sense, they all belong to the category of social conflict, which is usually understood as any kind of struggle and confrontation between communities and social forces, groups of people, if they pursue any socially significant goals. It is important that individuals participating in the conflict do not express their purely personal goals, interests and values, but act as typical representatives of a large social group. Otherwise, the conflict would not be social, but socio-psychological, interpersonal, individual.

2.1 Conflicts in the socio-political sphere

The problem of political power in the conflicts of Russian society appears in three of its important aspects. Firstly, these are conflicts in the sphere of power itself, the confrontation of various political forces and groups for the possession of real levers of power. Secondly, the role of power in conflicts in other spheres of society is exceptionally great, which, one way or another, directly or indirectly affect the foundations of the existence and functioning of this power. Finally, thirdly, the state power in many cases acts as an intermediary, an arbiter.

Political conflicts and the struggle for power are generally quite normal in the life of any society. Leaders, parties, movements have their own programs, their own visions of a way out of the crisis and renewal of Russian society. But they cannot realize them as long as they are outside the sphere of power. The needs, interests, goals and claims of large groups and movements can be realized primarily through the use of power. Therefore, the power, political institutions of Russia have become the arena of acute conflicts. One cannot but agree with the position of R. Dahrendorf, who argued that the main issue in social conflicts is who and how manages resources, in whose hands is power, which is a set of social positions that allow one group of people to work with other groups.

The main conflicts in the sphere of power in Russia appear as: conflicts between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power at different levels; intra-parliamentary conflicts between and within the State Duma and the Federation Council; conflicts between political parties and movements adhering to different ideological and political attitudes; conflicts between different parts of the administrative apparatus and others. All these conflicts can either develop calmly, outwardly smoothed out, or they can flare up, flare up with special force, take the form of fierce fights. A potential source of a fierce struggle for power, capable of giving new forms to the above types of conflicts in the sphere of power, are the claims of new social groups for socio-political dominance or simply asserting themselves in political life. Today, these social groups are louder and louder about their claims not only to the possession of material wealth, but also to monopoly power, thus challenging the Mastenbrook W. nomenklatura, which still holds power in its hands. Conflict Management and Organizational Development. - M.: Infr-M, 1996.

These and potentially other conflicts in the sphere of power could indeed be regarded as the norm in a crisis society, if they developed institutionally and legitimately. The nature of the confrontation and the methods used in the course of the struggle speak of an objective clash of two opposing tendencies: on the one hand, the needs of society in accelerating democratic foundations and principles, in establishing a democratic political culture and respect for laws by citizens, etc., on the other hand, in striving set while maintaining the outward attributes of democracy and the appearance of a separation of powers. The rapid development of the second trend indicates that real political forces in society are weak, capable of effectively protecting the action of the first trend. In September-October 1993, in the struggle between the two branches of power - the executive and the legislative - a different question was being decided - in whose hands would all the fullness of real power be concentrated? The executive branch won.

The fact is that the struggle was of an elitist, apex nature, and the conflict between the elites (different groups of the nomenklatura and groups close to it) in the upper echelons of the representative and legislative authorities was resolved not by compromise, but by force, the use of which was accompanied by armed clashes and bloodshed.

A new reality has emerged, which can be considered in two planes. One of them is that reforms of a significant scale, especially in the economic field, can be carried out only when the hands of the executive branch are relatively free. On the other hand, an uncontrolled executive power can choose a disastrous course, which is extremely difficult or impossible to correct under these conditions. Therefore, it is very important to introduce a corrective mechanism into the existing system that can affect the reduction of the severity of a potential political crisis and the likelihood of a new outbreak of conflict. Practice shows that there is a process of steady strengthening of the authoritarian nature of power, the use of forceful methods and arguments in relations with opponents. Under these conditions, the appeals of the executive power for consent and cooperation, even some practical steps in this direction, cannot but be regarded as a desire to legitimize the regime of personal power.

The executive power is increasingly implementing a policy based mainly on its understanding of the situation and in the interests of self-preservation.

Sociological surveys show that the alienation of the masses of people from state institutions, distrust of the authorities have become as significant as on the eve of "perestroika". And this trend is progressive. By the end of 1994, according to various sources, 4-6% of Russians trusted political parties, 10-12% trusted the parliament, and 14-18% trusted the president. Only every sixth respondent believed in constitutional guarantees. These data are also consistent with the assessment indicators of those who, in the opinion of the respondents, are to blame for the crisis situation. The main culprits are the government (73% of respondents), the initiators of reforms, the mafia, the collapse of the USSR (60% each), President Yeltsin (64%), and local authorities (59%). They are closely followed by communists (41%), businessmen (38%) and Jews (8%). That is, the degree of distrust in the authorities is not only high, but already outweighs both the responsibility of the previous authorities and the stereotypes of “enemies” traditional for the public consciousness.

Opinion polls also showed the growth of national-patriotic, chauvinistic, monarchist sentiments. Throughout 1994, for example, there was a consistent increase in monarchist sentiment: if in the spring only 9% saw a panacea in the restoration of the monarchy, then in early autumn 18% of the adult population of Russia considered it desirable. Today, approximately every tenth respondent is ready to put military Grishin N.V. at the head of the state. Psychology of conflict St. Petersburg, 2000.

2.2 Conflicts in the socio-economic sphere

Socio-economic conflicts in Russia are distinguished by their specific manifestations and special reasons for their formation. In the social conflicts of the West, the contradiction between the welfare system and the labor system traditionally appears. The actors in these conflicts are, first of all, entrepreneurs and trade unions, mediated by the government, who ultimately make decisions taking into account the interests of the parties.

The powerful strike movements of miners, workers of land, air, rail and sea transport, fisheries, etc. have shown that in our country the division of the struggle is not along the line “workers - entrepreneurs”, but along the line “labor collectives - government”. Since 1992, although demands for higher wages, living standards, and the elimination of wage arrears have prevailed, the demands of strike participants have been steadily growing, connected with defending their right of owners to the property of the enterprise.

There are, of course, many other features, but they do not determine the main content of conflicts in this area. For example, some conflicts are of a “secondary” nature, i.e. their main reason is the non-fulfillment by the government and the relevant administrative bodies of previously signed agreements and agreements reached. Mass conflicts are also related to the fact that there is no clear legislative basis for resolving labor disputes, and many problems can be solved already at the initial stage of the conflict.

The main content of the conflicts that are emerging in the socio-economic sphere of the crisis society in Russia is associated with the formation of such market relations in which unprecedented inequality forms the bipolarity of social forces that are initially doomed to conflict relationships. Since property is concentrated in the hands of the elite, primarily the nomenklatura, in whose hands power is actually concentrated, the socio-economic actions are directed against the social and economic policy of the government in the center and in the regions.

