According to Ikeda et al. (2005) the word CONFLICT can be said to be disagreement among members of a society. Conflict simply connotes a state of disequilibrium between two parties, groups, section or between the employers and the employees in an organisation. Conflict is an important concept that is central to understanding and appreciation of man’s exchange with reality of human action. It can be viewed as a philosophical concept denoting the clash of power against power in the striving of all things to become manifest or it can be described as the distinct category of social behaviour as two party trying to get something they both cannot have. (Rummel, 1976)
Conflict theory originated with the work of Karl Marx in the mid-1800s. Marx understood human society in terms of conflict between social classes, notably the conflict in capitalist societies between those who owned the means of economic production (factory or farm owners, for example) and those who did not (the workers). Subsequent thinkers have described different versions of conflict theory; a common theme is that different social groups have unequal power, though all groups struggle for the same limited resources. Conflict theory has been used to explain diverse human behaviour, such as educational practices that either sustain or challenge the status quo, cultural customs regarding the elderly, and criminal behaviour.
CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE PHENOMENON IN ANY SOCIETY.
Duke, (1999) opined that Yes, I do agree with the above statement that conflict is inevitable phenomenon in any human society. There is conflict in all human societies, and all societies have systems for regulating it. Conflict between people or groups often arises from competition for resources, power, and status. Family members compete for attention. Individuals compete for jobs and wealth. Nations compete for territory and prestige. Different interest groups compete for influence and the power to make rules. Often the competition is not for resources but for ideas—one person or group wants to have the ideas or behaviour of another group suppressed, punished, or declared illegal.
According to Robinsons (1999) Social change can be potent in evoking conflict. Rarely if ever is a proposed social, economic, or political change likely to benefit every component of a social system equally, and so the groups that see themselves as possible losers resist. Mutual animosities and suspicions are aggravated by the inability of both proponents and opponents of any change to predict convincingly what all of the effects will be of making the change or of not making it. Conflict is particularly acute when only a few alternatives exist with no compromise possible—for example, between surrender and war or between candidate A and candidate B. Even though the issues may be complex and people may not be initially very far apart in their perceptions, the need to decide one way or the other can drive people into extreme positions to support their decision as to which alternative is preferable. (Duke, 1999)
Imazai (2003) 0bserved that in family groups and small societies, laws are laid down by recognized authorities, such as parents or elders. But almost all groups—from university faculties to local scout troops—have formalized procedures for making rules and arbitrating disputes. On a larger scale, government provides mechanisms for dealing with conflict by making laws and administering them. In a democracy, the political system arbitrates social conflict by means of elections. Candidates for office advertise their intentions to make and modify rules, and people vote for whoever they believe...