Fundamental theories of Conflictology:
the need for practical application in the assessment
of international and domestic conflicts

Demetradze Marine Rezoevna ORCID: 0000-0002-7676-8054 Doctor of Politics leading scientific researcher, Institute for the Cultural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture; Professor, the department of World Politics and International Relations, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 117292, Russia, Moscow, Kosmonavtov str., 2 demetradze1959@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Shorokhova Svetlana Petrovna ORCID: 0000-0002-7676-8054 PhD in Philosophy Shorokhova S. P. PhD in Philosophy, Professor, Dean of the faculty of international relations and geopolitics, Chair of political processes and technologies of V.V. Zhirinovsky University of World Civilizations, Moscow, Russia 117292, Russia, Moscow, Leninsky, 2 demetradze1959@mail.ru

In the work, conflict is considered as a social phenomenon, i.e. as a special type of interaction that arises as a result of differences in requests and interests, as well as the possibilities of their satisfaction between the actors, manifested at the intergroup level. Various functions of conflicts are revealed: integrative, disintegrative, stabilizing, complementary and destructive.  The evaluation criterion is the vector of sociality, because according to the teachings of the classics, it can have a social character only if a social problem and mobility of members of society are identified, aimed at their elimination. Or vice versa, a conflict is not social if it is based on mythological or irrational motives of individual behavior. This applies to both intra-State and inter-State conflicts, since in both situations irrationality leads to dissonance, inconsistency and disagreement of interests, anomie and frustration, inefficiency of international legal norms and supranational institutions.

The work is also interdisciplinary in nature, and is based on sociology, political science, law, using structural and functional, classification and prognostic methods. Special attention is paid to the functional analysis of conflicts in the works of Darendorff, Simmel, Kouser, Deutsch, and the psychological analysis of Bandura, Homans, etc. The article deliberately does not provide specific examples of conflicts, including in the post-Soviet space, providing an opportunity to make independent assessments and conclusions to specialists based on the models revealed in the content of the work.

Taking into account all the fact that a unified theory of conflicts has not yet developed, this article is an attempt to scientifically interpret the context of a conflict situation, identify its prerequisites and real causes, rational or irrational motives of politicians, in order to protect ordinary members of society from demagoguery and standards of behavior imposed from above. Therefore, the scientific and educational practice of the mentioned authors is relevant today for all modern societies. It is this principle that determines the significance of the purpose, objectives and relevance of the proposed topic.

Conflict as a social paradigm

The concept of conflict as an inevitable phenomenon of human existence dates back to ancient times. The confrontation and interdependence of good and evil, light and darkness, active and passive principles are the basic principles of all religious systems. Many ancient thinkers, starting with Heraclitus, considered the struggle to be the driving force of history: "One should know that war is universal, and the truth is a struggle, and that everything happens through struggle and out of necessity" ^[1]. The sophists, Epicurus and Polybius, asserted the universal nature of the struggle between people and believed that only fear of punishment deters people from violence.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), justifying in Leviathan^[2] the concept of "war of all against all" as the natural state of mankind, considered the main cause of conflict to be the desire for equality, which leads to the emergence of people with the same hopes, the desire to take possession of the same objects necessary for self-preservation or pleasure. This turns people into enemies, encourages them to seek the destruction or subjugation of a rival, generates rivalry, distrust and ambition. In general, until the end of the XVIII century. thinkers in their discussions about the conflict did not go beyond the individual aspirations and needs of an abstract person who opposed other individuals, society, and the state, and reduced the conflict to the problem of domination and subordination, resolved primarily through the regulatory activities of the state.

The view of conflict as a social phenomenon was first formulated in Adam Smith's work "Studies on the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", published in 1776. According to Smith, the conflict is based on the division of society into classes (capitalists, landowners, hired workers) and economic rivalry. However, it is considered as the most important driving force for the development of society and is considered to perform useful functions thereby. In his Essay on the Philosophy of Law (1821), Hegel saw one of the main causes of conflict in the social polarization between the "accumulation of wealth" on the one hand and the "class tied to work" on the other. Like the ancient authors, he believed that the state represented the interests of the whole society and was obliged to resolve conflicts.

