iwbe.ru → Biographies

Social conflicts in the modern world. Social conflicts in modern Russian society About what social conflicts in the modern world

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.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru

Introduction

Social heterogeneity of society, differences in income levels, power, prestige, etc. often lead to conflict. Conflicts are an integral part of social 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 the existence of a society without conflicts, whether the conflict is a manifestation of the dysfunctions of organizations, an anomaly in public life, or is it a normal, necessary form social interaction between people to some extent illuminates this study.

The relevance of the topic is evidenced by the fact that the clash of points of view, opinions, positions is a very common occurrence in industrial and social 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 increases the culture of communication and makes a person's life not only calmer, but also more stable psychologically.

A conflict, especially a social one, is a very interesting phenomenon in the public life of people, and in this regard, it is no coincidence that many prominent scientists involved 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." Einstein observed that nature is complex but not malicious. The nature of conflicts is different: the conflicting parties can be malicious, benevolent or neutral, sometimes not knowing and even less knowing the true tendencies of the other side.

Main aspects of social 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 the origins of this struggle, 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. A major conflictologist R. Dorendorf refers to the subjects of the conflict three types of social groups:

one). Primary groups are direct participants in the conflict who 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 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, the 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 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.

Characteristics, structure and dynamics of social 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.

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.

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.

2. Ideological reasons. Conflicts that arise on the basis of ideological differences are a special case of the conflict of opposite orientation. The difference between them is that the ideological cause of the conflict lies in a different attitude towards the system of ideas.

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.

4. Causes of conflicts that lie in the relationship between the elements of the social structure. The conflict for this reason may be associated with different goals pursued by individual elements or with the desire of one or another structural element to take a higher place in the hierarchical structure.

The severity of the conflict

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. An acute conflict is much more short-lived than a conflict with less intense clashes and with long 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.

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.

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

The structure of the conflict may change as it develops: the object of the conflict may be replaced in it, and the participants may also change.

The dynamics of the conflict consists of three main stages:

Pre-conflict situation (increase).

No social conflict arises instantly. Emotional tension, irritation and anger usually accumulate over time. The pre-conflict stage is the period in which the conflicting parties evaluate their resources before deciding to act aggressively or retreat. This moment in the pre-conflict stage is called identification. The pre-conflict stage is also characterized by the formation of each of the conflicting parties of a strategy or even several strategies.

Direct conflict (implementation).

This stage is characterized, first of all, by the presence of an incident, i.e. social actions aimed at changing the behavior of the enemy. This is an active, active part of the conflict. The activities that make up an incident can vary. They can be divided into two groups, each of which is based on the specific behavior of people:

1. The actions of rivals in a conflict that is open in nature. (verbal debate, economic sanctions, physical pressure, political struggle, etc.)

2. Covert actions of rivals in the conflict. The main mode of action in a hidden internal conflict is reflexive control. This is a way of managing when the grounds for making a decision are transferred from one of the actors to another. One of the rivals is trying to convey and introduce into the consciousness of the other such information that makes this other act in a way that is beneficial to the one who transmitted this information.

Conflict resolution (attenuation).

An external sign of conflict resolution may be the end of the incident. It is a completion, not a temporary cessation. Elimination, termination of the incident is a necessary but not sufficient condition for resolving the conflict. The resolution of social conflict is possible only when the conflict situation changes. This change can take various forms. But the most effective change in the conflict situation, allowing to extinguish the conflict, is considered to be the elimination of the causes of the conflict.

Classification of conflicts

in relation to the subject.

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

one). Intrapersonal conflict, which is expressed by the struggle of contradictions within a person, accompanied by emotional tension. One of the most common forms is role conflict, when conflicting demands are made on one person about what the result of his work should be.

2). Interpersonal conflict. This type of conflict is the most common. The conflict between personalities arises where different schools, behaviors collide, they can also be fed by the desire to get something that is not supported by appropriate opportunities. Interpersonal conflict can also manifest itself as a clash of people with different character traits, attitudes and values.

3). A conflict between an individual and a group can arise if this individual takes a position that differs from that of the group. In the process of the functioning of the group, group norms are developed, standard rules of behavior that its members adhere to. Compliance with group norms ensures the 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.

By forms.

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, its interests and composition of parties are poorly structured, 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 a mass strike).

By flow.

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.

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.

Direction of interaction.

By the direction of interaction - vertical and horizontal, that is, between opponents of different ranks and the same rank.

In terms of content.

According to the internal content, social conflicts are divided into:

rational - conflicts that cover the sphere of reasonable, businesslike cooperation, redistribution of resources and improvement of the managerial or social structure. These 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;

emotional - their development is unpredictable, and in the vast majority of cases they are uncontrollable. Most often, such conflicts stop 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.

Social conflicts in modern society

social conflict opposite position

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.

Political conflict is a conflict over the distribution of power, dominance, 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, which lasted 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.

notable place in modern life occupy 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 take 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. Mass protests are organized by 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.

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.

Under the conditions of the transition to a market economy, the entire pre-existing wage system 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." 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, the attitude to what exactly has to be done at 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 in the course of joint work. 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.

Let us now analyze how a production conflict develops from the first manifestation of discontent to a strike - an extreme form of industrial conflict. As a rule, everything begins with discontent, the source of which may not be recognized by the worker immediately and directly, and sometimes it is localized quite clearly and definitely.

The next step in the development of the conflict: a clearly expressed disagreement with the corresponding 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 reality everything depends on the general situation at this 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.

Another intermediate phase was of particular importance in the experience of the strike movement in Russia. 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 result of such a development of events is extremely great. 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 the political struggle, when political demands and political motivations become predominant.

