2. In opposition to . . .

many scientific explanations (of criminal behavior) it seems

to be desirable to attempt to describe crime as part of a process, and that
process seems to be essentially a process of conflict.…This process seems to go
on somewhat as follows: A certain group of people feel that one of their values—
life, property, beauty of landscape, theological doctrine—is endangered by the
behavior of others. If the group is politically influential, the value important, and
the danger serious, the members of the group secure the enactment of a law and
thus win the co-operation of the State in the effort to protect their value. The law
is a device of one party in conflict with another party.

In contrast to Marx’s singular focus on economic factors in class conflict, Sutherland

argued that “all kinds of interests and ... conflicting ideals” exist as points of possible
opposition between groups in modern, heterogeneous societies (1956c: 107).

Lewis Corser

3. Hostile impulses do not suffice to account for social conflict, and not every conflict is
accompanied by aggressiveness. Conflict simply presupposes a relationship and social
interaction. Nevertheless, realistic conflicts are often accompanied by distorted
sentiments. There is a distinction between realistic reasons for engaging in conflict on the
one hand, and the emotional energies involved during the conflict on the other. There is
often failure to realize that conflict may be motivated by these two distinct yet
intermingled factors: realistic conflict issues and parties' affective investment in the
conflict. The main function of the mediator is to eliminate non-realistic elements of
aggressiveness so that opponents can deal more realistically with their competing claims.

In relationships in which individuals are very deeply involved, both feelings of attraction
as well as feelings of hostility are likely to arise. The closer the relationship, the greater
the affective investment, and the more potential there is for ambivalence. Antagonism is a
central part of intimate social relations and a by-product of cooperation and frequent
interaction. Close social relationships may therefore be said to contain an essential
element of ambivalence.

he considers the idea that conflict with outside groups tends to increase internal
cohesion. Coser makes a distinction between two types of conflict: that in which the goal
is personal and subjective, and that in which the matter in contention has an impersonal,
objective aspect.

4. Dahrendorf focused on the role of authority in society, which he viewed as involving the
superordination and subordination of groups occupying particular positions within what he called
imperatively coordinated associations. Groups within a given association are defined according
to their specific interests. These interest groups have the potential to turn into conflict groups,
and their actions can lead to changes in social structures.