Field as meaning a region of potential forces, I call dynamic field , whether physical, psychological, or social. A second meaning of field is as a balance or equilibrium between diverse elements, interests, or forces. The energy in the field results from the interpenetration of life spaces, overlapping role segments, and changing power balances. The third meaning is a relational field, of an interdependence between elements, a whole that transcends or is more than the sum of its parts. They are not exclusive, for the three share the notion of interdependence and both dynamic and equilibrium fields invoke forces.
Dynamic fields are distinct.
Continuously spread energy systems containing force potentials are consistently called fields. However, equilibria or interdependence among many diverse elements are conceptualized in many ways, such as balance of power, transactions, system, space. In fact a categorization of social, cultural, and political conceptions that are field theories in an equilibrium or relational sense would include most theories, such as those of Karl Marx, Pitirim Sorokin, Talcott Parsons, George Gurvitch, David Easton, and Karl Deutsch. The Conflict Helix , I am concerned with all three kinds of fields, for we are at once a subject and actor, and object and agent of dynamic psychological and sociological fields, of equilibrium fields of power, interests, and conflict, and of a relational field of expectations, meanings, values, norms, class, and statuses. Now, I will focus on the sociological fields and their relationship to conflict behavior.