Defining Conflict: Perspectives from Various Scholars

Disagreements are woven into the fabric of social life. Whether it is a tussle between two political parties, a dispute over a shared boundary wall, or a quiet internal struggle over a difficult choice, conflict shows up everywhere. Yet despite how familiar it feels, scholars have never agreed on a single, precise definition of the term. In fact, there are almost as many definitions of conflict as there are studies written about it. This lack of consensus is not a weakness. Each definition shines light on a different face of conflict, and together they help us understand a phenomenon that shapes politics, society, and even our inner lives.

Where the word ‘conflict’ comes from 🔗

To grasp the concept, it helps to start with the word itself. The term derives from the Latin confligere, meaning “to strike together”, formed from com (“together”) and fligere (“to strike”). Its original sense was physical, suggesting bodies or forces colliding, much like an armed encounter or a battle.

Over time, the meaning broadened well beyond the physical. By the seventeenth century, it came to describe opposition between ideas, feelings, and principles, and a psychological sense of incompatible urges within one person emerged in the nineteenth century. This evolution is important. It tells us that conflict is not limited to violence or warfare. It can be a clash of values, interests, goals, or even competing desires inside a single mind.

Why scholars define conflict differently 🔗

There is no universal agreement on what conflict precisely means, and this is the natural result of the term being studied across many disciplines. Sociologists, economists, political scientists, and philosophers each approach conflict through the lens of their own field. A sociologist may focus on how conflict binds or divides groups, while an economist may frame it as competition over scarce resources. Rather than treating these as rival claims, it is more useful to see them as complementary perspectives that collectively enrich our understanding of conflict’s nature, types, and levels.

Below are some of the most influential definitions that students of conflict studies rely on.

George Simmel: conflict as a form of sociation 🔗

The German sociologist Georg Simmel offered one of the earliest and most classical analyses of conflict. He insisted that conflict is a form of sociation, arguing that a certain amount of discord, inner divergence, and outer controversy is organically tied to the very elements that hold a group together.

This is a striking idea. Simmel held that conflict and cooperation are both present in all human relationships. Conflict is not purely destructive; it can actually strengthen bonds. When two groups come into conflict, one common effect is that solidarity within each group increases. Conflict helps set boundaries between groups by strengthening group consciousness and an awareness of separateness. In short, a society entirely free of conflict would lack the friction needed to define and organise itself.

Lewis Coser: a struggle over values and scarce resources 🔗

Building directly on Simmel’s foundation, the sociologist Lewis Coser gave one of the most widely cited definitions. He described conflict as a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power, and resources, in which the aim of each opponent is to neutralise, injure, or eliminate the rivals.

Coser is well known for emphasising the positive functions of conflict. According to him, conflict prevents a social system from becoming rigid by exerting pressure for innovation and creativity. He also explored how conflict can act as a “safety valve,” allowing hostility to be expressed so that relationships can survive periods of stress rather than collapse. His definition is valuable because it identifies both what people fight over (values, status, power, resources) and why these fights become intense (because such things are scarce).

Kenneth Boulding: competition with mutually incompatible goals 🔗

The economist and systems theorist Kenneth Boulding approached conflict through the language of competition. He defined conflict as a form of competition in which the competing parties recognise that they have mutually incompatible goals.

The key word here is recognise. For Boulding, conflict is not simply about parties having different goals. It is about their awareness that both sets of goals cannot be achieved at the same time. Consider an election. Several parties may compete, but only one can form the government. The moment each party becomes conscious that the others stand directly in the way of its own victory, ordinary competition hardens into active conflict, shaping campaigns, debates, and alliances.

Robert C. North: competition for the same object or position 🔗

The political scientist Robert C. North framed conflict in similarly competitive terms, describing it as competition for the same object or position. When two or more actors seek something that cannot be shared or simultaneously possessed, whether a piece of territory, a market, or an office of power, conflict arises.

This definition is especially useful in the study of international relations and politics, where states, parties, or individuals frequently pursue the same scarce position. Two neighbouring states claiming the same border region, or two leaders contesting the same post, both illustrate North’s point clearly. The object of desire is singular, but the claimants are many.

Park and Burgess: conflict as conscious and personal 🔗

It is worth adding a related distinction drawn by sociologists Robert Park and Ernest Burgess, who argued that conflict is always conscious. They held that conflict evokes the deepest emotions and the strongest passions, and demands intense concentration of attention and effort. They distinguished conflict from competition by noting that competition tends to be continuous and impersonal, whereas conflict is intermittent and personal. This helps explain why conflict feels so charged compared with everyday competition.

Mahatma Gandhi: conflict as an internal battle 🔗

While most Western scholars located conflict between groups or individuals, Mahatma Gandhi turned the lens inward. For Gandhi, the most fundamental conflict was the struggle between truth and untruth within each person.

This idea sits at the heart of his philosophy of Satyagraha, which translates roughly to “truth force” or “soul force.” The term combines satya (truth) and agraha (persistence or firm holding). Gandhi believed that genuine resolution of conflict came not from defeating an external enemy but from undergoing rigorous self-scrutiny and clinging firmly to truth through nonviolent means.

A crucial part of this view is humility about truth itself. Gandhi observed that we are all limited to our own angle of vision, and that what appears as truth to one person may appear as error to another. Because no one can claim to possess the absolute truth, no one is entitled to punish an opponent. Instead, the goal is to win the opponent over through patience and self-suffering rather than force. In this framework, conflict becomes an opportunity for moral transformation rather than a contest to be won at another’s expense.

Bringing the perspectives together 🔗

Placed side by side, these definitions reveal how layered the concept of conflict really is. Simmel and Coser approach it sociologically, treating conflict as a force that shapes and even strengthens groups. Boulding and North approach it through competition, focusing on incompatible goals and contested objects. Park and Burgess highlight its conscious, personal intensity. Gandhi shifts the entire frame inward, viewing conflict as a moral and spiritual struggle within the self.

What unites these views is the recognition that conflict involves opposition, whether between groups, interests, goals, or inner principles. What divides them is the level at which they locate that opposition. This is exactly why understanding multiple definitions matters. A border dispute, a workplace disagreement, an electoral rivalry, and a personal moral dilemma are all “conflicts,” yet each demands a different conceptual tool.

It is also worth remembering that thinkers from Hegel and Marx to Simmel and Coser have argued that conflict is not inherently bad. It can be a necessary instrument of change, progress, and social integration. Recognising this saves us from the assumption that all conflict must be eliminated. Often, the real task is to understand a conflict accurately so that a fair and workable resolution can be found.

Why these definitions matter for resolution 🔗

Defining conflict clearly is the first practical step toward managing it. If a dispute is essentially about scarce resources, as Coser suggests, then fairer allocation may ease it. If it stems from recognising incompatible goals, as Boulding describes, then clarifying roles and expectations through open discussion can help. If it arises from competition over the same position, as North notes, then negotiation or institutional rules may be needed to decide who holds it. And if the conflict is internal, as Gandhi believed, then honest self-examination becomes the path forward. The definition we choose quietly shapes the solution we reach for.

What do you think? Which definition of conflict feels closest to the disagreements you observe in everyday political and social life? And do you agree with thinkers like Simmel and Coser that a certain amount of conflict is actually necessary for a healthy society?

References

1. https://www.etymonline.com/word/conflict
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict
3. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/83190/1/Unit-3.pdf
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/conflict-theory
5. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/coser-functions
6. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/33858/1/Unit-5.pdf
7. https://www.britannica.com/topic/satyagraha-philosophy
8. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=si_pubs