In general, in the XIX - early XX centuries, ideas about social conflicts that developed under the influence of social Darwinism prevailed. G. Spencer, V.G. Sumner^[3], and other researchers of that period saw conflict as a manifestation of the struggle for survival as a way of natural selection. As L.Gumplovich wrote ^[4] in 1928: "Every social group is animated by the desire for self-preservation, and from caring for it comes the desire for constant improvement of well-being. This allows us to express the supreme law of history in such a simple formula: “the stronger overcomes the weaker, the equally strong unite to surpass the equally strong third, and so on.” This is not only a law of history, but of all life, We see that it is equally preserved, whether we look through a microscope at the movements of creatures in a drop of water, or the deeds of tribes, peoples and nations on the pages of history. If we firmly remember this simple law, the seemingly unsolvable riddle of political history will seem clear and simple to us"^[4].

Most social scientists also consider the Marxist concept to be among the "conflict theories" of the development of society, emphasizing the key role of class struggle. Of course, the concept of contradiction used in Marxism is broader than conflict, and both of them have a rather vague content. Moreover, Marxism includes the interpretation of the laws of dialectics, the theory of knowledge, historical materialism as a general sociological theory. And all this with an emphasis on the opposition, the struggle of opposites, which are given an ontological ("materialistic") meaning.

The main argument of critics of Marxism boils down to the fact that the concept of class polarization leads to the homogenization and personification of two opposing forces and simplifies the complex picture of real differentiation, Karl Marx's Capital is "a grandiose economic theory in which the predicted inevitable victory of the proletariat bears unambiguous mythological features dating back to the Hegelian doctrine of salvation - becoming God, which to this day prevents the development of a genuine Marxist theory of conflict," writes West German sociologist Walter ^[5] summarizing the essence of all critical statements on this topic.

Indeed, the application of historical materialism as a general sociological theory to the analysis of specific situations is often reduced to depicting the confrontation between labor and capital, which permeates the entire variety of social interactions. Numerous varieties of social conflict are considered only as manifestations of this fundamental contradiction. As a result, extremely important aspects of non-economic social transformations, such as political and legal ones, and their role in socio-cultural processes, turn out to be out of the researcher's field of view.

The phenomenon of conflict in the sociological theories of the 20th century

Foreign sociology of the 20th century has made significant progress in the study of conflict as a social phenomenon. The work of the German sociologist, the founder of the functional theory of conflict Georg Simmel (1858-1918) ^[6], the author of the work "Sociology" published in 1908, is of fundamental importance. In his opinion, conflict is a universal phenomenon, because absolute harmony in social groups or society as a whole is unrealistic, since in such cases impulses of self–development, stimulating changes are impossible.

Therefore, conflict is a necessary prerequisite for the development of society, and therefore it is functional. Based on this premise, the author explores various aspects of conflicts and conflict situations that perform useful functions. Conflict, even in a latent form, contributes to the preservation of the group and the definition of its boundaries, generating cooperation between individuals who previously had nothing in common with each other. Internal disagreements in a conflict situation are smoothed out, or certain members of the group are excluded from its composition. At the same time, the conflict is always resolved, but in a radical case, one side can eliminate the other, which ultimately leads to overcoming the contradiction and integration. Simmel notes: "... the unity that arose after the conflict persists after the end of the struggle and leads to the emergence of interests and connections that are unrelated to the goals of the struggle. The significance of the struggle here is to put into practice latent connections and unity. In such a situation, conflict is more an occasion and a convenient opportunity for the manifestation of an internal need for unification than a goal"^[7].

