i

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER/STATISTICS

FACULTY OF PHYSICAL SCIENCES

TOPIC: GEORG SIMMEL AND DAVID LOCKWOODS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONFLICT THEORIES

A TERM PAPER PREPARED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE GSP202(SOCIAL SCIENCE CONFLICT AND PEACE RESOLUTION)

BY

UGWUAYI MARTHA ONYEBUCHI

2012/SD/3027916

LECTURER: DR. NWOFIA, J.E

SEPTEMBER 2013

i

Title

GEORG SIMMEL AND DAVID LOCKWOODS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONFLICT THEORIES

ii

Dedication

To God Almighty

iii

Acknowledgement

My sincere thanks goes to my lecturer, Dr.Nwofia, for his fatherly love and guidance.

Furthermore, I would show appreciation to my children and my husband for their support,

patience and prayers. Also my friends deserve a hand of applause for the materials the

provided in this research piece.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title - - - - - - - - - - - -i

Dedication - - - - - - - - - - -ii

Acknowledgement - - - - - - - - - -iii

Table of Contents - - - - - - - -- - -iv

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Definition of key and related terms

1.1.1 Conflict

1.1.2 Conflict management

1.1.3 Theory

1.2 Conflict Theory: An Incite

CHAPTER TWO

CONTRIBUTORS TO CONFLICT THEORY

2.1 GEORY SIMMEL

2.2 Conflict Theory and Georg Simmel contributions

CHAPTER THREE

DAVID LOCKWOOD

3.1 A Biography of David Lockwood's

3.2 Contributions of David Lockwood

3.3Conclusion

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Definition of key and related terms

1.1.1 Conflict

According to Katzenbach, and Smith (1992:1), conflict may be defined as a struggle

or contest between people with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs, values, or goals. Conflict on

teams is inevitable; however, the results of conflict are not predetermined. Conflict might

escalate and lead to non-productive results, or conflict can be beneficially resolved and lead

to quality final products. Therefore, learning to manage conflict is integral to a high-

performance team. Although very few people go looking for conflict, more often than not,

conflict results because of miscommunication between people with regard to their needs,

ideas, beliefs, goals, or values.

1.1.2 Conflict management

Conflict management is the principle that all conflicts cannot necessarily be resolved,

but learning how to manage conflicts can decrease the odds of non productive escalation.

Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1986:2) "conflict management involves acquiring skills

related to conflict resolution, self-awareness about conflict modes, conflict communication

skills, and establishing a structure for management of conflict in your environment."

1.1.3 Theory

A Theory is a mirror with which the world is viewed. Theory is

a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such

thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized

explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use

2

it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis, as

a theory is a 'proven' hypothesis, that, in other words, has never been disproved through

experiment, and has a basis in fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory).

1.2 Conflict Theory: An Incite

In Conflict theory power is the core of all social relationships.Conflict is based upon

the view that the fundamental causes of crime are the social and economic forces operating

within society. Furthermore,Ayogu and Ignacius(2009:419) noted that a "number of violent

conflicts have erupted in many parts of the world over struggle and control of environmental

resources. Consequently:

The criminal justice system and criminal law are thought to be operating on behalf of rich and powerful social elites, with resulting policies aimed at controlling the poor. The criminal justice establishment aims at imposing standards of morality and good behavior created by the powerful on the whole of society. Focus is on separating the powerful from have nots who would steal from others and protecting themselves from physical attacks. In the process the legal rights of poor folks might be ignored. The middle class are also co-opted; they side with the elites rather the poor, thinking they might themselves rise to the top by supporting the status quo(http://criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/conflict.htm).

It should be noted that A number of other varieties of conflict theory have appeared

since the 1960s. These include radical feminism, left realism, and peacemaking criminology.

The latter two are attempts to tone down some of the rhetoric, and present a more balanced

approach. Furthermore, an internet website(2013:1) describes conflict theory thus:

Conflict theories are pespectives in sociology that emphasize the social, political, or material inequality of a social group, that critique the broad socio-political system, or that otherwise detract from structural functionalism and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies. It is therefore a macro level analysis of society. Karl Marx is the father of the social conflict theory, which is a component of the 4 paradigms of sociology. Certain conflict

3

theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold parallels, conflict theory does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance, peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict.

