Understanding the Typology of Conflicts in Conflict Resolution

Not all conflicts are the same, and that is exactly why they cannot all be resolved in the same way. A quarrel between two colleagues over a deadline is very different from a decades-long insurgency rooted in land and identity. To respond effectively, we first need to understand what kind of conflict we are dealing with. This is where the typology of conflicts becomes useful. By classifying conflicts according to their causes, the parties involved, and their effect on society, we gain a sharper sense of which resolution methods are likely to work. This post examines the major distinctions drawn by sociologist Lewis Coser and others, and grounds them in real examples from the Indian political landscape.

Why classifying conflicts matters 🔗

Conflict is a permanent feature of social life. Wherever individuals and groups make rival claims to scarce resources, status, or power, the possibility of conflict exists. The American sociologist Lewis Coser, in his influential 1956 work The Functions of Social Conflict, argued that conflict is not always a sign of breakdown. Drawing on Karl Marx and Georg Simmel, he proposed that under certain conditions conflict can actually strengthen group cohesion, encourage adaptation, and drive social change.

This insight reframes how we approach resolution. If a conflict can be functional, the goal is not always to eliminate it but to channel it constructively. To do that, we must correctly identify the type of conflict in front of us. Misreading the nature of a dispute almost guarantees that any attempt to manage it will fail. A categorisation that treats all conflicts as identical leads to one-size-fits-all solutions, which rarely hold.

Realistic and non-realistic conflicts 🔗

One of Coser’s most important contributions is the distinction between realistic and non-realistic conflict. He borrowed the idea from Simmel but developed it in his own analysis.

Realistic conflict 🔗

Realistic conflicts arise from the frustration of specific demands within a relationship and from the parties’ calculations of what they stand to gain. They are directed at the object presumed to be causing the frustration. According to Coser, these conflicts are a means toward a specific result, which means they can be replaced by other forms of interaction if those seem more effective at achieving the desired end. A dispute between workers and management over wages is a classic example. Because the issue is concrete, such conflicts can usually be addressed through negotiation, bargaining, or compromise.

Non-realistic conflict 🔗

Non-realistic conflicts, by contrast, are not driven by the rival ends of the parties but by the need for tension release in at least one of them. Here the conflict is an end in itself. Because the goal is simply the discharge of accumulated frustration, the chosen opponent can be substituted by any other suitable target. Scapegoating and displaced aggression fall into this category. These conflicts are difficult to resolve through negotiation because there is no concrete demand to settle. Coser suggested that non-realistic conflict tends to appear when a social structure is rigid and blocks the direct expression of grievances.

The practical lesson is significant. A realistic conflict invites problem-solving, while a non-realistic one may require addressing the underlying emotional or structural sources of frustration. Mistaking one for the other wastes effort, since on the surface the two can resemble each other.

Conflicts that disintegrate society and those that do not 🔗

Coser was careful to note that not every conflict benefits a group, nor does conflict serve the same purpose for every group. Whether a conflict strengthens or damages a social system depends on the type of issue over which it is fought and the type of structure within which it occurs.

Conflicts fought over goals, values, or interests that do not contradict the basic assumptions on which a relationship is founded tend to be functional. They allow grievances to surface, force adjustments, and ultimately reinforce the relationship. A class conflict over the distribution of economic benefits, for instance, can lead to reforms that the system absorbs, leaving the broader social order intact.

Conflicts that strike at the very basis of a relationship, however, threaten to tear the social fabric apart. When opposing parties no longer share the consensus on which their coexistence rests, conflict becomes disintegrative. This is why deeply divisive ethnic conflicts can be so dangerous. They challenge the shared identity that holds a society together, rather than merely contesting the terms of cooperation within it. Coser also observed that social systems lacking solidarity are the most likely to disintegrate when they face conflict, whereas cohesive groups can withstand even intense disputes.

Individual conflicts versus group conflicts 🔗

Another useful distinction concerns the parties involved. Conflicts between individuals are generally easier to resolve than those between groups, and the reasons are worth unpacking.

Why individual conflicts are simpler 🔗

When two people are in dispute, the issues are usually contained, the number of interests is small, and channels for communication are direct. Mediation, dialogue, or a simple compromise can often settle the matter. The personal stakes, while real, rarely escalate beyond the two parties.

Why group conflicts are harder 🔗

Group conflicts are more complex because they involve collective identities such as ethnic communities, religious groups, or social classes. The stakes are higher, more people are affected, and the potential for escalation is greater. Importantly, Coser argued that when a group comes into conflict with an outside group, this tends to increase internal cohesion. Members close ranks, and the dispute becomes wrapped up in questions of loyalty and belonging.

