THE SOCIOLOGY OF CONFLICT. 1 I,
THAT conflict has sociological significance, inasmuch as it either produces or modifies communities of interest, unifications, organizations, is in principle never contested. On the other hand, it must appear paradoxical to the ordinary mode of think- ing to ask whether conflict itself, without reference to its con- sequences or its accompaniments, is not a form of socialization. This seems, at first glance, to be merely a verbal question. If every reaction among men is a socialization, of course conflict must count as such, since it is one of the most intense reactions, and is logically impossible if restricted to a single element. The actually dissociating elements are the causes of the conflict hatred and envy, want and desire. If, however, from these impulses conflict has once broken out, it is in reality the way to remove the dualism and to arrive at some form of unity, even if through annihilation of one of the parties. ^The case is, in a way, illustrated by the most violent symptoms of disease. They frequently represent the efforts of the organism to free itself from disorders and injuries. This is by no means equivalent merely to the triviality, si vis pacem para helium^ but it is the wide generalization of which that special case is a particular. ^Conflict itself is the resolution of the tension between the contraries. That it eventuates in peace is only a single, specially obvious and evident, expression of the fact that it is a con- junction of elements, an opposition, which belongs with the combination under one higher conception^ ^This conception is characterized by the common contrast between both forms of relationship and the mere reciprocal indifference between ele- ments. Repudiation and dissolution of social relation are also negatives, but conflict shows itself to be the positive factor in this very contrast with them ; viz., shows negative factors in a unity which, in idea only, not at all in reality, is disjunctive* It is Translated by A. W. SMALL.
490
