Bangladesh university

Subject code: soc-4303

Assignment name: Class conflict

Submitted to
Dr.m.m. Enamul Aziz(Associate Professor)
Bangladesh University
Department of social science

Submitted by
Name: Md. Rabiul islam
Roll: 201711636016
Batch:36
Dep: social science
Date of submission :20/10/2020
 Assignment on Class conflict
conflict between different classes in a community resulting from different social or
economic positions and reflecting opposed interests. Also called class war, class
warfare. (in Marxist thought) the struggle for political and economic power carried
on between capitalists and workers. Class conflict, also referred to as class
struggle and class warfare, is the political tension and economic antagonism that
exists in society consequent to socio-economic competition among the social
classes or between rich and poor.

The forms of class conflict include direct violence, such as wars for resources and
cheap labor, assassinations or revolution; indirect violence, such as deaths from
poverty and starvation, illness and unsafe working conditions. Economic coercion,
such as the threat of unemployment or the withdrawal of investment capital; or
ideologically, by way of political literature. Additionally, political forms of class
warfare are: legal and illegal lobbying, and bribery of legislators.
The social-class conflict can be direct, as in a dispute between labour and
management, such as an employer's industrial lockout of their employees in effort
to weaken the bargaining power of the corresponding trade union; or indirect, such
as a workers' slowdown of production in protest of unfair labor practices, such as
low wages and poor workplace conditions.
In the political and economic philosophies of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin,
class struggle is a central tenet and a practical means for effecting radical social
and political changes for the social majority.
Cause of class conflict

Class struggle happens when the bourgeoisie (the rich) pay the proletariat (the
workers) to make things for them to sell. The workers have no say in their pay or
what things they make, since they cannot live without a job or money.

Karl Marx saw that the workers had to work without any say in the business. He
believed that since the workers make the things, they should say where they go and
for how much, instead of the rich owners. They had to work hard to earn a living,
while making the rich richer just doing simple office work.
Since they had to earn money to buy food, and jobs were the only things that give
money, they had no choice but to work for the rich who made the business. The
rich became richer while the worker hauled and lifted and did all of that hard
manual stuff no one really likes to do.

Karl Marx thought that their labor limited their freedom. He wanted the workers to
unite and take over the business, so that they could all be prosperous. He thought
that the common man deserved to run the business, and that the rich were not
better than the commoner

Considering the many types of conflict that exist within literature, let's look at
seven of the most common, using examples from famous novels to illustrate each
type.

Person vs. Person

Conflict that pits one person against another is about as classic as a story can get.
This type of conflict is pretty much self-explanatory, with one person struggling
for victory over another. There are countless examples of this type of conflict in
literature.

In fact, the instances throughout the history of literature are so numerous that
mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote The Hero with a Thousand Faces, a book
outlining the archetype of a hero going on a journey and overcoming an enemy.
The book eventually inspired George Lucas to create the character of Luke
Skywalker. Another example, mentioned in the introduction, is the conflict
between Javert and Jean Valjean in Les Misérables, who clash due to their
conflicting opinions on justice and mercy.

Person vs. Self

In this type of conflict, a character finds him or herself battling between two
competing desires or selves, typically one good and one evil. You won't get a more
obvious example than The Call of the Wild, in which the protagonist (in this case, a
dog) is torn between a domesticated self and wild self.

Person vs. Fate/God(s)

This type of conflict occurs when a character is trapped by an inevitable destiny;

freedom and free will often seem impossible in these stories. You'll find this trope
in Greek tragedy: Oedipus is fated to marry his own mother and Odysseus finds
himself sailing throughout the Mediterranean due to the anger of Poseidon. What
can humans do in the face of the gods and fate? Only endure, it seems.

Person vs. Nature

In this type of conflict, humankind comes up against nature, battling for survival
against its inexorable and apathetic force. The hero may be forced to confront
nature, or the protagonist may be seeking the conflict, trying to exert dominance
over nature.

Probably the most famous example of this type of conflict is Herman

Melville's Moby Dick; it tells the story of a man's obsession with overcoming
nature—specifically, a whale. A shorter example (and on a slightly smaller scale—
smaller boat, smaller fish) is Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea.

Person vs. Society

Cue the dystopian genre. The person-against-society conflict follows the storyline
of an individual or a group fighting (sometimes successfully, sometimes not-so-
successfully) against injustices within their society.

While the characters of George Orwell's Animal Farm are animals rather than
people, it still illustrates a story driven by rebellion against a society, as the
characters struggle against a corrupt power structure, create a new society, and
continue to experience struggles within the new society.

