Between harmony and conflict

The path of social development

One of the core dynamics of society lies in the existence of diverse perspectives. At first glance, this may seem simple, yet for the social sciences it carries profound layers of meaning. Society is not merely a collection of individuals; it is a complex system built on different experiences, worldviews and beliefs. Diversity of thought functions as the lifeblood of this system. Each new idea, each fresh perspective, every alternative view revitalises the existing structure,setting it into motion not as a repetition, but as a renewed process. Imagine a society where everyone thought alike, merely echoing one another. Social behaviour would descend into repetition, decisions into routine and permanence. Without innovation, debate or disagreement, society would remain static. A condition that poses a fatal risk to technological progress, political development and cultural transformation.

History in the social sciences demonstrates that human communities advance not through the repetition of like-minded ideas, but through the clash and contestation of thought. The English philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that even ideas perceived as false should not be silenced. For him, such ideas either carry a fragment of truth or help clarify truth more vividly. Mill’s position underscores that diversity of thought is a driving force of social progress.

At the same time, sociology has long contrasted two broad approaches to explaining how societies function: consensus and conflict theory. Consensus theory suggests that society is primarily built on harmony. Individuals unite around shared values and norms, and this unity sustains stability. Talcott Parsons emphasised that the central aim of society is to reduce disorder and bring people together around common goals. Institutions such as the family and the school, for example, strengthen individuals’ sense of responsibility towards one another and reinforce adherence to rules.

Ralf Dahrendorf, however, argued the opposite. In his view, society does not evolve solely through harmony but also through conflict and disagreement. Conflict, he maintained, is not merely a problem but a source of creative power. For Dahrendorf, genuine change emerges only when individuals put forward differing views and these ideas come into collision. This dynamic can be illustrated with a real-life example. The participation of women in the workforce was once considered a major issue in many societies. Some argued against it, claiming that women working posed a threat to family life and social order. Yet it was precisely through these clashes of opinion (supporters and opponents debating, disputing and negotiating) that societies gradually formed new norms. Today, women’s involvement in employment is no longer seen as a “threat” but is widely recognised as a source of benefit, both for families and for the economy.

In other words, Parsons’ consensus model shows how shared values unite societies and create stability, while Dahrendorf’s conflict perspective demonstrates that disagreement is essential for change. Even though conflict may be difficult, it enables societies to renew themselves, progress and establish fairer norms.

The opposite of diversity of thought is what might be called a “fixed mindset,” a concept that has also been the subject of serious debate in the social sciences. Dialogue with such individuals may appear straightforward, but in reality it is one of the most difficult forms of communication. Here, interaction is less about the exchange of information and more about reinforcing already-established positions. In social psychology, this is described as “confirmation bias”, the tendency to accept only evidence that supports one’s own view while rejecting all else. The phenomenon becomes particularly visible on social media. The so (called “echo chamber” effect) closed environments where only similar opinions are amplified, tends to make individuals more radical and entrenched. In Azerbaijan, one can observe this in political debates, within certain religious groups, and even in the sphere of football fandom. One side regards only its own team as the “truth,” while dismissing any other perspective.

Émile Durkheim’s concept of “collective consciousness” suggested that by preserving shared values, societies could ensure stability. Yet the distinction here is crucial: in its extreme form, collective consciousness in the “fixed mindset” produces rigidity, not stability. What begins as an effort to preserve order eventually turns into stagnation that obstructs progress. Stability, in this sense, suffocates dynamism once it crosses a certain threshold.

This phenomenon is visible not only in personal interactions but also throughout major historical processes. When Galileo advanced the heliocentric model of the universe, the Church (anchored in its “unchangeable” position) banned the acceptance of new knowledge. That resistance set back scientific progress for decades. A modern parallel can be seen in climate change denial. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, some refuse to shift their stance, delaying urgent global measures. In this sense, the “fixed mindset” may provide short-term comfort for social harmony, yet it obstructs debate and innovation. Sociologically, it produces what can be termed a “static unity”: everyone agrees, but no one changes. Such unity preserves the present but closes off the future.

By contrast, engaging with those who hold entirely different views (though often uncomfortable) can be the most productive form of social interaction. The critical condition here is “faith in openness.” In other words, a person may hold positions that diverge radically, even appear contradictory, to our own, yet still be willing to revise those views when persuaded through arguments and lived experience. This type of dialogue, described in sociology as a “dynamic communication model,” involves not just listening but also re-evaluating one’s own stance.