The evolution of the strike movement

Strikes are one of the forms of manifestation of conflict in an enterprise or in an entire sector 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 of a strike was 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, began to be used 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, 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:

An increase in the number of participants while reducing activity (sometimes the strike is nationwide).

A high degree of organization (the 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 V.N. Shelenko, an expert on labor conflicts, notes, a modern strike is a pre-prepared, pre-planned action by the collective, based on recognized leaders who head the governing bodies, who enjoy the support of the population, the press, and local governments.

In our country, strikes have long been treated as an 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, etc. 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 to participate in a strike and, therefore, serve as a group-forming factor in this case:

1. A real interest, factually justified, objectively reflecting the position of the group in the social conflict and its possible outcome.

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

3. Interests associated with limited resources (money, materials, privileges, etc.).

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

5. Hypothetical, contrived, imaginary interest based on a distorted understanding of the group's position in social conflict.

6. Transmitted (i.e., transferred from outside) interest, which is not the real interest of this group in the strike and represents the interest of other social groups in it. 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 conflict are analyzed in some detail in the works of A.K. Zaitsev and V.N. Shelenko. Let's briefly consider the scenarios for the development of strikes and ways to resolve them, using the table.

Stages of development of a strike and factors influencing its course


Maturation (zero phase)	The range of problems requiring a final solution is determined, the timing of the start of the strike is discussed
Organization and support	The peaceful mood of the workers is replaced by attitudes towards struggle and the maintenance of group cohesion.
Control	The strike committee controls the normal course of the strike, the suppression of the administration's attempts to disrupt the strike, and the prevention of provocations.
Interaction	The organization of the strike committee feedback from the public through the media, the formation of a favorable public opinion, interaction with the workers' committees and trade unions of other sectors of the national economy.
Exit or Solution	Discussion of the subject of the conflict with the administration through official negotiations.

Conflict resolution is a change in the behavior or properties of 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 involved in the conflict (strike) as a means of containing the conflict. 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 price of retribution exceeds the expected gain from unleashing the conflict. social conflict strike

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 the other. 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 allows you to avoid large losses, although it is associated with certain difficulties in its implementation.

In countries with developed market economies, strikes usually end in a compromise based on a mutually beneficial agreement between the parties. In modern Russia, getting out of a strike with the help of a reasonable compromise is significantly difficult due to 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.

Ways to resolve conflicts

The style of behavior in a conflict coincides in meaning with the way it is resolved. With regard to communication between people, style is a manner of behaving, a set of characteristic techniques that distinguish the mode of action, that is, in this case, a way to overcome a conflict situation, a solution to the problem that led to the conflict. Therefore, the path to conflict resolution lies through the same five ways mentioned in the previous section. At the same time, a number of significant circumstances have to be taken into account, which in one way or another come down to the use of incentive measures, including persuasion and coercion.

The main task in settling any conflict is to give it, if possible, a functionally positive character, to minimize the inevitable damage from the negative consequences of confrontation or sharp confrontation. Such a result is achievable if the parties to the conflict show an honest and benevolent approach to resolving their differences, a common interest in this, if they make joint efforts to find a positive solution based on consensus, i.e. stable, stable agreement of all parties.

With consensus, it is not at all necessary that the general agreement be unanimous - a complete coincidence of the positions of all participants in the conflict settlement process. It is enough that there is no objection from any of the opponents, because the consensus is incompatible with the negative position of at least one of the parties participating in the conflict. Of course, this or that variant of consent depends on the nature and type of the conflict, the nature of the behavior of its subjects, as well as on who manages the conflict and how.

A twofold outcome of a particular conflict is possible - its full or partial resolution. In the first case, an exhaustive elimination of the causes that caused the conflict situation is achieved, and in the second option, there is a superficial weakening of disagreements, which over time may again reveal themselves.

When fully resolved, the conflict stops both on the objective and subjective levels. The conflict situation is undergoing cardinal changes, its reflection in the minds of opponents means transformation, the transformation of the "image of the enemy" into the "image of a partner", and the psychological attitude to fight, opposition is replaced by an orientation towards reconciliation, consent, partnership cooperation.

Partial resolution does not eradicate the causes of the conflict. It, as a rule, expresses only an external change in conflict behavior while maintaining an internal motivation to continue the confrontation. Restraining factors are either strong-willed arguments coming from the mind, or the sanction of a third-party force that influences the participants in the conflict. The measures taken are aimed at persuading or forcing the conflicting parties to stop hostile actions, exclude anyone's defeat, and point to means that promote mutual understanding.

An individual or a social group, correlating the interests of the conflicting parties and the parameters of their behavior, chooses a priority method for resolving the conflict, the most accessible and acceptable under the given conditions. It is necessary to understand that not every style, and therefore a method, is suitable for a particular situation. Each of the methods is effective only in resolving a certain type of conflict.

The method of confrontation is often chosen by participants in collective labor disputes, local and general social conflicts. Often they bring their disagreements with employers on social and labor issues to an extreme form - strikes, using the threat of causing significant economic damage, as well as psychological pressure through rallies, demonstrations and hunger strikes, putting forward political demands on the authorities, etc.

Cooperation is a very effective way of resolving conflicts in organizations, which allows, through open collective discussion, mutual agreement, to achieve the satisfaction of the interests of the conflicting parties.

A common way to resolve conflicts is now a compromise. A classic example of a compromise is the relationship between a seller and a buyer in the market - the result of a sale (mainly an agreement on price) is the desired fruit of a compromise, mutual concessions that suit both parties.

