Sociological Forum, Vol. 20, No.

2, June 2005 (

C 2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s11206-005-4103-5

Review Essay

The Continuing Relevance of Coser’s

Theory of Conflict
Sharon Erickson Nepstad1

The Functions of Social Conflict. Lewis Coser. Glencoe, IL: Free Press,
1956.

Lewis Coser’s The Functions of Social Conflict was one of the best-
selling sociological works of the Twentieth century. Published in 1956, this
book critiqued the dominant sociological paradigm of the time—structural-
functionalism—and may well have contributed to its diminishing influence
in the discipline. Coser revealed functionalism’s conservative biases and
its inability to capture the conflict, competition, and tension that charac-
terize group life. Yet one of Coser’s noteworthy characteristics is his re-
fusal to impetuously dismiss this paradigm’s insights. In the history of social
thought, intellectual developments often reflect the path of a pendulum,
swinging from a nearly absolute rejection of one paradigm to the accep-
tance of a completely different view. Little attention is given to integrat-
ing the strengths of various perspectives. The Functions of Social Conflict,
however, has a rare dialectical quality, as Coser gracefully synthesized the
insights of sociology’s three main paradigms. Building from Durkheimian
premises, Coser argued that conflict is a persistent phenomenon and there-
fore serves some latent social functions. Yet by departing from functional-
ism’s assumptions of stability and harmony, Coser also facilitated the shift
toward the conflict paradigm by emphasizing that conflict is ubiquitous and
an inherent part of social relations. He also derived many of his theoretical
assertions about conflict from the interactionist approach of Georg Simmel.
Coser offered a set of general premises that apply to a wide range of
conflicts from racial tensions to religious differences and war. Many of his

1 Department of Sociology, Duquesne University, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15282;

e-mail: nepstad@duq.edu.

335
0884-8971/05/0600-0335/0

C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
336 Nepstad

assertions still ring true, even though the world has changed significantly in
the 50 years since The Functions of Social Conflict first appeared in print.
For example, Coser stated that social conflict preserves and strengthens
a group in numerous ways. Conflict often acts as a “safety valve,” releas-
ing tension while preserving social relations—much as a pressure cooker’s
steam valve prevents the pot from exploding. Additionally, conflict with
an out-group enhances identity and consciousness for the in-group. Con-
flict has a polarizing effect that accentuates the division between “us” and
“them,” drawing attention to and clarifying the factors that make each
group distinct. Hence Coser noted that “the Catholic Church owed much
of its doctrinal and organizational vigor to its struggles against Gnostic
and Manichaean heresies and its later conflicts with Protestant reformers”
(p. 71). External threats also build group cohesion and solidarity as mem-
bers unite to protect their common interests. Conflicts may even distract
people from internal disputes: many presidents have discovered that do-
mestic concerns subside when a nation is at war. Yet once a country has
made peace with its external enemies, the internal conflicts resurface. Thus
the peaceful existence that many Eastern European nations felt after the
Soviet Union collapsed was short-lived, and some of them later spiraled
into bitter ethnic conflicts.
Although external conflict may strengthen a group, internal conflict
may weaken it. The outcome of internal disputes is partly determined by
the character of key antagonists, according to Coser. He distinguished rene-
gades from heretics, noting that renegades will grow discontent and sub-
sequently transfer their allegiance to another group. Renegades become
fiercely loyal to their new group since they feel their membership is the re-
sult of conviction not tradition. Heretics, on the other hand, pose a greater
risk. Heretics claim to uphold the authentic views of a group, thus threaten-
ing to split it into factions. While the renegades fight against the members
of their former group, the heretics try to proselytize them. Coser observed,
“This is one of the reasons why Trotsky appeared to Stalin as a more seri-
ous danger than General Vlassov, and why Lenin’s most violent denuncia-
tory language is not directed against any capitalist but is reserved for Karl
Kautsky” (p. 71).
Coser also theorized about the factors that exacerbate conflicts. He
argued that conflicts would be more intense and destructive in close re-
lationships than in distant ones. He additionally noted that struggles for
collective goals are typically more militant than conflicts over personal is-
sues. This is because people feel greater freedom to take extreme measures
when they act as representatives of a group or sacred tradition. Moreover,
such action grants them a degree of respectability since they are perceived
as altruistically working for others rather than pursing their own interests.
The Continuing Relevance of Coser’s Theory of Conflict 337

These dynamics are evident among contemporary religious terrorists as well

as politically-motivated revolutionaries during the Cold War.
Coser analyzed many other dynamics of social conflict. He argued that
conflict can foster coalitions between unrelated groups and even build al-
liances among previously hostile entities. He also observed that groups re-
spond differently to threats depending on their size. For instance, large
institutions such as the Catholic Church may demonstrate greater toler-
ance than small ones, trying to contain opposition within their boundaries,
whereas small religious sects are likely to expel dissidents. Coser com-
mented that “each way of meeting a threat contains a special danger: too
much rigidity may lead to splits and withdrawals; too much flexibility may
lead to blurring of boundaries and dissolution in the surrounding environ-
ment” (pp. 96–97).
Coser’s premises have valuable explanatory power for analysts of
contemporary social relations. For instance, he argued that the social
benefits of conflict may cause some leaders to intentionally sustain enmity
or search for new enemies. Paraphrasing the well-known dictum of W. I.
Thomas, Coser posited that leaders may even fabricate threats because, “If
men define a threat as real, although there may be little or nothing in reality
to justify this belief, the threat is real in its consequences—and among these
consequences is the increase of group cohesion” (p. 107). This theorem has
particular resonance today as international observers are concluding that
Saddam Hussein may never have had weapons of mass destruction, which
was the justification for the US invasion of Iraq. Could it be that the Bush
administration, unable to find Osama bin Laden, intentionally constructed
another enemy in order to maintain national unity and divert the US
population’s attention from domestic concerns? Certainly, the functions of
social conflict influence leaders’ decisions, and thus we ought to reacquaint
ourselves with the dynamics of conflict that Coser described decades ago.

REFERENCE

Coser, Lewis A.
1956 The Functions of Social Conflict.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.