Chapter one


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chapter one

  3. 3. ii Dedication To God Almighty
  4. 4. 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.
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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 ( 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( 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
  8. 8. 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 ( 2008).The conflict theorist belief is that the capitalist and the working class categories of people are imbalanced. They
  9. 9. 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. (2008)
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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, "T his 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.
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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.
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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 ( 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,
  19. 19. 14 2005:100]. Lockwood [in Holmwood, 2005:101], in line with conflict theory, suggested that 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.
  20. 20. 15 3.3 Conclusion 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.
  21. 21. 16 References 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 accessed on 10/09/2013 accessed on 10/09/2013 Http:// accessed on 10/09/2013 accessed on 10/09/2013 accessed on 10/09/2013 accessed on 10/09/2013 Johan Galtung (1973) Theories of conflict Definitions, Dimensions, Negations, Formations COlumbia: Columbia university, df 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.
  22. 22. 17 Maryanski, Alexandra (1998). "Evolutionary Sociology." Advances in Human Ecology. 7:1- 56. 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.