Conflict+and+Modernity


 * Modernity: An Unfinished Project-Jurgen Habermas Essay Review by John O’Grady**

__The Old and the New __ Habermas begins the essay on not trying to forget the past when it comes to modernism. Habermas is trying to tell us that we wouldn’t be modern if we didn’t have anything to base it on, which is why he reflects on the past moderns. The transition from the old to the new is showing where we came from in our modern ideas of today. He uses the ancient period of history as a normative model up until he says “//querelle des anciens et des modernes,”// (363) which means a dispute between the ancient philosophers and moderns philosophers. This dispute is seen in the 19th century Romanticism which disconnected itself from all prior historical connection to the idea of modernism. This thought was seen as “understood itself solely in abstract opposition to tradition and history as a whole.” (364) The argument here is that during the Romanticism time they thought that all modern thought came from that time period, but Habermas tells us that no matter what the modern will still have a connection to the classical time. __Cultural Modernity and Social Modernization __ Cultural modernity which is an opposition mentality is misunderstood and connected with the opposite. Neoconservative is seen in the United States and displaces “the burdensome and unwelcome consequence of a more or less successful capitalist modernization of the economy” (364). This helps develop a cultural modernity, which is our modern thought of what is going on in society now and today. This cultural modernity is blamed for creating our social modernization. This is good for some things and bad for others. Examples of it being bad would be that alters the attitudes of people toward work, consumer habits, levels of demand, leisure-time orientation. With that said it can cause problems with a lack of motivation, lack of social identification, incapacity of obedience, narcissism, and withdrawal from competition for status among people. __The Project of Enlightenment __ Habermas starts to show us that to enlighten we must have a modernity project. That modernity project starts with rational differentiation, which is “the separation of substantive reason, formerly expressed in religious and metaphysical world-views into three moments” (366). These three moments to help make us modern can be found in science and scholarship, morality and art, or the mental instrumental, and the respectable instrumental. The differentiation of rational differentiation means two things: specialty and detachment from the tradition or history. Optimism is a key to having this modern project of enlightenment happen. Without a little optimism, which is the goodness pervades reality; we can complete this project by “releasing the cognitive potentials accumulated in the process from their esoteric high forms and attempting to apply them in the sphere of praxis, that is, to encourage the rational organization of social relations.” (366) We can see that Habermas is trying to tell us that optimism will help us apply expert cultures to our modern way of thinking through the rational organizations of living conditions and the social relations. There are also some negative consequences, which would cause the people who are optimistic people to come to more realistic terms. The examples of this would be scientific criticism could help enlighten us, as a society, but could also cause skepticism amongst people who have an indifferent attitude with modern way of thinking about science. This is where it could cause conflict between people who refer to modernism in the past and use the classical way of looking at things and with the people that look at it in the modern sense and they don’t use the classical way of thinking to help develop their understanding of modernism. This would be a negative effect; therefore it would make growing distance between these expert cultures and the general public. These experts are coming up with the modern ways of thinking and the general public leans back on the classical ways of thinking of modernism. Although Habermas thinks that the general optimism surrounding the enlightenment project has declined a little bit, the problem that motivated the project has remained. __Three Conservatisms __ //The Young Conservatives // are trying to create their own purpose of action and form all the same values and labor which would allow them to break out of our modern world and into one of their own. “They establish an implacable opposition to modernism precisely through a modernist attitude.” (367) The //Young Conservatives// are simply locating an unintentional force that allows them to use their imagination and young self-experience. //The Old Conservatives // want to return to the positions prior to modernity with the use of old philosophers, ex: Aristotle and Leo Strauss or a rebirth of cosmological ethics, or the study of the universe in its totality. With this way of thinking of a modern time they would refer to ancient ways of thinking about modernism. //The New Conservatives // relate the most to the new achievements of our modern times that we live in now. They welcome, with open arms, the development of several modern ways of thinking. //The New Conservatives// really like modern science as long as it oversteps its old way of thinking to advertise technological advances, capitalistic growth, and finally rational administration. As for the rest, they support a political idea of disarming hazardous contents of our modern culture that we live in today.