Conflict processes are developing in the context of deepening contradictions between the microeconomic adaptation of the population and the needs of macroeconomic progress. Sociological survey data show that 80% of Russian citizens ensure their more or less tolerable living conditions by adapting to the existing market. Only 13% of workers in 1994 lived off their main job, the rest, trying to survive by any means, had earnings from other activities. However, these microeconomic adjustments cannot be characterized as real macroeconomic progress.

Moreover, a high degree of distrust in the “official” economy, along with the political distrust mentioned above, is good ground for the shadow economy, for its global criminalization. Such a development of economic situations can lead to the degradation of the political and economic institutions of the state. In addition, omnipotence and uncontrolled interference in market processes, which leads to unpredictable consequences such as the “ruble collapse” in October 1994 Mastenbrook U. Conflict management and organization development. - M.: Infr-M, 1996.

Serious conflictological potentials also contain socio-economic relations between medium and small entrepreneurs and power structures. The main reasons are: corruption among officials; the uncertainty of the functions of many civil servants, their requirements for entrepreneurs; ambiguity in the interpretation of laws governing entrepreneurial activity. The interaction between entrepreneurs and officials is increasingly carried out through the prism of negative psychological images that give rise to mutual expectation of threats and hostility.

In conflictological terms, the importance of the nature of relations along the line “entrepreneurs - the bulk of the population” increases. Ordinary citizens have an ambiguous attitude towards entrepreneurs: 50% - favorably, 30% - sharply negative. But there is one important factor that can sharply aggravate the situation. If we take the differences in income between the richest and poorest strata, then a few years ago they were estimated at 3:1. But modern expert estimates indicate that income differentiation among population groups in Russia has reached the level of 50:1 and higher (in Western countries it is 10:1). This indicates the danger of a conflict of a new quality, because the minimum well-off groups are below the poverty line in terms of their level, and we are talking not only about a 50-fold difference in income, but also about the fact that the lower strata are the enemies of survival. It should also be taken into account that the “lower strata” mean not only pensioners, disabled people and similar groups of the population, but also highly qualified workers - doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. Their artificial lumpenization erodes the beginnings of the Russian "middle class", the social category that usually becomes the basis and bulwark of social stability.

2.3 Conflicts in the sphere of interethnic, interethnic relations

Interethnic, interethnic conflicts, both in structure and in the nature of formation, and in the fierceness of the confrontation, and, finally, in the complexity of their regulation and resolution, occupy a special place among other social conflicts. Not only social contradictions, linguistic and cultural problems, but also historical memory, the “mobilized past” become powerful factors and foundations of the conflict. These conflicts can be viewed through the prism of politics, economics, social structures and relations, etc. P. Sorokin rightly compared national relations with a sandwich, i. with a complex of relations covering all spheres - politics, economics, spiritual life, language, etc. Consider conflicts in this area through the prism of national psychology and self-awareness Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict St. Petersburg, 2000.

The collapse of the USSR, it would seem, resolved major and deep contradictions between nations and opened a period of calm resolution of cultural, linguistic and other problems in the new states that appeared on the territory of the former Union. But this did not happen, primarily because the states did not emerge on the basis of free, democratic self-determination, but as a result of an apex decision by a group of political leaders. Interethnic contradictions intensified, the conflicts that existed by that time flared up with renewed vigor, aggravated in various regions of the former Union (Karabakh, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc.). Interethnic contradictions and conflicts have taken a significant place in the public life of Russia.

What is the ethnopolitical situation in Russia today? Russia is a multinational country, where representatives of more than 120 peoples live. In many republics within the Russian Federation, the titular population is a minority. Of the 21 republics, only the 5-titular population exceeds 50% of the population of this republic (in Chuvashia, Tuva, Komi, Chechnya, North Ossetia). In general, in all the republics taken together, the “indigenous population” makes up only 32% of the population, and in the autonomous regions - 10.5%. This fact alone indicates that serious contradictions are possible between the titular and the rest of the population in the conditions of the proclaimed sovereignty of the republics. An important factor determining the nature of the development of interethnic relations in Russia is that Russians make up more than 80% of the country's population.

The main feature of interethnic conflicts in Russia is due both to the difference in the ratio of the Russian and non-Russian population throughout the ethnoterritorial space of the federation, and mainly to the fact that the national psychology of Russians and the excited national self-consciousness, in some of its potencies, can destabilize the socio-political situation and exacerbate interethnic contradictions. The ideals, values ​​and attitudes of the national consciousness of the Russian ethnos begin to play a dominant role in society, causing (as well as the consciousness of a gigantic preponderance of their numbers) a certain reorientation of the ways and methods of regulating ethnic conflicts. It is not the ethno-political situation in Russia in itself, not the numerical dominance of the Russian ethnic group that gives rise to conflicts, but the crisis political, socio-economic and spiritual situation in which all peoples find themselves, including, and perhaps primarily, the Russian nation. All spheres of society are covered by contradictions that intertwine in a peculiar way in the life of every nation, deforming their idea of ​​interests, needs, sources of their satisfaction. But in order to understand how, in what direction they can develop, what is the real historical prospect of ongoing conflicts, and finally, what non-Russian ethnic groups conflicting in Russia can count on, it is necessary to carefully and seriously consider the problem of the moral well-being of Russians, their psychological perception of their current situation.

The tragic situation in which the Russian ethnos finds itself is intensively reanimating the content and symbols of the Russian idea, reviving not only its progressive, but also its negative aspects. The psychological aspect of the purely irrational opposition of “WE” and “THEY”, the consideration of other ethnic groups living next to it, with new eyes, is accompanied by an exacerbation of an acute internal conflict in understanding oneself as a certain national-ethnic community, identifying one’s cultural and historical role and place as the largest ethnos. For the first time, perhaps, in history, the moral well-being of the Russian people, their self-consciousness is experiencing such infringement and fear for the future, when every other, even a small ethnic group, can appear before it in the form of an enemy.

The crisis of Russian society today and the crisis of Russian “existence” that has been going on for many years can explain a lot about the peculiarities of the self-consciousness and psychology of Russians, but not all. The dispersal of the Russian ethnos in all the states of the former Soviet Union, their humiliated position in a number of regions not only became the source of many conflicts (in the Baltic States, Central Asia, etc.), but also have a direct and most serious impact on the self-consciousness of the Russian ethnos in general, causing an ideological and psychological reaction. It was in recent years that aggressive-offensive moods also arose in the Russian national consciousness, based on great-power stereotypes, which did not exist before. There are reasons to believe that they will increase even more. They will be fed by Russian refugees, especially from Central Asia. Secondly, people from other CIS states illegally migrate to Russia in search of work or place of residence, creating their own “communities” (Georgian, Uzbek, Azerbaijani, Armenian, etc.) in different regions of the country. Sometimes, by their activities and behavior, they become catalysts for such sentiments among Russians.