For the further development of the study of conflictology, Simmel's conclusions about the impact of conflict on the internal structure of the group were important. In extreme situations, for example, in the case of war, the tendency to centralize power increases sharply, up to the establishment of a dictatorial regime. The authoritarian government strives for self-preservation, and for this purpose tends to seek out a new opponent to create another external conflict. In this case, the factor of victory over an opponent does not always mean success in a sociological sense, since in a conflict-free situation, the degree of internal solidarity of the group is significantly reduced, since unity is forced. Simmel's significant contribution to conflict theory is the inclusion of a third party. The relations in the dyad allow for the possibility of only a straightforward binary conflict, which is not typical for real socio-cultural life. Any dyad concept proceeds from the existence of two mutually dependent elements connected by relations of domination - subordination or confrontation without any intermediate links.

It is only with the advent of the "third" that the opportunity opens up for multifaceted relations, the formation of coalitions, the formation of group solidarity, i.e. the possibility of complex social interaction as a dynamic process devoid of mythological meaning.

.

The American sociologist Lewis Kouser^[8], based on the work of G. Simmel, continued the attempt to combine conflict theory with functionalism. In his work "The Functions of Social Conflict" (1956), L. Kouser subjected Simmel's main propositions to a thorough analysis and gave them a logically completed form. According to his definition, a conflict is "a clash between collective actors, over values, statuses, power, or rare resources, in which the goals of each side are to neutralize, weaken, or eliminate their rivals." Unlike Simmel, Kouser highlights the role of information in the conflict, through which politicians can make it protracted. At the same time, he came to the conclusion that "communal" conflicts based on shared values perform an integrative function, unlike "non-communal" conflicts caused by differences or the formation of new value systems.

Also, Kouser closely links the form and intensity of the conflict with the characteristics of the conflicting groups. Since conflict between groups contributes to strengthening intra-group solidarity and, consequently, the preservation of the group, its leaders often consciously resort to searching for an external enemy and ignite an imaginary conflict that acts as a lightning rod. A side effect of this tactic is the search for an internal enemy ("traitor"), especially in the case of failures and defeats. Kouser notes the extremely important role of ideology in conflict situations. It is used as a tool for rallying a group, elevating clashes of personal and group interests to the rank of a struggle for principles and eternal truths, and in the case of an imaginary conflict, highlighting an external and internal enemy. An equally important role in the maturation of a "genuine" conflict is played by the very possibility of group identification, which arises only as people become aware of their position in confrontation with others: "... individuals who occupy a similar position, through conflict, form groups with group identity and common interests." Thus, the formation of groups is one of the important social functions of conflict.

It is equally important that Kouser highlights the ambiguous role of external conflict for the internal cohesion of the group. Internal cohesion always increases if the group is already sufficiently integrated (there is a minimum of agreement between its members), as well as if an external danger threatens all members, not just individuals, and is perceived by all as a common threat. At the same time, large groups with a high degree of membership participation are characterized by a more stable degree of flexibility than smaller and less integrated ones. They are characterized by rigidity and intolerance towards "deviant" members, the desire to suppress any manifestation of internal contradictions.

According to K. Bowling, according to which a conflict is "a situation of rivalry in which the parties realize the incompatibility of possible positions and each side seeks to occupy a position incompatible with that which the other wants to occupy" (1962)^[9].  A similar opinion on the need to distinguish conflicts based on the distribution of resources and differences in goals was also expressed by T.Geiger, C.R. Mills, S.M.Lipset ^[10] and S. Rokkan. All this makes it possible to classify conflicts of interests and values that are closely interrelated, since what are values for one group can simultaneously be interests for another. For example, the "harmless" demand for the right to study in their native language, put forward by an ethnic minority, without formally affecting the interests of the majority, is often perceived by the latter as a potential threat to their unity and their own domination.