The conflicting party can, under certain conditions, use not one, but two or three or even all methods of resolving the conflict. This circumstance also confirms the fact that none of the five styles of behavior in conflicts, methods of their resolution can be singled out, recognized as the best and, accordingly, as the worst.

Examples of social conflicts

Here is a vivid example of the most complex social conflict and its consideration. France 1968. Unrest of students fighting for their rights, followed by workers and intellectuals, threatening to develop into a civil war and led to a change in the ruling circles. The conflict was opened by a mass student action, which, according to V. Roche, "was the detonator of the mass strike movement of engineering and technical workers, employees." These unrest among the students had several reasons, both external and deep. They were caused by the conservative orders that have been preserved since Napoleonic times in the education system of France, especially in higher education, which has lagged behind modern requirements, the prohibition of political activity at universities, and the exclusion of students from any participation in the decisions of university affairs. The youth rejected the values of General de Gaulle. The last straw was held in 1965-1966. "Fouchet reform", which provided for the creation of 2-year technological institutes at universities, which were supposed to provide faster training of mid-level specialists without eliminating the main shortcomings of the French system higher education further aggravated the class character of the selection of students. Students put forward ultra-communist slogans. Later they were supported by trade unions. The prospect of anarchy did not suit the majority of the population and, using the fear of revolution, de Gaulle achieved stabilization of the situation. But trust was lost and a year later he resigned.

“... By the end of the 60s, France experienced the most serious socio-political crisis in the entire post-war period. This crisis, revealing the depth and strength of the protest that had accumulated in the depths of French society, engulfed the main layers and groups of the population. During this crisis, life itself raised the problems of the socio-economic policy of the government of the Fifth Republic ... ”- this is how Soviet textbooks of the 70-80s write -“ ... As a result of more stringent conditions for the transfer of students to senior courses, those who suffered first of all who, due to their financial and social status, had to combine study with work.

There are many more examples of conflicts between different sections of society. The most ancient social conflict is fathers and sons. This is evidenced by ancient Greek manuscripts and Egyptian papyri.

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.

Due to the fact that social conflict is a multifaceted phenomenon, 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 the research of leading experts in the field of conflictology, a classification of conflicts is presented, which includes the division of conflicts according to their nature.

In the course of studying the problem, the main stages in the development and course of a social conflict are analyzed on the basis of mass movements of workers' protest (strikes, strikes, protests).

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.

List of used literature

Druzhinin V.V., Kontorov D.S., Kontorov M.D. Introduction to the theory of conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

Sociology. Edited by V.N. Lavrienko - M.: UNITI, 2002.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Conflict Issues: A Historical Review

The modern theory of conflict is based on a centuries-old history of accumulation and development of conflictological ideas. Contradictions in nature, society and thinking, the clash of opposing desires and motives in the human soul, the struggle between people, social classes, states - all this has been the subject of philosophers' reflections for thousands of years.

The first attempts to understand and comprehend the place and role of conflict in the life of a person and society arise in the era of antiquity. The ancient Greek thinker Heraclitus insisted that not only people, but also gods, and the entire cosmos exist in contradictions. He was one of the first philosophers who pointed to the struggle of opposing forces as a universal law operating in nature and society. “The hostile unites, from the divergent - the most beautiful harmony, and everything happens through the struggle” \ “Enmity”, “war”, in his opinion, is the source of the appearance of the new in the world. “One should know that war is generally accepted, that enmity is the usual order of things, and that it arises through enmity ...”2.

The only universal law that reigns in space is “war is the father of everything and the king of everything. One she determined to be gods, and the other - people, Some she made slaves, others - free "3. These words of Heraclitus are one of the first attempts to rationalize the positive role of struggle in the process of social development. Conflicts here act as an indispensable attribute of social life.

If Heraclitus considered war to be the father and king of all things, then Plato considered it as the greatest evil. In the teachings of the philosopher, the idea of social differentiation, from which conflicts arise, was developed. According to the ethical three-level hierarchy of people and their virtues developed by him: 1) the estate of the lowest virtue (self-control, humility) includes peasants and artisans who provide the material basis of society with their labor; 2) the virtue of courage is characteristic of the class of warriors and officials who must unquestioningly fulfill their duty, protect the state (from the outside - to repel the attack of enemies, inside - with the help of protecting laws); 3) the virtue of wisdom is possessed by rulers who determine legislation and govern the state. As for the slaves, according to Plato, they do not have any virtue and fell out of the number of persons capable of taking part in political life. This expressed the position of Plato, who advocated an aristocratic form of a slave-owning state, capable of suppressing conflicts with violence and oppression.

Aristotle was the largest thinker of the ancient world who dealt with the problems of conflictology. He was interested in the role of the state in overcoming the conflicts that arose between people, the most important of which were endless wars. He believed: “The state belongs to that which exists by nature, a person by nature is a political being, and one who ... lives outside the state is either an underdeveloped creature in the moral sense, or a superman; ... such a person, by his nature, only craves war" 2.

Aristotle considered a person as a citizen (political being), which is part of the state, which acts as an organizational form of overcoming conflicts between people.

The division of people into those who rule and those who must obey, he attributed to the natural laws of nature and believed that it is useful and fair for one person to be a slave, for another - a master, and hence it follows that the conflict is a natural state of society , in which the master must treat his slave as a "talking tool". The most important sources of conflict, from his point of view, are rooted in the property inequality of people and in the inequality of honors received.

