Negative Consequences of Unemployment Unemployment is an extremely negative socio-economic phenomenon that has a negative impact on the state of the economy as a whole. As a result: the budget does not receive tax deductions, a decrease in the level of GDP, an increase in crime

How can you deal with the negative consequences of anger? Every time you lose your composure arguing with someone, you stab them. If this person is psychologically more mature than you, he will take it right. But more often than not, pain is hard to forget, and you

The consequences of the conflict are highly controversial. On the one hand, conflicts destroy social structures, lead to significant unreasonable waste of resources, on the other hand, they are the mechanism that helps to solve many problems, unites groups and ultimately serves as one of the ways to achieve social justice. The duality in people's assessment of the consequences of conflict has led to the fact that sociologists working on the theory of conflict do not come to a common point of view about whether conflict is useful or harmful to society.

The severity of the conflict depends to the greatest extent on the socio-psychological characteristics of the opposing sides, as well as on the situation requiring immediate action. By absorbing energy from the outside, the conflict situation forces the participants to act immediately, investing all their energy in the collision.

The duality of people's assessment of the consequences of the conflict has led to the fact that sociologists dealing with the theory of conflicts, or, as they say, conflictology, did not come to a common point of view about whether conflicts are useful or harmful for society. Thus, many believe that society and its individual constituent parts develop as a result of evolutionary changes, and as a result, they assume that social conflict can only be negative, destructive.
But there is a group of scientists consisting of supporters of the dialectical method. They recognize the constructive, useful content of any conflict, since as a result of conflicts, new qualitative determinations appear.

Let us assume that in every conflict there are both disintegrative, destructive, and integrative, constructive moments. Conflict can destroy social communities. In addition, internal conflict destroys group unity. Speaking about the positive aspects of the conflict, it should be noted that a limited, partial consequence of the conflict may be the strengthening of group interaction. Conflict may be the only way out of a tense situation. Thus, there are two types of consequences of conflicts:

• disintegrated consequences that intensify bitterness, lead to destruction and bloodshed, to intra-group tension, destroy normal channels of cooperation, distract the attention of group members from pressing problems;
• integrative consequences that determine the way out of difficult situations, lead to problem resolution, strengthen group cohesion, lead to the conclusion of alliances with other groups, lead the group to understand the interests of its members.

Let's consider these consequences in more detail:

Positive consequences of the conflict

A positive, functionally useful result of a conflict is the solution of the problem that gave rise to disagreements and caused clashes, taking into account the mutual interests and goals of all parties, as well as achieving understanding and trust, strengthening partnerships and cooperation, overcoming conformism, humility, striving for advantage.

Socially (collectively) - the constructive impact of the conflict is expressed in the following consequences:

Conflict is a way of identifying and fixing disagreements, as well as problems in society, organization, group. The conflict indicates that the contradictions have already reached their highest limit, and therefore it is necessary to take immediate measures to eliminate them.

Thus, any the conflict serves as an informational function, i.e. provides additional impulses for the awareness of their own and others' interests in the confrontation.

Conflict is a form of conflict resolution... Its development contributes to the elimination of those shortcomings and miscalculations in the social organization that led to its occurrence. The conflict helps to relieve social tension and eliminate stressful situations, helps "let off steam", defuse the situation.

Conflict can perform an integrative, unifying function... In the face of an external threat, the group uses all its resources for cohesion and confrontation with an external enemy. In addition, it is the task of solving existing problems that unites people. In search of a way out of the conflict, mutual understanding and a feeling of involvement in the solution of a common task occurs.

The resolution of the conflict helps to stabilize the social system, as it eliminates the sources of discontent. The parties to the conflict, trained by "bitter experience", will be more cooperative in the future than they were before the conflict.

In addition, the resolution of the conflict can prevent more serious conflicts from arising that could arise if it were not for this.

Conflict intensifies and stimulates group creativity, contributes to the mobilization of energy to solve the tasks assigned to the subjects. In the process of searching for ways to resolve the conflict, mental forces are activated to analyze difficult situations, new approaches, ideas, innovative technologies, etc. are being developed.

Conflict can serve as a means of clarifying the balance of power of social groups or communities and thus can warn against the next, more destructive conflicts.