The principle of establishing equality through conflict intervention

One of the central tenets of the functional theory of conflict is the thesis that conflict creates and maintains a balance of power. An agreement between the parties whose interests clash is possible only if each party (group) knows its own strength and the strength of the opponent. However, it is often possible to find out the balance of forces only by trial, i.e. open conflict (for example, a strike). Without threatening the disintegration of society, such conflicts contribute to eliminating the discrepancy between the power, status and influence of a certain group, restore social balance and thereby ensure the stability of society. This applies mainly to groups with an amorphous structure and open societies. By allowing direct and direct expression of opposing demands, such social systems achieve the restoration of order in their structure, eliminating the source of discontent. In this case, conflicts can serve to eliminate the causes of disintegration and restore unity. Thus, by accepting conflict, these systems create an important "stabilizing mechanism". Conversely, such a conflict is dysfunctional for those systems in which the mechanisms of its acceptance are poorly expressed or absolutely absent.

Morton Deutsch ^[11] considers the main functions of conflict to be the prevention of stagnation (stagnation), the identification of existing problems, the strengthening of group identity and the approval of innovations. At the same time, he notes its negative consequences: disruption of the communication system and relationships in the group, weakening of common value orientations, the likelihood of a decrease in group cohesion. The latter is possible with disproportionate losses and the probability of success, uneven distribution of losses among group members, the presence of strong ties with the enemy in part of the group, protracted nature, incompatibility of the goals of the conflict and traditional beliefs.

It follows from the above that the functional theory of conflict absolutizes the positive properties of this phenomenon as a contributing factor in the process of development and self-regulation of society. However, internal conflicts (within a class, a political party, a nation) in many cases turn out to be detrimental to a group in conditions of an intergroup, external conflict and can become the main reason for its defeat. It should be emphasized that all groups, with the exception of the primary ones, have a complex hierarchical structure, including a large number of subgroups of different levels that are in a relationship of both cooperation and rivalry. Therefore, in conditions of external conflict in any social group, opposing tendencies towards its cohesion and disintegration inevitably arise. The outcome of this confrontation depends on a wide variety of factors (as evidenced by the history of numerous wars, class contradictions), the reduction of which does not fit into more than one scheme.

An attempt to overcome the one-sidedness of the functional theory of conflict

An attempt to overcome the one-sidedness of the above-listed conflict theory was made by the West German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorff^[12], who created the so-called dialectical model of social conflict. It reflects the influence of Karl Marx's ideas about class polarization, struggle and the resolution of class antagonism in a revolutionary way. Dahrendorff identified various types of conflicts (between equal and unequal, whole and part), using the concept of "imperatively coordinated associations" consisting of opposing governing and managed complexes in the analysis of conflicts. Ultimately, he came to the conclusion that at the heart of all conflicts is the question of power or authority. In his opinion, "all inequalities in rank can be considered as going back to the unequal distribution of legitimate power in social blocs" and, consequently, all conflicts stem from a subjective desire for domination. According to Darendorf, conflict is social only if it is conditioned by the structure of social units. If it is caused by "psychological" reasons (antipathy, frustration, hatred, etc.), then by definition it is not social. Dahrendorff does not delve into the analysis of conflicting structures, limiting himself to the general statement that conflict is the "law of development of modern societies" and has its own dynamics. For all the excessive generalization of judgments and the weak empirical basis of this concept, which he calls "paratheory", it should be considered a theory of conflict forming around the relationship of power.

One-sidedness is more or less inherent in almost all concepts of social conflict proposed within the framework of various trends and schools of sociology. As V. Buhl notes, "there is no theory of social conflict in the sense of a logically deductive system of hypotheses axiomatized and expressed in certain mathematical functions, rather we can only talk about initial hypotheses, about program settings and orienting outlines of a theory with relatively vague assumptions and insufficiently structured generalizations"^[1].

Conflict studies within the framework of various orientations of Western social psychology

Noteworthy are the studies of conflict within the framework of various orientations of Western social psychology, which have expanded dramatically since the middle of the 20th century.

