Macro Theory Time!

To me, the most compelling theories were the basic human needs, conflict is functional, and social identity theories. I really like these theories, most likely because combined they are similar to my own native theory of conflict, which is that conflict is natural and can be positive when utilized correctly, and that conflict usually happens because individuals feel that their needs are unmet, their interests unheard, or their identity threatened. I have trouble with the consensus school theory that conflict is dysfunctional, because if you look at humans and our society itself it seems that conflict is unavoidable, and the conditions they describe as norms of society—harmony, consensus, and cooperation, are only achieved intermittently when we face the conflicts in our lives (underlying or manifest) and use them to improve our relationships, the way resources are distributed, the larger structure,- you name it. If we didn’t have conflict, in my opinion, that would be dysfunctional. I also have trouble with the theory “aggression is innate,” because I tend to feel that conflict is innate, but aggression as a response to conflict is not. One question I have is whether anyone has expanded on this seemingly evolutionary-based theory to a more modern theory viewing conflict, but not aggression, as innate. Another question I have is how coercion theory views the parties to the conflict. For example, does it label those who are “higher” in the system as responsible for conflict, or does it try to avoid blame? Does it recognize the damage that such (social?) conflict can do to people at all levels of the structure?