Aristotle draws attention not only to inequality, but also to its unjust measure. With the development of the state, self-interest and vanity as the causes of conflicts increase. The desire for wealth and honors (glory) of the leaders of the state sooner or later causes dissatisfaction on the part of ordinary citizens and becomes the cause of coups, quite frequent in the city-states of Ancient Greece. The fact that the leaders of the state take care of themselves first of all is the main reason for political conflicts (over power and honors). It ultimately leads to such forms of power as despotism (tyranny), in which all citizens are forcibly subject to the ruler. Aristotle was one of the first to draw attention to the human psyche as a source of conflicts: “The cause of strife,” he wrote, “is also arrogance, fear, superiority, contempt, excessive exaltation; on the other hand - intrigues, dismissive attitude, petty humiliations, dissimilarity of characters"2.

The ancient materialist philosopher Epicurus thought a lot about the causes and results of clashes in society. He believed that the negative consequences of the clashes would someday force people to live in peace and harmony. The thinker urged his compatriots to follow the laws, not to commit crimes, especially crimes against a person, called to act “as if someone were watching you, that is, to develop a sense of responsibility” 3. One of the first attempts to systematically analyze social conflicts was made by the classic of political Renaissance Thoughts by Nicolo Machiavelli. He proceeded from the fact that there has always been and will be a threat of conflict between the ruler and the people, between different states. The thinker considered one of the sources of social conflict to be the nobility, concentrating in its hands all the fullness of state power.

Essential characteristics of social classes

Based on the fact that the class paradigm is historically the first in conflictology, we begin the consideration of conflicts in the modern world with conflicts of social classes.

“Even in a prosperous society, the unequal position of people remains an important enduring phenomenon ... Of course, these differences are no longer based on direct violence and legislative norms, which supported the system of privileges in a caste or class society. However, apart from the coarser divisions of property and income, prestige and power, our society is characterized by many rank differences - so subtle and at the same time so deeply rooted that claims of the disappearance of all forms of inequality as a result of leveling processes can be perceived as at least skeptically" - with these arguments, more than a quarter of a century ago, Ralf Dahrendorf began his essay "On the origin of inequality between people"

Even today we can take the existence of social classes as an axiom, because they exist in reality.

Classes as large social communities of people are the most representative link in the social structure. Each type of society, depending on the mode of production, corresponds to its own specific classes. The reason for the emergence of classes was the objective process of the division of labor, during which the attitude of certain groups of people to property was formed and consolidated, their position and social status were determined. The main criterion for differentiating class communities is their relation to property (possession, use, disposal), which act as a "fundamental starting point for the analysis of social structure"1. In every society, classes are "the product of the relation of production and exchange, the word of the economic relations of their epoch"2.

Lenin was profoundly right when he said that social phenomena can only be understood by approaching them from the standpoint of classes and the class struggle. However, the problem of classes itself needs to be studied and understood.

Social class is one of the central problems of social philosophy, which still causes conflicting opinions. More often, a class is understood as a large social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of earning income. Already in the Ancient East and in ancient Greece, there were two opposing classes - slaves and slave owners. Feudalism and capitalism are no exception - and here there were antagonistic classes: the exploiters and the exploited. This is the point of view of K. Marx, which is adhered to today not only by domestic, but also by foreign sociologists and philosophers.

The ancient philosophers were the first to think about the class structure of society. In the "ideal" state, Plato divided society into 3 classes: philosophers or rulers, guards (warriors), farmers and artisans. Following him, Aristotle also distinguished three classes, while giving preference to the middle strata of slave owners. “In every state we meet three classes of citizens: the very wealthy, the extremely poor, and the third, standing in the middle between the two”3. However, the ideas of class theory were already formed at the end of the 18th century. The transformation of the doctrine of classes into an independent scientific direction became possible thanks to the emergence of the social method of analysis, the main postulate of which was the primacy of society over the individual.

The English political economist A. Smith pointed to the existence of three main classes in “every civilized society: capitalists, farmers and workers. The difference between us is due to the sources of income. Landowners live on rent, capitalists on capital profits, workers on wages.

The French philosopher J. Mellier attributed the feudal nobility, the clergy, bankers, tax-farmers, etc. to the class of the rich, and the peasantry to another class. According to G. Mably, property divides people into two classes - rich and poor 2.

The French historians O. Thierry, F. Guizot and O. Mignet attempted to explain history, in particular the history of the French Revolution, from the point of view of the class struggle. Already at the beginning of his literary activity, Augustin Thierry pointed to the "struggle of classes and interests" in England as one of the main consequences of its conquest by the Normans. Revolutionary movement in England in the 17th century. portrayed by him as a struggle between the third estate and the aristocracy” 3. Guizot’s political activity “reveals his class point of view even more clearly. He himself says in his Memoirs that the strengthening of the rule of the middle classes was his constant political aspiration.

The next stage in the development of the idea of social classes is the activity of the Paris Sociological Society at the beginning of the 20th century, in which

I. Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of peoples. T.1. M.; L., 1935. S.220 -221. E. Tarde, R. Worms, J. Lagarf, E. De Roberti, M.M. Kovalevsky et al.1 According to E. Tarde, a social class is a group of individuals occupying the same rung on the social ladder. As historical progress progresses, class distinctions, according to Tarde, smooth out, and the number of professions grows. The concept created by their efforts was called the theory of classes based on social ranks.

Very fruitful ideas were expressed by the French sociologist René Worms. Worms proposed to understand a social class as a set of individuals leading the same way of life, having, by virtue of the same position, the same aspirations and the same way of thinking. Classes are distinguished by wealth, power, prestige, education, lifestyle, and so on. For him, class is the unity of two dimensions - profession and social rank (Worms gave preference to the second) 2.

German sociologists played a special role in the development of the theory of classes. A prominent representative of the theory of the emergence of classes based on the division of labor and education was the German sociologist Gustav Schmoller. He put forward a multi-criteria theory of classes (profession, place in the division of labor, income, property, education, political rights, psychology, race). The key features (independent variables) of class formation were the first two criteria, and the unequal distribution of property and income - secondary, dependent3.