Collaborating this view, Gattung(2012 ) noted that the building-blocs for a conflict

theory: actors, their goals (values, interests) imputed to them by analysis of their interests and

studies of their behavior to uncover what they seem to pursue, and on interview methods to

get verbal declarations about value-orientations and other attitudes. Acceptability- and

incompatibility-regions are defined and compared. The more detailed knowledge about all

these factors or aspects of a conflict, the more can be said about the conflict dynamics and

possible resolution. Gattung adumbrates furthermore:

...a distinction between typologies of conflict and dimensions of conflict. A typology classifies conflicts into types. A dimension is a variable that apply to all conflicts, regardless of type. Moreover, they can be conceived of dynamically: a conflict can move along these dimensions; that is what makes them different from a taxonomic, static scheme. Actually, there is only one typology that we would not include among the dimensions, the simple typology derived from the type of actors participating in the conflict: conflicts involving persons, involving groups, or involving societies. This is a typology and not a dimension because we would not generally assume it to be dynamic. An interperson conflict would remain an interperson conflict, although its history might reveal ramifications from and to all the other types...

Conflict theory deduces civilization as a fight for authority linking groups that are struggling

for limited means. Karl Marx is the originator of conflict theory. Marx believed there existed

two categories of people: capitalist and working class. The elite or capitalist class includes

the power of wealth that has access to the resources to manufacture or produce products. The

working class on the other hand is individuals that have no power and their hard work is sold

to capitalist class to produce these products. The elite have an advantage over the working

class in that they keep this class enslaved, so that they have to rely on the elite for income and

they can maintain this power position of wealth ( SparkNotes.com 2008).The conflict theorist

belief is that the capitalist and the working class categories of people are imbalanced. They

4

cite criminal statistics to verify their accusations. The laws are passed with the help of the

capitalist class judges that are designed to benefit their well being. The capitalist class and the

working class both carry out works of anomaly but the elite have enough money to afford the

expensive lawyer that create these laws in the first place. SparkNotes.com (2008)

5

CHAPTER TWO

CONTRIBUTORS TO CONFLICT THEORY

2.1 GEORY SIMMEL

According to Corser (1977:1) Georg Simmel was born on March 1, 1858, in the very

heart of Berlin, the corner of Leipzigerstrasse and Friedrichstrasse. This was a curious

birthplace--it would correspond to Times Square in New York--but it seems symbolically

fitting for a man who throughout his life lived in the intersection of many movements,

intensely affected by the cross-currents of intellectual traffic and by a multiplicity of moral

directions. Simmel was a modern urban man, without roots in traditional folk

culture. According to Kuth (1950:13) The sociological significance of conflict (Kampf) has in

principle never been disputed. Conflict is admitted to cause or modify interest groups,

unifications, organizations. On the other hand, it may sound paradoxical in the common view

if one asks whether irrespective of any phenomena that result from convict or that accompany

it, it itself is a form of sociation. At first glance, this sounds like a rhetorical question. If every

interaction among men is a sociation, conflict--after all one of the most vivid interactions,

which, furthermore, cannot possibly be carried on by one individual alone--must certainly be

considered as sociation. And in fact, dissociating factors --hate, envy, need, desire--are the

causes of convict; it breaks out because of them. Conflict is thus designed to resolve divergent

dualisms; it is a way of achieving some kind of unity, even if it be through the annihilation of

one of the conflicting parties. This is roughly parallel to the fact that it is the most violent

symptom of a disease which represents the effort of the organism to free itself of disturbances

and damages caused by them.

But this phenomenon means much more than the trivial ''si vis pacem para bellum'' [if

you want peace, prepare for war]; it is something quite general, of which this maxim only

6

describes a special case. Conflict itself resolves the tension between contrasts. The fact that it

aims at peace is only one, an especially obvious, expression of its nature: the synthesis of

elements that work both against and for one another. Lenski,(1996), noted that This nature

appears more clearly when it is realized that both forms of relation--the antithetical and the

convergent--are fundamentally distinguished from the mere indifference of two or more

individuals or groups. Whether it implies the rejection or the termination of sociation,

indifference is purely negative. In contrast to such pure negativity, conflict contains

something positive. Its positive and negative aspects, however, are integrated: they can be

separated conceptually, hut not empirically.