Conflict can become a source of emergence of new norms of communication between people or to help fill old norms with new content.

The constructive impact of conflict on a personal level reflects the impact of conflict on individual traits:

the fulfillment of the cognitive function by the conflict in relation to the people who take part in it. In difficult critical (existential) situations, the real character, true values ​​and motives of people's behavior are shown. The cognitive function is also associated with the possibility of diagnosing the strength of the enemy;

promoting self-knowledge and adequate self-esteem of the individual. A conflict can help to correctly assess one's strengths and abilities, to reveal new, previously unknown aspects of a personality's character. It can also temper the character, contribute to the emergence of his new virtues (a sense of pride, self-esteem, etc.);

removal of unwanted character traits (feelings of inferiority, humility, compliance);

increasing the level of socialization of a person, his development as a person. In a conflict, an individual in a relatively short period of time can receive as much life experience as he may never receive in everyday life;

facilitating the adaptation of the employee in the team, since it is during the conflict that people open up to a greater extent. The person is either accepted by the members of the group, or, conversely, they ignore it. In the latter case, of course, no adaptation occurs;

reducing mental tension in the group, relieving stress from its members (in the case of a positive resolution of the conflict);

satisfaction of not only primary, but also secondary needs of the individual, its self-realization and self-affirmation.

Negative consequences of the conflict

The negative, dysfunctional consequences of the conflict include people's dissatisfaction with a common cause, a departure from solving urgent problems, an increase in hostility in interpersonal and intergroup relations, a weakening of team cohesion, etc.

The social destructive impact of the conflict is manifested at various levels of the social system and is expressed in specific consequences.

When resolving the conflict, violent methods can be used, as a result of which large human casualties and material losses are possible. In addition to the direct participants, those around them may also suffer in the conflict.

A conflict can lead the parties to the confrontation (society, social group, individual) into a state of destabilization and disorganization. The conflict can lead to a slowdown in the pace of social, economic, political and spiritual development of society. Moreover, it can cause stagnation and a crisis of social development, the emergence of dictatorial and totalitarian regimes.

The conflict can contribute to the disintegration of society, the destruction of social communications and the socio-cultural alienation of social formations within the social system.

The conflict can be accompanied by the growth of pessimism and disregard for customs in the society.

Conflict can lead to new, more destructive conflicts.

Conflict often leads to a decrease in the level of organization of the system, a decrease in discipline and, as a consequence, to a decrease in the effectiveness of activities.

The destructive influence of the conflict on the personal level is expressed in the following consequences:

• negative impact on the socio-psychological climate in the group: signs of a negative mental state appear (feelings of depression, pessimism and anxiety), leading a person into a state of stress;
• disappointment in their capabilities and abilities, de-intensification of the face; the emergence of a feeling of self-doubt, loss of previous motivation, destruction of existing value orientations and patterns of behavior. In the worst case, the consequence of the conflict can be disappointment, loss of faith in former ideals, which gives rise to deviant behavior and, as an extreme case, suicide;
• negative assessment by a person of his partners in joint activities, disappointment in his colleagues and recent friends;
• a person's reaction to conflict through defense mechanisms that manifest themselves in various forms of bad behavior:
• indentation - silence, separation of the individual from the group;
• information that scares criticism, abuse, demonstration of their superiority over other members of the group;
• solid formalism - formal politeness, the establishment of strict norms and principles of behavior in a group, observation of others;
• turning everything into a joke;
• conversations on extraneous topics instead of a business discussion of problems;
• constant search for the guilty, self-flagellation or accusations of all troubles of the team members.

These are the main consequences of the conflict, which are interconnected and are specific and relative.

Summarizing the work of the American scientist E. Mayo and other representatives of the functionalist (integration) direction, the following negative consequences of conflicts are distinguished:

• • destabilization of the organization, the generation of chaotic and anarchic processes, reduced controllability;
• · Distracting personnel from the real problems and goals of the organization, shifting these goals towards group selfish interests and ensuring victory over the enemy;
• · The growth of emotionality and irrationality, hostility and aggressive behavior, distrust of the "main thing" and others;
• · Weakening of opportunities for communication and cooperation with opponents in the future;
• · Distraction of the parties to the conflict from solving the problems of the organization and the fruitless waste of their forces, energy, resources and time to fight with each other.