Behaviorist orientation in the analysis of group processes includes theories of psychological hedonism, the doctrine of the "economic man", emphasizing categories such as "reward", "pleasure", "stress reduction", etc. In the theory of the "interaction of outcomes" formulated by D. Thibault and G. Kelly ^[13], the interaction process is considered through the prism of the so-called outcomes - the exchange of rewards and punishments. Rewards and losses can be very diverse: material values, prestige, status, security, power, etc. Complementarity, or complementarity, plays an important role for sustainable interaction. "In a complementary way, everyone can provide what the other needs, but they cannot provide it for themselves. In such a relationship, the rewards for both participants are high, but the costs are low and, thus, the outcomes are positive for both"^[2], - summarizes this position by the domestic authors Andreeva G.M., Bogomolova N.N. The assessment of outcomes is mainly subjective in nature and is determined by exogenous and (needs, abilities, attitudes, values participants) and endogenous and (i.e., arising in the course of interaction) determinants. Significant discrepancies in the assessment of outcomes and, to an even greater extent, incompatible trends lead to conflict. The outcomes are evaluated by each side of the dyad, taking into account the "level of comparison" of previous experience and the "level of comparison of alternatives", i.e. possible rewards in case of withdrawal from this group. The matrix compiled by Thibault and Kelly is applicable to the analysis of power relations, interdependence and interpersonal accommodation, and other aspects of social interaction.

The famous American sociologist Homans sees the essence of "elementary social behavior" in the direct exchange of rewards and punishments between the participants in the interaction, ultimately reducing human behavior to the "function of exchanging payments." According to the Homans concept, a conflict arises if the subjectively perceived and based on past experience fairness of the exchange is violated, i.e. the costs exceed the expected rewards. Homans' approach has become relatively widely known among social psychologists, but his attempt to create a kind of universal model of human behavior has been reduced to economic reductionism, in explaining the phenomena of social interaction in the established system of relations between people. This approach is of little use for analyzing the interaction between groups that have different value systems and, accordingly, expectations of rewards. At best, this approach, like other theories of behavioral orientation, can be applied to study some aspects of intra-group relations.

One of the popular concepts of conflict within the framework of the neo–behaviorist orientation remains the theory of frustration- aggression, formulated in the 1940s by N. Miller and J. Dollard and later developed in the works of other social psychologists. The key place in this theory is occupied by the assumption that any condition that prevents the achievement of any goal (frustration) leads to aggression, i.e. the desire to destroy or reduce the obstacle. Aggressive behavior may remain unrealized due to deterrence by assessing possible negative consequences for the individual, which further exacerbates frustration and thereby increases aggressiveness. It can also take the form of "mixed aggression" directed not at the immediate source of frustration, but at any other object that performs the functions of a biblical "scapegoat" in this case. In this model of conflict, aggression necessarily presupposes the frustration that precedes it. But the inverse relationship is not so rigid, since by gaining experience an individual can develop a non-aggressive reaction to frustration (rationalization, avoidance).

 As a result of conducting experiments and attracting more extensive empirical material accumulated in the study of various societies, significant changes were made to the initial concept: the concept of aggressive motivation (drive) was introduced, which is a consequence of a frustrating event and the direct cause of aggressive behavior, emphasis was placed on the role of a leader, on the dependence of behavior on rewards.

Significant adjustments in terms of conflict research were made by A. Bandura (1973) ^[14], who noted the great role of observing the behavior of the "model" and its consequences in developing their own reactions in the process of gaining knowledge: "Among the numerous signals influencing people's behavior at any moment, there are no more effective than the actions of others. The actions of others acquire the property of directing reactions through selective reinforcement in much the same way as physical and symbolic signals in non-social forms. When the behavior of others leads to rewarded outcomes, model signals become powerful determinants of similar behavior in the observer" ^[15].

