A theory of conflict

Noted for his work on counterrevolution (The Rebels, 1960) and his more recent studies of General de Gaulle, Brian Crozier describes A Theory of Conflict as a "work of political and moral philosophy" (p. vii). Moralistic it is, but the book falls down badly as an essay in political philosophy or, for that matter, as an example of social science writing. Major concepts (such as conflict itself) remain undefined; the treatment of the topics is unsystematic; the book is analytically unsophisticated, for example, lacking a typology that relates the various forms of conflict to one another in a coherent fashion; and it contains numerous generalizations of questionable validity passed off as scientific or historical "truths" (e.g., Crozier pronounces an ex-cathedra judgment about the historical relationship between strength and skill in the manufacture of weapons: "Those with the skill and the weapons conquered those inferior and without," p. 30). Evidence of the overall lack of coherence in the book can be seen from the almost random arrangement of its five parts. The first part is called "The Fundamentals of Conflict"; the second, "The State as Fact and Theory"; the third, "The Contemporary Scene"; the fourth, "The Price of Revolution"; and the fifth, "The Containment of Dissent." In part five appears a chapter on the "preconditions of conflict," which one might have expected to find much earlier in the book. The section on the theories of the state presents no organizing theme or principle and derives no important conclusions except that Marx was "evil" (p. 52). Similarly, the chapter on "theorists and observers" presents what appears to be a random romp through more recent political theory, presumably intended to make the point "that the socialists and the egalitarians have a place in the democratic social contract-along with the conservatives and radicals-only to the extent that they believe in and practice pluralism" (p. 78). Characteristically, however, Crozier doesn't really tell us what he means by pluralism, and seems arbitrarily to have ruled out of court the possibility that socialist pluralism, as discussed by Czechoslovakian reformers in the Dubcek era, represents a valid expression of pluralistic theory. The chapter ends with a taxonomy of regimes whose purpose is unclear. If meant, as Crozier insists, "to further understanding of the target of revolutionaries [the State]," it is far too short and superficial. The taxonomy categorizes together the United States, Canada, India, Ceylon, and some Latin American countries as "representative democracies." (Other categories include "authoritarian government," "totalist regimes," "despotisms," and "discriminatory representative regimes.") So much for the social scientific merits of the book. What of its philosophic pretensions? Crozier minces no words in criticizing those with whom he