Ralf Dahrendorf’s Theory of Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society

Gaurang Sahay

Ralf Gustav Dahrendorf (1 May 1929 – 17 June 2009), a German British academic and politician, served as the first foreign director of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). As a teenager, Dahrendorf was arrested for anti-Nazi activities and imprisoned. After the end of World War II, he studied philosophy and classics at the University of Hamburg, from where he received a doctorate in 1952. That same year he began graduate studies in sociology at the LSE, and he earned a second doctorate in 1956 . Dahrendorf lectured at the University of Saarbrücken and was a fellow of the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University before serving as professor of sociology at the Akademie für Gemeinwirtschaft in Hamburg (1958–60; now the Hamburger Universität für Wirtschaft und Politik), the University of Tübingen (1960–66), and the University of Konstanz (1966–69). Dahrendorf began his political career in 1968 as a member of the liberal West German Free Democratic Party (FDP). When the FDP joined the Social Democratic Party in a governing coalition in 1969, Dahrendorf was appointed undersecretary for foreign affairs. After serving as a member of the European Commission during 1970–74, he was named director of the LSE. After leaving that post he spent three years at Konstanz. In 1987 he returned to Britain as warden of St. Antony’s College, Oxford. Dahrendorf’s publications include Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1959), Homo Sociologicus (1965), Society and Democracy in Germany (1967), Essays in the Theory of Society (1968), The Modern Social Conflict (1988), and Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (1990). Dahrendorf took British citizenship in 1988. He was elected a fellow of the British Academy in 1977, knighted in 1982, and created a life peer in 1993.

A class conflict theorist, Dahrendorf was a leading expert on explaining and analyzing class divisions in modern society. Dahrendorf’s conflict theory (1959) represents a mixed system having some properties of structural functionalist, Marxian and Weberian approaches. Darendorf’s starting point is that neither structural functionalism nor Marxism alone provides an acceptable perspective on advanced capitalist industrial society. He claims that structural functionalists neglect realities of social conflict and that Marx defined class too narrowly and in a historically-specific context. Furthermore, he believes that traditional Marxism ignores consensus and integration in modern social structures. The main ideas of his theory of class and class conflict in industrial society are as follows:

A) Situating Dahrendorf’s Conflict Theory

- Dahrendorf’s conflict theory is situated in relation to many other sociological theories

such as Marxist theory and structural functional theory.

1) Reaction to Functionalism

- Dahrendorf’s conflict theory was a reaction to structural functionalism.

- Functionalist theory was quite influential during the 1950s.

- Functionalism focuses on social order and stability.

- Dahrendorf thought that the analysis of social order and stability was useful, but it was

not enough, it was also important to address social conflict and social change.

2) Reaction to Marxism

- Dahrendorf’s conflict theory was also a reaction to Marxism.

- Marx saw class and class conflict in terms of production relations. For him, the

capitalist class or the bourgeosie own the means of production while the working class

or the proletariat does not own the means of production. Class conflict stems from the

exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class.

- Dahrendorf thought that a focus on production relations was outdated because there is

now a separation between ownership of capital and control of capital or between

ownership by capitalists and control by managers.

3) Adoption of Weberian Ideas

- Dahrendorf’s conflict theory, apart from deriving ideas of from other conflict theories

also derived ideas from Max Weber’s sociology.

- In order to move beyond a focus on production relations when addressing class and

class conflict, Dahrendorf drew upon some concepts in Weber’s work.

- Dahrendorf utilized Weberian concepts of authority and legitimacy

- In the process, Dahrendorf focused on class and class conflict in terms of authority

relations

Authority Relations

A) What is Authority?

- Dahrendorf described authority as “legitimate power” which is associated with social

positions.

B) Components of Authority Relations

1) Super-ordination and Sub-ordination

- Authority relations are relations of super-ordination and sub-ordination.

- The super-ordinate position involves issuing commands that control behaviour in the

sub-ordinate position.

2) Domination and Subjection

- Dahrendorf saw domination as “participating in the exercise of authority”.

- He saw subjection as being “excluded from the exercise of authority”.

C) Imperatively-Coordinated Associations

1) Definition and Examples

- Imperatively-coordinated associations are organizations characterized by authority

relations.

- There are many such associations in every society.

- Some of Dahrendorf’s examples include the state (government), an industrial enterprise

(private company), and even a church.

- Other examples might include an army, a college or university, a hockey team, or a

hospital.

2) A Dichotomy of Positions in Associations

- Every imperatively-coordinated association has a dichotomy of positions.

- in every association, a line can be drawn between those who exercise authority and those who are controlled by authority

- e.g., in a democratic state, there are those who hold positions of authority (such as a Prime Minister or cabinet ministers) and those who are subject to authority (citizens)

3) Different Positions in Different Associations

- Dahrendorf also points out that people can hold different positions in different associations

- an individual can hold a super-ordinate position in one association while also holding a sub-ordinate position in another association

- e.g., the owner of an industrial enterprise may hold authority in his company, but he may be just a member in his church (rather than holding a position of authority in the church)

Class Conflict

A) Groups in Imperatively-Coordinated Associations

- Dahrendorf identified certain groups in imperatively-coordinated associations

- after identifying these groups, he proceeded to analyse issues involving class and class conflict

- he illustrated his theoretical ideas through reference to industrial conflict and political conflict (conflict in industrial enterprises and conflict in the state)

1) Quasi-Groups

- in an imperatively-coordinated association, there are two quasi-groups

- quasi-groups are not real groups since they don’t have a sense of belonging or group organization

- they are just people in the association who share certain interests because of their position in the authority relations of the association

- e.g., in an industrial enterprise, the two quasi-groups might be associated with capital and management (who hold positions of authority) and labour (who do not hold positions of authority)

2) Interest Groups

- in an imperatively-coordinated association, the two quasi-groups might lead to the emergence of two interest groups (but this is not always the case)

- interest groups have organization and a program or goal

- e.g., in an industrial enterprise, capital and management may form a business association and labour may form a trade union

- interest groups either defend or attack the existing authority relations within the association

- for Dahrendorf, these opposing interest groups are conflict groups

B) Classes and Class Conflict

- Dahrendorf sees classes as “conflict groups arising out of the authority structure of imperatively-coordinated associations”

- his concept of classes applies to specific associations, not to entire societies

- e.g., if there are 50 associations in a society, there are also 100 classes (the dominant and subjected conflict groups in each of the associations)

- class conflict involves struggles over authority in these associations

- those with authority seek to maintain their authority while those without authority seek to change the authority relations - a change in authority relations is not sought for its own sake - it is sought to achieve certain interests

C) Structure Change in Associations through Class Conflict

- according to Dahrendorf, conflict groups engage in conflict to bring about change in imperatively-coordinated associations

- he suggested that class conflict may produce different types of structure change

1) Change in Dominant Personnel

- there can be a change in the dominant personnel of associations

- this may mean a total change in the dominant personnel (revolutionary change) or a partial change in the dominant personnel (evolutionary change)

- in an industrial enterprise, total personnel change does not usually occur (labour replacing capital and management)

- however, in some instances, there may be partial personnel change - management may give some representatives of labour union in the authority structure of the company

- e.g., trade union representatives may sit on an occupational health and safety committee

2) Change in Values or Orientations

- there can be a change in the values or orientations of associations

- Dahrendorf saw this as a slower form of evolutionary change

- the dominant personnel remain the same, but these personnel meet some interests of those who are subjected to authority

- e.g., in an industrial enterprise, management may recognize some interests of workers through policy or collective bargaining (negotiations of wages and working conditions)