Conflict, Peace and Security: A Theoretical Perspective with Special Reference to the Marxist and Gumplowicz-Ward Theories

[Dr. Ravindra Kumar]

             Conflict, peace and security, all three, are, in fact, connected subjects to one another. It is evident that in the state of conflict there is no possibility of peace. Peace, itself, is a state free from conflict, dispute, warlike situation, or a war. Similarly, freedom from worries caused by conflicts, in other words security from them and then construction of peace, is inevitable so that the existence remains safe and human beings step forward on the pathway to development. He could make his life meaningful and simultaneously contribute to the progress of society also, of which he is, himself, an indivisible part. In short, conflict, peace, and security are a chain which cannot be segregated from the reality of human life. All three links of this chain [conflict, peace and security] are important for man and society. They, therefore, call for their analysis in historical perspective by having the main and usually accepted concepts presented from time-to-time by thinkers of repute in the centre so that the pathway to progress can be feasible to each and everyone. Every individual can step forward on the pathway to development. 

Conflict:  Due to jealousy and competition, the two temporary tendencies of man – selfish appetites and violent passions develop within him. To satisfy his desires, man wishes to become the master of others, which gives the birth to the state of conflict at local, regional, national and global levels in all walks of life, in social, political and economic spheres in particular. It is an established fact.  Hence, as the source of conflict is the two temporary human tendencies, it is not possible to avoid them.  They have always been the part and parcel of human life. For this reason, it has been rightly put forth, “Conflict, like cooperation, is inevitable in human society; it is but natural in day-to-day human practices.” [Ravindra Kumar, Gandhian Thought:  New World, New Dimensions, New Delhi, 2008, page 20]

Peace:  Generally, peace is considered to be a state free from conflict.  Moreover, when an atmosphere free from tension, struggle, war and violence prevails, it is termed as the state of peace. Despite this, peace is not static or motionless.  It is not a situation of the status quo or perpetuity. In a state of peace, it is hoped that human beings with harmony and cooperation will step forward toward the development of a larger welfare for humanity.  Hence, peace is an active and dynamic state. In this regard, the statement of Vinoba Bhave in which he says, “Shanti [peace] means something dynamic, something that develops the force of the individual, which develops the dynamic strength of the people to a degree that they are enabled to meet any situation”,  [Ravindra Kumar, Towards Peace, New Delhi, 2007] is worth quoting here. 

Security: A degree or active step that is taken in protection from fear, loss, and violence-born crime is security in general. Undoubtedly, security is a subject of practice. Therefore, it is dynamic. Moreover, it is a process and a condition of transforming conflict and bringing peace in society. It is the essence of security in brief; however, words like challenge, counter or threat, etc., are also linked with it, in social, political and economic spheres at national and international levels in particular. But, again it can be said with certainty that security is a measure connected with protection, simultaneously, with transformation of conflict and the establishment of peace. It plays a decisive role in clearing the pathway to development. In the process of security, people while remaining active, make constant efforts to encounter conflicts and violence. In short, security is a subject of practice; therefore, it is an action.

            Hence, from the brief study and analysis of conflict, peace and security, which we have had from the meaning and purpose viewpoint in particular, it is clear that among all three, conflict is at the foremost. We also categorically observe that conflict is a subject related to men; therefore, to society. That is why; all of the concepts related to conflict, in one way or another, stay within the scope of social studies or social sciences and this holds true for many sociologists in particular.

Main Conflict Theories: Among the main conflict-related concepts, which have emerged, particularly in the West, although the Marxist theory undoubtedly occupies the foremost place in social-classical theories, however, there is a chain of other views emerged in the contemporary and modern times, respectively, and all of them are worth consideration. In them, those related to the Feminist theory introduced in a scientific manner in the sixties and seventies of the Twentieth Century, especially by Janet Chafetz, related to gender inequality; the Postmodern theory, propounders of which, particularly Ihab Hassan and Jean Francois Lyotard, making crime the basis of their view, are of the opinion that it [crime] could emerge due to economic inequality, difference of culture, ideologies, religion, race or ethnicity, or struggles related to status; the Colonial-Postcolonial theory introduced particularly by Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty and Frantz Fanon, focusing on people struggling for indigenous rights, language, nationalism, development, etc., in non-Western countries; the Structural functionalism theories, popularized by Herbert Spencer, Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis, Wilbert Moore, Robert Merton, Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell in particular, stressing on change bridging the gap of inequality; the Queer theory developed by Michael Warner in the late Twentieth Century, which relates to sexual orientation and gender identity; and the World systems theory developed mainly from the three schools of thought – the Annales, Marxism and dependence theory by Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, Andre Gnder Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein, Christoper Chase-Dunn, Volkar Bornscier, Janet Abu Lughod, Thomas Hall, Kunibert Raffer, Throtonio dos Santos and Hohn Meyer in particular, focusing on analysis of society in historical perspective as well and emphasizing the change, are of particular mention.  Moreover, ideas related to the Game theory of Anatoly Borisovich Rapoport [1911-2007], Myerson, Felix Edouard Justin Emile Borel [1871-1956] and John von Neumann, and the ideas in the root of concepts like that of the Phronetic social science, social defeat, conflict theories or the Sociology of peace, war, conflict and the Conflict management, are also significant from the resolution viewpoint in particular. Further, many of them are connected to one another and, therefore, may be the subject of study and analysis.

