Are Conflicts Cyclical or Dialectical? Marx, Simmel, and Freud’s Views

When conflict erupts between individuals, communities, or nations, a fundamental question arises: is this simply a repeating cycle, or does it drive us toward something new? This question has occupied some of history’s greatest thinkers, from Karl Marx’s vision of revolutionary transformation to Georg Simmel’s insights on social cohesion and Sigmund Freud’s exploration of psychological tensions. Understanding whether conflicts are cyclical or dialectical shapes how we approach everything from personal relationships to social change.

Marx’s dialectical conflict and revolution 🔗

Karl Marx viewed conflict not as a repeating cycle but as a dialectical process that propels society through distinct stages. According to Marx, the struggle between social classes drives historical transformation in predictable phases. Each stage contains opposing forces-what he called thesis and antithesis-whose conflict generates a synthesis, moving society to its next phase.

The foundation of Marx’s theory rests on understanding who controls the means of production. In feudal society, lords owned the land while serfs provided labor. When serfs rose against their masters, feudalism gave way to capitalism, where factory owners (the bourgeoisie) control production and workers (the proletariat) sell their labor for wages.

For Marx, class unity against common enemies becomes the catalyst for transformation. The proletariat would develop class consciousness-recognition that their individual struggles stem from a shared economic position-and eventually overthrow the capitalist system. This wasn’t a cycle returning to an earlier state but a forward progression toward a classless society. Marx believed this revolutionary transformation was inevitable given capitalism’s internal contradictions and the intensifying exploitation of workers.

Simmel on conflict’s unifying function 🔗

Where Marx saw conflict driving society from one stage to another, Georg Simmel recognized that conflict itself serves crucial social functions in the present moment. Rather than viewing conflict as purely destructive, Simmel argued it strengthens group consciousness and establishes social boundaries.

Simmel’s insight was revolutionary: conflict doesn’t just tear groups apart-it can actually hold them together. Through opposition to outsiders, groups develop clearer identities and stronger internal bonds. The distinction between one’s own group and outsiders is established in and through conflict, whether between social classes, nations, or political parties.

When leaders exploit external conflict 🔗

Simmel observed that leaders sometimes deliberately create or emphasize external conflicts to overcome internal divisions. A nation torn by domestic strife may find temporary unity when facing a common enemy. Conflict with outside groups tends to increase internal cohesion, though this effect depends on the type of conflict and the group’s existing structure.

This phenomenon explains why political leaders throughout history have invoked external threats during times of internal instability. The shared opposition unifies what might otherwise fragment, transforming diverse factions into a coordinated whole-at least temporarily.

Freud’s psychological conflict in relationships 🔗

While Marx focused on social classes and Simmel on group dynamics, Sigmund Freud turned inward to examine conflict within the human psyche and intimate relationships. Freud noted that powerful desires are always in conflict, and these internal struggles shape our external relationships.

In close relationships, Freud observed something paradoxical: the very intimacy that binds people together also generates hostility. Aggressive behaviors in intimate relationships may stem from repressed emotions such as inadequacy or frustration that get redirected toward loved ones. The closer the bond, the more opportunities exist for both affection and antagonism.

Unconscious sources of conflict 🔗

Freud’s structural theory of the mind-dividing the psyche into id, ego, and superego-explains how conflict arises from incompatible motives and unconscious forces. The id seeks immediate gratification, the superego enforces moral standards, and the ego attempts to mediate between them while confronting external reality. When these elements clash, or when unconscious desires conflict with conscious beliefs, psychological tension builds.

This internal conflict often manifests in our relationships. Accumulated aversion and hostility that cannot be openly expressed eventually demand release. When directed at those closest to us, these feelings can erupt in ways that threaten the relationship’s foundation.

Conflict as social ventilation 🔗

Contrary to viewing conflict as pathological-as functionalist sociologist Talcott Parsons might have characterized deviant behavior as disrupting social order-some scholars recognize conflict’s therapeutic potential. Lewis Coser, drawing on Simmel’s work, developed what he called the “safety-valve theory” of conflict, which suggests that conflict serves as an outlet for accumulated hostilities.

According to this perspective, conflict functions like a pressure release valve. When tensions build within relationships or groups, controlled conflict allows these pressures to escape before they reach destructive levels. Coser explained that conflict “clears the air” and allows for the free behavioral expression of hostile dispositions, helping maintain relationships that might otherwise collapse under the weight of unexpressed resentment.

Reducing tension through engagement 🔗

The ventilation function of conflict can actually bring parties closer together. By addressing tensions openly rather than suppressing them, individuals and groups prevent the accumulation of grievances that might lead to particularly intense conflicts later. Groups that allow frequent, low-level conflicts tend to be more stable than those that suppress all disagreement until breaking points are reached.

This insight has profound implications for relationships at all levels. The absence of conflict shouldn’t necessarily indicate a healthy relationship-it might instead signal dangerous suppression of legitimate concerns.

Conflict’s unifying role in society 🔗

Perhaps the most counterintuitive insight from conflict theory is that conflict serves a fundamentally unifying role in society. Rather than viewing social cohesion and conflict as opposites, theorists recognize that society requires both harmony and disharmony, association and dissociation, to maintain its structure.

Simmel argued that conflict operates like the threads that sew society together through inner tensions. Groups define themselves partly through what they oppose. Without conflict to establish boundaries and clarify identities, social structures would lack definition and coherence.

The danger of avoiding conflict 🔗

When groups or individuals consistently avoid conflict, they risk allowing resentments to sediment into layers of unexpressed hostility. These accumulated grievances can eventually cause fatal breakdowns in relationships that might have been preserved through earlier, limited conflicts. Engaging with conflict constructively creates opportunities for adjustment and adaptation.

The key distinction lies between conflicts that threaten fundamental assumptions of a relationship and those that occur within an accepted framework. Conflicts over interests or values that don’t contradict basic relationship foundations tend to be positively functional, allowing necessary readjustments while maintaining overall stability.

Dialectical transformation or cyclical renewal? 🔗

So are conflicts cyclical or dialectical? The answer depends partly on scale and perspective. Marx’s grand historical vision sees conflict driving dialectical transformation-each resolution creates new contradictions that propel society forward rather than returning to previous states. The overthrow of feudalism didn’t restore primitive communism but created capitalism, which would eventually yield to socialism.

Yet at smaller scales, conflict can appear more cyclical. Groups repeatedly face internal tensions, release them through conflict, and restore temporary equilibrium before new tensions emerge. Even here, however, each cycle potentially creates new norms and adjustments, suggesting elements of dialectical change within apparent repetition.

The integration of Marx’s, Simmel’s, and Freud’s insights suggests that conflict operates on multiple levels simultaneously: as a force for historical transformation, as a mechanism for group cohesion, and as a release valve for psychological tensions. Understanding these different dimensions helps us recognize when conflict signals needed change and when it serves to preserve what already exists.

What do you think? Have you experienced conflicts in your own relationships or communities that ultimately strengthened bonds rather than breaking them? How might viewing conflict as potentially constructive rather than purely destructive change the way you approach disagreements?

References

1. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Sociology_(Boundless)/01:_Sociology/1.02:_The_History_of_Sociology/1.2E:_Class_Conflict_and_Marx
2. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism/Class-struggle
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_conflict
4. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/coser-functions
5. https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Simmel/Simmel_1904a.html
6. https://puresociology.com/georg-simmel-and-conflict-theory/
7. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/freud/freud02a.html
8. https://www.psychstory.co.uk/aggression/freud-and-aggression
9. https://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html