The origins of conflict theory

found, as opposed to the southern and eastern parts of the land. Receiving new industry and modern equipment was not the biggest influence on the times; economic trends from nearly a century prior were still evident: the growing dependency on natural resources as the area became incredibly industrialized (especially in England, as the island nation was naturally blessed with vast amounts of iron and coal), new farming instruments that improved the efficiency and productivity, and the expanding business of crafts and commodities [3].

Social trends that encompassed hostility were also still being reinforced from the prior century, especially under feudalism regarding the relationship between lord and serf, business battles between artisans, and of course religious quarrels between Catholics and Protestants, and Jews [3].

Surely, these are examples of social conflict, but they seemed to stagnate the idea of revolution during this timeframe, although they did indeed help fuel its engine, especially almost a century prior during the French Revolution of 1789. The French Revolution was one of the first examples of accelerated change in Europe in this window of history, thus creating new forms of government, political thought, and social interaction which included commerce, industry, and religion [3]. Therefore, with the social trends that had been around for decades still being valid from the French Revolution, both before and after, they would cause more eruption only a few years later.

Finally, the revolutions began, with an extremely potent emphasis from the economic and political realms. Shockingly similar to the French Revolution, the revolutions of the 1840’s broke out from hard times, from 1845 to 1847 the people were the victims of several years of terrible harvests, poor commerce, and through that, a recession because the banks were doing so poorly. The standard of living immediately went down, which reduced people to famine and food shortages, and inflated food prices. Naturally, people broke out in emotional fits of hysteria, and on the mass level: revolution. On the governmental side, things were equally as bad, if not worse. Opposition to the various entities of power through Europe grew immensely, both on the valid and invalid level. Factions won and lost naturally and elegantly in parliament, but the progress on both sides was destroyed by radicals. Some other examples, like in the Italian Papal 22

States and in the Kingdom of Prussia, various parties yearned to liberalize their country towards a constitution in a meaningful and peaceful manner, a synthesis. Although, this did not happen, as the executive forms of government in these specified lands destroyed the will of the people and their dream of change, of course, sparking revolution. Multiple revolutions were started throughout Europe, most notably in Paris, Berlin, Munich, Milan, Venice, Vienna, Budapest, Krakow, Naples, and Palermo [3].

After these dramatic failures, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were introduced. Marx, born in 1818 in Prussia, came from a prominent family of the middle class, as his father was a lawyer. Marx’s family had a strong Jewish heritage and upbringing, but his father had to convert to Christianity to pursue his legal career. His father, was especially rooted in the Enlightenment, which had an impact on his son, as well as the more popular forms of harassment in this time (specifically anti-semitism) which helped form Marx’s views on social conflict and change. As Marx matured and advanced through the educational system, he was exposed to the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel when he was in his youth at university. At first opposed, but later completely taken by the works of the philosopher, Marx began to be more involved with his political and philosophical beliefs. With his faction, proudly calling themselves the Young Hegelians, they began to religiously indulge themselves with other works, most notably Ludwig Feuerbach. Together, with Feuerbach’s description of religion, and Hegel’s work, most notably his dialectic (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis; all things are always undergoing change), this helped mold Marx into the philosophical genius he later became [4].

On the other hand, Friedrich Engels, Marx’s lifelong companion, had a similar but different upbring. Engels, was also born in Prussia, although two years after Marx’s birth. His family was Protestant, and was very well off, as his father was the owner of a textile company both in his native area and abroad. Although, Engels was quite the mixed bag: a poet, a revolutionary youth, an athlete, and perhaps an eccentric, who was in and out of school in his early years, and had a tricky relationship with his father. When Engels left his secondary school, he became an apprentice within his father’s business, and excelled. Later as a young adult, the prominent Engels became well 23

known in his town. In his own personal arena, he directly sought out some of the more radically liberal figures of the time: those being Karl Gutzkow, Heinrich Heine, and Max Stirner. Like Marx, he indulged himself in the works of these men, but threw them all away in favor of Hegel. Of course, Engels joined the Young Hegelians group, and eventually met Marx in the early to mid 1840’s, when Engels submitted various literary works he had written to the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher , a local French and German journal, where Marx had been the editor [5]. Only a few years later, would they join together to write the Communist Manifesto in 1848.

Finally, the Communist Manifesto was published. The opening page, titled «Manifesto of the Communist Party», describes communism, Marx and Engel’s synthesis [5] as a «spectre», which the «powers of old Europe» have formed «a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre; Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies». All of these factions recognize communism, and all call for its total annihilation [1].