            But, a common observation in the theories of the West is that all of them, in one way or another, accept social inequality, a state in which an individual or groups of individuals do not have equal status in society, including political rights, such as the right to vote, freedom of speech or expression, property or wealth, education, health and discrimination in the name of caste, class, ethnicity, gender and race, and also the denial of social justice to individuals or a particular group of individuals at the central point of conflicts.  Political and economic inequalities are essentially included in it as all the three [social, political and economic] walks of life are connected to each other; they are inseparable, and the part of one system; hence, cannot be separated from one another. Moreover, structural functionalism – a comprehensive interpretation of society and its function as a whole, including the role and functions of its customs, norms, traditions, values and different institutions – more or less emerges as the basic point in all of them. In it, class domination, i.e., control of the so-called upper classes over the middle and lower classes of society in different forms and on the strength of this domination of the former’s exploitations of the others. At the cost of others, these particular classes constantly attempt to achieve power and prosperity, and when in their attempts they step forward, conflicts take place as a reaction from the others.

            This view categorically strengthens my opinion in which I have put forth that an individual or group of individuals makes efforts to subjugate others.  To satisfy selfish appetites and violent passions of men, or when groups of men desire its mastership over others, sooner or later, a state of conflict emerges.

Social-Classical Theories: Among the two main social-classical theories of the West, particularly related to conflict, one undoubtedly relates to Marxism which is known as the Critical theory, while the one is associated with Gumplowicz and Ward. Both these theories are the most important subjects of study and critical analysis here.

Marxist Theory:  In the academic world, in socio-political studies in particular, the Marxist theory pertaining to conflict occupies a foremost place. As it is well-known, Karl Marx, having the dialectical materialism as the nuclei in his ideas, has interpreted the human history. Further making economic states of the ages the basis, he has established that the two classes of people, namely slave-master, oppressed-oppressor or exploited-exploiter have always existed in the society. This state has been responsible for inequality between the two, resultantly for internal tension leading to conflicts, sometimes of fierce nature. The slave, oppressed or resource less [the proletariat], for their freedom from the master, oppressor or exploiter, and to attain equality in society, go forward to fight, hidden and open, both. Finally, through a radical change, revolution by the proletarian, situation becomes normal, conflict-free.  To quote from the Communist Manifesto [1948], “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.  Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”  Thus, according to Marxism, a bloody revolution is inevitable and essential in this regard.

            Conflict related Marxist theory is not only important, but many of its aspects are till today worth consideration. Further, the manner the Marxist theory accorded a new dimension to the socio-political thoughts of the entire world, the West in particular, and also to the classical thinking tradition of Europe; millions of people all over the world impressed by it in the Nineteenth Century –the Century in which this theory was established, and also in the Twentieth Century, stepped forward to the action, the importance of this philosophy multiplies many folds. Therefore, a study of the features of this philosophy is indispensable, which makes it worthy and important.

            The first and the most important feature of the Marxist theory of conflict can be observed in its interpretation of human history in economic perspectives.  This interpretation is quite systematic and completed in a scholarly manner.  Secondly, the Marxist argument pertaining to the role of economic aspects of class struggles and the domination of a particular class which occupies and controls the economic structure of society on a socio-political system is also worth consideration.  It is imperative and as we all know, the importance and role of economic aspects in the making of socio-political structures of a society or the nation cannot be underestimated or minimized.  Despite other working systems of governance, the experiences of democracies, all over the world, well prove this fact.  Third, the Marxist viewpoint of accepting inequality as the cause of class struggle stands sound.  It is a reality and none can deny it. 

            Predominantly, for these three features, the Marxist concept relating to conflicts within society became important and emerged as one of the leading theories pertaining to it.  As mentioned before, this theory drew the attention of and impressed millions of people worldwide, preparing them for a radical change.  Moreover, it can be said with certainty that among the theories which have played a vital role in bringing about fundamental changes in societies, Marxism occupied a foremost place.

Critical Analysis of Marxist Theory:  Despite this, right from the days of its inception, Marxism, particularly its concept related to conflict, has been a subject of criticism.  Its significance and adaptability in prevailing circumstances of space has been the subject of argument and disagreement among scholars all over the world.  This situation remains so until today.