Acting on the market as carriers of trade and intermediary relations, representatives of a number of nationalities, as it were, personify everything negative that is associated with this type of activity in the lives of ordinary people - high cost, deceit, cheating, etc. In the labor market, compatriot communities (groups, brigades) act as competitors for local builders, repairmen, artisans, and so on. The bulk of them are directly or indirectly connected with the "shadow" economy, where, as is known, people belonging to certain ethnic groups are involved. Sometimes these are crime syndicates with a hierarchical structure, where customs and traditions oblige ordinary members to obey their leaders. It is precisely such structures that, on a national or ethnic basis, lead to explosive situations in different regions of Russia, giving rise to and reinforcing persistent negative national stereotypes. To the question: “Are there any nationalities that you dislike?”, 37% of Muscovites at the beginning of 1994 answered “yes”. Among the respondents under the age of 20, 69% experienced national hostility.

Of course, each specific conflict on interethnic grounds has its own characteristics, its own causes. The very federal organization of the state of Russia is the breeding ground for all sorts of conflicts. A very acute conflict with Tatarstan was resolved constitutionally by concluding a special bilateral treaty. With Chechnya, this failed, and the political conflict turned into a military one. All these interethnic conflicts, like others, require special consideration. But one thing is already quite obvious today: all existing and potential interethnic and interethnic conflicts that directly or indirectly affect the interests of the Russian people can be peacefully resolved in mutual interests if these conflicts fully take into account the growth of self-consciousness of the Russian ethnos and the psychological manifestations of the Russian national identity. character. The Chechen crisis has shown that the issues of the integrity of the Russian state and the inviolability of its borders have become a priority in the ways of regulating interethnic problems. The local elite and nationalist forces, acting under the banner of the sovereignty of their autonomies, must fully realize this new reality of the ethno-political situation of Russian society.

CONCLUSION

Representatives of the early schools of management, including supporters of the school of human relations, believed that conflict is a sign of ineffective organization and poor management. In our time, more and more often they are inclined to the point of view that some conflicts, even in the most effective organization with the best relationships, are not only possible, but also desirable. You just need to manage the conflict.

Conflicts arise in almost all spheres of human life. Conflicts can be hidden or overt, but they are always based on a lack of agreement.

The main role in the emergence of conflicts is played by conflictogens - words, actions (or inactions) that contribute to the emergence and development of the conflict, that is, leading to conflict directly.

In the process of conflict interaction, its participants get the opportunity to express different opinions, to identify more alternatives when making a decision, and this is precisely the important positive meaning of the conflict. This, of course, does not mean that the conflict is always positive.

If conflicts contribute to making informed decisions and developing relationships, then they are functional. If they interfere with effective interaction and decision-making, then they are dysfunctional. So it is necessary not once and for all to destroy all the conditions for the emergence of conflicts, but to learn how to manage them correctly. To do this, one must be able to analyze conflicts, understand their causes and possible consequences.

The well-known researcher of conflicts K. Thomas considers it necessary to focus on the following aspects of the study of conflicts: what forms of behavior in conflict situations are characteristic of people, which of them are more productive or destructive; how to stimulate productive behavior. The basis here is the degree of orientation of the participants in the situation to their own interests and the interests of the partner, while distinguishing five main tactics or styles of behavior. These are: avoidance, concession, confrontation, compromise, cooperation.

K. Thomas believes that when avoiding conflict, neither side achieves success; in such forms of behavior as competition, accommodation and compromise, either one of the participants wins and the other loses, or both lose because they make compromise concessions. And only in a situation of cooperation, both parties win.

LIST OF SOURCES USED

Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. - M.: Center, 1996., p. 117

Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology. - M.: UNITI, 1999.

Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict St. Petersburg, 2000

Druzhinin V.N. Family psychology. - M.: KSP, 1996.

Emelyanov S.M. Workshop on conflictology. St. Petersburg, 2000

Zerkin D.P. Fundamentals of conflictology: a course of lectures. Rostov n/D., 1998

Kabushkin N.I. Fundamentals of management. - Minsk: Amalfeya, 1998.

Conflictology / Ed. A.S. Carmine. - St. Petersburg: Lan, 1999.

Mastenbrook U. Management of conflict situations and organization development. - M.: Infr-M, 1996.

Morozov A.V. Business psychology. SPb., 2000

Sulimova M.S. Social work and constructive conflict resolution. - M., Institute of Practical Psychology, 1999.

Sysenko V.A. Marital conflicts. - M.: Thought, 1989.

Kozrev G.I. Introduction to conflictology: textbook.- M.: Vlados, 1999.

Psychology. Textbook / Ed. A.A. Krylova - M.: Prospekt, 1998.

Similar Documents

Study of the category of intrapersonal, motivational conflicts. Features of interpersonal and group conflicts. Classification of conflicts in organizations. Political conflicts in a totalitarian and democratic society. Causes of interethnic conflicts

abstract, added 01/29/2010


Phenomenological field of conflict. Types of conflicts. Structure and dynamics of the conflict. Conflict management, conflict mediation. The role of conflicts and their regulation in modern society. Conflict is always an undesirable phenomenon.

term paper, added 01/10/2004


Legal conflict: concept, features, typology and structure. Dynamics and resolution of legal conflict. Legal conflicts in the economic sphere of modern Russia. Legal conflicts in the political and cultural spheres of modern Russia.

abstract, added 03/31/2008


The concept of conflict. There are different definitions of conflict. The emergence of conflicts in all spheres of human life. Intergroup and interpersonal conflicts. The main functions of conflicts. Objective causes that give rise to conflict situations.

abstract, added 12/31/2008


Characteristics of conflictogens that play a major role in the emergence of conflicts. The main types of conflictogens according to Egides: violation of the rules, the desire for superiority, manifestations of selfishness. Personal, organizational, industrial conflictogens.

presentation, added 10/19/2013


Research of the theory of conflicts by ancient thinkers. The role of conflicts and ways to manage them in modern society, their classification. Causes of conflict situations in the organization and methods of resolution through mediation, arbitration.

term paper, added 05/20/2009


Analysis of the features of horizontal, vertical and mixed conflicts. Classification of conflicts according to social formalization and socio-psychological effect. Conflict personality traits. Causes of family conflicts. Crisis periods in the development of the family.

presentation, added 12/27/2013


The concept and essence of conflicts, their characteristics, role and significance. Causes of social conflicts. Typology of conflicts. Content of conflict management. The negotiation process as a way to resolve conflicts. The main content of the negotiation process.

term paper, added 02/14/2009


The concept of conflict, types of conflicts. Marital conflicts and mechanisms of their occurrence. Psychotraumatic consequences of marital conflict. Methods for resolving marital conflicts. An empirical study of the causes of conflicts.

thesis, added 09/17/2003


Basic information about the conflict. Classification of conflicts. The concept of "organizational conflict". Causes of information conflicts in the organization. Information flows as a factor generating conflicts. Rumors as informal communication.