The well-known German sociologist Werner Sombart took a different position. Together with G. Hansen, he developed the theory of historical layers. Each class is a replica of the economic structure of the corresponding era.

The second half of the 20th century introduces its own adjustments to the system of criteria for determining the social composition of classes. The ongoing shifts in the technological and organizational foundations of the information society also cause corresponding changes in the ownership structure. If earlier, as a rule, the relations of ownership, use and disposal of the means of production characterized the social status of one person, then at present there is a division of these powers of the owner between different individuals. This is one of the reasons why the property factor is defined as a necessary but not sufficient condition for identifying class boundaries.

Causes of ethnic conflicts

Interethnic conflicts arise both in developed and backward states.

In the 20th century, the process of establishing new nation-states was marked by an almost universal revival of ethnic consciousness and the rise of nationalism.

The origin and nature of ethnicity is controversial, but its importance as an organizing principle of political life and as an emotionally mobilizing force is increasingly recognized. It is important that, in contrast to the past, ethnic divisions today reveal an extremely high level of conflict potential.

In the mid-90s, the flames of more than 40 armed conflicts blazed in the world: in Yugoslavia, Angola, Somalia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, the North Caucasus region of Russia and others. The vast majority of conflicts were inter-ethnic, inter-tribal in nature. They were deployed on the territory of one or several countries, often going through full-scale modern wars. Many of them were complicated by religious and clan contradictions. Some drag on for centuries, such as the Middle East conflict between Jews and Arabs, the Transcaucasian conflict between Armenians and Turks (Azerbaijanis). The root causes of ongoing conflicts are often erased by time, go into the subconscious, and are expressed in hard to explain, almost pathological national intolerance.

In addition to already existing conflicts, latent hotbeds of tension are even more numerous on the basis of ethnopolitical contradictions. Of particular concern to many researchers is the situation of ethnic groups that are discriminated against and stand up for their rights. ethnic groups that have been discriminated against and organized for political confrontation.Data on the number of ethnic communities that are discriminated against to one degree or another indicate the existence of a very large number of potential conflict zones in many countries of the world.Although it is unlikely that all these zones will become into open, and most importantly, large-scale conflicts, the prospects for reducing the destructive influence of the ethnic factor on domestic political stability do not yet inspire optimism.

The cause of national conflicts is national values (language, religion, history, traditions, symbols, etc.), the desire of peoples to preserve and develop their natural and cultural identity in the fight against other peoples who claim the same national values. In national conflicts, national values acquire self-sustaining value. The essence of patriotism is the desire to preserve the spiritual, cultural and natural basis for the existence of a given ethnic group. The essence of nationalism is to promote the superiority of one nation over others 2. This desire often takes the form of outward expansion and encounters the resistance of other nations.

Nationalism is the natural basis of many interethnic conflicts, regardless of what subjects are involved in them - individuals, ethnic groups and nations, social institutions or social organizations.

Nationalism manifests itself in the ideological, political, economic, military struggle for national values. These conflicts are called national because the main need and interest is the national need and interest, psychologically and ideologically extremely strong. The subject of these needs are national values and interests.

Nationalism is an ideology, psychology, social practice, a worldview and a policy of subordinating some nations to others, "preaching national exclusivity and superiority, inciting national enmity, mistrust and conflicts" \ Xenophobia - hatred of someone else - is one pole of nationalism, its other pole is preference only his. The nationalism of the discriminated ethnos expresses, first of all, its desire to put an end to its downgraded position 2.

An ethnic conflict should be understood as a social situation caused by a mismatch of interests and values, as well as the goals of various ethnic groups within a single ethnic space or ethnic group, expressed in the desire of an ethnic group to change its position in relations with other ethnic groups and the state. “Ethno-national conflicts are organized political actions, riots, separatist actions and even civil wars in which the confrontation takes place along the line of an ethnic community” 3. Most often, such conflicts occur between a minority and a dominant ethnic group that controls power and resources in state4.

Distinctive features of national conflicts are duration, escalation, bitterness, the desire to achieve nationalist goals at any cost, uncompromisingness, significant human and material sacrifices. This clearly confirms the confrontation between Arabs and Jews, Kurds and Turks, etc.

Interethnic tensions and conflicts are generated not by the very fact of the existence of ethnic groups, but by the political, socio-economic and historical conditions and circumstances in which they live and develop. It is in these conditions that the main causes of interethnic conflicts are found. Accordingly, depending on the causes and goals, ethnic conflicts can be typological and systematized.

At the heart of any ethnic conflict, as a rule, lies a whole group of reasons, among which one can single out the main and secondary ones. Most often, the main causes of ethnic conflicts are territorial disputes, migration and displacement, historical memory, the desire for self-determination, the struggle for material resources or their redistribution, claims to the power of national elites, competition between ethnic groups in the field of labor division, etc.

Despite the extreme diversity of ethnic conflicts, some common causes of their occurrence have now been established.