Positive consequences of the conflict

In contrast to the functionalists, supporters of the sociological approach to conflicts (they are represented, for example, by the largest modern German conflictologist R. Dahrendorf) regard them as an integral source of social change and development. Under certain conditions, conflicts have functional, positive results:

• · Initiation of changes, updates, progress. The new is always a negation of the old, and since both new and old ideas and forms of organization are always behind certain people, so any renewal is impossible without conflicts;
• · Articulation, clear formulation and expression of interests, making public the real positions of the parties on a particular issue. This allows you to see more clearly the urgent problem and creates a fertile ground for its solution;
• · The formation of the participants in the conflict a sense of belonging to the decision made as a result of it, which facilitates its implementation;
• · Encouraging participants to interact and develop new, more effective solutions that eliminate the problem itself or its significance. This usually happens when the parties show understanding of each other's interests and realize the disadvantages of deepening the conflict;
• · The development of the parties to the conflict the ability to cooperate in the future, when the conflict will be resolved as a result of the interaction of both parties. Honest competition that leads to agreement increases the mutual respect and trust necessary for further cooperation;
• · Relaxation of psychological tension in relations between people, a clearer clarification of their interests and positions;
• · The development of the participants in the conflict skills and abilities relatively painless solution of problems arising in the future;
• · Strengthening of group cohesion in the event of intergroup conflicts. As is known from social psychology, the easiest way to rally a group and muffle or even overcome internal discord is to find a common enemy, a competitor. An external conflict is able to extinguish internal strife, the causes of which often disappear over time, lose their relevance, acuteness and are forgotten.

The real ratio of functional and dysfunctional consequences of a conflict directly depends on their nature, the causes that give rise to them, as well as on the skillful management of conflicts.

conflict behavior problem

Among the basic concepts that social science studies today, social conflicts occupy a large place. Largely because they are an active driving force, thanks to which modern society has come to its present state. So what is social conflict?

This is a clash of different parts of society due to the emerging contradictions. Moreover, it cannot be said that social conflict always leads to negative consequences, because it is not so. Constructive overcoming and solution of such contradictions allows the parties to get closer, to learn something, and the society to develop. But only if both sides are inclined towards a rational approach and looking for a way out.

Researchers were interested in the concept of conflict in society long before sociology appeared as such. The English philosopher Hobbes was rather negative about this. He pointed out that some conflicts would constantly occur within society; the natural state, in his opinion, was “a war of all against all”.

But not everyone agreed with him. Collision issues in the late 19th century were actively explored by Spencer. He considered that this is a natural process, as a result of which the best, as a rule, remain. Considering social conflicts and ways of resolving them, the thinker has highlighted the personality.

In contrast, Karl Marx believed that the choice of the group was more important for society as a whole. The scientist suggested that the class struggle is inevitable. His functions of social conflict are closely related to the redistribution of benefits. However, critics of this researcher's theory pointed out that Marx was an economist. And he approached the study of society from the point of view of professional deformation, paying too little attention to everything else. In addition, here the importance of a single person turned out to be belittled.

If we talk about the basic concepts related to modern conflict management (which even took shape as a separate science, which indicates the great importance of the issue under study), then we can single out the teachings of Coser, Dahrendorf and Boulding. The theory of social conflict in the former is built around the inevitability of social inequality, which generates tension. Which leads to collisions. In addition, Coser points out that the struggle can begin when there is a contradiction between the idea of ​​\ u200b \ u200bwhat should be and reality. Finally, the scientist does not ignore the limited number of values, the rivalry between different members of society for power, influence, resources, status, etc.

It can be said that this theory does not directly contradict Dahrendorf's approach. But he puts the accents in a different way. In particular, the sociologist points out that society is built on the coercion of some by others. There is a constant struggle for power in society, and there will always be more people who want to get it than there are real opportunities. Which gives rise to endless changes and collisions.

Boulding also has his own concept of conflict. The scientist assumes that it is possible to isolate something in common that exists in any opposition. In his opinion, the structure of social conflict is submitted to analysis and study, which opens up wide opportunities for controlling the situation and managing the process.

