7 This is an examination of the role of conflict in soc org's which was read at the symposium 'Conflict in Society' organized under the auspices of CIBA in London in Jun/Jul 1965. A historical summary of sociol'al att's is presented. Positive evaluation of conflicts as agents of soc progress by the European schools of K. Marx, G. Mosca, & G. Simmel & of the founding fathers of US sociol were succeeded under the influence of structuralism by a view of conflict as a 'dysfunction.' These tendencies were reinforced in the US by Elton Mayo's emphasis on HR in industry & T. Parson's theoretical approach. But, more recently, there has been a reaction, with Lewis Coser in the US & Ralf Dahrendorf in Germany reverting to the positive evaluation of conflicts by Simmel & Marx. 'The organismic concept of org' is rejected in order to define org's as soc systems in which 'the basic structural condition for contradiction & conflict is a certain degree of independence of the constituent parts.' There is no simple straightforward relation between the degree of functional autonomy & the f of intra-org'al conflicts; but the degree of functional autonomy affects the patterns of conflicts. This hypothesis is applied to 2 contrasting types of soc org's: the loose 'coalition' & the more tightly organized 'soc movements.' In the former, some degree of internal conflict is natural; in the latter, internal schisms cause more trouble, esp when ideology is at stake in soc movements called `sects.' Changes in org'al structure have an immediate effect on the pattern of conflict, as when slackening of ideological control paves the way to a coalition or a 'mildly dichotomous structure.' Conflicts within org's assume a disruptive role when the combination of dependence & autonomy is replaced by the formation of 2 hostile camps. When the conflict becomes `total' it jeopardizes the very existence of the org. The pluralistic soc order of democracies is a major safeguard against `total' conflicts. I. Langnas.