One of the main causes of ethnic conflicts is the mutual territorial claims of ethnic groups to each other. For example, “the crisis of Soviet federalism, expressed in violent ethnic conflicts in the second half of the 1980s, in particular in the Caucasus, was caused mainly by disputed territorial issues and the impossibility of redrawing borders according to ethnic criteria otherwise than by violent means” \ Such conflicts arise on interstate, interregional, local levels. The motives for territorial claims can be different, for example. - due to the historical past of ethnic groups, for example, the presence of historical, cultural, religious and other monuments of an ethnic group in a certain territory; - vague demarcation of existing borders or a new demarcation between ethnic groups, if there were no such borders before; - return to their historical homeland of a previously deported ethnic group (for example, between Ossetians and Ingush, Crimean Tatars and other peoples of Crimea); - arbitrary change of boundaries. In our time, the process of gaining statehood by individual ethnic groups is actively developing, which inevitably entails claims on the territories of other ethnic groups or the rejection of part of the territories of other states. And since all large ethnic groups have long been territorially organized communities of people, any encroachment on the territory of another ethnic group is perceived as an attempt on its very existence. And a historical study of the issue of the causes of ethnic conflicts allows us to conclude that territorial disputes and claims are the most important among them.

General characteristics of political conflicts

The modern period of social development is characterized by the increasing role of politics. "Politics is such a sphere of people's activity, which, in essence, permeates all aspects of public life", has a profound impact on their functioning on a large scale require a political approach, the development of a clear and precise political line, the organization of the efforts of the whole society for its implementation.

Of all spheres of society, perhaps the most saturated with various types of conflicts is the political sphere, in which diverse power relations are deployed, which are relations of domination and subordination.

In the socio-political sense, the totality of positions existing in society is the process and result of alliances and conflicts in the struggle for dominance in the sphere of economy, politics, culture, etc. The struggle that exists in the depths of the political field is a political conflict for the establishment of dominance (dominance) in the system of power relations, for the preservation or transformation of existing power structures, both within individual states and at the international level.

Modern political relations are undergoing a significant transformation. Not only the role of states in the modern world has changed, but absolutely new areas of interstate interaction are being defined.

Considering the question of the role of the modern state, R.F. Abdeev writes that "the state in the new civilization is by no means dying out." On the contrary, this complex self-organizing system improves its structure even more” \ Today, it is the state, as the basic element of the political system, that is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the human community and ensuring its normal functioning.

In modern conditions, it performs a variety of functions. So, with the help of administrative structures, bodies of control and suppression, it regulates various connections and interactions between subjects (personalities, social groups, countries, ethnic groups, etc.), structuring the social space in such a way that the share of entropy processes in society does not exceed the level , after which systemic and structural dysfunctions begin and its disintegration becomes possible. But unfortunately, the share of internal political conflicts, which are a clear manifestation of the negative trend in the development of social relations, is not decreasing.

Conflicts, as noted by the French philosopher R. Aron, are not only interstate, but also intrastate in nature. Individuals, groups, layers oppose each other. In their relationship, strength has always played and plays a decisive role.

A political conflict is nothing more than "a kind (and result) of competitive interaction between two or more parties (groups, states, individuals) challenging each other for the distribution of power or resources" 2. Conflict is one of the possible options for the interaction of political subjects .

Conflicts, signaling to society and authorities about the existing disagreements, contradictions, discrepancies in the positions of citizens, stimulate actions that can put the situation under control, overcome the excitement that has arisen in the political process. Therefore, the destabilization of power and the disintegration of society arise not because conflicts arise, but because of the inability to resolve political contradictions, or even simply elementary ignorance of these conflicts.

The sources of political conflicts are rooted in the difference in statuses and roles played by people in political life, in the diversity and mismatch of their needs and interests, in the belonging of citizens to various social groups and awareness of it (the so-called "identification conflicts") and, finally, in the presence of people of different values and beliefs.

The likelihood of conflict is much less in a state where citizens are convinced that the activities of security agencies contribute to better protection of their lives and property. The likelihood of conflict increases when a significant proportion of citizens are convinced that they are not being protected by the security forces, but are being exploited or terrorized.

The typology of political conflicts is very diverse \ “Here is the confrontation of individual political figures, and the relationship between the government and the opposition within a particular country, and interstate conflicts, and the confrontation of various systems (or combinations) of states, etc. Each variety is, of course, specific, although it has features that are common to all other varieties.

In the most general form, it is customary in political science to classify conflicts on the following grounds: - in terms of zones and areas of their manifestation. Here, first of all, external and internal political conflicts are determined, which, in turn, are divided into a whole range of various crises and contradictions; - according to the degree and nature of their normative regulation. In this case, we can talk about (in whole or in part) institutionalized and non-institutionalized conflicts (L. Koser), characterizing the ability or inability of people (institutions) to obey the current rules of the political game); - according to their qualitative characteristics, reflecting the different degree of involvement of people in resolving the dispute, the intensity of crises and contradictions, their significance for the dynamics of political processes, etc. Among the conflicts of this type, one can single out “deeply” and “shallowly rooted” (in the minds of people) conflicts (J. Burton); conflicts “with zero sum” (where the positions of the parties are opposite, and therefore the victory of one of them turns into a defeat for the other) and “non-zero sum” (in which there is at least one way to find mutual agreement - P. Sharan); antagonistic and non-antagonistic conflicts (K. Marx); - from the point of view of public competition of the parties. Here it makes sense to talk about open (expressed in explicit, outwardly fixed forms of interaction between conflicting subjects) and closed (latent) conflicts, where shadow ways of contesting their powers by subjects dominate.

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, 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 real life people with their concerns, needs, searches 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 the processes of understanding, 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 harmonization 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, important interdisciplinary approach because any act of terrorism, no matter what goal it pursues, 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 the replacement of 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 the 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 differently 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 society itself is unraveling.

At the beginning of the XXI century. in scientific analyzes and expert opinions the ideas of a total crisis of management, loss of control, and strategic instability began to prevail. In place of optimistic views on a managed social development and historical evolution came the "catastrophe theory". However, 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.

Social conflicts in modern Russia.