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution

higher professional education

VLADIMIR STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Sociology.

Social conflicts in modern Russia

Performed:

Student of the PMI-106 group

Travkova Tatiana

accepted:

Shchitko Vladimir Sergeevich

Vladimir

Introduction

1. The concept of social conflict

1.1 Stages of the conflict

1.2 Causes of the conflict

1.3 Acuity of the conflict

1.4 Duration of the conflict

1.5 Consequences of social conflict

2. Contemporary social conflicts in Russia

2.1 An example of contemporary social conflict

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Each person throughout his life repeatedly encounters conflicts of various kinds. We want to achieve something, but the goal is difficult to achieve. We experience failure and are ready to blame the people around us for not being able to achieve the desired goal. And those around us - whether they are relatives or those with whom we work together, believe that we ourselves are to blame for our own failure. Either the goal was incorrectly formulated by us, or the means to achieve it were chosen unsuccessfully, or we could not correctly assess the current situation and the circumstances prevented us. Mutual misunderstanding arises, which gradually develops into discontent, an atmosphere of dissatisfaction, socio-psychological tension and conflict is created.

The clash of points of view, opinions, positions is a very frequent occurrence in industrial and social life. We can say that such conflicts exist everywhere - in the family, at work, at school. To develop the right line of conduct in various conflict situations, it is very useful to know what conflicts are and how people come to an agreement.

Knowledge of conflicts increases the culture of communication and makes a person's life not only calmer, but also more stable psychologically.

Conflicts between individuals are most often based on emotions and personal animosity, while intergroup conflict is usually faceless, although outbreaks of personal animosity are also possible.

The emerging conflict process is difficult to stop. This is explained by the fact that the conflict has a cumulative nature, i.e. every aggressive action leads to a response or retribution, and more powerful than the original.

The conflict is escalating and involves more and more people. A simple grudge can eventually lead to acts of cruelty towards one's opponents. Cruelty in social conflict is sometimes mistakenly attributed to sadism and the natural inclinations of people, but most often it is committed by ordinary people who find themselves in extraordinary situations. Conflict processes can force people into roles in which they should be violent. So, soldiers (as a rule, ordinary young people) on the territory of the enemy do not spare the civilian population, or in the course of interethnic hostility, ordinary civilians can commit extremely cruel acts.

Difficulties arising in extinguishing and localizing conflicts require a thorough analysis of the entire conflict, establishing its possible causes and consequences.

1. The concept of social conflict

Conflict is a clash of opposing goals, positions, views of the subjects of interaction. At the same time, the conflict is the most important side of the interaction of people in society, a kind of cell of social life. This is a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is due to opposing values ​​and norms, interests and needs.

The essential side of social conflict is that these subjects operate within the framework of some wider system of connections, which is modified (strengthened or destroyed) under the influence of the conflict.

If interests are multidirectional and opposite, then their opposition will be found in a mass of very different assessments; they themselves will find a “field of collision” for themselves, while the degree of rationality of the claims put forward will be very conditional and limited. It is likely that at each of the stages of the development of the conflict, it will be concentrated at a certain point of intersection of interests.

The situation is more complicated with national-ethnic conflicts. In different regions of the former USSR, these conflicts had a different mechanism of occurrence. For the Baltic States, the problem of state sovereignty was of particular importance, for the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict the territorial status issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, for Tajikistan - inter-clan relations.

Political conflict means moving to a higher level of complexity. Its emergence is associated with consciously formulated goals aimed at the redistribution of power. For this, it is necessary to single out, on the basis of the general dissatisfaction of the social or national-ethnic stratum, a special group of people - representatives of the new generation of the political elite. The embryos of this layer have been formed in recent decades in the form of insignificant, but very active and purposeful, dissident and human rights groups that openly opposed the established political regime and embarked on the path of self-sacrifice for the sake of a socially significant idea and a new system of values. Under the conditions of perestroika, past human rights activities became a kind of political capital, which made it possible to speed up the process of forming a new political elite.

Contradictions permeate all spheres of society - economic, political, social, spiritual. The aggravation of certain contradictions creates "zones of crisis". The crisis manifests itself in a sharp increase in social tension, which often develops into a conflict.

The conflict is associated with people's awareness of the contradictions of their interests (as members of certain social groups) with the interests of other subjects. Aggravated contradictions give rise to open or closed conflicts.

Most sociologists believe that the existence of a society without conflicts is impossible, because conflict is an integral part of people's being, a source of changes taking place in society. Conflict makes social relations more mobile. The population quickly abandons the usual norms of behavior and activities that previously satisfied them. The stronger the social conflict, the more noticeable its influence on the course of social processes and the pace of their implementation. Conflict in the form of competition encourages creativity, innovation and ultimately promotes progressive development, making societies more resilient, dynamic and receptive to progress.

The sociology of conflict proceeds from the fact that conflict is a normal phenomenon of social life, the identification and development of conflict as a whole is a useful and necessary thing. Society, power structures and individual citizens will achieve more effective results in their actions if they follow certain rules aimed at resolving the conflict.

1.1 Stages of the conflict

The analysis of conflicts should be started from the elementary, simplest level, from the origins of conflict relations. Traditionally, it begins with a structure of needs, a set of which is specific to each individual and social group. All these needs can be divided into five main types:

1. physical needs (food, material well-being, etc.);

2. security needs;

3. social needs (communication, contacts, interaction);

4. the need to achieve prestige, knowledge, respect, a certain level of competence;

5. higher needs for self-expression, self-affirmation.

All human behavior can be simplified as a series of elementary acts, each of which begins with an imbalance due to the emergence of a need and a goal that is significant for the individual, and ends with the restoration of balance and the achievement of the goal. Any intervention (or circumstance) that creates an obstacle, a break in a person's already begun or planned action, is called a blockade.