The first chapter, which is the most important and the longest, is titled «Bourgeois and the Proletarians» and provides an historical analysis of Conflict Theory from the eighteenth century viewpoint. The authors begin describing in ancient Rome and the middle ages various social ranks, including «patricians, knights, plebeians, [and] slaves»; and «feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, [and] serfs». Marx and Engels also specifically mention these groups fell into «subordinate gradations», (Moore, 1888) implying that each social group was either naturally in control, or were naturally included in the peasantry, so to speak. Each group had almost no social mobility, according to the authors. Marx and Engels also included in this chapter that the modern bourgeoisie («modern» meaning industrialized), those who control the means, or goals, of production descended from feudal society, and continued to harass the proletariat, the workers. The bourgeoisie, obviously fueled by capitalism, have literally flipped society upside down, as they have turned notable positions in society such as physicians, lawyers, priests, poets, and scientists into «paid wage laborers» [1]. The bourgeoisie, continuing their reign of terror, kept industrializing, modernizing, and updating their industries. Within this chapter, Marx and Engels imply that the bourgeoisie through their monstrous growth 24

created jobs for the proletariat, which is true, although as long as there is money to be made for them, to create capital. The bourgeoisie, the rich, become smaller in number but grow in power as they have more wealth, material, and property, but the proletariat become larger and poorer. Immediately, the workers are alienated by the bourgeoisie: Conflict Theory in action. Within the perspective of the workers, their trades no longer had any influence, as everything had been mechanized. The «cost of production» delays and inhibits the worker from social prosperity, to such menacing anecdotes where the workers could barely find any food and healthcare to provide themselves with. «In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases» [1]. Essentially, the first chapter in the book describes how there has always been social stratification, which justifies the authors mentioning ancient Rome and the middle ages, and how this alienation had worsened on an apocalyptic level when Europe was modernized. Other accounts from Marx and Engels describe factories full of workers, «organized like soldiers». The bourgeoisie are not just those who control the industry, they are also «the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.» [1].

Criminological Perspective and Differences in Theory

From the criminological perspective, and as Vold’s Theoretical Criminology mentions, Marx had created an excellent theory regarding the social, political, economic, and historical boundaries of life at the time, but had almost absolutely no system relative to crime. This is where the so-called pyramid of Marx’s depictions of class is created (similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs): the bourgeoisie on the absolute top, the petty or petit bourgeoisie (store owners, small business) are underneath, controlling a small amount, and for the majority of the pyramid is the proletariat. Although, there is another group beneath the workers. According to Marx’s beliefs, people in society should be hardworking and productive, and naturally they are, outside of an industrialized society. In these industrialized societies, however, the poor and unemployed become lazy and destitute, and are not productive, who then become the lumpenproletariat [6].

Politically speaking, Marx, obviously, was extremely liberal for his time. He actively went against the popular political philosophy of the time, which was based off of people willingly taking apart of the

«social contract», or a township, as outlined by the Classical School of Criminology, started by Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. This philosophy believed that people joined the social contract for the greater good, and all were protected by laws that were subsequently created after the formation of the social contract. Marx had noted that this philosophy did not mention socioeconomic status or social mobility amongst the people, and explained that those who have wealth and means have an easier time molding the social contract (creating laws) that benefits their own agendas and interests, as opposed to those who do not have this power. Marx was more concerned with this socioeconomic corruption, so to speak, rather than crime. Although, Marx has mentioned that crime is a «primitive form of rebellion». An example from the text reports that in Marx’s youth in Germany about ten years before the publication of the Communist Manifesto , a variety new laws had been placed on the collection of materials in local forests, as the demand for lumber and other wooden resources had been escalated due to industry. Before this had happened, the nobility at the time had special rights to hunt in the woods, and the local peasants were allowed to collect wood for their fireplaces. Once the industrial need for material had spread to Germany, the collection of wood from the local woods was now a crime, and in some areas almost seventy-five percent of all crimes were from theft in the woods [6].

Conflict Theory was started in the mid-nineteenth century, which has already been reported in this text, but the theory did not take off for another sixty years. In 1916, Willem Bonger was one of the first Marxist criminologists to present his views to the modern world. In his book, Criminality and Economic Conditions , Bonger presented the view that in capitalist societies, which run off of competition and winners and losers, encourages people to be more hedonistic, which results in larger crime rates among the poor and smaller rates among the rich, as the poor are selfish, and the rich have the laws in their favor to pursue their interests.