2.2 Conflict Theory and Georg Simmel Contributions

Georg Simmel(1903:490) propounded that that conflict has sociological significance,

inasmuch as it either produces or modifies communities of interest, unifications,

organizations, is in principle never contested. On the other hand, it must appear paradoxical

to the ordinary mode of thinking to ask whether conflict itself, without reference to its

consequences or its accompaniments, is not a form of socialization. This seems, at first

glance, to be merely a verbal question. If every reaction among men is a socialization, of

course conflict must count as such, since it is one of the most intense reactions, and is

logically impossible if restricted to a single element. The actually dissociating elements are

the causes of the conflict —hatred and envy, want and desire. If, however, from these

impulses conflict has once broken out, it is in reality the way to remove the dualism and to

arrive at some form of unity, even if through annihilation of one of the parties. The case is, in

a way, illustrated by the most violent symptoms of disease. They frequently represent the

efforts of the organism to free itself from disorders and injuries. This is by no means

equivalent merely to the triviality, si vis pacem pares bellum, but it is the wide generalization

7

of which that special case is a particular. Conflict itself is the resolution of the tension

between the contraries. That it eventuates in peace is only a single, specially obvious and

evident, expression of the fact that it is a conjunction of elements, an opposition, which

belongs with the combination under one higher conception, "This conception is characterized

by the common contrast between both forms of relationship and the mere reciprocal

indifference between elements. Repudiation and dissolution of social relation are also

negatives, but conflict shows itself to be the positive factor in this very contrast with them;

viz., shows negative factors in a unity which, in idea only, not at all in reality, is disjunctive.

It is (491) practically more correct to say, however, that every historically actual unification

contains, along with the factors that are unifying in the narrower sense, others which

primarily make against unity.

As the individual achieves the unity of his personality not in such fashion that its contents

invariably harmonize according to logical or material, religious or ethical, standards, but

rather as contradiction and strife not merely precede that unity, but are operative in it at every

moment of life; so it is hardly to be expected that there should be any social unity in which

the converging tendencies of the elements are not incessantly shot through with elements of

divergence. A group which was entirely centripetal and harmonious—that is, "unification"

merely—is not only impossible empirically, but it would also display no essential life-process

and no stable structure. As the cosmos requires "Liebe and Hass," attraction and repulsion, in

order to have a form, society likewise requires some quantitative relation of harmony and

disharmony, association and dissociation, liking and disliking, in order to attain to a definite

formation. Moreover, these enmities are by no means mere sociological passivities, negative

factors, in the sense that actual society comes into existence only through the working of the

other and positive social forces, and this, too, only in so far as the negative forces are

powerless to hinder the process.

8

According to Ritzer, G., (1983) "this ordinary conception is entirely superficial.

Society, as it is given in fact, is the result of both categories of reactions, and in so far both

act in a completely positive way. The misconception that the one factor tears down what the

other builds up, and that what at last remains is the result of subtracting the one from the

other (while in reality it is much rather to be regarded as the addition of one to the other ,

doubtless springs from the equivocal sense of the concept of unity." We describe as unity the

agreement and the conjunction of social elements in contrast with their distinctions,

separations, disharmonies. We also use the term unity, however, for the total synthesis of the

persons, energies, and forms in a group, in which the final wholeness is made up, not merely

of those factors which are unifying in the narrower sense, but also of those which are, in the

narrower sense, dualistic. We associate a corresponding double meaning with disunity or

opposition. Since the latter displays its nullifying or destructive sense between the individual

elements, the conclusion is hastily drawn that it must work in the same manner upon the total

relationship.

 In reality, however, it by no means follows that the factor which is something

negative and diminutive in its action between individuals, considered in a given direction and

separately, has the same working throughout the totality of its relationships. In this larger

circle of relationships the perspective may be quite different. That which was negative and

dualistic may, after deduction of its destructive action in particular relationships, on the

whole, play an entirely positive role. This visibly appears especially in those instances where

the social structure is characterized by exactness and carefully conserved purity of social

divisions and gradations, For instance, the social system of India rests not only upon the

hierarchy of the castes, but also directly upon their reciprocal repulsion. Enmities not merely

prevent gradual disappearance of the boundaries within the society—and for this reason these

enmities may be consciously promoted, as guarantee of the existing social constitution—but

9

more than this the enmities are directly productive sociologically. They give classes and

personalities their position toward each other, which they would not have found if these

objective causes of hostility had been present and effective in precisely the same way, but

had not been accompanied by the feeling of enmity.

