Encyclopedia of Sociology

CONFLICT THEORY

organized as an enforcement coalition (Collins
1988; Schelling 1962). Members of the ruling or-
ganization monitor each other to ensure loyalty. A
change in power is possible only when a majority
of the enforcers disobey orders simultaneously.
Revolts occur in a rapid ‘‘bandwagon effect,’’ dur-
ing which most members scramble to become part
of the winning coalition. The more coercive the
state, the more extreme the swings between long
periods of tyrannical stability and brief moments
of political upheaval.

Since the state claims a monopoly on the
instruments of violence, revolutionary changes in
power occur through the reorganization of coer-
cive coalitions. Revolts from below are almost
always unsuccessful as long as the state’s military
organization stays intact. For this reason, revolu-
tions typically are preceded by a disintegration of
the military, due to defeat in war, depletion of
economic resources in previous conflicts, and splits
within the ruling group (Skocpol 1979). These
breakdowns of military power in turn are deter-
mined by geopolitical processes affecting the ex-
pansion or contraction of states in the surround-
ing world (Stinchcombe 1968; Collins 1986).

WHO WINS WHAT?

Conflict shapes the distribution of power, wealth,
and prestige in a society. The victorious side is
generally the group that is better mobilized to act
in its collective interest. In many cases, the domi-
nant group is well organized, while the opposing
interest group remains latent. The result is a stable
structure of stratification, in which overt conflict
rarely occurs.

Lenski (1966) showed that concentration of
wealth throughout world history is determined by
the interaction of two factors. The higher the
production of economic surplus (beyond what is
necessary to keep people alive), the greater the
potential for stratification. This surplus in turn is
appropriated according to the distribution of power.

Turner (1984) theorizes that the concentra-
tion of power is unequal to the extent that there is
external military threat to the society or there is a
high level of internal conflict among social groups.
Both external and internal conflict tend to central-
ize power, providing that the government wins

these conflicts; hence, another condition must

also be present, that the society is relatively pro-

ductive and organizationally well integrated. If the

state has high resources relative to its enemies,

conflict is the route by which it concentrates power

in its own hands.

Prestige is determined by the concentration of

power and wealth. Groups that have these resourc-

es can invest them in material possessions that

make them impressive in social encounters. In

addition, they can invest their resources in culture-

producing organizations such as education, enter-

tainment, and art, which give them cultural domi-

nation. According to Pierre Bourdieu’s research

(1984), the realm of culture is stratified along the

same lines as the stratification of the surrounding

society.

EFFECTS OF CONFLICT GROUPS UPON

INDIVIDUALS

The latent lines of conflict in a society divide

people into distinctive styles of belief and emo-

tion. Collins (1975) proposed that the differences

among stratified groups are due to the

microinteractions of daily experience, which can

occur along the two dimensions of vertical power

and horizontal solidarity. Persons who give orders

take the initiative in the interaction rituals de-

scribed by Goffman (1959). These persons who

enact the rituals of power identify with their front-

stage selves and with the official symbols of the

organizations they control; whereas persons who

take orders are alienated from official rituals and

identify with their private, backstage selves. Indi-

viduals who belong to tightly enclosed, localized

groups emphasize conformity to the group’s tradi-

tions; persons in such positions are suspicious

of outsiders and react violently and emotionally

against insiders who are disrespectful of the group’s

symbols. Loosely organized networks have less

solidarity and exert less pressure for conformi-

ty. Individuals build up emotional energy by

microexperiences that give them power or soli-

darity, and they lose emotional energy when they

are subordinated to power or lack experiences of

solidarity (Collins 1988). Both emotions and be-

liefs reproduce the stratification of society in eve-

ryday life.