Park’s Theory of Conflict and His Fall From Grace in Sociology

Abstract

Following a brief exposition and new interpretation of Robert Park’s theory of conflict, it is subjected to critical examination. Since Park deduced his explanation of race relations from this more general theory and since his ideas about race relations and work for Booker T. Washington are intimately connected with his loss of favor in sociology, they are included as part of this examination. On the one hand, it is found that the characterizations of Park’s ideas on race relations, especially his famous notion of the “race-relations cycle,” as inherently conservative and his work on behalf of Washington as that of a “race-broker” are misguided. On the other hand, it is found that his general theory of conflict suffers from several shortcomings, including that he failed to (a) distinguish dominance from power, (b) make dominance disputes his basic unit of analysis, and (c) identify the stages which conflicts or, more precisely, dominative disputes, unfold. Dispute these flaws, Park’s analysis of conflict still provides an invaluable fund of ideas for advancing our understanding of social conflict, which should not be dismissed because of mischaracterizations of him and his views. Thus, in my opinion, social scientists would now be well-advised to reexamine both Park’s general model of conflict and his specific application of it to race relations.