Class Conflict in Kenya
Conflict can be described as a natural disagreement between two interdependent parties as a result of differences in attitudes, values, beliefs and needs. When the parties perceive incompatible goals with each other or detect interference from the other in achieving their goals conflict will arise. Scarce resources in any society are also a trigger for conflict between individuals and groups. There are multiple definitions of conflict available but commonalities exist among all of them. In order for there to be conflict all parties involved must notice the struggle. Other commonalities include scarcity of resources, opposition and interference in achieving goals.
Different schools of thought view conflict differently and there has been conflict regarding the role of conflict in society. The Traditional view, which reigned in the 1930’s and 1940’s held the idea that conflict was a negative feature of society and was evidence of dysfunction brought about by inadequate communication, and a lack of trust and openness between different groups in society. Therefore, in accordance to this view, conflict should be avoided at all costs. This view did not prevail for very long due to its rigidity. The Human Relations view replaced the Traditional view and prevailed from the late 1940’s through to the 1970’s. This new view believed that conflict was inevitable and thus should be acceptable. Conflict was seen as a natural occurrence during interaction between groups and organizations. Eventually this view was stamped out giving way to the current perspective, The Interactionist View. This view differs from its predecessors in that it actively encourages conflict believing that any congruent, diplomatic, serene and cooperative group can become stationary and uninterested to needs for modernization and change. Therefore, this view encourages conflict, though of a minimal level, as it helps keep the group active, self-critical and imaginative.
Conflict as described by the
Different schools of thought view conflict differently and there has been conflict regarding the role of conflict in society. The Traditional view, which reigned in the 1930’s and 1940’s held the idea that conflict was a negative feature of society and was evidence of dysfunction brought about by inadequate communication, and a lack of trust and openness between different groups in society. Therefore, in accordance to this view, conflict should be avoided at all costs. This view did not prevail for very long due to its rigidity. The Human Relations view replaced the Traditional view and prevailed from the late 1940’s through to the 1970’s. This new view believed that conflict was inevitable and thus should be acceptable. Conflict was seen as a natural occurrence during interaction between groups and organizations. Eventually this view was stamped out giving way to the current perspective, The Interactionist View. This view differs from its predecessors in that it actively encourages conflict believing that any congruent, diplomatic, serene and cooperative group can become stationary and uninterested to needs for modernization and change. Therefore, this view encourages conflict, though of a minimal level, as it helps keep the group active, self-critical and imaginative.
Conflict as described by the