Georg Simmel and David Lockwood made important contributions to conflict theory. Simmel proposed that conflict has sociological significance as it produces or modifies communities of interest and organizations. He argued that conflict itself resolves tensions between opposing elements and aims for a type of unity, even if through the annihilation of one side. Lockwood studied conflict dimensions and types. He distinguished between typologies that classify conflicts and dimensions that can apply to all conflicts and influence their dynamics. Both theorists recognized conflict as an inherent and sometimes productive part of social relationships rather than something purely negative.

1. i
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER/STATISTICS
FACULTY OF PHYSICAL SCIENCES
TOPIC: GEORG SIMMEL AND DAVID LOCKWOODS
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONFLICT THEORIES
A TERM PAPER PREPARED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE GSP202(SOCIAL
SCIENCE CONFLICT AND PEACE RESOLUTION)
BY
UGWUAYI MARTHA ONYEBUCHI
2012/SD/3027916
LECTURER: DR. NWOFIA, J.E
SEPTEMBER 2013

2. i
Title
GEORG SIMMEL AND DAVID LOCKWOODS
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONFLICT THEORIES

3. ii
Dedication
To God Almighty

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. 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. 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. 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory).
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(http://criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/conflict.htm).
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. 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 ( SparkNotes.com 2008).The conflict theorist
belief is that the capitalist and the working class categories of people are imbalanced. They

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. SparkNotes.com (2008)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 (http://www.esds.ac.uk/qualidata/pioneers/sp?_)
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. 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. 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. 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
http://history.knoji.com/what-is-conflict-theory/ accessed on 10/09/2013
http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095631699 accessed on
10/09/2013
Http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/simmel12.html accessed on 10/09/2013
http://www.esds.ac.uk/qualidata/pioneers/pioneerdetail.asp?id=pioneer_people_lockwood
accessed on 10/09/2013
http://www.flinders.edu.au/people/david.lockwood accessed on 10/09/2013
http://www.foundationcoalition.org/home/keycomponents/teams/conflict1a.html accessed on
10/09/2013
Johan Galtung (1973) Theories of conflict Definitions, Dimensions, Negations, Formations
COlumbia: Columbia university,
http://www.transcend.org/files/Galtung_Book_Theories_Of_Conflict_single.p
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. 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.