Person vs. the Unknown/Extraterrestrial

This is a common thread in science fiction and supernatural horror movies and
books. In this type of conflict, the protagonist battles against an entity that isn't
entirely known or comprehensible, whether it is extraterrestrial or metaphysical.
Think of Stephen King's The Shining (or many of King's books, for that matter).
On the science fiction side, H.G. Wells' 1898 novel The War of the Worlds is an
example of a group (humankind) clashing with an alien race (Martians).

Person vs. Technology/Machinery

The popularity of this genre has risen steadily over the last hundred years, and in
the face of increasing mechanization and improving artificial intelligence, it's not
hard to see why. This type of conflict focuses on a person or group of people
fighting to overcome unemotional and unsympathetic machinery that believes it no
longer requires humanity.

Class conflict according to Marx

Conflict theory, first purported by Karl Marx, is a theory that society is in a state of
perpetual conflict because of competition for limited resources. Conflict theory
holds that social order is maintained by domination and power (rather than
consensus and conformity). According to conflict theory, those with wealth and
power try to hold on to it by any means possible, chiefly by suppressing the poor
and powerless. A basic premise of conflict theory is that individuals and groups
within society will work to maximize their own benefits. Conflict theory has been
used to explain a wide range of social phenomena, including wars,
revolutions, poverty, discrimination, and domestic violence. It ascribes most of the
fundamental developments in human history, such as democracy and civil rights,
to capitalistic attempts to control the masses (as opposed to a desire for social
order). Central tenets of conflict theory are the concepts of social inequality, the
division of resources, and the conflicts that exist between different socioeconomic
classes.
Karl marx class Conflict Theory
Conflict theory, first purported by Karl Marx, is a theory that society is in a state of
perpetual conflict because of competition for limited resources. Conflict theory
holds that social order is maintained by domination and power (rather than
consensus and conformity). According to conflict theory, those with wealth and
power try to hold on to it by any means possible, chiefly by suppressing the poor
and powerless. A basic premise of conflict theory is that individuals and groups
within society will work to maximize their own benefits.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

 Conflict theory focuses on the competition between groups within society

over limited resources.
 Conflict theory views social and economic institutions as tools of the
struggle between groups or classes, used to maintain inequality and the
dominance of the ruling class.
 Marxist conflict theory sees society as divided along lines of economic class
between the proletarian working class and the bourgeois ruling class.
 Later versions of conflict theory look at other dimensions of conflict among
capitalist factions and between various social, religious, and other types of
groups.

Understanding Conflict Theory

Conflict theory has been used to explain a wide range of social phenomena,
including wars, revolutions, poverty, discrimination, and domestic violence. It
ascribes most of the fundamental developments in human history, such as
democracy and civil rights, to capitalistic attempts to control the masses (as
opposed to a desire for social order). Central tenets of conflict theory are the
concepts of social inequality, the division of resources, and the conflicts that exist
between different socioeconomic classes.

Many types of societal conflicts throughout history can be explained using the
central tenets of conflict theory. Some theorists, including Marx, believe that
societal conflict is the force that ultimately drives change and development in
society.

Marx’s version of conflict theory focused on the conflict between two primary
classes. Each class consists of a group of people bound by mutual interests and a
certain degree of property ownership. Marx theorized about the bourgeoisie, a
group of people that represented members of society who hold the majority of
the wealth and means. The proletariat is the other group: it includes those
considered working class or poor. With the rise of capitalism, Marx theorized that
the bourgeoisie, a minority within the population, would use their influence to
oppress the proletariat, the majority class. This way of thinking is tied to a
common image associated with conflict theory-based models of society; adherents
to this philosophy tend to believe in a pyramid arrangement in terms of how goods
and services are distributed in society; at the top of the pyramid is a small group of
elites that dictate the terms and conditions to the larger portion of society because
they have outsized amount of control over resources and power.

Uneven distribution within society was predicted to be maintained through

ideological coercion; the bourgeoisie would force acceptance of the current
conditions by the proletariat. Conflict theory assumes that the elite will set up
systems of laws, traditions, and other societal structures in order to further support
their own dominance while preventing others from joining their ranks. Marx
theorized that, as the working class and poor were subjected to worsening
conditions, a collective consciousness would raise more awareness about
inequality, and this would potentially result in revolt. If, after the revolt, conditions
were adjusted to favor the concerns of the proletariat, the conflict circle would
eventually repeat but in the opposite direction. The bourgeoise would eventually
become the aggressor and revolter, grasping for the return of the structures that
formerly maintained their dominance.

Conflict Theory Assumptions

In current conflict theory, there are four primary assumptions which are helpful to
understand: competition, revolution, structural inequality, and war.

Competition
Conflict theorists believe that competition is a constant and, at times, an
overwhelming factor in nearly every human relationship and interaction.
Competition exists as a result of the scarcity of resources, including material
resources–money, property, commodities, and more. Beyond material resources,
individuals and groups within a society also compete for intangible resources as
well. These can include leisure time, dominance, social status, sexual partners, etc.
Conflict theorists assume that competition is the default (rather than cooperation).