The forms of manifestation of social conflict can be "social crisis" and "social struggle", affecting the fundamental foundations of the organization of the social system as a whole or its individual subsystems. The causes of social crises and social struggle are:

Violations of the rational process of functioning and reproduction of the basic types of social ties and relations in society;

People's dissatisfaction with the distribution of basic resources for society, wealth, power, prestige. This realization calls into question the legitimacy of the institutions and authorities responsible for allocating resources.

The social crisis and social struggle are accompanied by consequences that, as a rule, no one expects. The struggle changes both the opposing sides and the existing system of action.

Social crisis is different from social conflict:

By the degree of coverage of social ties and relationships;

By the strength of social tension in society, the involvement of individuals, groups and communities in it;

motivating reasons;

The consequences to which they may lead;

Permission methods.

An example of a social crisis is modern Russian society. Due to the relevance of this problem for our country, it is important to analyze the causes, consequences and the means that are used today by the country's leadership to get society out of the crisis.

The fact of the social crisis of our society, scientists identified in 1989 year. The open publication of the report "The Social and Socio-Political Situation in the USSR: State and Forecast" (1990) stated the deep economic and socio-political crisis of Soviet society. IN 1990s over the years, this crisis continued to intensify and moved into a qualitatively new stage. To the systematic decline in the living standards of the people, the accelerating pace of destruction of the human environment, the growing lawlessness, more profound and destructive phenomena have been added.

At the same time, negative centrifugal social and socio-political trends began to gain strength and become irreversible:

Growing social differentiation and political stratification of Russian society;

Expansion of the social base for the formation of a critical mass of dissatisfied people in society;

The growth of mass mental excitement among the general population of the country;

Awareness that the satisfaction of needs, ensuring a normal level and quality of life are under threat or even become impossible;

Growing social tension is combined with a growing sense of social hopelessness.

What are the causes of the social crisis in Russian society? The reasons for failures in the socio-economic sphere during the period of perestroika are often sought in subjective factors, for example, by identifying "carriers of evil" - whether they are specific people (Yeltsin, Gaidar, Chernomyrdin, Chubais), or entire groups ("nomenklatura", " agrarians", "democrats", "monetarists") or external forces ("imperialists", "masons", the IMF). Accordingly, the ways out of the crisis seem quite simple - you need to change the "wrong" program to the "correct" one, remove the "carriers of evil" and "agents of influence" from power, then all problems will be resolved. But this approach leaves aside something more essential - the nature of the crisis we are experiencing.

An attempt to substantiate the reasons for the deteriorating situation in the country by the mistakes made by the first persons of the state, its elite, is insufficiently substantiated.

It is more correct to consider the social crisis of Russian society as a multifaceted historical process, objectively determined by the entire course of the country's development. This is a crisis of society's transition from one qualitative state to another. Such a crisis is systemic, universal, affecting all aspects of public life.

The modern Russian crisis is a natural result of development. The severity and depth of the crisis processes are due precisely to the fact that, unlike the Western countries, we have long shied away from solving the problems that confronted mankind already in the 1940s and 1950s.

At the same time, the complexity of the modernization of socialism is due to the excessive strength of the social structure of society. Perhaps there was no society in the world, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ would be based on such a comprehensive nationalization, the absence of autonomous subsystems. The system of socialism was built on a rigid and unambiguous interweaving of all subsystems of society. The political system, the party apparatus penetrated into all spheres of society, and ideology and culture were the main conductors of state dictate. The economy of socialism proved unable to live without party-state regulation. Ideology collapsed, and behind it all other spheres of society began to fall apart. And therefore, any attempt to affect one part of such a system immediately responds to all its other elements.

It is no coincidence that the demolition of the political and ideological foundations of socialism led to the weakening of statehood, the destruction of economic relations and the rule of law. The nature of a totalitarian society is such that at the "immature" stage there is no "prosperous" way out of it. The preservation of party-state socialism increasingly led to an increase in social tension, but its overcoming was also associated with a significant risk for society.

The collapse of the USSR and the socialist system gave rise to more negative consequences than positive ones. Our main misfortune was that the transition to political reforms, the elimination of communist ideology in the context of not only incomplete, but, in fact, not begun socio-economic transformations, resulted in an excessive weakening of statehood, the basic foundations of social order.

The destruction of the power and authority of the party-state apparatus in a situation where the economy remains non-market and all institutions for maintaining public order are still built in such a way that they can work effectively only according to the top-down management model - such destruction has created a threat to life systems in every primary cell of the social organism.

The weakening and subsequent destruction of party and state bodies created a vacuum of administrative management, social development in its usual state was disrupted at all levels: the degree of observance of state discipline sharply decreased, decisions of higher bodies ceased to be implemented; tax collection has deteriorated; weakened the security of everyday life of citizens.

Accordingly, the main manifestation of the crisis of statehood in Russia in the early 90s was not the collapse of the Union, not the narrowing of borders, but the extreme weakening of the entire system of public order. Equally characteristic in this respect is the spasmodic growth of the criminalization of public life.

Crime has acquired such forms and scales that it has begun to replace the state, primarily in the sphere of the formation of market relations. Criminal groups began to fulfill the same role in society that state bodies are unable to fulfill.

The excessive weakening of statehood in the early 1990s is the main component of the Russian crisis. For this reason, he reached a special depth and acquired the features of devastation. Under such conditions, all the other components of the crisis of the transition period sharply aggravated. And the point is still not so much in the leadership of the country (with all their mistakes and weaknesses), but in the fact that economic reforms had to be carried out in a society with a dilapidated state.