The American sociologist George Herbert Mead’s concept of “taking the role of the other” is central here. Mead argued that when individuals attempt to see the world through another’s perspective, empathy emerges, and social behaviour becomes more flexible. Consider a father in a village reluctant to let his daughter pursue education. When he listens to a teacher who envisions the girl’s future differently (and witnesses tangible examples) his stance often shifts. Here, exposure to alternative views, empathy-driven persuasion and lived experience together foster change.

Such openness has been transformative not only in private life but also in history. The success of Enlightenment movements often rested on persuading precisely these kinds of individuals. In late nineteenth-century Azerbaijan, the idea of opening schools was initially perceived by parts of society as a threat. Yet the educational initiatives of Hasan bey Zardabi and Mirza Fatali Akhundov convinced many parents that literacy did not weaken religious or national identity but rather reinforced it. Without individuals capable of changing their minds, such reformist movements would have struggled to succeed. Crucially, persuasion in these cases was not achieved by words alone, experience played a decisive role.

Being open to persuasion not only enriches dialogue but also eases a society’s ability to resolve conflicts. As Jürgen Habermas observed, the purpose of dialogue is not to defeat an opponent but to create mutual understanding. Such possibilities arise precisely in exchanges with individuals willing to revise their views. When participants remain locked into fixed positions, conversations collapse into colliding monologues rather than true dialogue.

Social media discussions offer a contemporary example. While many see only the loud confrontation of “unchanging” sides, there are also users open to new perspectives, ready to be convinced through argument and evidence. For them, debate is not merely an emotional outburst but an opportunity to learn. Thanks to such participants, online discussions can become deeper and more multi-layered.

The contrast is striking: while the “fixed” mindset closes off debate, openness to persuasion opens new doors for society. This can be described as a “dynamic unity.” Within this unity, people do not simply share identical views; instead, they reach common ground through diversity. In this way, individuals who are capable of being persuaded become drivers of social change.
In fact, the distinction between the “unchanging” and the “open-to-persuasion” types is crucial not only for understanding personal interaction but also for interpreting the structures of entire societies. They represent two contrasting social models: static unity and dynamic unity.

In static unity, individuals cluster tightly around shared values, but this cohesion leaves little room for debate or growth. Here, Parsons’ functionalist model is evident: stability and harmony are viewed as the core conditions of social life. Yet the risk lies in how differences are either suppressed or stigmatised as “threats.” Today, this can still be observed within certain religious or political groups: members appear united, but such uniformity renders them closed and resistant to change.

History provides stark illustrations. In medieval Europe, questioning Church teachings was treated as a crime. The result was a form of unity that seemed stable but in reality stifled development. Similarly, in Soviet-era Azerbaijan, voicing dissent against the party’s ideological line was dangerous. Outward harmony prevailed, but it was built on enforced immobility rather than genuine consensus.

Dynamic unity, by contrast, emerges from the clash of differing perspectives. Here, Dahrendorf’s conflict theory becomes especially relevant: societies renew themselves only through debate and confrontation. Encountering alternative viewpoints, listening to arguments and (when necessary) revising one’s stance is the core pathway to social transformation.

Take, for instance, women’s access to higher education. At first, many considered it unacceptable or even threatening. Yet as pioneering women achieved success and men, too, benefited from their education, attitudes shifted. What began as a site of disagreement and persuasion ultimately produced a new social norm. In dynamic unities, change is not feared, it is embraced as natural. Today, this can be seen in multicultural contexts where religious and ethnic groups engage in dialogue. Each side shifts, however slightly, and together they form shared rules of coexistence.

Both static and dynamic unities have strengths and weaknesses. Static unity provides stability but suppresses innovation. Dynamic unity fosters change but can sometimes generate excessive conflict. The sociological lesson is clear: societies thrive only when they remain open to dialogue, allowing both stability and transformation to coexist. In this sense, interaction with the “unchanging” mindset closes circles, while dialogue with the “persuadable” mindset opens doors to progress.

Ultimately, societies often perceive difference as a threat. Yet the real danger lies not in diversity, but in its absence when thought becomes frozen. Every fixed idea acts like a lock on the future, while open doors can be unlocked only through dialogue, mutual listening and the power of persuasion. The answer, therefore, rests in individual choice. But from a sociological perspective, the true foundations of progress are not silence but dialogue, not sameness but diversity, not mere stability but the creative tension of conflict.

Nigar Shahverdiyeva