Turner, (1985) noted that It is by no means certain that a secure and complete

community life would always result if these energies should disappear which, looked at in

detail, seem repulsive and destructive, just as a qualitatively unchanged and richer property

results when unproductive elements disappear; but there would ensue rather a condition as

changed and often as unrealizable, as after the elimination of the forces of co-operation —

sympathy, assistance, harmony of interests.

This applies not only in the large to that sort of competition which merely as a formal

relation of tension, and entirely apartfrom its actual results, determines the form of the group,

the reciprocal position, and the distance of the elements; but it applies also where the

unification rests upon the agreement of the individual minds. For example, the opposition of

one individual element to another in the same association is by no means merely a negative

social factor, but it is in many ways the only means through which coexistence with

individuals intolerable in themselves could be possible. If we had not power and right to

oppose tyranny and obstinacy, caprice and tactlessness, we could not endure relations with

people who betray such characteristics. We should be driven to deeds of desperation which

would put the relationships to an end. This follows not alone for the self-evident reason—

which, however, is not here essential—that such disagreeable circumstances tend to become

intensified if they are endured quietly and without protest; but, more than this, opposition

affords us a subjective .e satisfaction, diversion, relief, just as under other psychological

conditions, whose variations need not here be discussed, the same results are brought about

10

by humility and patience. 'Our opposition gives us the feeling that we are not completely

crushed in the relationship. It permits us to preserve a consciousness of energy, and thus

lends a vitality and a reciprocity to relationships from which, without this corrective, we

should have extricated ourselves at any price. Moreover, opposition does this not alone when

it does not lead to considerable consequences, but also when it does not even come to visible

manifestation, when it remains purely subjective; also when it does not give itself a practical

expression. Maryanski, (1998) noted that even in such cases it can often produce a balance in

the case of both factors in the relationship, and it may thus bring about a quieting which may

save relationships, the continuance of which is often incomprehensible to observers from the

outside. ' In such case opposition is an integrating component of the relationship itself; it is

entitled to quite equal rights with the other grounds of its existence. Opposition is not merely

a means of conserving the total relationship, but it is one of the concrete functions in which

the relationship in reality consists.

According to Andrew(2003:12) Simmel noted that:

Conflict often revitalizes existent norms and creates a new framework of rules and norms for the contenders. This is because conflict often leads to the modification and creation of laws as well as the growth of new institutional structures to enforce these laws. The presence of antagonistic behavior makes people aware of the need for basic norms to govern the rights and duties of citizens. The resulting creation and modification of norms makes readjustment of relationships to changed conditions possible. However, this is possible only if there is a common organizational structure in place to facilitate the acceptance of common rules and conformity with them. Also, if the parties are relatively balanced in strength, a unified party prefers a unified party. Each group's having a centralized internal structure ensures that once they have devised some solution, peace can be declared and maintained.

There will be no lingering enemies to disrupt the relationships. Finally, conflict is

integrative insofar as it allows parties to assess their relative power and thus serves as a

balancing mechanism to help consolidate societies. Conflict also leads to the formation of

11

coalitions and associations between previously unrelated parties. If several parties face a

common opponent, bonds tend to develop between them. This can lead to the formation of

new groups or result in instrumental associations in the face of a common threat. In short,

conflicts with some produce associations with others. However, the unification that results

when coalitions are formed simply for the purpose of defense need not be very

thoroughgoing. Alliance can simply be an expression of groups' desire for self-preservation.

Of course, such alliances may be perceived by other groups as threatening and unfriendly.

This may lead to the creation of new associations and coalition, thus drawing groups into

new social relations.In conclusion, Coser suggests that conflict tends to be dysfunctional only

for social structures in which there is insufficient toleration or institutionalization of conflict.

Highly intense conflicts that threaten to "tear apart" society tend to arise only in rigid social

structures. Thus, what threatens social structures is not conflict as such, but rather the rigid

character of those structures.

Furthermore, Austuin(2000:33) adumbrates that Simmel emphasis that conflict theory

wanted to develop a mathematics of society,Collection of statements about human

relationships and social behavior ,disagreed with Marx that social classes are formed

horizontally ,there are differences in power and opinions within each group. He rejects

organic theory, Saw society as the sum of individual interaction, The most important

relationship is between leaders and followers, superior and subordinates, Superiordinate and

subordinate have a reciprocal relationship, Believed social action always involves harmony

and conflict, love and hatred (p.74), Secrecy: people who hold secrets are in a position of

power. Some groups are formed around secrets and are known as secret societies are usually

in conflict with the greater society;Initiation creates hierarchy.

