One possible synthesis of pressure politics and party politics might be produced by describing politics as the socialization of conflict. That is to … - Elmer Eric Schattschneider

The class bias of associational activity gives meaning to the limited scope of the pressure system, because scope and bias are aspects of the same tendency. The data raise a serious question about the validity of the proposition that specialinterest groups are a universal form of political organization reflecting all interests. As a matter of fact, to suppose that everyone participates in pressure-group activity and that all interests get themselves organized in the pressure system is to destroy the meaning of this form of politics. The pressure system makes sense only as the political instrument of a segment of the community. It gets results by being selective and biased; if everybody got into the act the unique advantages of this form of organization would be destroyed, for it is possible that if all interests could be mobilized the result would be a stalemate.

The effectiveness of democratic government as an instrument for the socialization of conflict depends on the amplitude of its powers and resources. A powerful and resourceful government is able to respond to conflict situations by providing an arena for them, publicizing them, protecting the contestants against retaliation and taking steps to rectify the situations complained of; it may create new agencies to hear new categories of complaints and take special action about them.

The role of conflict in the political system depends, first, on the morale, self-confidence and security of the individuals and groups who must challenge the dominant groups in the community in order to raise an opposition.