Tying some ideas together

[Cain]

Society is based, at its most basic and ultimate, around conflict.

This is not the Hobbesian conception of a "state of anarchy" from which a sovereign can save us, if we only give up some of the freedoms we can grasp within this anarchic condition.  Instead, I am saying that society is conflict, that even with the establishment of political structures and forms, laws, civil society and the state, ultimately it all comes down to conflict.

This is not to say society is in a state of permament, all out warfare.  Such a claim is easily dismissed, by the lack of overt violence most of us face in our day to day lives.  Nevertheless, it is filled with various antagonisms which range a spectrum, of which total war is one extreme.  War is a continuation of politics and so, it would seem, politics is a continuation of war by non-violent means.

This more peaceful operation of conflict, which usually occurs once a war is over, is an ossification of the state of conflict which ended the warlike stage of its being.  Furthermore, the techniques used to win the previous war set down the conditions for the next.  As an example, the victory of the United States over the Soviet Union was in part due to a global communications network, global market, sabotage of vital resources and use of WMDs.  These same methods are now being used by todays terrorists, with the internet being a tool for radicalization and communication, the market allowing diffuse technologies to be acquired by terrorists, systems disruption becoming an increasingly popular tactic and WMD deployment being the nightmare scenario of every state combatting terrorism.

This conflict takes place on many different planes: it can be gendered (male vs female), socio-economic (proletariat vs bourgeoisie), ethnic, sectarian, ideological and social.  In theory, it can even take place in an individual through conflicting subprocesses, though this isn't something I've devoted much thought to, as of yet.

Laws exist wherever there is conflict, and its use is not to regulate conflict, but as a weapon used by a particular group.  How the law actually works, as opposed to "legal theory" is a good way to understand which groups hold more power in any given society.  For instance, no matter what drug laws are meant to do, they are most often used to target deprived and minority communities and deprive them of their adult male population, creating all the implications that entails.

Most political theories agree with this position in general, but disagree with it on a particular point - namely that they can transcend those conflicts and create a new, better society where they do not exist.  So for instance liberalism works from the position that the mechanisms of the free market provide incentives and distribute wealth in a roughly fair manner, overcoming the inequalities of the feudal system that preceeded it and creating conditions where it is better to cooperate than compete.  Vulgar Marxists believe that the proletariat revolution and the seizing of the means of production by said proletarians will overcome the inequalities of the liberal capitalist system and thus bring an end to class warfare.  Fascism claims it can transcend social conflict totally, through cleansing of "undesirable" elements, including ethnic groups, those who hold a particular political ideology and those with "defects" which can cause biological harm to the overall group.  Theocracy is much the same, in that all submitting before God and religious law can stop this conflict and bring about "Heaven on Earth".

Very few groups however claim this condition is endemic and potentially unending.  Agonism is one, the political theory that it is preferable to build a society around the potentially positive benefits of political conflict. More sophisticated understandings of dialectical materialism are another.  Discordianism is potentially a third.  There are likely others, but they are unimportant right now.

More to follow.

[LMNO]

Whoa.

[MMIX]

Why "conflict" ? Without disagreeing with a word of the OP it would be equally valid to say that the driving force is "conflict resolution" . . .

[Eater of Clowns]

I'm interested in seeing the more that follows, Cain.  Presently I wonder how broadly you're interpreting conflict in this case.  It's written as interpersonal conflict but early societies that banded together for survival against nature is another kind of conflict entirely.  There's also the implication that since humans are highly social creatures that every road down our plethora of motivations leads to conflict as well.

[Jasper]

Very well thought out, this post.  Thanks for taking the time to write it.  This makes me take a new look at the idea that farming began as an escalation of competitive feasting.  If stable civilizations began as a means to compete with other tribes by peaceful means (implying competitive feasting is a predecessor to political relations), that indicates that conflict is a behavior that we are naturally driven towards as social creatures with a broadly effective theory of mind.

Is that relevant/meaningful?  I'm only really qualified to comment in terms of human psychology really.

[LMNO]

I'm not qualified to speak to any of this, but I've been reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, and this really may tie several things together,..

[Elder Iptuous]

Cain, do you have any good links on agonism?  sounds interesting, and i agree with the notion that conflict is a gordian knot that cannot be cut...

[The Wizard]

Cain, do you have any good links on agonism?

I was just about to ask that. Interesting work Cain, I've only recently begun my study of sociology, but I'm pretty sure Marx had a similar theory, though I think he restricted it entirely to the proletariat/bourgeoisie conflict. I think that you're interpretation is more accurate on this basis, as keeping conflict to a battle between lower and upper classes leaves out a lot of conflicts, such as infighting among these groups and conflict between nature and society, or between society and social change.

Dr. James Semaj
Please bear in mind he's a novice.

[Salty]

I enjoyed this and am interested to see where it goes.

Conflict as the primary component and driving force, not only in society but in every substantial and "real" aspect of life interests me. I'm speaking broadly, but that's only because I've barely been able to make out the shape of this concept. But I've seen it so frequently; the way people actually deal with one another on a social level (as opposed to their moral guidelines), the emotional-physical bridge of the musculoskeletal system, et al. 

Very intersted on what else you've got to say on this subject. 

[PeregrineBF]

It's certainly accepted in a lot of economic theory. Capitalism is based around competition between competing entities. Attempts to unify all economic forces under one (government) entity are communist or fascist. Attempts by the competing entities themselves lead to monopolies and an end of capitalism.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

This is not the Hobbesian conception of a "state of anarchy" from which a sovereign can save us, if we only give up some of the freedoms we can grasp within this anarchic condition.  Instead, I am saying that society is conflict, that even with the establishment of political structures and forms, laws, civil society and the state, ultimately it all comes down to conflict.

This is not to say society is in a state of permanent, all out warfare.  Such a claim is easily dismissed, by the lack of overt violence most of us face in our day to day lives.  Nevertheless, it is filled with various antagonisms which range a spectrum, of which total war is one extreme.  War is a continuation of politics and so, it would seem, politics is a continuation of war by non-violent means.

I'm not sure if you intended this or not, but it occurs to me that law enforcement is a form of controlled warfare, and that the 'order' resulting from 'law and order' is just the balance that occurs when the forces of government and those groups that said forces act against are exhausted to an even match.