In the event of a blockade, an individual or social group is required to reassess the situation, make a decision under conditions of uncertainty, set new goals and adopt a new plan of action.

In such a situation, each person tries to avoid the blockade, looking for workarounds, new effective actions, as well as the causes of the blockade. Meeting with an insurmountable difficulty in satisfying a need can be attributed to frustration, which is usually associated with tension, displeasure, turning into irritation and anger.

The reaction to frustration can develop in two directions - it can be either retreat or aggression.

Retreat is the avoidance of frustration by short-term or long-term refusal to satisfy a certain need. Retreats can be of two types:

1) restraint - a state in which an individual refuses to satisfy any need out of fear;

2) suppression - avoiding the realization of goals under the influence of external coercion, when frustration is driven deep and can at any moment come out in the form of aggression.

Aggression can be directed at another person or group of people if they are the cause of frustration. At the same time, aggression is social in nature and is accompanied by states of anger, hostility, and hatred. Aggressive social actions cause an aggressive response and from that moment social conflict begins.

Thus, for the emergence of social conflict it is necessary: ​​firstly, that the cause of frustration is the behavior of other people; secondly, in order to have a response to aggressive social action.

Social conflict as a phenomenon in the structure of society is a multifaceted phenomenon, in which the most diverse in content and nature social ties and relations, both material and spiritual, are woven into a single knot: economic, political, legal, moral, which are amenable to logical analysis, rational comprehension in a logical-verbal form; but here there are also such connections and relations that in rational forms, i.e. in the logic of concepts familiar to us, are incomprehensible. Therefore, the knowledge of social conflicts requires special conceptual means; new intellectual-linguistic moves and semantic constructions are needed here.

A sociological analysis of social conflicts and ways to resolve them in the management process involves, first of all, clear definitions of the three identified points (conflicts - social management - ways to resolve social conflicts).

There are different interpretations of the conflict, different levels of understanding of this social phenomenon. In general, three approaches are most clearly manifested. A number of theorists who deal with this problem in one way or another believe that conflict is definitely an undesirable phenomenon that destroys (or disrupts) the normal functioning of the social system. Others, on the contrary, argue that conflict is a natural and even necessary phenomenon in the life of society; it performs a stimulating function. For example, a supporter of such an interpretation, the German philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel, once spoke quite definitely about this: in his opinion, social and political conflict is the basis of social communication. The conflict situation, he believes, emphasizes the boundaries of the group, mobilizes its members, makes them realize their unity, and this is the great significance of the conflict.

There is also a third approach to the interpretation of the conflict, which is more balanced and more in line with reality. It consists in the fact that both negative, destructive, and positive functions are distinguished in the conflict. Positive in the sense that the conflict and its resolution are in some cases a prerequisite for the emergence of a new one, for the transition of a certain system to a new quality, to a higher level of its development or strengthening its stability.

The nature of managerial decisions made by him and specific actions in a conflict situation depends on which of the designated positions the subject of management takes, which will be discussed in more detail below.

For the disclosure of this topic, the interpretation of management in conflict conditions is of great importance. The practical managerial actions of the subject of management depend on it. Management in conflict conditions is the activity of the subject of management to maintain (or establish) the following features of the social system:

• ? firstly, its integrity, the organic unity of the elements included in this system;
• ? secondly, orderliness, which is the relative constancy of the composition of the elements and the links that unite them;
• ? thirdly, the ability of the system to preserve itself when exposed to the environment and its functions, for the sake of which this system was formed and exists.

In essence, effective management in conflict situations means maintaining or building a certain structure, an ordered set of relations according to the marked functional and institutional features. But this requires a correct understanding of the conflict itself as a specific phenomenon in the structure of society, the causes of its occurrence and genesis, as well as ways to resolve it.

Social conflict is a form of interaction between the subjects of social relations, determined by the mismatch (and sometimes incompatibility) of their vital interests and values, and in its essence is reduced to the distribution and redistribution of vital resources, which should be understood as the means and conditions for the existence and development of these subjects (material and spiritual values ​​that can satisfy their diverse needs, property, power, territory, etc.).

Developments in conflict theory have traditionally been limited to the creation of "explaining" concepts, i.e. searching for the origins of conflict situations, identifying behavioral stereotypes fraught with a social explosion. Today, there is an emphasis on methods of prevention and resolution, in other words, conflict management. Researchers of this phenomenon are moving from finding out the causes and factors that give rise to conflict, to creating a theory and technology for resolving or resolving conflicts.

In line with traditional approaches to the study of conflicts, it was customary to start with the study of social institutions and structures in relation to which the individual acted as a malleable instrument of the social process. Modern interpretations suggest a different angle of view: social conflict is a consequence of infringement (or inadequate satisfaction) of the totality of human needs (or part of them), which form the real basis for the emergence and development of social conflicts. We consider conflict as a phenomenon that goes back to the substantive and functional needs of a person. Therefore, in the study of conflicts, the initial ones should not be groups (social, political, confessional, professional, status-positional, etc.) with their prescribed typical consciousness and behavior, but people who, making their own choice or making it under the pressure of the environment , just form such groups and communities. People identify with them today, and tomorrow, for some reason, change their orientation. Thus, studying a conflict situation and even more so claiming the right to regulate it, it is advisable to return from the passion for structures to the source - to the person, the hero and the author of conflict social dramas. At the same time, one should not deny the fact that political and economic structures are involved in fomenting the conflict, pursuing certain interests related to their power and income. These aspects of the problem are clear and sufficiently studied. But in the implementation of certain actions during the conflict, in the implementation of certain plans, masses of people participate who do not always have a direct interest in the initial plans and intentions of the "arsonists", and often are not even privy to them. What drives them, what are the motives and goals of their actions against each other that go beyond humanity? The answer to this question can clarify a lot and allow you to more effectively manage conflict situations.

If the conflict, according to the definition of one of the most prominent representatives of Western conflictology, L. Kozer, is a clash of values, then what values ​​were defended by ordinary participants in the bloody massacre in the Balkans, Chechnya, Abkhazia and other so-called hot spots of the late XX - early XXI century. What meaning did they put into their actions and actions? This problem is connected with the peculiarities of the consciousness of these individuals and groups, with their interpretation of reality, with their "construction" of social reality.

Conflicts as an external manifestation, an external clash of social forces and structures hide deep connections and relationships between people, their interests, needs, ideals, goals, values ​​and other components of their "life worlds" (A. Schutz), the knowledge of which requires considerable effort . Such knowledge, which is essential for effective management practice in conflict conditions, should begin with an understanding of some prerequisites of a theoretical and methodological nature.