            I have, myself, been studying Marxism from my adolescent age to some extent.  In this regard, the two foremost aspects of this philosophy – economic interpretation of history and dialectical materialism – have been the subjects of my interest in particular.

            As mentioned already, the Marxist interpretation of history, on the basis of economic states of the ages, is systematic and scholarly; therefore, an important one.  However, the entire history of struggles in society or class struggles of the imagination of Marxism, from its conception to present, cannot be based upon economic factors only.  It could be true, particularly in context to the West, and that too for a certain age in history.  Moreover, in the whole of the West, and the rest of the world also, during conflicts or wars, for socio-political supremacy, only economic factor has not been responsible.  This factor has also not been vital in wars fought through the ages for years and decades in the name of making civilizations and religious supremacies.

            Secondly, dialectical materialism, which is based upon a constant process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis in Marxist theory, and of which according to Karl Marx himself, capitalism, is one and the last stage.  It was further tried to modify by Lenin with the opinion that the imperialism was the last stage of capitalism; therefore, he accorded the place of capitalism to the imperialism.  This, again, is despite being scholarly not a complete idea.  We know, neither capitalism in its final stage, collapsed in advance and the industrialized countries of Europe and America paved the way towards the establishment of the rule of the proletarians as claimed by Karl Marx, nor emerged a situation of the imagination of Lenin after almost the end of imperialism in the world.  Further, we observe a completely different situation in Mainland China where Mai Tse-Tung made peasantry the center of revolution in place of the class of proletarians.

            What happened, ultimately, in other countries of the world where communistic rule was established, we all know! No equality could be observed among the people. No end of class struggle was perceived there. In many of the countries under communism, people felt boredom of forcefully imposed rule and stepped forward for democracy –the government of the people. In a country like China, people are harassed continuously.  Human rights are violated time and again. Moreover, Chinese policies of creating an atmosphere of fear and extensionism, another form of imperialism, are well before the world.  It wears the mask of communism, but internal reality is quite different.

            Well!  Both the Marxist claims about the supremacy of economic factor in context of conflict or class struggle and dialectical materialism, despite being their scholarly and systematic interpretations, and also leaving a comprehensive impact upon people for years, could not pass their acid test as is well evident from the series of events of the countries under communist rule for decades.  It proved to be momentary; people came to the forefront to end the communist rule!

Gumplowicz-Ward Theory:  The two eminent and contemporary sociologists, Ludwing Gumplowicz [1838-1909 AD, who, besides being an eminent Polish jurist and political scientist, is recognized as one of the founders of European sociology] and Laster Frank Ward [1841-1913 AD, a renowned American botanist, paleontologist and sociologist, who became the first chairman of the American Sociological Association] while stressing on systematic study and analysis of society, called for connecting conflicts as a part of it.  Both of them put forth that conflicts and struggles are the subjects of society and they are fully connected with the social system; therefore, they must be observed together with the scientific study and analysis of society.

            Although both of them – Gumplowicz and Ward – never brought out any collaborative work on various issues related to society or the state of conflicts, yet both of them had the ideological similarity on the subject to a large extent.  Both of them particularly emphasized the need of analysis of society and social issues including conflicts systematically.  That is why both of them for their uniformity in ideas are put together by scholars and subject specialist while studying and analyzing the subject.  For this reason, if their ideas are termed as the Gumplowicz-Ward theory, nothing is unusual in it.

            Gumplowicz was of the opinion that ‘the social system should be studied thoroughly by having the state of conflict in the center so that the reality of origin and root cause of it could be well feasible’.  Similarly, Ward, stressing on scientific analysis of society, put forth that sociology is dedicated to the study of man and human society; the prime objective of science itself is the welfare of man and science if, despite its being in agreement to this, fails to do so, is not the real one, therefore, the state of conflict in society should also be observed, analyzed and studied in this very perspective.  In this regard, he wrote in a preface to Dynamic Sociology, “The real object of science is to benefit man.  A science, which fails to do this, however, agreeable its study, is lifeless.  Sociology, which of all sciences should benefit man most, is in danger of falling into the class of polite amusements, or dead sciences.  It is the object of this work to point out a method by which the breath of life may be breathed into its nostrils.”

            Gumplowicz and Ward, both, more or less, accorded priority and importance to society over the individual.  They declared man to be part of a group, ultimately the society and proclaimed that the individual never functioned as an individual, but only as a member of a group and the influence of which determined his behavior.  Therefore, social change, and creation of history itself, was the product of conflicts among social groups.  The history of each and every nation of the world was one of the class conflicts [in society], in which the fittest definitely survived and dominated those less fit.  Each social group strived to emerge as the controlling and dominating group within the state with the sole motive of achieving self-interest.  Similar to the groups in society, this principle applied to the behavior of states.  The most natural tendency of states could be observed in their wish to continuous increase of power and territorial expansion.  The mighty states tried to control and dominate those states, rulers and people of which were weak and unable to resist.  They on the strength of their might and resources, ruled them and exploited people in the same manner as within the territorial limit of the state powerful group, i.e., the fittest exploited the others, the less fit.