Consequences play an important role in developing behaviors (including through observation): people tend to suppress or reject unrewarded or punished reactions and, conversely, strengthen those that lead to favorable outcomes. According to the theory of "social learning" by A.Bandura, negative experiences can result not only in aggression, but also in other behaviors: acceptance of a dependent position, humility, self-anesthesia with alcohol and drugs. The role of gaining knowledge by observing the behavior of another and recognizing multiple variants as a reaction to frustration is an essential addition to the linear "theory of frustration" – aggression, implicitly used by many researchers in the analysis of interethnic conflicts (nationalism as frustration of class goals or a mixed reaction to exploitation).

Cognitive orientation in the study of social behavior focuses on the process of cognition, the formation of various ideas, expectations, attitudes and more general ideas governing behavior in a person. In political science, on the basis of this orientation, a theory of decision-making has been formed, which is applicable to the study of social conflicts. The organization of images and the correlation of perceived objects with a certain class (categorization is associated with concepts such as perception, attraction, formation and change of attitudes) goes back to Gestalt psychology and the theory of K. Levin's field.

Many of the observations and concepts formulated within this orientation are directly related to conflict research. Theories of cognitive conformity, the initial idea of which is an individual's holistic view of the world around him, which should be balanced and harmonious with his ideas. Based on this, the individual forms his own attitudes, stereotypes, selective perception of information and its interpretation.

According to the theory of structural balance, F. Haider's ^[16] "naive (or everyday) psychology" inherent in an individual is aimed at creating an orderly and integral view of the world and comprehending the essence of the observed phenomena. Research on the reflection of naive psychology in language and folklore confirms, according to Haider, a person's desire for a balanced position in which there are no stresses, and an imbalance causes tension and a desire to restore balance. Based on the assumption that positive relationships are transitive (under the influence of the second person, the first person forms a positive attitude towards the third), and negative ones are non–transitive (the individual does not share the negative relationship of his enemy to the third person), Haider believes that an unbalanced structure arises when these relationships are violated. His proposed model of interaction in triads suggests four variants of balanced and unbalanced structures, harmonious and potentially conflicting relationships. Of course, in this ideal model, reality is simplified, since it is reduced to the interaction of only three elements. However, it can be used to advance preliminary hypotheses about the potential dynamics of relationships between people

The well-known social psychologist T. Newcomb made an attempt to extend the model of intrapersonal imbalance to the sphere of interpersonal relations. He proceeded from the assumption that positive interpersonal relations between two individuals contribute to the development of similar orientations in relation to a third individual, and the behavior of these orientations leads to an increase in the frequency of communicative acts in order to overcome differences and restore the "symmetry of associations". In other words, Newcomb's theory of communicative acts is an attempt to explain the mechanism of group cohesion through intra–group communications and pressure on "deviant" group members. The application of this model to real situations arising in the triad confirms the conclusions of common sense: both participants of the pair either come to a common orientation, or, despite the increase in the volume of communications (negotiations), the connection between them disintegrates.

The essence of the reasoning within these concepts boils down to the fact that cognitive dissonance leads to the appearance of mental tension. All living beings strive to get rid of it and return to a state of homeostasis, or equilibrium. Here there is a reduction of human behavior to saving effort. As empirical evidence, studies of non-participation in elections of voters who, being subjected to pressure from propaganda of various political parties, are unable to give preference to any of the candidates and abstain from voting are presented.

Another theory, the theory of a superordinary goal, highlights the existence of a common super-task, which is equally relevant for different groups and requires joint efforts (environmental problems, disaster management, cultural preservation, human survival, world diseases). Such a goal can serve both to overcome the conflict and its emergence. In the first case, the differences existing between the groups turn out to be less significant than the threat they share. Internal strife takes a back seat to the need to pool resources to overcome a dangerous situation. In the second case, we are talking about competing goals of this kind. The groups separating them enter into a struggle for the priority of their positions, and the relations between them become conflictual.