12

CHAPTER THREE

DAVID LOCKWOOD

Lockwood argues that we can distinguish between system integration, which refers to

relationships between different parts of the social system, the economy, and political system;

and social integration, which refers to norms and values. Structural functionalism tends to run

both together and gives priority to social integration: if that persists then the assumption is

that system integration is also present. Lockwood points out that social integration can exist

without system integration. An economic crisis, for example, can indicate the existence of

system conflict, but does not automatically lead to a breakdown in social integration. Lewis

Coser's The Functions of Social Conflict (1956) attempts to incorporate the analysis of social

conflict into structural-functionalism, seeing it as a process of tension management, or as part

of a process of reintegration in response to social change. Randall Collins's version of conflict

theory is distinguished by the fact that it is rooted in the micro-level concerns of individual

actors, indeed he claims his theoretical roots lie in phenomenology. Increasingly, during the

1980s, he turned to outlining a microsociological theory highlighting the role of ‘interaction

ritual chains’ as the basic unit in the ordering of societies (compare his Conflict Sociology,

1975 and Theoretical Sociology, 1988).

3.1 A Biography of David Lockwood's

Rose(1996:1) opined that "David Lockwood is a sociologist. (1958 & 1989) seeks to

analyse the changes in the stratification position of the clerical worker by using a framework

based on Max Weber's distinction between market and work situations. Lockwood argued

that the class position of any occupation can be most successfully located by distinguishing

between the material rewards gained from the market and work situations, and those

symbolic rewards deriving from its status situation. His work became a very important

contribution to the 'proletarianisation' debate which argued that manywhite-collar

13

workers were beginning to identify with manual workers by identifying their work situation

as having much in common with the proletariat.

An internet website (http://www.esds.ac.uk/qualidata/pioneers/sp?_) disclose that :

David Lockwood is a renowned theoretical sociologist. He has made influential contributions to the debates about social order particularly with regards to social structure and agency and to working class images of society. He has also taken part in ground-breaking research on social cohesion and social stratification.He was born in Holmfirth, Yorkshire in 1929 to a working class family. In 1954 he married the academic Leonore Davidoff, another pioneer who has also been interviewed. His working life began in a textile mill and he was conscripted to the Army Intelligence Corps between 1947 and 1949. A grant for ex-servicemen enabled him to study at the London School of Economics, graduating in 1952. His Ph.D. thesis on the theme of class and stratification as they related to clerical workers was published as a book entitled The Blackcoated Worker in 1958 and republished in 1989.In 1958 he was appointed as a Fellow and a University Lecturer in the Economics Faculty at Cambridge University. With John Goldthorpe, he jointly directed The Affluent Worker (a study examining the lives and aspirations of the new working class of post-war Britain, through a large number of semi-structured interviews with workers in Luton). This would become one of the best-known studies ever undertaken by British sociologists, and exemplified his commitment to both theoretical and empirical rigour. In Solidarity and Schism, published in 1992, he continued to explore the ideas of social integration, citizenship and class.

Lockwood joined the Department of Sociology at the University of Essex in 1968 as

Professor, retiring in 2001. In 1998, he was awarded a CBE in the honours list for his

contributions to sociology. He was honoured in 2011 with a lifetime achievement award by

the British Sociological Association (BSA), for his outstanding contribution to British

sociology.

3.2 Contributions of David Lockwood

Conflict theorists criticised functionalism’s concept of systems as giving far too much

weight to integration and consensus, and neglecting independence and conflict [Holmwood,

2005:100]. Lockwood [in Holmwood, 2005:101], in line with conflict theory, suggested that

14

Parsons’ theory missed the concept of system contradiction. According to the Sergent

Dictionary (2013:5)

Parsons analyzed society as having a complex system of equilibriums but it is a distortion when it is claimed that Parsons believed that they would be in some kind of "perfect" balance or that a disturbed equilibrium would return "quickly" to its current position. He never argued or claimed anything of that kind. In contrast, Parsons always argued that for most societies the value-integrals of society (and therefore also there relatively state of "equilibrium") is generally importantly incomplete and in a modern society it is utopian, Parsons maintained, that there can be anything approaching a "completely" system-integration. Indeed, Parsons argued that the build-in value-ambivalence and tensions which characterizes almost all cultural systems will make the idea of "optimal" social integration" a sheer utopia. Parsons never claimed that one part of the societal system "must" adapt to the other; there doesn't exist such a "must"; however, he maintained that insufficient levels of system-adaption would have various kind of "problematic" consequences depending on the exact historical situation. Naturally, if a society suffers from a severe sum of integral malfunctions its survival will ultimately be at stake. After all, many empires and civilizations have vanished and disappeared as history have marched along.

