Abstract

This article sketches out a multifactorial approach to the analysis of social conflict, based primarily on studies by Max Weber and prominent contemporary historical macrosociologists such as Michael Mann, Richard Lachman, and Ivan Szelenyi. The approach offers opportunities to bridge the gap between two key strands of the sociological tradition of conflict — Marxist and Weberian. It is argued that they do not exclude each other but work on the principle of complementarity, operating on a similar set of terms (primarily class and capital) and reducing the diversity of social phenomena to a common ground — conflict. Michael Mann’s theory of sources of social power, to which the first part of the article is devoted, warns against the fundamental one-sidedness of interpreting any conflict related to power (any conflict falling within the perimeter of macrosociology can be classified as such) exclusively as political, economic, ideological, or military. A complete description of such a conflict requires engaging all four of these aspects of social power, even if some of them do not manifest themselves sufficiently in a particular conflict. The approaches outlined in the second part of the article to the analysis of its direct participants — social classes with their resources (capital in its various forms), which ultimately determine the specific configuration of inequality — the driving force of any conflict— are based on this initial marking of the conflict field. Such a comprehensive approach allows us to overcome the dogmatism of Marxist schemes without abandoning the theoretical legacy of Marxism: the reinterpretation of its key terms in the Weberian paradigm thus enriches the sociological tradition of conflict, forming the necessary kaleidoscopic view of this social phenomenon.