The social-conflict paradigm is a framework for building theory that sees society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and change. Unlike the structural-functional emphasis on solidarity, this approach highlights inequality. Guided by this paradigm, sociologists investigate how factors such as class, race, ethnicity, gender, and age are linked to the unequal distribution of money, power, education, and social prestige. A conflict analysis rejects the idea that social structure promotes the operation of society as a whole, focusing instead on how any social pattern benefits some people while depriving others.
Sociologists using the social-conflict paradigm look at ongoing conflict between dominant and disadvantaged categories of people—the rich in relation to the poor, white people in relation to people of color, or men in relation to women. Typically, people on top strive to protect their privileges, while the disadvantaged try to gain more for themselves.
A conflict analysis of our educational system would explain how schooling perpetuates inequality by reproducing the class structure in every new generation. That is, secondary schools channel new students into either college-preparatory or vocational training programs. From a structural-functional point of view, such “tracking” benefits everyone by providing schooling that fits students’ abilities. But conflict analysis counters that tracking often has less to do with talent than with social background, so that well-to-do students are placed in higher tracks while poor children end up in lower tracks.
In this way, young people from privileged families get the best schooling, which serves as a springboard for high-income careers later on. The children of poor families, on the other hand, are not prepared for college and, like their parents before them, typically enter low-paying jobs. In both cases, the social standing of one generation is passed on to the next, with schools justifying the practice in terms of individual merit (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Oakes, 1982, 1985).
Many sociologists who use the social-conflict paradigm try not just to understand society but to reduce inequality. This was the goal of W. E. B. Du Bois, who was guided by the social-conflict paradigm to raise the standing of people of color. Likewise, Karl Marx championed the workers against those who owned the factories. In a well-known declaration (inscribed on his monument in London’s Highgate Cemetery), Marx declared: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”
Critical evaluation. The social-conflict paradigm has gained a large following in recent decades, but, like other approaches, it has met with its share of criticism. Because the paradigm focuses on inequality, it largely ignores how shared values and interdependence can unify members of a society. In addition, say critics, to the extent that this paradigm pursues political goals, it cannot claim scientific objectivity. This charge prompts supporters to counter that all social approaches have political consequences, albeit different ones.
A final criticism of both the structural-functional and social-conflict paradigms is that they paint society in broad strokes—in terms of “family,” “social class,” “race,” and so on. A third theoretical paradigm views society less in terms of generalizations and more as the everyday experiences of individual people.