Twenty-two years later, in 1938, Thorsten Sellin purposed a criminological theory that was conceived from Marx’s ideals, and is very similar to Emile Durkheim’s The Division of Labour in Society and Ferdinand Tonnies’ Gesellschaft und Gemeinschaft (Community and Society), regarding two different forms of societies and their simi- 26

larities and differences. Sellin looked into homogenous societies and complex societies, where conduct norms in homogenous societies such as kin policing, respecting elders, and «unwritten laws» are represented well amongst the people, and how these norms are disregarded in complex societies, due to the vast amount of different cultures and ethnic groups in a given area. If these groups were to clash, the literal act of the quarrels would be defined as primary cultural conflicts, and can be applied in several situations, mainly colonization and migration, where certain groups can hold power over others [6]. Examples that support this can be found in Rwanda and Sudan, between the Hutus and the Tutsis, and the Arabs and the Africans.

Almost two decades later, George B. Vold, one of the authors of the text, presented his version of Conflict Theory regarding a «social process», where groups do experience conflict and an «uneasy adjust-ment», that is necessary for societies to function, based off of a «dy-namic equilibrium». [6]. Conflict Theory became very evident in the United States of America, especially during the sixties and seventies, when the country saw mass change mainly socially and politically. During this era, the country was focused on the Vietnam War and the yearning for civil rights, and Vold’s theory became popular, and the overall energy of Conflict Theory arose to the top of criminology. From this explosion of events and popularity of the theory itself, these factors led to the introduction of works from Austin Turk, Richard Quinney, and William Chambliss and Robert Seidman.

Turk introduced his theory of criminalization in 1969, which looked into the possibilities of subjects and authorities clashing and possibly resulting in conflict, and where criminalization will show itself in these scenarios. Turk emphasized his definition of sophistication, according to the text: «[as] knowledge of patterns in the behavior of others which is used in attempts to manipulate them» [6]. Turk also brought forth three factors within his theory: (1), the role of the police and the courts (and corrections) giving out high conviction rates based off of prohibited acts in society, (2), criminalization will be at its peak when the authority has the greatest power, and the resistors have nearly none, and (3), the possible success for either party involved, based on certain actions executed by either group.

One year later, in 1970, Richard Quinney entered the arena. Also coming from Vold’s depiction of Conflict Theory, Quinney argued 27

from a more political context. His work, titled The Social Reality of Crime , looked into the legislation regarding what is defined or what is not defined as a crime, and compared to Vold, Quinney decided to look into «segments» of society, rather than different groups. Segments vary severely, but are defined as people who have similar interests and backgrounds, but may or may not be organized on a mutual level. Segments like business owners and laborers are very organized, as they have been around for a long time, but segments like women yearning for equality through feminism (also a Conflict Theory) and those from the LGBT community (an example in a modern context) are only now organizing themselves. Quinney also notes there are groups that have no organization. From all of these disparities, he chose to tackle all crime under the context of Conflict Theory, instead of a specific window of crime. Quinney’s theory becomes more deeper when Edwin Sutherland’s Learning Theory is combined, as different segments have different actions and definitions of what is «normal» to them, mainly deriving from how they were raised, and what their view or idea of crime actually is. One segment’s version of «normal», the powerful segment, these people view themselves as normal. On the contrary, if a lesser segment were to do something the powerful segment would do, this segment would be classified as criminal and wicked. Finally, Quinney, going back to his main point, mentioned that crime is created out of political interests and agendas, stemming from which segment is in power, and which is not. However, the general consensus of crime can vary heavily, especially regarding the conception of [6].

Finally, in 1971, William Chambliss and Robert Seidman introduced their analysis of Conflict Theory within the American criminal justice system, calling it Law, Order, and Power. As the text states, the two authors looked into the creation of laws from the legislative point of view, and had found that «the higher a group’s political and economic position, the greater is the probability that its views will be reflected in the laws» [6]. The two authors collected the majority of their information from actually going into the criminal justice system, executing pure ecology. They first turned their attention to the actual legislative process regarding criminal law, and then turned their attention to appellate courts, where the justification of these newly created laws are either valid or not. Of course, a judge is the moderator in court, and (for the most part) it is their final decision that concludes a case. Chambliss and Seidman had found that judges resort back to their personal values and morals when reaching legal conclusions in appellate cases, as appellate court cases are referred to as «trouble cases», where laws cannot support or apply themselves to the case in question [6].

Studies in Criminology regarding Conflict Theory

A Critique of Criminology: Toward an Integrated Structural-Marxist Theory of Delinquency Production was first published in the early eighties, in the American Journal of Sociology. The authors, Mark Colvin and John Pauly, mention in the abstract of the study that juvenile delinquency is a byproduct of a capitalist society, and have compared and contrasted other theories under the perspective of Marxism, to create a new theory of delinquency and try to correct this epidemic. However, their ultimate fuel of their research is based off of looking at the structural control in various places that children inhibit.

