The Main Argument

An attempt at developing a broad and comprehensive theory of ethnic relations whose tenets are grounded firmly on the broader and more total theories of social relations and system as a whole. To this end, Schermerhorn here attempts to synthesize the "system theory" as represented by Parsons and Levy, and is in general associated with functionalism, and the "conflict theory" in the tradition of Lenski and Dahrendorf under one overarching umbrella - by using the dialectical theories as a tool for bridging these two quite different traditions of sociological thoughts in social relations. His conclusion is on the surface quite common-sensical. We cannot restrict our attention one-sidedly to either of the integrative function of the society, or the conflicts among groups, when talking about ethnic group relations in any context. True, any society do embody more of the elements of one than the other, but the degree to which it does is always relative - so that two contrasting theories are differentially applicable to certain degree for the empirical analysis of ethnic relations in any society. However, this process of differentially applying integration theories and conflict-based theories by itself is insufficient - instead, we must recognize once again the role of the dialectical relationship between conflict and integration. That is, Schermerhorn here makes his one of key claim that there are times when integration can only occur in and through conflict, and conversely, other times when conflict is necessary to reach a new order of integration. In effect, we have an intermediary area of overlapping or compounded processes of both conflict and integration between the areas for "pure" conflict and "pure" integration. This area can be number of different empirically interesting situations. Several Schermerhorn notes are: Antagonistic cooperation, peace in feud, integrative functions of conflict, forms of accommodation, and dialectical linkage of integration and conflict. All in all, the claim seems to be that previous studies of ethnic relations tended to focus too narrowly on what is in reality a limited dimension of more holistic social relationship - i.e., domination and subordination of one ethnic group by the other, prejudice and discrimination, and so forth. What we need is a more holistic approach to the study of ethnic relations that integrates all kinds of different forms of relationships that human relationships can potentially adopt.
 

Introduction

This chapter gives a brief consideration on in what ways previous studies of ethnic group relations are insufficient, and concludes by proposing his own definitions of several of the key sociological terms for the study of ethnic group relations. He notes that previous studies tended to be too narrowly focused on either one of the three issues in the realm of ethnic group relations: (1) prejudice and discrimination as major concerns, (2) the depiction of minorities or ethnic groups solely in the role of victims, and (3) tendency of those working in ethnic group relations to merely "update" previous results of former studies, without rethinking about them in a systematic fashion or suggesting future course of research. The latter half of the chapter (p. 12) is largely self-explanatory as it is in the form of the step-by-step enumeration of the relevant definitions. The author here tries to give exact definitions to the terms of ethnic group, dominant group, minority group, and society. Then, the author identifies three each of the dependent, independent and intervening variables for the holistic study of ethnic group relations. The overarching theme for the three dependent variables is that it represents the modes of integration and conflict in the relations between dominant groups and subordinate ethnic groups in different societies. Those variables are identified in the pages 15 to 16.
 

Chapter 1

Basically, the main chunk of this chapter is concerned with explicating on the major characteristics of the respective theories of "conflict theory" and "system theory", and pointing out weaknesses of each that must be taken into account in the process of applying them in the study of ethnic group relations. First, the system theory side. Basically, this theory is described as a fairly orthodox version of functional theory that is concerned with the analysis of the society as maintaining the organic balance by fulfilling various functional needs through social mechanisms. The author notes that this theory holds two main characteristics of social systems as particularly important. The first is the principle of functional hierarchy as an inherent feature of social systems, and the second is the preference for the analysis of society as based in symmetrical features (preoccupation with due proportions, the frequent reference to its balance and regularity, or the methodical care given to consistencies and compatibilities). Next comes the scrutinizing of the system theory to identify some of its weaknesses. First, it is pointed out that functional theory as propounded by Parsons is concerned exclusively with the ends, but not means. That is, it analyzes social actions solely in terms of the goals people have - resting upon their value system and culture - but does not look at the issue of whether people have means to attain that goal or not. In direct contrast, Marxian theory tends to look only at the means (control of means of production), but not ends. Following this, the author concludes that in order for a theory to be adequate it needs to pay attention to both means and ends. Several other notable points have been pointed out in utilizing the theory of structural-functional tradition. For instance, in order to have adequate study of causality we would need a diachronic approach - something often neglected by functional theorists, who tends to regard the society as a timelessly stable system. In addition, the focus on symmetry, balance and complementariness should not lead us to neglected the role of conflict - in fact, by referring to Simmel and Coser, the author notes that very presence of conflict itself may be functional for a society.

Next task is the review of the conflict theory. Here again the author gives a fairly comprehensive review of the major tenets and assumptions of the theory which I will not mention in detail, as well as pointing out some of the theory's weaknesses. First, it is pointed out that the approach of the conflict theory is basically that of methodological individualism. So, one of its advantage over the system theory is its clarity as to where does the agency of individual actions operate in generating a social system. After this basic point, it is then pointed out that conflict theory is built on the assumption on human nature that humans basically act on the basis of self-interest, rather than being fundamentally altruistic. It is then pointed out that conflict theory, while seemingly supporting a politically more radical stance than the functional theory, is actually ideologically neutral and that only in combination with the egalitarianism the conflict theory takes on the left-oriented veil. Finally, the issue of the employment of dialectic in conflict theory is brought up. Simply put, how can we conceive of the change and movement in the framework of conflict theory, which is by its own nature concerned largely with the systemic arrangement of conflict in a society? This issue then leads directly to the author's following discussion on the role of dialectic in studying the social system. Here, it is stresses that dialectic viewpoint is basically concerned with the issue of change and movement. It is also concerned with the problem of interpenetration, and also that it takes all forms of stability or structure in social life as problematic and not fixed. Yet, even more important for the author than these specific points on the nature of dialectic is that it is not a means to answer questions, but rather a means to ask questions - that is, it is a way of taking into considerations the problems of social change and movement, yet dialectical approach by itself is not predisposed toward any type of specific answer regarding these questions of change and movement.

We have now come in full circle for the review of the three respective theories of system theory, conflict theory, and dialectic. As mentioned already in the main idea, the author is primarily concerned with the integration of these three approaches.