In order to make the right managerial decision in conflict situations and choose the most effective means and methods for its implementation, it is necessary to take into account the specific conditions and causes of the conflict, the stages of its deployment.

First of all, the conflict is preceded by social tension, from which a pre-conflict situation arises.

Social tension is a state of a social system (or subsystem) characterized by an imbalance in the exchange of activities between the components of this system and accompanied by negative emotional reactions (such as anxiety, fear, hostility, aggressiveness) on the part of the subjects of social relations. The state of social tension is characterized by a situation of uncertainty, which is a conflict environment. It is characterized by extreme excitement of the subjects, often turning into hysteria and giving rise to an ambiguity of perspectives, uncertainty in the meaning and direction of the subjects' actions. Hysteria often brings certainty, but it is usually associated with the formation of the image of the enemy, which will be discussed later.

In a conflict environment, provocation is very often used to ignite social conflict, which has become an integral element in conflicts of the late 20th - early 21st centuries. It is in a state of social tension that a pre-conflict situation is formed.

A pre-conflict situation is a set of specific historical circumstances that have developed in a space that is vital for a social subject and violates its security. It (the situation) gives rise to feelings of anxiety, fear, insecurity or infringement of the interests of the subject, caused by an explicit or implicit encroachment by other subjects on his established and established social status and life resources.

One of the indispensable conditions for the emergence of social conflict is a catalyst.

A conflict catalyst is a very definite element of life resources or life chances for the development of certain social subjects, over which their interests collide. All social relations are objective in nature; there are no objectless relations in society. Relations between social subjects are always mediated by material and spiritual objects, whether they are natural things or products of human activity that can satisfy material and spiritual needs. The same applies to social conflicts as a variety of such relations. In accordance with the objects that serve to satisfy certain needs of social actors and have become a catalyst for social conflicts, the latter can be classified: if social actors clash over the means of production, then this will be economic conflict; if the catalyst was state power, then egopolitical conflict; clash over legal norms and their evaluations gives legal conflict etc.

Thus, one of the main reasons for the emergence of social conflicts is the impossibility of satisfying (or suppressing) the basic needs of subjects, inequality of opportunities, i.e. life chances of different actors, unequal access to development resources. In a state of stability, in a period of sustainable development of the social system, there is a certain and relatively stable structure of interests of various social groups, individual individuals, as well as institutionalized forms of "expression" of these interests as some objectively set parameters determined by the social position of the subjects. Here, if conflicts arise, they are extinguished, sometimes resolved by legal or violent means, specially created for this purpose by institutions of power. In the unstable state of the social system, in its crisis period, there is a diffusion of interests due to the instability of the social position of the subjects. Here, it is not the expression of interests that comes to the fore, but their positing and declaration, relation, claims to life chances, access to resources. The absence or weakness of the legal system designed to regulate social relations, provide institutional, i.e. legal, forms of satisfaction of needs and interests, leads to the fact that the claims of the subjects collide, as in the "Brownian movement", which gives rise to numerous conflicts.

An important characteristic of the conflict is its intensity. The intensity of the conflict means the sharpness, bitterness of the struggle of its parties, which is determined by the degree of moral and psychological mood of the participants in the confrontation, the presence of material and moral readiness, as well as the functional ability of the parties to fight until "victory". The highest degree of acuteness will be in that conflict, the potentials, material and spiritual resources of which are equal and when none of the conflicting parties makes concessions. In such cases, there is only one way out - the conclusion of an agreement.

"Peaceful", legitimate conflict resolution involves overcoming the "enemy image" syndrome, which consists of the following points.

• 1. Distrust, everything that comes from the "enemy" is either bad or, if it seems reasonable, pursues negative, dishonest goals.
• 2. Putting the blame on the "enemy": the "enemy" is responsible for the existing tensions and is to blame for everything.
• 3. Negative expectation: everything that is done is done for the sole purpose of harming us.
• 4. Identification with evil: "enemy" embodies the opposite of what we are and what we strive for; wants to destroy what we hold dear; everything that is beneficial to him harms us and vice versa.
• 5. Deindividualization: anyone who belongs to the opposing group is automatically our "enemy".
• 6. Denial of sympathy: It is dangerous and imprudent to be guided by ethical criteria in relation to the “enemy”.

Until recently, mankind could afford such primitive reactions based on archaic, once acceptable behavior patterns. But for modern man, who has relatively extensive knowledge and is armed with high technology, such primitive reactions are simply fatal.

If we want to know the key aspects of the behavior of the subjects of conflict interaction, then we must understand the motives, beliefs, goals of their actions.

To resolve the conflict, the communicative experience is of exceptional importance, which is born in the context of interaction, when both parties agree on linguistically formalized meanings that remain constant in the process of interaction. The core of communicative experience is the meaning of every action, every fact. Here one should rely on the concept of Max Weber, who considers social action as subjectively meaningful behavior, i.e. focused on the subjectively embedded meaning and therefore motivated. At the same time, social action can be adequately understood only through its correlation with the goals and values ​​to which the subject is oriented. The American sociologist and social psychologist William A. Thomas deduced from this proposition a methodological rule known as the principle of subjective interpretation of social facts: only the meaning invested by the actor provides adequate access to his behavior in the situation that he himself interprets.

Thus, the theory of social action is based on the proposition that action must be understood through the interpretation of the acting subject himself. The motive of action is shifted from the level of the incentive system to the level of linguistic and other communication. Language here acts as a reservoir of interpretations and creation of meanings. Take, for example, the negotiations and agreements between the federal center and Chechnya in the 1990s. XX century: in the same provisions, formulated in the same language by different parties, different meanings were invested, they were given different interpretations depending on the interests of the parties.

Mutual opposition of counterparties, participants in the conflict fully fall under the definition of social action adopted in the "understanding sociology" of Max Weber. In the actions of conflicting subjects, their semantic orientation to the expectations of a certain action of the counterparty is important, and in accordance with this, a subjective assessment is made of the chance for the success of their own actions.

“Other-oriented” is an important concept for understanding and resolving social conflict. That is why in the study of conflicts the most appropriate methods can be the "understanding sociology" of Max Weber and the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schutz. They allow us to understand the meaning of human actions, the motivational and semantic structures of actions and deeds of the participants in the conflict.

The subject of conflict interaction himself chooses the meaning of his situation. He builds and explains his behavior by referring to facts chosen and interpreted by them. Therefore, the resolution of the conflict requires the presence of communicative actions.