Conflict cannot be completely separated from public life, Boulding said. And by it he understands a situation when both sides (or a greater number of participants) take positions that cannot be fully combined with the interests and desires of each other. The researcher identifies 2 basic aspects: static and dynamic. The first concerns the main characteristics of the parties and the general situation as a whole. The second is the reactions, behavior of the participant.

Boulding suggests that the consequences of social conflict in one case or another can be predicted with a certain degree of probability. Moreover, in his opinion, errors are often associated with a lack of information about what was the reason, what means are actually used by the parties, etc., and not with the impossibility of making a forecast in principle. The scientist also draws attention: it is important to know at what stage of social conflict the situation is now in order to understand what will or may be at the next stage.

Further development of the theory

In the present, social scientists are actively studying social conflict and ways to resolve it, because today it is one of the most pressing and pressing problems. So, the prerequisites for social conflict always concern something deeper than it might seem at first glance. A cursory examination of the situation sometimes gives the impression that people are simply hurt by religious feelings (which also often has its own meaning), but upon closer examination it turns out that there are enough reasons.

Discontent often builds up over the years. For example, social conflicts in modern Russia are the problem of clashes between different ethnic groups, the economic disadvantage of some regions of the country compared to others, strong stratification within society, lack of real prospects, etc. At times it seems that the reaction is simply disproportionate, which is impossible to predict, to what are the consequences of social conflicts in certain cases.

But in reality, the basis for a serious reaction is long-term accumulated tension. It can be compared to an avalanche where snow constantly collected. And just one push, a sharp sound, a blow in the wrong place is enough for a huge mass to break off and roll down.

How does this relate to theory? Today, the causes of social conflict are almost always studied in relation to how things actually happen. The objective circumstances of conflicts in society that have led to confrontation are considered. Moreover, not only from a sociological point of view, but also from an economic, political, psychological (interpersonal, confrontation between an individual and society), etc.

In fact, the task of the theorists is to find practical ways to solve the problem. In general, such goals have always been relevant. But now ways of resolving social conflicts are of increasing importance. They are essential for the survival of society as a whole.

Classification of social conflicts

As already established, the issue under study is of great importance for people and even for humanity. This may seem like an exaggeration, but when considering this topic, it becomes clear that global types of conflicts really threaten the entire civilization as such. If you want to practice, give yourself different scenarios for the development of events in which survival will be in question.

In fact, examples of such social conflicts are described in science fiction literature. Dystopias are largely devoted to them. Finally, from the point of view of social studies of the material, post-apocalyptic literature is of considerable interest. There are often social conflicts, the reasons are studied after the fact, that is, after everything has happened.

To put it bluntly, humanity has reached such a level of development when it is really capable of destroying itself. The same forces act both as the engine of progress and as a deterrent. For example, the promotion of industry enriches people, opens up new opportunities for them. At the same time, air emissions destroy the environment. Garbage and chemical pollution threaten rivers, soil.

Nor should the danger of nuclear war be underestimated. The confrontation between the largest countries in the world shows that this problem has not been solved at all, as it seemed in the 90s. And a lot depends on what paths humanity will take further. And what methods of resolving social conflicts it will use, destructive or constructive. A lot depends on this, and it's not just about loud words.

So let's get back to the classification. We can say that all types of social conflicts are divided into constructive and destructive. The first is a focus on resolution, on overcoming. Here, the positive functions of social conflicts are realized, when society teaches us to overcome contradictions, build a dialogue, and also understands why this is generally necessary in specific situations.

We can say that as a result, people acquire experience that they can pass on to subsequent generations. For example, once humanity was faced with the legalization of slavery and came to the conclusion that this is unacceptable. Now, at least at the state level, there is no such problem, this practice is outlawed.

There are also destructive types of social conflicts. They are not aimed at a solution, here the participants are more interested in creating a problem for the other side or in completely eliminating it. At the same time, they can formally use a completely different terminology to indicate their position for different reasons. The problem of studying the situation is often associated with the fact that real goals are often hidden, disguised as others.

However, the typology of social conflicts does not stop there only. There is also another division. For example, in terms of duration, short-term and protracted ones are considered. The latter, in most cases, have more serious causes and consequences, although such a relationship is not always traced.

