Intergroup Conflict, Models of

Classical Models in Sociology

Karl Marx viewed historical development in terms of ongoing class conflict. Class conflict has its origins in differences in economic resources, and, in particular, in property ownership. Economic resources establish power and the exploitation of labor. The recognition of common interests leads to class consciousness that is a requirement of successful collective action and of revolution that breaks down existing class power.

In a different perspective, the seminal work of Georg Simmel emphasized the functional roles of intergroup conflict in group consciousness, in cohesion, in integration, and in solidarity within the group. Simmel argued that individuals have a limited choice in conflict situations, as the force to comply with a uniform group action is very strong, but he also underlined the importance of relational structures in conflict.

Drawing on Simmel's work, realistic conflict theory was oriented toward the functions of intergroup conflict. As Lewis Coser argued, the primary functions of conflict are to establish and maintain group identities and boundaries, and to support internal solidarity. The starting point of realistic conflict is intergroup competition. Groups compete with each other for certain scarce resources; it is the scarcity of these resources that makes intergroup conflict “realistic.” Groups try to obtain these resources because it is in their interest. In general, hostility toward the competing group is just a means for obtaining the scarce resources for the in-group.

Hubert M. Blalock handled actual intergroup competition for scarce resources at the macro level separately from individual actions. In his model, individuals are mobilized if they perceive intergroup competition or an out-group threat. This perception [Page 435]does not necessarily have to coincide with actual competition.

Models of Lewis F. Richardson were based on statistical proportions of individuals with different war-moods (attitudes toward going to war) in the rival nations. He explained changes in the proportions by an underlying mechanism that is analogous to epidemics. Friendly and hostile attitudes spread irreversibly as a disease or fashion and result in transitions from one mood to another. When appropriate transition rules and starting parameters are assumed, the typical phases of war can be deduced. For certain values of the parameters, a balanced state of armament levels is derived. The other two typical scenarios are escalation of a runaway arms race and complete disarmament.

...