Another theoretical metaphor of interest is the concept of social paranoia, a specific environment characteristic of paranoid worldview and behavior. In modern dictionaries of psychiatry, paranoia is defined as the coverage of an individual by a systematic delusion of exposure in the absence of hallucinations and the preservation of intelligence. A.Dobrovich clarifies this definition, supplementing it with such a feature as "persistent, involuntary and uncorrectable projection of the subject's desires and fears to the outside world with loss of feedback, that is, inability to perceive and analyze what does not confirm projections." In fact, we are talking about the dominance of a dogmatic consensus on social reality in society or in its ruling circles. In its most extreme form, it is the loss of an individual's Self–identity and its replacement with a mythological collective, normative identification.

The basis of such a mythology is people's ideas about the exclusivity of their community and fear of an external enemy. The main hypothesis in the conceptualization under consideration, going backThe key to T.Adorno's work "The Authoritarian Personality" is the recognition of the special role of paranoid individuals or groups in the emergence of authoritarian, totalitarian regimes, despotisms. According to it, they are born and reproduced in society due to the emergence and coming to power of small authoritarian groups. By the nature of their goals and motives, these people strive for power, they are cruel in their relations with those who do not share their opinions, maintaining social hierarchies in the management system, they rely on means of suppression and violence.

The following features characteristic of an authoritarian personality are highlighted:

· in the intellectual sphere - the deep conviction of an individual (group) in his rightness, the uniqueness of the shared picture of the world or situation. Data that contradicts this picture is ignored or declared false. Subjectively, such a state is perceived as an exceptional confidence in one's rightness and right;

· in motivational and behavioral terms - the desire of an individual (group) to assert his position as the only correct one in the face of others. Dissenters are perceived as enemies, subjectively it is perceived as a struggle of the "true faith with "heresy";

· in the emotional sphere, this condition is characterized by a sense of high self-importance, suspicion, anxiety, fear, anger. With the slightest opposition from the outside, there is a sense of violated dignity, a vindictive feeling and even a willingness to sacrifice oneself in the name of the death or defeat of an opponent.  Subjectively, this is perceived as the struggle of the misunderstood with the misunderstood, the oppressed with the oppressors, good with evil.

· in the perceptual sphere, there are alarmingly hostile expectations, along with interpretations that precede the facts, rather than following them, which creates illusions. Subjectively, this is perceived as evidence.

Such reactions to any social events are usually prepared by the conditions of social existence. The most significant parameter of these conditions is mass myth-making, based on the action of such protective mechanisms as displacement, rationalization, projection, transference. In this regard, psychologists are increasingly beginning to talk about the desire to see the world in an orderly way, about the need for self-affirmation. An understandable environment, in the center of which "We" is located, guarantees psychological comfort, relieving tension and fear, pushing the individual to go into opposition, since "They" are the personification of everything alien and hostile.

Determination of the reference group settings

As can be seen even from the summary, all theories are closely related to the direction of interactionist orientation – the "theory of reference groups". This category, sometimes referred to in the scientific literature as a reference, is used by most authors to designate a group that individuals are oriented towards, adopting its values, norms, standards of behavior and attitudes. Some authors, along with similar groups, identify negative ones, that is, those that cause an individual to have a hostile attitude, or a categorical refusal to classify themselves as such.

The main functions of reference groups are normative, i.e. the establishment of certain standards of behavior (group norms) and their observance by distributing rewards and punishment, and comparatively evaluative, manifested in the fact that the value orientation of the group is the starting point for comparing oneself and other individuals. For an individual, these functions can be performed either by one group (membership group) or by different groups: remaining a member of the same group and observing its norms. In his assessments, an individual can focus on the group of which he aspires to become a member. In ethnic processes and interethnic relations, this often happens at the stage of acculturation, when an external group acts for an individual as a comparative reference group. R.K. Merton, a prominent American sociologist, believes that this happens in cases where: (1) the membership group does not provide a sufficiently high prestige; (2) the individual occupies a low status or is isolated in it, (3) the individual has a strong desire for social mobility.