From a theoretical point of view, Parsons discussed social evolution in the light of four

distinct systemic processes. These are: Differentiation; Adaptive Upgrading.; Inclusion;

Value Generalization. He did not account for those parts of the system that might have

tendencies to mal-integration.

According to Lockwood, it was these tendencies that come to the surface as

opposition and conflict among actors. However Parsons’ thought that the issues of conflict

and cooperation were very much intertwined and sought to account for both in his model

[Holmwood, 2005:103]. In this however he was limited by his analysis of an ‘ideal type’ of

society which was characterised by consensus. Merton, through his critique of functional

unity, introduced into functionalism an explicit analysis of tension and conflict.

3.3 Conclusion

15

Conflict has always been central to sociological theory and analysis. Alternative to

functionalism, Macro sociological theoretical perspective, Resentment and hostility are

constant elements of society, Power differences among social classes ,Special interest

groups fight over scarce resources of society, Interest groups fight to gain advantages over

others, competition puts society off-balance until dominant group gains control and stability

through power.

Conflict theory explains that individual participants in an organization or

society function to maximize their own benefits. It is often used to describe conflict between

social classes in a society or differences in ideologies. Conflict theory refers to a group of

perspectives in social science which stress the inequalities of social groups. This inequality

may be social, political or material (economic.). Although conflict has always been central

to sociological theory and analysis, conflict theory is the label generally attached to the

sociological writings of opponents to the dominance of structural functionalism, in the two

decades after the Second World War. Its proponents drew on Max Weber and (to a lesser

extent) Karl Marx to construct their arguments, giving differing emphases to economic

conflict (Marx) and conflict about power (Weber). Conflict theorists emphasized the

importance of interests over norms and values, and the ways in which the pursuit of interests

generated various types of conflict as normal aspects of social life, rather than abnormal or

dysfunctional occurrences.

References

16

Andrew, H. (2003) Simmel Works Makurdi: Oracle Publishers

Ayogu ,N.C, and Ignatius, A.M., (2009)"Geography and Conflicts" in Miriam, Ikejiani-Clark Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution in Nigeria: A Reader Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited

From Kurt H. Wolff, (Trans.)(1950), The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press

Georg Simmel(1903) "The Sociology of Conflict: I" American Journal of Sociology 9

Georg Simmel(1977) Biographic Informationex: Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. Second edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

Holmwood, J., (2005) “Functionalism and its Critics” in Harrington, A., (ed) Modern Social Theory: an introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press

http://history.knoji.com/what-is-conflict-theory/ accessed on 10/09/2013

http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095631699 accessed on 10/09/2013

Http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/simmel12.html accessed on 10/09/2013

http://www.esds.ac.uk/qualidata/pioneers/pioneerdetail.asp?id=pioneer_people_lockwood accessed on 10/09/2013

http://www.flinders.edu.au/people/david.lockwood accessed on 10/09/2013

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/home/keycomponents/teams/conflict1a.html accessed on 10/09/2013

Johan Galtung (1973) Theories of conflict Definitions, Dimensions, Negations, Formations COlumbia: Columbia university, http://www.transcend.org/files/Galtung_Book_Theories_Of_Conflict_single.pdf accessed on 10/09/2013

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Holubec, E.J. (1986). Circles of learning: cooperation in the classroom (rev. ed.), Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.

Katzenbach, J.R., and Smith, D.K. (1992). Wisdom of teams, USA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lenski, Gerhard (1966). "Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification." New York: McGraw-Hill.

Maryanski, Alexandra (1998). "Evolutionary Sociology." Advances in Human Ecology. 7:1-56.

17

Ritzer, G., (1983) Sociological Theory, Knopf Inc, New York

Rose, D. (1996). "For David Lockwood". The British Journal of Sociology 47 (3): 385–396. doi:10.2307/591358. JSTOR 591358.

Turner, Jonathan (1985). "Herbert Spencer: A Renewed Appreciation." Beverly Hills: Sage.