Competition and conflict

Competition is often thought of as universal and natural. Sociology treats it instead as a social idea that emerged and became dominant at a particular point in history. The book's case is a teacher in a remote part of Africa whose suggestion of a race with a chocolate prize caused the children anxiety rather than excitement.

• Durkheim and Marx noted the growth of individualism and competition in modern societies. Both are built into capitalism, which assumes the expansion of trade, division of labour, specialisation and so rising productivity, driven by rational individuals competing freely in the market to maximise profit.
• The ideology of competition is the dominant ideology of capitalism: the market is said to ensure efficiency, so the most efficient firm survives and the students with the highest marks get the best colleges and jobs.
• But this ideology assumes that everyone competes on an equal basis. In fact individuals are placed unequally: children who never go to school or drop out early are out of the competition entirely.
• Thinkers disagree about its value: the sociologist Bottomore noted that no exact link has been shown between competition and economic growth; the liberal J.S. Mill thought its effects were generally harmful, though it is also a 'fight for all' in seeking maximum output at minimum cost.

Conflict means a clash of interests. Conflict theorists see scarce resources as its source, as groups struggle for access and control. Its bases vary: class, caste, tribe, gender, ethnicity or religious community.

• A common belief is that conflicts in society are new. Sociologists show that conflicts change in form, but have always existed. When disadvantaged groups assert their democratic rights, conflict becomes more visible, but its causes were there before. As M.N. Srinivas wrote, the 'good old days' were not conflict-free: the old order inflicted cruelties on vast sections of people.
• Conflict is overt only when openly expressed: a peasant movement openly expresses conflict over land. But the absence of a movement does not mean the absence of conflict.

Two examples from the book:

• Family and household. Families were long seen as harmonious and altruistic. Feminist scholars questioned this. Amartya Sen wrote of 'cooperative conflicts': families need cooperation, so real conflicts of interest are moulded into a cooperative form. Naila Kabeer shows how women, lacking options outside the household, may accept discriminatory practices and invest in sons for long-term security, while resisting covertly: through trusted relatives, secret lending, and negotiating the meaning of purdah and motherhood. Covert conflict with overt cooperation is common.
• Land. In a study by T.K. Oommen, a man named Ganpat, a police constable, used force and his influence with the police to take back land his family had informally mortgaged: power and access to institutions shape how conflicts end. Oommen also shows how technology changes the need for cooperation: a charas (bucket-lift irrigation) needs two pairs of bullocks and four men, so households must borrow from each other; a rehat (Persian wheel) needs more capital but only one pair of bullocks and one person.

In conclusion: cooperation, competition and conflict are different processes, yet they often co-exist, overlap, and sometimes appear in hidden forms, as in forced cooperation.