            Contrary to the Marxist view, in which economic factors emerge as the root cause of conflict or class struggles, Gumplowicz and Ward were interestingly of the opinion that conflicts, wars and conquests were the makers of societies; moreover, cultural, ethnic and racial conflicts gave birth to civilization – a dimension to the process of development.

            Despite the presence of temporary tendencies like jealousy and competition in man, development is, in fact, a necessity of the individual as well the society, and civilization is the outcome of the process of development.  Therefore, Gumplowicz and Ward, making this reality the basis of their ideas put forth that cultural and racial conflicts are for the making of civilization.  Furthermore, one’s domination over the other began the emergence of situations of slave and master and also the organization of state-like institutions, also the consequence of this very process.  In the words of Gumplowicz himself, “Every political organization and hence every developing organization, begins when one group permanently subjects another.  Subjection of some to the others is the source of political organization, is the condition essential to social growth.”

Critical Analysis of Gumplowicz-Ward Theory:  Categorically, contrary to economic factor, the process of development and the making of civilization are nuclei of Gumplowicz-Ward theory.  This process is dynamic, a necessary part of human life and also a social inevitability.

            Despite this, similar to the Marxism, this concept also seems confined to the European societies or the Western world.  Both, Gumplowicz and Ward, despite accepting the process of development as the maker of civilization, declare social change to be the root cause of conflict.  It could, in fact, be true about Europe or the Western world, but it is not true in total about the East.  In the East, from ancient times, knowledge and spiritualism have deeply affected individuals and societies.  All principal human values, the supreme human value of Ahimsa in particular, has played a vital role in day-to-day practices and in the making of civilization.

            About conflict, as is inevitable in society, it can be said with certainty that both Eastern and Western societies were and are, equally with their grab.  Further, it was and is not possible that any of the two – the West and East – was less affected by temporary tendencies like jealousy and competition, which are present in man.  Gumplowicz and Ward, despite presenting a worthy and scholarly analysis of society and its structure, could not focus on this reality, particularly pertaining to jealousy and competition.

View of Peace and Security:  How to Achieve?

            The Marxist concept desiring class equality with the purpose of avoiding conflicts or struggles at national and international levels hoped for peace in society, state, and on earth.  This was, in fact, the Marxist view pertaining to guarantee of security of each and everyone.  For this – internal and external peace and security, Marxism stressed on action from the state level.  The Marxist perception of equal distribution at the state level and equal arrangement of market for states at the global level could be viewed in this very perspective.  For taking initiatives at the state level, as a means, this theory proposed a violent action or bloody revolution so that the rule of proletarians could be established, further to pave the way for an international order.  With the opinion that ‘class struggle is a terrible and the greatest social problem, and in the whole history of the world, not a single problem of class struggle has ever been solved without violence’, Marxism stressed on the state control over the resources and distribution system, and control of proletarians on power, i.e., the state; moreover, the rule of the Communist Party – the political organization of the proletarians.

            Similarly, Gumplowicz and Ward, desiring equality among the people by check and balance of society itself, proposed society’s interference to minimize or eradicate poverty; therefore, to pave the way to peace and security.  Further, they, and especially Ward, desired women’s equality as essential to bring peace in society, and for this, stressed on their awakening through education for their empowerment so that they could attain rights and justice necessary for security in order to contribute equally towards social harmony and the process of peace.  They, very interestingly, emphasized the need of imparting education among the masses with respect to the welfare of the world in general.

Conclusion:  Despite being attractive and seemingly effective at a certain point of age, the Marxism, its concepts related to conflict, peace and security in particular, due to its base on fundamentalism, could not succeed.  In spite of analyzing economic aspects of life in a beautiful manner, it could not acquire concord with the reality of the law of change and its vital role in the world order. Its stress on unnecessary control over the human mind and freedom of speech with emphasis on using violence for change, in fact, brought it to its downfall. Marxism lacked familiarity with the reality of non-violence, which is a permanent attribute of man, and any effective and longtime change could be possible only through non-violent methods and not by violent means.

            The concept of Gumplowicz and Ward, on the other hand, seemed important and worth consideration as it called for gender equality, or equality of people in social, political, and economic spheres, and for this fixed responsibilities of society or the state. It still seems important, in current perspective, when the process of human unity at the global level is going on swiftly. Hence, despite not becoming directly a basis of any fundamental change, as the Marxism did, a concept like this never loses its importance. Finally, significance of a concept can be testified from its application and adaptability in prevailing situations of space and demand of time. The end result of an idea with respect to the larger welfare of the people can be the acid test of it.