This paper attempts to examine the assumptions and major propositions of Ralf Dahrendorf's and Lewis Coser's theories of conflict. Particular attention is drawn to the divergence in their respective schemes and how such divergence actually makes the schemes highly complementary. By formalizing the propositions of Dahrendorf and Coser, then examining how the theoretical statements of each inventory correct for omissions in the other, a strategy for synthesizing the propositions on the causes and form of conflict is suggested. Such synthesis is presumed to improve upon previous attempts at theoretical reconciliation, since it is couched in propositional rather than assumptive terms.