Any social subject builds his behavior, focusing on reality. Such is his "life world", i.e. the world of his daily life, the world of objects closest to him, social phenomena. It is this world that is given to him, his consciousness with the greatest obviousness and apodictic (undoubted) certainty. In the process of social interaction, individual individuals, social groups, communities proceed from their life world, life experience as the most solid and stable, and therefore the most reliable empirical basis of social orientation. (It should be noted that knowledge about this empirical basis is provided by concrete sociological research.)

It is the life world that gives the individual the basic meanings and evidence that line up in a continuous life connection. Therefore, to study the intricacies and nuances of social interaction, and especially conflict interaction, one must first of all proceed from the life world of the subjects of this interaction. It is here that the true motives, goals of certain actions and actions of the agents of the conflict lie.

All our knowledge is rooted in the life world. This is the world of everyday life, the real life of people with their concerns, needs, and the search for ways to meet these needs. As A. Schutz rightly noted, the life world, everyday life is the “supreme reality”, it appears as a horizon that forms the context of understanding processes, therefore, in a conflict situation, an analysis of everyday ideas about social reality is necessary, and not a study of artificially constructed scientific abstractions.

Consequently, in order to resolve a social conflict, it is extremely important to break open, destroy the barriers, the boundaries of the life worlds of conflicting subjects, and introduce them into one communicative field. Here it is necessary to appeal to culture, to common spiritual, moral and religious values, to social ideals that exist in the structure of conflicting life worlds. And in the absence of them, they must be introduced, introduced into the life worlds of the conflicting subjects, so that they can perform a meaning-creating function, form a common understanding of the situation for both sides.

The above philosophical and socio-psychological grounds for interpreting the conflict are extremely important for the practice of social management as a whole. In essence, effective management in this area is the art of resolving (or rather, resolving) conflicts between social actors. Conflict resolution differs from conflict resolution in that a third party is involved in the process. Its participation is possible both with the consent of the conflicting parties, and without it. Such a third party is the subject of social management. In modern conflictological literature, the third party nam&tsya mediator(intermediary). Mediators can be formal or informal. Official mediation implies that the mediator has a normative status or the ability to influence opponents. Informal mediation is distinguished by the absence of a normative status of the mediator, but the parties to the conflict recognize his informal authority in solving such problems.

Official mediators can be:

• ? interstate organizations (for example, the UN);
• ? individual states;
• ? state legal institutions (arbitration court, prosecutor's office, etc.);
• ? government and other state commissions;
• ? representatives of law enforcement agencies (for example, a local policeman in relation to a domestic conflict);
• ? heads of enterprises, institutions, firms, etc.;
• ? public organizations (commissions for resolving labor disputes and conflicts, trade union organizations, etc.).

Unofficial mediators are:

• ? famous people who have achieved success in socially significant activities (politicians, former statesmen);
• ? representatives of religious organizations;
• ? informal leaders of social groups of different levels, etc.

Official and unofficial mediators are the subjects of social management in conflict situations.

Modern management theorists believe that the complete absence of conflicts within the organization is not only impossible, but also undesirable. Types of conflicts within the organization are as follows: intrapersonal, interpersonal, between the individual and society, intragroup, intergroup.

The main causes of such conflicts are limited resources, interdependence of tasks, differences in goals, differences in values, differences in behavior, in educational levels, and poor communication.

From this follow the ways of resolving such conflicts: structural and interpersonal. Structural ways are:

• a) explanation of the requirements for work;
• b) use of coordination and integration mechanisms;
• c) setting corporate-wide complex goals;
• d) use of the reward system.

Interpersonal methods include:

• a) evasion;
• b) smoothing;
• c) coercion;
• d) compromise;
• e) solving the problem underlying the conflict.

Many causes of social conflicts in modern

Russian society are in the sphere of interaction between the state and the emerging civil society. The state as a political body for the exercise of power requires compliance with the general norms established by the constitutional way, the maximum coordination of social interests and giving the dominant of them the status of universal state will. It is a profound mistake to see in a constitutional state only an apparatus of violence. We should agree with jurists that statehood is not a naked monopoly of force in public life, but a certain form of its organization and application, i.e. right.

Meanwhile, it is in the real interaction between the state and the institutions of civil society and individual citizens in modern Russia that many social contradictions arise, mainly through the fault of the state. A vivid example of this is the "unsuccessfully" implemented policy of monetizing social benefits for various social categories of Russian citizens. Although, according to the Constitution, any specific legislative acts of the state, dictated by considerations of economic, social or political expediency, are lawful only insofar as they do not violate the legal and social status enshrined in it.

This link - the state and the still emerging civil society - is fundamentally important at the present stage of development of Russian society. Unfortunately, we have to admit that there is no constructive interaction here yet. It needs to be adjusted. As long as mutual alienation prevails. On the one hand, civil consciousness has not yet been formed among all segments of the population, which implies respect for state bodies and an understanding of their importance. On the other hand, there is still no respect for the rights and freedoms of members of society by state bodies and civil servants representing the state. This gives rise to various social conflicts that make it difficult to solve managerial problems at all at all levels.

Social conflicts are violent and non-violent, controlled (managed) and uncontrolled (deeply rooted). With all the arguments about the "usefulness" of conflicts (non-violent, controlled) for social progress, it should be emphasized that an extremely undesirable type of social conflict is war - an armed clash of subjects of social relations, leading to human casualties. Terrorism also belongs to the same type of conflicts.

Terrorism is a multifaceted phenomenon that is increasingly asserting itself in the structure of being of modern society. It becomes one of the tools for the practical solution of economic, political and psychological problems. This phenomenon will continue to be analyzed by various specialists - economists, sociologists, political scientists, psychologists, doctors, lawyers; in other words, an interdisciplinary approach is important, since any act of terrorism, whatever its purpose, shakes all aspects of our lives.

At its core, terrorism is motivated violence (there are also unmotivated acts of violence, but this is an area of ​​pathology), carried out by small groups or individuals in order to achieve a specific goal, most often of a political nature, and in this case, terrorists claim to represent large masses - classes, social strata, nations, religious and ethnic formations. It can also be characterized as a modern form of achieving forced deals with the state or with private individuals, where the initiative belongs to the terrorists. Terrorist actions create extreme situations in society, in which the subject of government (whether it be a state or any state body, its leader) must correctly orientate and make an unmistakable managerial decision, be ready to use means of violence against terrorists, up to their destruction .

An example of a deeply rooted conflict is an inter-ethnic conflict, the origins of which cannot be explained only by a divergence of interests. Roughly speaking, in a dispute of interests, you can always bargain. In deeply rooted conflicts, fundamental characteristics and needs of subjects are affected, such as security, identity, self-consciousness and dignity, freedom, etc. This is something that is not bought or sold. Therefore, such conflicts are always protracted and intractable.

