Footnotes
[7]
Social action often produces conflict. With few
exceptions, the projects undertaken by the Congregation have produced
adversary relationships. Such relationships have a number of distinctive
features. Since cooperation and conflict are in some respects two sides
of the same conceptual coin, the variables of conflict are inverted
variables of cooperation.
Cooperation is measured by the achievement of a common goal; conflict is
marked by the hindrance of often incompatible goals. Effective
communication facilitates cooperation; insulation, while functional,
often exacerbates conflict. Although conflict is a form of "sociation,"
the normal flow of interaction tends to be reduced. Cooperation is
generally characterized by positive sentiments between parties; conflict
normally generates negative or hostile sentiments. Finally, the relative
status of cooperating parties contributes a salient dimension to the
relationship. The party with higher status often has more to offer in
cooperative ventures. Through norms of reciprocity, the obligation
incurred is repaid in deference, further reinforcing status. In the
conflict relationship relative status translates as relative power. A
realistic assessment of advantage and disadvantage is crucial in the
pursual of conflict strategy.
Each of these four factors may vary within and between conflict
relationships, and thus they are called variables. First is relative
power-that is, differing ability can affect interference with the goals
of the other or achievement of one's own goals in the face of the
other's opposition. Second is interaction-that is, the extent and type
of mutual contact can shape the
conflict situation. Interaction characteristically decreases as conflict
increases. Third is sentiment-that is, the degree to which negative
feelings exist can alter the intensity of conflict. Fourth is
attrition-that is, cost in whatever value or resource is damaged can
measure conflict. Such values may be real, such as lives or property,
or symbolic, such as prestige or credibility.
This scheme for analyzing conflict is drawn from Theodore Caplow,
Principles of Organization (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964),
pp. 326-28. By use of such an equilibrium model, a model from which,
incidentally, Caplow has moved away in his recent thinking on
organizations, we do not mean to imply that conflict is bad or abnormal.
We simply posit the variables as an additional dimension of analysis,
helpful in interpreting some of the subtleties of the Congregation's
social-action projects.