__Modernity: An Unfinished Project__ By Jurgen Habermas Habermas begins by talking about the "Old and the New". He refers to classical as something that lasts through the ages, and therefore the old, and modernity as being the new. However he thinks that once the modern isplaced in the past it will still keep a connection to the classic because modernity itself creates its own classical status. Habermas writes about how the thinker Adomo opposes any distinction between modernity, and modernism because he thinks that without the characteristic subjective mentality inspired by the new, no objective can begin to take root. Our analysis of modernity gives rise to an intellectual and political confrontation with the intellectual representatives of cultural modernity. Peter Steifels feels that this has characterized the abuse of intellectuals by those neoconsevatives who oppose the enlightenment. Neoconservatism is an idea that displaces the burdensome consequences of a more or less succesful capitalist modernization of the economy on to cultural modernity. Habermas thinks that modernity will obscure the connection between social modernization, an idea which modernity welcomes, and motivation, an idea modernity fails to support. Habermas said that Neo conservatism attributes the problems people have to society, when in fact society plays a very small role in the processes which create these problems, and instead of analysing the causes of these problems it focuses on the intellectuals who are in themselves focused on modernity. Daniel Bell percieved a connection between the erosion of bourgeois values and the consumerism of a society oriented towards mass production. Bell traces this new permisiveness back to bohemian artists, and claims that the idea of art is to fulfill a promise of happiness to people by introducing the artistic lifestyle. Bell also thinks that when aesthetic modernity emerged the bourgeoisie became conservative in morals and culture. owever if Bell is correct then neoconservatism can be seen as a return to the old pattern of the bourgeois mentality. However Habermas does not think Bell is correct because it is not only false but is also rooted in more fundamental reactions, which is a process of social modernization, which under pressure from economic growth intervenes into the ecology of developed forms of social life. Habermas does warn us of the danger of neopopulist protests which he says give forceful expression to fears of the destruction of both urban and natural environments, and the destruction of human forms of social life. This discontent and protest arise when a one sided process of modernization invades domains of life, such as socialization and education. These are the processes the neoconsservatists ise to distract us, only to project other skewed causes for our problems onto our culture. Cultural modernity generates an aporuas and the intellectuals who proclaim post modernity also appeal to aporias, there are also certain reason for doubt concerning modernity which arise form the internal perspective of cultural development. Weber characterizes cultural modernity in terms of the seperation of substantive reasoning, and the idea of modernity is basically bound up by european art. So basiccally there are two sides to modernity, on the one hand there is the fact that although art and science do not represent linear developments, they do constitute learning proccesses which will in the end benefit mankind. On the other had the distance between these types of culture and the public has increased, so although science and art have developed it has hurt society because it is less available to the public. If there was not this gap then humans would live a much more moral, and happier life. In his writing Habermas discusses three different types of conservatives. The first type is the young conservative who tend to break out of themodern world by appropriating the fundamental experience of aestholic modernity from all the imperatives of labor and use value. The second type is the old conservative who does not allow to be continated by cultural modernity, and who observes the collapse of substantive reasons, the proggressive differentiation of science, moralityand art, the modern understanding of the world, and instead recomend a return to positions that are prior to modernity. The final type of conservative is the New conservative who welcomes the development of modern science so long as it only oversteps its own sphere in order to promote technological advance, capitalist growth, and a rational form of administration. They otherwise reccomend getting rid of the explosive elements of cultural modernity, they also believe that once science is understood its meaning is immediatelly lost. Habermas fears that anti modernist ideas, coupled with an element of premodernism are gaining ground in alternative groups, and fears that there is a political alliance between the advocates of post-modernity and those of pre-modernity
 * By Joe Briggs**

Conflict Theroy- Fiona Holly  Conflict theory is based the idea that society is centered on a series of power struggles especially due to the nature of our society. Power is seen as the center of society as a whole and conflicts occur when this power and resources are unevenly distributed. Conflict theorists try to specifically explain how and why conflicts occur. (Allan 213) <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Coser and Dharendorf bring interesting points of view to the Conflict theory. Where Marx focuses mainly on capitalism, and the conflicts derived from it, Coser goes in depth about conflict itself and Dahrendorf concentrates on power and especially authority.