The use of the category of reference group in the study of interethnic relations, including conflicts, can be very productive: identifying the ethnic composition of reference groups in multiethnic societies, the nature of external and negative reference groups to a much greater extent than abstract reasoning about common interests, friendship, mutual interest, etc., allows us to understand the real state of interethnic relations.

If high-status groups are polyethnic in their composition and function as such, maintaining a social distance from the lower ethnic groups, if for a significant part of an ethnic minority or a subordinate ethnic group, the external reference groups are separate groups of the dominant ethnic group and if, finally, ethnicity does not exclude the individual's membership, at least in some significant groups for him, Such a society clearly has relatively effective mechanisms for interethnic integration, mainly preventing the maturation of interethnic conflicts.

It should be noted that foreign sociologists have made great progress in developing the conceptual apparatus of conflict research and a formally logical approach to the study of this phenomenon.

 Such aspects of social conflict as its causes, course, methods of solution and consequences are presented in the works of many researchers in the form of clear, schematized models, the main value of which is that their application to the description or study of a specific reality forces to take into account the entire complex of factors, largely protects from subjective assessments, arbitrary selection facts and evidence, various kinds of omissions and declarative arguments.

Based on the study of international and labor conflicts, foreign sociologists pay great attention to the study of the style of conflict interaction. Most researchers identify five style options: competence (rivalry with a weakly expressed tendency to cooperate), accommodation (a tendency to reconciliation), avoidance, cooperation, and compromise. The style of behavior of the participants in the conflict is determined by variables such as the degree of antagonism and power. Increased antagonism and power are defined as offensive-active behavior, reduced - non-offensive; the combination of increased antagonism and reduced power leads to an offensively unstable style of behavior (riots, riots, conspiracies, etc.), reduced antagonism and increased power to offensive-calm.

The possible outcomes of the conflict are ultimately reduced to one of three options: victory of one side over the other (a decision from a position of strength), mutual defeat (compromise, bribery, appeal to a third party, application of rules or laws, etc. measures of formal settlement), mutual gain (consensus or integrative interaction). The optimal outcome - resolving the conflict through integrative interaction - is most likely when the conflicting parties are convinced of the possibility and necessity of a mutually acceptable solution, maintain mutual trust and are not embittered, do not approach the problem from the position of "we are them", see the costs of disagreement, perceive information equally, strive for a specific (rather than generalizing) formulation of the question We are ready to change the management if necessary. It is not difficult to find that the conditions conducive to an integrative solution are inherent primarily in political and international conflicts, the outcome of which depends on decisions made by a relatively narrow circle of leaders while observing certain "rules of the game" (socio-political norms, international law).

Sociological schemes can provide a political scientist with tools, terminological conceptual apparatus that is applicable to the analysis of political conflicts, significantly facilitating the study of this social phenomenon. But it should be remembered that the study of social relations today is carried out at the junction of a number of social sciences, and not only within the framework of sociology.

 Conclusions

Conflict theories are a complex branch of science with a multi-vector purpose. And today, as we see, the creation of a unified theory of conflicts is practically impossible, both at the domestic and international levels. Nevertheless, we have set the task of considering the theory of the classics because it is not random in nature, but is related to the problems of post-Soviet societies. There are various local, interethnic, international conflicts in latent, open and frozen forms. We deliberately did not give specific examples of such conflicts, because each side has its own idea of enemies and heroes. This explains the limitations of the purely theoretical interpretation of the problem itself and the review of the classics of the theory of conflictology. Of course, conflict is a social paradigm with both positive and negative sides, which plays an important role in political and interstate processes. Therefore, it is unacceptable to consider it in a purely sociological context, in isolation from political science and international law.