Conflict Theories in Sociology
Turk and Dahrendorf
Most sociological research on diversion works are characterized by accepting that there was consensus. The opposite is the paradigm of the conflict.
For Dahrendorf, it was necessary to replace the integration theory of society with a different model. This model is characterized by arguing that the conflict goes beyond the class conflict of Marxist theory to cover the conflict that occurs within what is called “imperatively coordinated associations“. These partnerships are the union of two sets of positions:
- The positions of dominance (or holding of authority)
- The positions of submission (to authority)
“In every society there are a lot of these associations, within which we can distinguish those who dominate and those who are subjected. The ‘economic class’ are just a special case of the phenomenon of the class.
Thus, according to Turk: “The study of crime becomes the study of relationships between the statuses and roles and legal authorities of the subjects.” What is at stake in this perspective is the notion of authority. If men act, not according to their position in a class structure, but according to all who have authority-submission relationships, then you need to know what the components of the authority are before it can develop a general theory. Turk’s purpose is to build a general theory, which specifies the conditions under which a person under an authority-submission relationship will be defined as “delinquent”. Turk needs to specify not only the conditions under which men accept the authority, but also why.
For Turk “It’s basically the idea that people, whether any authorities as potential subjects, are continuously learning to interact among themselves as occupying higher status and lower status and as people who play roles of domination and subjugation. Both norms of domination and deference standards are universal.
For Turk, then, “the violation of law can be considered an index of lack of authority. The conflict and the allocation of criminal nature to various types of behavior depend on whether or not there is congruence between social norms and cultural assessment of standards. Turk’s position is that the age, gender and racial group an actor belongs to, will determine the extent to which they accept the norms of domination. In American society, for example, a white woman, mature, is less likely to conflict with the “authority” than a young black man. Then the crime of those who resist the rules is the result of inexperience or psychological immaturity. The theory of criminalization by Turk is a theory of possession or lack of authority. This alludes to the domination by experienced people “who apply the rules” on the inexperienced, young offenders, disorganized families, etc.
The discrepancy is a result of the inability of those in authority to apply its rules so that it does not force people to join “the structures that lead to good.” The “crime” according to Turk, is a “status” assigned to those who resist the rules. It attempts to explain how authority relations are linked to the wider system of social stratification, or emerge from it. Therefore, part of the sociological explanation of inequality, is an explanation of the ability of certain social groups to enforce the power to punish. The “conflict theory” in Dahrendorf’s opinion is based on the idea that sanctions are necessary to ensure compliance.
Quinney
Quinney’s work is characterized by the attempt to achieve “an understanding of contemporary crime.” He demonstrates how the structures of power, authority and interest give rise to a virtually infinite number of “multiple subjective social worlds.” In each of these social worlds, the social reality is an interpretation of those in power who constantly try to impose their definition of reality, and may resort to force of law to do so. It is also possible that the population in general ignore or disregard the law, or that arising interests hinder the desire of the powerful to impose their definition of reality. It is also possible that although the law and the rules are understood and have been properly transmitted, they cannot be accepted by some. In these circumstances, the law can only be considered a means of repressive domination of one reality for another.
Quinney wants to put into question the universal validity of the laws and rules in society. His analysis seeks to illustrate how social reality, even if chosen, interpreted and developed individually, is the product of coercion and conflict in a society structured unequally. To show that society is characterized by conflict rather than the tendency to equilibrium or consensus, Quinney only needs to present proof, evidence that would support the existence of counter-cultures in different parts of American society. Quinney moves from a perspective based on labeling to one based on subcultures. The differentiation of interests is in no way reflected on a balance of power, or a plurality of interests within a society. As he says: “The groups that hold equivalent power can control each other’s interests, but those with little or no power will have the opportunity to achieve their interests represented. The consequence is that the government is exercised by a few powerful private interest groups.” If we understand how, in certain societies, the powerful seek to impose their definition of reality, we shall formulate a counter-culture, united in defense of liberal and individualist traditions of common law.