The data of sociological and political studies of modern Russian society show that the causes of the social crisis also lie in:

In the loss of clear life guidelines;

Professional incompetence and social irresponsibility of people included in the highest echelons of power;

Slowness, indecision, delay in making socially significant decisions that can, if not prevent, then at least slow down centrifugal tendencies and bloody conflicts;

Continued disregard for the findings of social and humanities, in the absence of scientific expertise of decisions made;

The presence of "shadow offices" of advisers, whose decisions often turn out to be incompetent, and their practical implementation costs the state huge material and moral losses;

Further bureaucratization (especially at the middle levels of executive power) of the entire public life of the country.

In our time, any erroneous decision, no matter how good goals it pursues, can turn into a social catastrophe for society, and its consequences will be unpredictable.

A comprehensive study of world historical experience in solving problems similar to those facing our country at the present time shows that There are the most general or universally recognized, proven by the experience of many states, ways out of the social crisis:

Competent political leadership;

The concentration of real power in the hands of the government;

stage-by-stage structuring of reforms (their political, economic, ideological components);

Consistency and consistency in the implementation of reforms;

Correct consideration of the time factor;

Creation of a sufficiently strong and influential coalition of various progressive socio-political forces;

The correct combination of the world experience in carrying out such reforms with the peculiarities of the development of Russian society.

Social conflicts in modern Russia. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Social conflicts in modern Russia." 2017, 2018.

TEST

by discipline : "System government controlled»

on the topic : "Social conflicts and emergencies: the legal order and practice of their settlement".

Executor:

Oboymova Yu. I.

4th year student

Specialty G and MU

Record book number 06mgb01692

Supervisor:

Remezova L.S.

Voronezh 2010.

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...…3

1.Characteristics of the social conflict…………………………….…..........4

1.1.Social conflicts in modern society....……………….……..6

2.Social emergencies: causes, types………...………........7

2.1.Management of public emergencies……….…8

3.Conclusion………………………………………………………………....…..11

Literature…………………....……………………………........…………....….12

Introduction

The social heterogeneity of society, differences in income levels, power, prestige, often lead to conflicts. Conflicts are an integral part of social life. Conflicts are born on the basis of daily differences in views, disagreements and confrontation of different opinions, desires, interests, hopes, personal characteristics, lifestyles, which can develop into emergency situations. All this causes close attention to the study of conflicts and emergencies.

Social conflicts in modern Russia are particularly acute and often use violence. Based on the deepening of the crisis state of society, leading to clashes of various forces and communities, social contradictions are exacerbated and their result is social conflicts.

To develop the right line of conduct in various conflict situations, you need to know what conflict is 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.

Characteristics of social conflict.

Before proceeding to a direct consideration of the chosen topic, we will give a definition of the concept of "conflict". Conflict is a clash of opposing goals, positions, opinions, views, opponents as subjects of interaction. The conflict is always associated with people's subjective awareness of the contradictory nature of their interests as members of certain social groups.

Conflict is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Every society, every social group, social community is subject to conflicts to one degree or another. 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. Its indicators may be unresolved political problems, high crime rates, lack of consumer goods, and so on. The most widespread are conflicts related to the violation of the social and economic rights of citizens, the protection of which is guaranteed by the state.

Reasons for the conflict.

The cause of the conflict is the point around which the conflict situation unfolds. 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. Such conflicts can occur in the spheres of economic, political, socio-psychological and other value orientations.
2. Ideological reasons. The ideological cause of the conflict lies in the different attitude to the system of ideas,

3. Causes of the conflict, consisting in various forms of economic and social inequality. Inequality in the distribution of values exists everywhere, but conflict arises only at such a magnitude of inequality, which is regarded as very significant.

4. The reason for social differentiation. Conflicts arise as a result of the different places that structural elements occupy in a society, organization or ordered social group.

Conflict resolution.

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.

Modern conflictology has formulated the conditions under which a successful resolution of social conflicts is possible. One of the important conditions is the timely and accurate diagnosis of its causes. And this involves the identification of objectively existing contradictions, interests, goals. Another, no less important condition is the mutual interest in overcoming contradictions on the basis of the renewal of mutual recognition of the interests of each of the parties. To do this, the parties to the conflict must strive to free themselves from hostility and mistrust towards each other. The third, indispensable, condition is a joint search for ways to overcome the conflict. Here it is possible to use a whole arsenal of means and methods: direct dialogue between the parties, negotiations through an intermediary, negotiations with the participation of a third party, etc.

Social conflicts in modern society.

In modern conditions, in essence, each sphere of public life gives rise to its own specific types of social conflicts.

political conflict - it is a conflict over the distribution of power, dominance, 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, which lasted throughout the entire time after the collapse of the USSR.

occupy a prominent place in modern life 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.

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

One of the main sources of conflict is social and labor relations. A collective labor dispute (conflict) is unresolved disagreements between employees and employers regarding working conditions, the execution of collective agreements, agreements on social and labor issues.

The procedure for resolving collective labor disputes is regulated by a special Federal Law (November 23, 1995 No. 175-FZ). It provides for the right to put forward the claims of employees, their consideration, the use of conciliation procedures, the participation of intermediaries, the use of labor arbitration, the execution of an agreement based on the results of resolving a collective labor dispute. A non-judicial procedure for considering the claims of the labor collective or trade union rejected by the administration is mandatory. The participation of a state body that facilitates the resolution of a collective labor dispute is envisaged. If necessary, the terms provided for the conduct of conciliation procedures may be extended by agreement of the parties to the collective labor dispute.

A strike as a way to resolve a collective labor dispute is used if conciliation procedures have not led to the resolution of a collective labor dispute or the employer evades conciliation procedures and does not comply with the agreement reached.