Coser says that conflict is a normal part of life and is based on instinct. He says human conflict is unique in that it is often goal oriented. When a conflict occurs there are varying degrees of violence. Conflict is less violent when there are specified rational goals. Allan uses the example of workers on strike. These workers want to get something from the conflict, and violence would take the focus away from their goals. Coser says conflict can become violent through two factors //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">emotional involvement // and //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">transcendent goals. // Coser realizes that the more a group is emotionally attached and involved the greater likelihood for violence. The emotional attachment provides a sense of being personally threatened when the group is attacked, causing members to react violently. Also, when a group has physical goals members tend to be less violent. When the group has transcendent goals, goals, goals seen as being “greater than the group,” for example freedom or morality, people tend to have stronger reactions to opposition, leading to violence.

Coser talks about two types of conflict, //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">internal conflict // and //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">external conflict. // **__<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Internal conflict __** occurs within the larger social context. Because Coser sees conflict as a normal function of society, according to Allan he says ”Society must always contend with the psychological need of individuals to engage in conflict” (Allan 218). Continual conflict gives rise to norms or laws which keep conflict under control. Here you can see how Coser sees conflict as a good thing which can help society to grow stronger. Coser also says that not all internal conflict is functional, he says that conflict that threatens the group within itself could cause the group to fall apart. Allan uses marriage to demonstrate this idea. Allan says, “Conflict over such things as chores may prove to be functional in the long run for the marriage, while adultery may be dysfunctional and lead to the break up of the group.“(Allan 218) Coser uses the idea of //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">network density // to refer to the structure of a group. A group that has a high personal involvement has high network density, the conflicts that occur in a group such as this tend to have more dysfunctional conflict. Due to the frequency of contact and involvement conflicts can become larger as time goes along causing more conflict. Those with low network density have more functional conflict. **__<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">External conflict __** can also be functional even when it is violent. When a group is in someway attacked the group grows in solidarity, and it strengthens boundaries. High levels of violence make this effect even stronger. Also, groups involved in conflict have a more centralized power structure (as in a government) which helps the group act more efficiently in times of need.

Dharendorf calls power "factual" and Allan phrases it as a "fact of human life." (223) Dharendorf is mainly concerened with authority as a power. He refers to authority as the legitimated use of power. It is obvious that power is legitimated in out everyday society and Dharendorf accepts this. He refers to relations with common authoritative figures as **__<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">imperatively coordinated associations __**. Allan rephrases the term by saying, "social relations are managed through legitimated power (authority). Functionalists say that individuals are controled in a sense by the strengthening of the collective conscious (according to Durkheim) via norms, beliefs etc. To functionalists, it seems as if society happens on some kind of agreement as to what is acceptable in society. Dharendorf says society is controled by the norms and beliefs instated by those with legitimated power. He says that all norms have an element of power and that the power behind the norms controls us.

Class Notes Elements of Conflict 1. An unequal distribution of each scarce resource produces potential conflict between those who control it and those who do not. Economic power->money. Power->high social status Cultural->rituals. 2.Potential conflicts become actual conflicts to the degree the opposing group becomes mobilized. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;">3. Conflict continues. 4.When material resources are used conflict will end.
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">strong group identity
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">worldview polarizes world
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">perceive beliefs as morally right
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">emotional energy

<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;">From Allan pp.234-237

Cameron McMillan
Conflict is everywhere and in every part of society, not only in hostile situations. Conflict keeps society from falling apart. Conflict theory looks at who has economic, power, and cultural resources.

Lewis Coser
Most of Coser's ideas come from Simmel. He talks about how conflict is functional, not just how it is dysfunctional. conflict is inherant to humans, thus society cannot function without conflict. Conflict is often the means to an end. When one group controls economic, power, and cultural resources the deprived group gains collective conscious and brings about conflict, which can lead to changes in society. Two things can cause a conflict to become violent. When people are emotionally involved with the situation or when their goals are transcendent (greater than themselves) a conflict can turn violent. Conflicts can be either internal or external. internal conflicts are between groups or members of groups that interact in "the same social system." (217) When internal conflicts go against basic ideas of the group there is a higher chance that the group will hurt from it. An external conflict will make a group come together and intensify its boundaries with other groups.

Ralf Dahrendorf
Dahrendorf uses ideas from Marx and Weber with some of Coser's same ideas. Conflict is not inherant to humans, it is something we create within society. Dahrendorf uses Webers definition of power- "the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests." (166) He cares more about authority than power. Authority is legitimized power. The power comes from some institution. Imperatively coordinated associations are relations between people where one has authority over another. Society is kept together by norms that are set by those with authority. Class is determined by power instead of money. Dahrendorf is mostly interested in conflicts within classes.