Aside from taking inspiration from Marx and Engels, the two authors note in their introductory paragraph that they take inspiration from Amitai Etzioni’s Compliance Theory, from 1970. The authors believe that Compliance Theory will help their analysis of their research, as Compliance Theory dives into the relationship between the power between those who are in control, and those who are not in control. The authors also believe that delinquency is created from two different phenomenons: class relations in society, along with its hierarchy, and an individual’s encounters within these social institutions. The authors do mention Travis Hirschi (1969), when they begin to discuss the bond between individuals within society. Other theorists are mentioned, too, mainly the more «popular» figures in criminology and sociology: Sutherland, Paul Cressey, Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, Durkheim, Robert Merton, and other previous theorists that have already been mentioned in the text (Vold, Turk, Quinney, Chambliss and Seidman, etc.).

According to Colvin and Pauly, compliance within these social «institutions» normally begin within the family. However, the study begins to get more intricate, as they mention that children and their possible acquisition of delinquency begins from their parents, but where their parents become delinquent (which is then passed on to the child) is from their workplace, the heart of the capitalist system. The authors mention in the text «the relations of workplace control, which take various class-related forms under capitalism, shape the consciousness and behavior of parents who repeatedly produce and reproduce control relations with children». Back to the children, outside of the control of their parents in school or afterschool programs, they actively choose who they want to socialize with based on past experiences, the authors note. The group itself also chooses if they want to socialize with the child. Once connected into a group, and based on the group’s own actions and hierarchy of control, the reinforcement of either conventional behavior or delinquent behavior is executed.

With all of the work by the theorists previously mentioned, the authors believe that having a perspective from a Marxist standpoint can offer a larger point of view. Beginning this chapter, the authors talk about the hardcore creation of the capitalist society in the world after the Second World Aar, which is fueled off of competition, resulting in winners and losers. The authors have found, going back to the subject of parents, that Melvin Kohn in 1977 argued that parents will often conform in the workplace to survive physically and financially, which can cause stress to them. Kohn has noted that this stress will cascade onto the child, which supports the statement made earlier regarding the parental impact on children. Going back to Marxian principles, Kohn has also noted that parents who have more control in the workplace are more independent, creative, and show more initiative which their children learn, as opposed to parents who are in a lower socioeconomic standing conform easier, have more alienated ideological bonds, and physically punish their children. Surely, from the detriments created by the capitalist society, and its workplaces (as Marx and Engels have described earlier), do create unhappy parents which then channel their frustration and anger into their children, which creates delinquency.

In the schools, children are classified either in a positive or a negative light, by the school and its agents. The authors declare that schools are necessary for capitalist production, as it molds humans as if they were a raw material, and is later «consumed» by the capitalist masses. When children go into an educational institution for the first 30

time, they are exposed to a new social structure, according to the text. The school is similar to the workplace, with different gradations of control, which are then cascaded onto the students. Children who are delinquent, from the bond of their families, are more likely to be placed into a control structure that is similar to their home life, and the school uses certain tactics like I.Q. tests and other standardized tests to put them on a «track» that is more coercive and regimented. Children who are in the opposite situation, the «good children», which they could be called, see the I.Q. tests as a desirability to do well. This is just one mechanism. The second mechanism involves learning theory, where a delinquent child can recognize a teacher’s social cues when they are doing something bad, and this is where the «self-fulfilling prophecy» is introduced. Essentially, the children recognize what is happening, but they are socialized into being delinquent, and become what they are labeled as. One of the biggest mechanisms, or factors, that create delinquency in schools are the amount of financial resources schools have to offer for their young students. In certain areas, looking at the differences between low-income, working class families, as opposed to higher social classes, these schools have a harder time dishing out rewards and punishments based on the actions of their students, which results in the school having to choose more structured, coercive methods.

The authors conclude their work by mentioning that crime and juvenile delinquency is created from the failure of the liberal-technocratic approach in society, which introduces their structural-Marxist approach. The authors do recognize the problems they, and other theorists they have mentioned, have found, but they do not offer a solution to the problem, however they do mention that the only way to possibly change this «string of influence» is to change how things are in the workplace, for the parents, mainly.

The author thanks Dr. Alexander Vnutskikh (Perm State University, Russia), Dr. Brandon Stroup and Dr. Alexandre Strokanov (Northern Vermont University – Lyndon, USA) for comments and suggestions.