Revolution
Given conflict theorists' assumption that conflict occurs between social classes, one
outcome of this conflict is a revolutionary event. The idea is that change in a power
dynamic between groups does not happen as the result of a gradual adaptation.
Rather, it comes about as the symptom of conflict between these groups. In this
way, changes to a power dynamic are often abrupt and large in scale, rather than
gradual and evolutionary.

Structural Inequality
An important assumption of conflict theory is that human relationships and social
structures all experience inequalities of power. In this way, some individuals and
groups inherently develop more power and reward than others. Following this,
those individuals and groups that benefit from a particular structure of society tend
to work to maintain those structures as a way of retaining and enhancing their
power.

War
Conflict theorists tend to see war as either a unifier or as a "cleanser" of societies.
In conflict theory, war is the result of a cumulative and growing conflict between
individuals and groups, and between entire societies. In the context of war, a
society may become unified in some ways, but conflict still remains between
multiple societies. On the other hand, war may also result in the wholesale end of a
society.

Step of resolve Class conflict

There are more specific steps we can take when it comes to resolving conflict.
Let’s take a look at the Six-Step Method for Resolving Conflict.

1. Define the problem. Before we do anything else, we need to ask ourselves:

“What is the real underlying issue here?” Investigate in order to identify the
triggering causes of the conflict at hand. So, step one is to collect all available
information from the parties involved. Most importantly, be specific. Avoid
generalities at all cost. In order to define a problem, we need to be exacting about
its cause. If we don’t get to the root of the situation at the very beginning, we will
end up wasting our time, creating further conflict down the road.

2. Come together and communicate. Each person involved in the conflict needs
to be given “air time.” Conduct a meeting in which they can voice their concerns
without being interrupted. Once they lay it out on the table, questions may be
asked. But step one is to listen attentively. Make sure you hear their entire version
of events before judging or making any decisions.

3. Establish relationships. Even though we begin at odds with one another, the
ultimate goal is to build open, honest two-way communication. Just because we
start in argument doesn’t mean we can’t break through to trust. In order to do this
we must maintain respect for the other person. A mediator needs to keep this
atmosphere of deference in mind as well. Don’t let things get out of hand with
screaming and yelling. Encourage listening at every turn, even if they don’t agree.
The goal is to eventually satisfy each person’s needs. It’s not “us against them,”
it’s “we.”

4. Develop an action plan. This is the real key. After you’ve hashed out what the
defining issues are and communicated grievances, it is important to have everyone
involved in the solution. Each person should suggest a reasonable solution that will
let everyone walk away at least somewhat satisfied. We’re never going to get
everything we want, but if we can brainstorm some concrete takeaways for people,
they will have investment in the solution. This isn’t a “zero sum” game.

5. Gain commitment. Once you have a mutually agreed upon solution or action
plan, conditions for follow-through must be set. The words “I’ll try” should not be
a part of our lexicon at this point. That’s not good enough. “I’ll try” means you
basically won’t. Instead, let’s get to the phrase “I will.” That way there’s no gray
area. We need to walk away with something concrete so that the situation doesn’t
keep coming up. Create a deadline specifying the date and time for the actions to
be completed as well. This gives all parties involved something to work toward.
Again, it’s not an esoteric idea; it’s about taking action on a mutually agreed upon
plan. Stick to the plan, and use it as the guideline.

6. Provide feedback. Establish a follow-up meeting where both parties will get
back together to measure the results. Did everyone do what they said they would
do? Is each person sticking to the agreed upon plan, or did other barriers creep in
during the intervening period? If so, those need to be dealt with immediately. Find
a way to get back on track toward a final resolution. Be ready to step in and
provide accountability, if necessary. Accountability is an especially useful tool
once you’ve set up a conflict-resolution process. You can point to the process and
the agreed-upon solution when delivering accountability. Each party was given the
chance to fix the situation before punitive measures had to be taken. This creates
an atmosphere of fairness as well.

Conflict resolution is not a simple or easy process. But just because it’s not easily
attained doesn’t mean we should let a poisonous status quo persist. People at all
levels must find a way to work together so that we cut out ambiguity and make
resolution a step-by-step process. Make it simple for people and you’ll get better
results.

Conflict resolution should be one part of a larger teamwork theme in the

workplace. As a leader, you need to set the tone of inclusiveness and collaboration
on a daily basis. That means working together in the most difficult of moments as
well. Conflict is best resolved by focusing on mutually beneficial goals, by seeking
areas of compromise, by sticking to the facts and by keeping personal/petty
differences out of the discussion. Focus on the process instead of the dispute, and
you’ll get the results you desire.