This has a paradoxical effect on resolution. Individuals fighting on behalf of a group often see themselves as representatives of a larger cause rather than as parties pursuing their own interests. That sense of fighting for a cause can give the conflict a radicalism and intensity that personal disputes rarely reach. Resolving group conflict therefore demands more than settling a single grievance. It requires addressing the structural roots that sustain it, such as inequality, discrimination, or long-standing historical injustice.

Conflicts of interest and conflicts of values 🔗

Perhaps the most practically important distinction for anyone working on resolution is the one between conflicts of interest and conflicts of values.

Conflicts of interest 🔗

Conflicts of interest arise when parties have competing goals or desires over tangible things. These disputes are material in nature and revolve around resources, power, money, time, or economic opportunity. Because the object of dispute can be divided, traded, or shared, these conflicts are comparatively open to resolution. Negotiation works well here, since there is usually room to find a settlement that gives each side a portion of what it wants. The very fact that a conflict is framed as one of interest opens up more exploration of possible solutions.

Conflicts of values 🔗

Conflicts of values are harder. They emerge from incompatible belief systems, ideologies, or worldviews that parties attempt to assert against one another. People are emotionally attached to their values, and basic principles do not change easily, so disputants are often disinclined even to attempt compromise. Value conflicts are frequently seen as non-negotiable because they touch on moral and ethical commitments. A clash over religious practice, social custom, or fundamental ideology cannot simply be split down the middle the way a financial dispute can.

Yet value conflicts are rarely entirely black and white. There are usually overlapping values or shared goals that can provide a foundation for cooperation. Resolution here does not mean persuading one side to abandon its beliefs. It means fostering enough mutual respect and tolerance that the parties can coexist despite their differences.

Reading these types through the Indian experience 🔗

These categories are not merely academic. They map directly onto the political landscape, and the long-running Naxalite movement illustrates how several types of conflict can intertwine.

The interest dimension 🔗

The movement began in 1967 in Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal, as a peasant revolt demanding land rights and social justice. At its core lay a conflict of interest: a struggle over land and resources between marginalised cultivators and powerful landowners. Over the decades it spread into the forested, mineral-rich regions of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh, where the central grievance has been the tension between economic development and the land rights of tribal communities. Massive projects such as dams and mining have displaced tribal populations without adequate consent or rehabilitation, fuelling the insurgency.

The value and group dimensions 🔗

The movement is also more than a dispute over resources. It carries a strong ideological component, drawing on Maoist thought and rejecting faith in the existing political system. This adds a value dimension that makes the conflict far harder to settle than a straightforward bargaining problem. It is also a group conflict in the fullest sense, mobilising tribal and Dalit communities around shared identities and collective grievances, which raises the stakes and the difficulty of resolution.

This is precisely why a purely security-led response has struggled to bring lasting peace. Scholars and analysts have repeatedly argued that durable resolution requires addressing the structural inequalities and injustices at the root of the movement: implementing genuine land reform, securing forest rights, and improving governance. The typology helps explain the failure of one-dimensional solutions. A conflict that is simultaneously about interests, values, and group identity cannot be resolved by treating it as a simple law-and-order issue.

From typology to strategy 🔗

The value of classifying conflicts lies in what it tells us about resolution. Realistic conflicts of interest between individuals respond well to negotiation and mediation. Value-based group conflicts that threaten to disintegrate the social order demand patient, structural responses built on dialogue, recognition, and the slow work of building trust. Coser also warned that diverting genuine grievances into symbolic “safety-valve” outlets may release tension temporarily but prevents the system from adapting to changing conditions, leaving the underlying causes untouched. Correctly diagnosing a conflict is therefore the first and most important step toward resolving it.

What do you think? When you look at an ongoing political dispute, can you tell whether it is primarily about competing interests or clashing values, and how might that change the way it should be resolved? Could a conflict that looks disintegrative on the surface actually be channelled into something that strengthens the society it threatens?

References

1. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/coser-functions
2. https://culturalapparatus.wordpress.com/807-2/
3. https://adrtimes.com/value-conflicts/
4. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/naxalism-in-india/
5. https://theiashub.com/free-resources/post-independence/naxalite-movement-causes-tribal-inequality-governance-issues
6. https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/race-equity/inequality-insurgency-and-conflict-searching-for-justice-for-indigenous-peoples-in-india