There is also a division by the total number of participants. Internal ones are distinguished into a separate group, that is, those that occur within the personality. Here the functions of social conflict are not realized in any way, since we are not talking about society at all, it is rather a question of psychology and psychiatry. However, to the same extent that each individual is able to influence others, to the same extent such contradictions will cause problems in society as a whole. After all, society as such consists of individuals taken separately. Therefore, the importance of such problems should not be underestimated. Then there are interpersonal conflicts, clashes between separate individuals. And the next level is already group.

From the point of view of focus, it is worth considering horizontal, that is, problems between equal participants (representatives of the same group), vertical (subordinate and boss), and also mixed. In the latter case, the functions of social conflicts are very heterogeneous. This is the realization of ambitions, and the splashing out of aggression, and the achievement of conflicting goals, and often the struggle for power, and the development of society as such.

There is a division by methods of resolution: peaceful and armed. The main task of the government is to prevent the transition of the former to the latter. At least in theory. However, in practice, states themselves often become the instigators of such a transformation, that is, provocateurs of armed clashes.

In terms of volume, personal or household, group ones are considered, for example, one department against the second within the corporation, a branch against the head office, one class in a school against another, etc., regional, which develop in a single locality, local (also a locality, only more, say, the territory of one country). And finally, the biggest ones are global. World wars are a striking example of the latter. As the volume increases, the degree of danger to humanity also increases.

Pay attention to the nature of development: there are spontaneous conflicts and planned, provoked. With a large scale of events, some are often combined with others. Finally, according to the content of the problem, industrial, household, economic, political, etc. are considered. But in general, one confrontation rarely affects only one specific aspect.

The study of social conflicts shows that it is quite possible to manage them, they can be prevented, they should be controlled. And much here depends on the intentions of the parties, on what they are ready for. And this is already influenced by the awareness of the seriousness of the situation.

The concept of social conflict.Conflict functions.

Generally conflict can be defined as a clash of individuals, social groups, societies associated with

the presence of contradictions or opposing interests and goals.

The conflict attracted sociologists of the late XIX and early XX v. Karl Marx proposed a dichotomous model of conflict. According to her, the conflict is always bob-. two sides are treated: one of them is labor, the other is capital. Conflict is an expression of a given

confrontation and ultimately leads to the transformation of society.

In the sociological theory of G. Simmel, the conflict was presented as a social process that has not only negative functions and does not necessarily lead to a change in society. Simmel believed that the conflict consolidated society, as it maintains the stability of groups and sectors of society.

However, in the middle of the last century, the interest of scientists in the conflict has noticeably decreased. In particular, the reason for this was such a feature of the concept of functionalists as the consideration of culture and society as unifying and harmonizing mechanisms. Naturally, from the point of view of this approach, the conflict cannot be described.

Only in the second half XX century, or rather, starting from about the 1960s, the conflict began to gradually restore its rights as a sociological object. During this period, scientists, based on the ideas of G. Simmel and K. Marx, tried to revive the consideration of society from the point of view of conflict. Among them, we should mention, first of all, R. Dahrendorf, L. Coser and D. Lockwood.

There are two main approaches to thinking about conflict.

The Marxist tradition considers conflict as a phenomenon, the causes of which are rooted in society itself, primarily in the confrontation between classes and their ideologies. As a consequence, the whole history in the writings of Marxist-oriented sociologists appears as the history of the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed.

Representatives of the non-Marxist tradition (L. Coser, R. Dahrendorf, etc.) consider the conflict as part of the life of society, which must be able to manage. Naturally, there are substantive differences in their approaches, but it is fundamentally important that non-Marxist sociologists consider conflict as a social process that does not always lead to a change in the social structure of society (although, of course, such an outcome is also possible, especially if the conflict underwent conservation and was not resolved in a timely manner).

Elements of a conflict situation. In any conflict situation, the participants in the conflict and the object of the conflict are distinguished. Among parties to the conflict distinguish opponents(i.e. those people who are interested in the object of the conflict), groups and interest groups involved. As far as the involved and stakeholder groups are concerned, their participation in the conflict is due to two reasons or a combination of them: 1) they are able to influence the outcome of the conflict, or 2) the result of the conflict affects their interests.