Politicized ethnicity is increasingly beginning to come to the forefront of the modern political process. Ethnicity becomes not only the main character of national politics, but also a prominent actor in the sphere of political life in general: without taking into account the numerous ethnic claims, it is no longer possible to solve either economic, political or ideological problems both within national-state formations and on a global scale. .

The processes of globalization and modernization that have taken over modern Russian society have stimulated the disclosure of the latent potential of conflict relations between unevenly developed ethno-national groups. Many ethnic groups and nationalities inhabiting Russia, under the pressure of modernization processes, are forced to move from a traditional society to an industrial one. This transition is accompanied by a breaking strict regulation of their social status, a change in relations between the center and peripheral ethnic groups, religious groups.

Such a transition means replacing the entire traditional system of relations with an open competitive choice in conditions of equality before the laws of the market. But the inequality of starting opportunities in this process in ethno-national areas gives rise to numerous conflicts between the claims of ethnic groups, as well as between individual ethnic groups and the state.

Many problems and difficulties of social management in modern Russia are due to the fact that the state is not yet able to provide constitutional rights to its subjects. It is not yet able to bring all ethnic groups to the same level of socio-economic development.

In addition, in ethnic groups there is an uneven formation of political and legal consciousness, and in the most politicized ethnic groups, really or imaginary deprived because of their peripheral position, there is dissatisfaction with the state center as a guarantor of human rights protection, resulting in a form of nationalism.

Under these conditions, in order to solve their problems, in order to win the right to dispose of the region's wealth, the local ethnocracy effectively exploits objective socio-economic difficulties, hiding behind national rhetoric and dressing up in "national clothes".

It is important for the subjects of social management (state structures, individual leaders of various levels) to understand that interethnic conflicts do not have their own grounds; their fundamental causes should be sought in other layers of social relations, namely: in the economy, politics (primarily in the struggle for power), in the field of social psychology.

Social interactions in unstable systems with intense internal fluctuations (deviations), the dominance of stochastic processes are characterized by a high degree of conflictogenicity. Any of the contradictions objectively inherent in this system can turn into a conflict. Therefore, the main condition for resolving numerous conflicts on the territory of Russia is the general stabilization of the entire system of socio-economic and political relations. But this does not mean that one should simply wait for a general stabilization without taking any measures to resolve already existing and escalating conflicts. In any case, in the event of a social conflict, the subject of management must:

• ? firstly, to localize the conflict, clearly define its boundaries, i.e. not allow the inclusion of additional factors, such as ethnic, religious, etc., that can serve as a catalyst for its further escalation;
• ? secondly, to avoid simplification of the problems that served as the basis of the conflict, their dichotomous (dual) interpretation, because no matter how one side develops its arguments, the other side will equally develop its arguments. Therefore, it is important for the participants in the conflict to go beyond the conflict situation to the level of metaprinciples in relation to it, to consider it from the point of view of general principles that unite both sides, for example, humanism, democracy, freedom, justice, etc.;
• ? thirdly, to exclude any bureaucratic delays in solving the problems that have arisen. Bureaucratization, formalization of relations between economic and political leaders and citizens, between leaders and subordinates can lead to the transformation of an ordinary labor conflict into an ethnic or religious one;
• ? fourthly, not to delay in taking measures: time in conflict resolution is one of the decisive factors, because, having missed the moment, one will have to deal not only with the conflict, but also with its consequences, which can be more dangerous than itself.

Thus, in the socio-economic and political space of modern Russia, the following main conflict fields can be distinguished:

• 1) constitutional process; problems of interaction between the state and the emerging civil society;
• 2) privatization (deprivatization); the nature and content of the social policy of the state;
• 3) the ratio of local (regional) and all-Russian interests;
• 4) the state and trends in the development of interethnic relations in the country. After August 1991, Russia entered a zone of increased risk, which means the possibility of both winning and losing in each of the conflict-generating fields indicated above.

One of the features of the situation in the 90s. consisted in the destruction of value structures, which was accompanied by the rationalization of behavior at all levels of public life. The source of this irrationalization is not only the conflicts unfolding at the macro level, but also what happens in the micro environment. In the course of the reforms, three main motivational complexes of social behavior are formed, which are concentrated not so much in the political space as in the microstructures of everyday life.

The first complex is associated with the mercantilization of personal ties and relationships, including family relationships, with the change of authorities and leaders of public opinion in the environment of direct communication, the penetration of a sense of insecurity and fear into everyday life.

The second complex is associated with personal success in the course of socio-economic transformations: winning in a situation of commercial or political risk, successful investment of money and capital, use of high-quality service and actions of conspicuous consumption, inclusion in the system of international contacts. All this creates a sense of freedom and great opportunities. Such a complex characterizes the behavior of an economically active minority, manifesting itself in different ways depending on the level of culture of the respective subjects of economic activity.

The third complex is associated with the rejection of political realities and withdrawal into private life. It is associated with the construction of one's own picture of the world, not involved in politics, reforms, or any socially significant activity.

The gap between these three complexes of motivation created the prerequisites for the irrationalization of reality, the essence of which is the clash of opposite meanings attributed both to the events and facts of everyday life, and to the actions unfolding in the political arena. As a result, a situation arises in which the same symbols are perceived and evaluated in exactly the opposite way. People cease to understand each other, and the society itself is unraveling.

At the beginning of the XXI century. ideas of a total crisis of management, loss of control, strategic instability began to prevail in scientific analyzes and expert assessments. Optimistic views on controlled social development and historical evolution have been replaced by "catastrophe theory". Nevertheless, in modern science there is an active search for new, alternative approaches to the management of social processes, designed to bring society out of the crisis, to overcome strategic instability.

Social conflicts occurring between social strata, ethnic groups, generations, in production teams, youth environment, etc., as a rule, are the result of exacerbation of social contradictions and, at the same time, a form of their resolution. Conflicts are based on the interests and goals of interacting social groups and communities, significant differences between which lead to their clash.

Conflicts can brew and run latently, like hidden social tensions. This is exactly what is often observed in modern Russian reality, which is characterized by social inequality, the presence of social hardships experienced by a significant part of the low-income population, facts of discrimination on ethnic grounds, and so on.

At the stage of maturation, conflicts manifest themselves in differences in assessments of the social situation, in a clash of opinions and ideas (for example, on the issue of social justice), which are revealed with the help of empirical sociological research. The purpose of such studies is to detect conflict situations in a timely manner, to predict possible options for their development, and to develop recommendations for preventing aggressive methods of resolution.