Tools in Network: an E-Net Approach to Sharing Mediation Competences.

Theoretical paradigms

Conflict theory originates in social and political philosophy. We shall name for instance Machiavelli and Hobbes, who believed that human interactions are conflictual because they are marked by individual competition under the pressure of personal passions and selfishness. Both philosophers, however, note that passions must be prevented from becoming destructive with the help of reason that is able to channel individual selfishness onto a sort of state selfishness. Reason enables the individual to submit to absolute authority. These theories are complemented by the ideas of Malthus and Darwin who noted that communities are organized upon the struggle for existence, the principle of surviving and the rule of the best suited individuals. According to Darwin the struggle for existence opposes individuals of different species (interspecific competition) and individual of the same species (intraspecific competition). The limited supply of feeding and reproductive resources forces each individual to a constant competition with other individuals who share the same environment. The best suited individuals are reproductively more successful and tend to prevail in the course of generations. Ultimately, according to Darwin conflict accounts for the evolution of biological species and their transformation in time.

Obviously, sociological analyses describe conflict as a community phenomenon, i.e. conflicting parties act on behalf of the most different social categories and make any effort to defend antagonistic interests, which are however less distant than one may imagine. Conflict reveals, promotes and strengthens the competitors' social bonds. In general terms we can say that two sociological schools dominate the 20th century: the "conflictualistic" school including first of all Marxist and radical sociology, and the "integrationist" school grouping all other lines of thought. The first approach considers social conflict a pathological status of structurally deformed communities, which is absent in structurally healthy communities - i.e. based on non antagonistic production relationships. On the contrary, the "integrationist" school has provided the best conceptual instruments to understand what elements in a conflict produce the transformation of a class from a mere aggregate of individuals to a community able to act jointly as an historical subject.

If compared to other important ideas, the idea of social conflict has quite uniform features in 20th century sociology. Some authors emphasize this or that aspect of conflict. Simmel, for instance, talked of Streit, Kampf (strife, battle) and not of Konflikt, and regarded it as one of the most dynamic forms of interaction; thus, he placed conflict among the main unifying forces of social process, i.e. of association. The dissociating factors, the causes of conflicts are hatred and envy, need and greed, but conflict is a way to slacken the tension of opposites, a way to reach a sort of unity, even through the destruction of one of the parties. Several contemporary studies which emphasize the positive functions of conflict against the sociological tradition that considers conflict as a form of social pathology, endorse Simmel's interpretation.

Among contemporaries, in his conflict theory Dahrendorf identified five forms of conflicts: conflicts within and among single social roles; conflicts within single social groups; conflicts between organized (interest groups) or non organized social groups (quasi groups); conflict between organized or non organized groups affecting the community as a whole; conflicts between larger units. A further subdivision considers the power relationship between the conflicting parties: peer antagonists, superior or subordinated antagonists; the totality of a unit against one of its parts. The possible classificatory combinations define 15 types of conflicts which can be analyzed thanks to a range of ad hoc theories: theories of role conflict, of competition, of class struggle, of minorities and deviant behaviour, of struggle within an electoral system, of international relations. Again, we can define more closely the extension of the investigation field of conflict if we consider some further distinctions. Realistic vs. non realistic conflict: realistic conflict derives from a clash of interest-values against a precise object and towards a specific aim; non realistic conflict derives from individual aggressive impulses which can be displaced onto any subject. Potential vs. active conflict: potential conflict is a situation able to trigger conflict processes; active conflict is an empirically observable conflict behaviour. Manifest vs. latent conflict: manifest conflict between two or more subjects is sometimes only a symptom of a different and deeper conflict whose nature is obscure and whose actors are often unaware.

In his theory of social systems Luhmann notes that conflict is not necessarily dysfunctional unless badly managed. Conflict is essentially a symptom of the dysfunctions occurring in a social system as expression of a contradiction. Conflict can be read as the expression of uneasiness: a conflictual situation hides in fact a problem, a difficulty. Therefore, conflict is not to be repressed, but outspoken, understood and processed. According to Morton Deutsch the positive functions of conflict are:

- prevent stagnation;

- stimulate interest and curiosity;

- enable to face a problem and find the relevant solutions;

- test individual skills;

- encourage group differentiation;

- contribute to stabilize individual and group identity.

Charles Tilly notes that social conflict arises when a person or group throws negative claims to other people or groups, that, if satisfied, would damage other people's interests, i.e. the possibility for others to reach the desired position. Possibly clearer is the definition proposed by Luciano Gallino in his Dizionario di Sociologia: a social conflict is "a sort of more or less conscious interaction between two or more individual or collective subjects, characterized by such diverging aims, failing enough resources for each party to simultaneously attain their own aims, as to make it objectively necessary, or make it appear subjectively indispensable for each party, to neutralize or divert towards other aims or thwart the other's action, even though this implies both consciously inflicting damage and bearing relatively high costs compared to the aim pursued" (UTET, Torino 1993, p. 151).