Object of conflict- this is the resource to which the interests of the parties apply. The object of the conflict is indivisible, since either its essence excludes division, or it is presented within the framework of the conflict as indivisible (one or both sides refuse division). Physical indivisibility is not a prerequisite for a conflict, since often an object can be used by both parties (for example, one party prohibits the other from using a certain parking space without having the right to do so).

All of the above criteria relate to static conflict resolution. As for its dynamics, the following are usually distinguished stages of the conflict:

1. Latent stage. At this stage, the contradictions are not recognized by the parties to the conflict. Conflict manifests itself only in explicit or implicit dissatisfaction with the situation. The inconsistency of values, interests, goals, means of achieving them does not always result in a conflict: the opposite side sometimes either resigns itself to injustice, or waits in the wings, harboring resentment. The actual conflict begins with certain actions that are directed against the interests of the other side.

2. Formation of conflict. At this stage, contradictions are formed, claims that can be expressed to the opposite side & form of demands are clearly recognized. Groups that take part in the conflict are formed, leaders are nominated in them. There is a demonstration of their arguments and criticism of the arguments of the enemy. At this stage, the parties can often hide their plans or arguments. Provocation is also used, that is, actions that are aimed at forming public opinion beneficial to one side, that is, favorable about one side and unfavorable about the other.

3. Incident. At this stage, an event occurs that transfers the conflict to the stage of active actions, that is, the parties decide to enter into an open struggle.

4. Active actions of the parties. Conflict requires a lot of energy, so it quickly reaches a maximum of conflict actions - a critical point, and then quickly subsides.

5. Ending the conflict. At this stage, the conflict ends, which, however, does not mean that the claims of the parties are satisfied. In reality, there may be several outcomes of a conflict.

In general, we can say that each of the parties either wins or loses, and the winning of one of them does not mean that the other has lost. On a more specific level, it would be fair to say that there are three outcomes: win-lose, win-win, and lose-lose.

However, such a representation of the outcome of the conflict is rather imprecise. The fact is that there are options that do not fully fit into the original scheme. With regard to the case "win-win", then, for example, a compromise can not always be considered a victory for both sides; a party often achieves a compromise only so that its opponent cannot consider himself the winner, and this happens even if the compromise is just as unprofitable for it as the loss.

As for the “lose-lose” scheme, then it does not fully fit the cases when both parties become victims of some third party, which uses their discord to gain benefits. In addition, the presence of a conflict can cause an uninterested or little interested third party to transfer value to a person or group that did not participate in the conflict at all. For example, it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which the head of an enterprise refuses two employees in the position they contested and gives it to a third party only because, in his opinion, these duties can only be performed by a person who does not enter into conflicts.

According to L. Koser, the main functions of the conflict are:

1) forming groups and maintaining their integrity and boundaries;

2) establishing and maintaining the relative stability of intragroup and intergroup relations;

3) creating and maintaining a balance between the warring parties;

4) stimulation of the creation of new forms of social control;

5) the creation of new social institutions;

6) obtaining information about the environment (or rather, about social reality, its disadvantages and advantages);

7) socialization and adaptation of specific individuals. Although conflict usually only brings disorganization and harm, the following can be distinguished positive conflict functions:

1) communicative function: in a conflict situation, people or other subjects of social life are better aware of both their aspirations, desires, goals, and the desires and goals of the opposite side. Thanks to this, the position of each of the parties can both strengthen and transform;

2) tension discharge function: expressing one's position and defending it in confrontation with the enemy is an important means of channeling emotions, which can also lead to finding a compromise, since the “emotional feeding” of the conflict disappears;

3) consolidating function: a conflict can consolidate society, since an open clash allows the parties to the conflict to better know the opinion and claims of the opposite side.

Factors influencing the formation, course and resolution of the conflict, associated with the state of social systems in which it unfolds (family stability, etc.). There are a number of such conditions:

1) features of the organization of conflict groups;

2) the degree to which the conflict is revealed: the more the conflict is revealed, the less intense it is;

3) social mobility: the higher the level of mobility, the less intense the conflict; the stronger the connection with social position, the stronger the conflict. Indeed, abandoning claims, changing jobs, the ability to receive the same benefit elsewhere are the condition that the conflict will be ended at the cost of getting out of it;

4) the presence or absence of information about the real resources of the parties to the conflict.