Assess the different sociological approaches to suicide

Durkheim argues our behaviour is caused by social facts; social forces found in the structure of society. Steven Lukes (1992) argues social facts have three features; they’re external to individuals, they constrain individuals shaping their behaviour and they’re greater than individuals, they exist on a different level from the individual. Durkheim argues the suicide rate is a social fact. Using quantitative data from official statistics Durkheim analysed the suicide rate from various European countries. He noted four regular patterns. The suicide rate for any given society remained more or less constant over time. When the rates did change they coincided with other changes. For example rates fell during wartime, but rose during economic depression or prosperity. Different societies had different rates. Within a society the rates varies considerably between social groups. For example Catholics had lower rates than Protestants. For Durkheim these patterns were evidence that suicide rates couldn’t simply be the result of the motives of individuals. For example the population of the army constantly changes but the suicide rate remains the same. Instead of giving a psychological explanation Durkheim explains the suicide rate as the effect of social facts acting on the individual. In different societies these forces act with different degrees of intensity resulting in different suicide rates.

Durkheim identifies two social facts that determine the rate of suicide. Social integration refers to the extent an individual feels a sense of belonging to a group and obligation to its members. In highly integrated groups and societies individuals feel a strong bond with and sense of duty towards others. Moral regulation refers to the extent to which individual’s actions and desires are kept in check by norms and values. Durkheim argues without regulation by socially defined goals and rules individuals desires become infinite and incapable of satisfaction.

Durkheim argues suicide results from either too much or too little social integration. He creates a typology of suicide. Egoistic suicide is caused by too little social integration. Durkheim argues this is the most common type of suicide in modern society, caused by excessive individualism and lack of social ties and obligations to others. This explains the lower rate among Catholics than among Protestants. Both religions condemn suicide but Protestants have more individual freedom in what to believe and how to express their faith whereas Catholics are more tightly integrated by shared beliefs and collective rituals. Egoistic suicide is less common in times of war or political upheaval, since these create a stronger sense of belonging and common purpose.

Altruistic suicide is the opposite of egoistic suicide and is caused by too much social integration. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness or egoism and involves putting others before one’s self. Altruistic suicide occurs where the individual has little value and where the group’s interests override those of the individual. Suicide here is obligatory self sacrifice for the good of the group rather then something freely chosen since the individual feels it their duty to die. For example Hindu widows were expected to throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre so as not to burden their family.

Anomic suicide is caused by too little moral regulation. Anomie means normlessness and anomic suicide occurs where society’s values are made obsolete with rapid social change, creating uncertainty in individuals as to what society expects of them. For example the depression of the 1930s produced anomic suicides as well as times of economic boom. Durkheim attributes this to the fact that booms lead to expectations and desires rising more quickly than the means of fulfilling them.

Fatalistic suicide is the opposite of anomic suicide and is caused by too much moral regulation. Fatalism means a belief on the part of the individual that they can do nothing to affect their situation. Fatalistic suicide occurs where society regulates the individual completely. Slaves and prisoners most commonly commit fatalistic suicide.

Durkheim argues modern and traditional society differs in levels of integration and regulation, and this means that we tend to find different types of suicide in each type of society. Modern industrial societies have lower levels of integration. Individual’s rights and freedoms become more important than obligations to the group. This weakens social bonds and gives rise to egoistic suicides. Similarly modern societies are less effective in regulating individuals because they undergo rapid social change which undermines accepted norms and produces anomic suicides. Traditional preindustrial societies have higher levels of integration. The group is more important than the individual and this gives rise to altruistic suicides. Similarly these societies strictly regulate their member’s lives and impose rigidly ascribed statuses that limit individual’s opportunities and this produces fatalistic suicides.

Other positivists since Durkheim have built on his work. Maurice Halbwachs (1930) accepted his positivist approach but added to his theory. Halbwachs argued differences between urban and rural residence were the main reasons for variations in suicide rates. Higher rates among protestants, people living alone ect were more a function of their urban location; these groups were more likely to be found in towns where people live more isolated lives. Sainsbury (1955) found suicide in London boroughs were highest where the levels of social disorganisation were highest.

Jack Gibbs and Walter Martin (1964) wish to make law like cause and effect generalisations and predictions like Durkheim. However they argue Durkheim doesn’t operationalise his concept of integration; he doesn’t define it in a way that can be measured. Gibbs and Martin go on to define integration as a situation where there are stable and lasting relationships. They argue these tend to occur when and individual has status integration; compatible statuses that don’t conflict with one another, such as when their educational and occupational statuses are similar. They predict in societies where there is little status integration the suicide rate will be higher. Other aspects of Durkheim’s study have also been criticised. For example it’s argued the statistics he used were unreliable and incomplete; in the 19^th century medical knowledge was limited. Similarly many countries lacked the means needed to collect and compile reliable statistics on a national basis. However these criticisms do not challenge the basic aim of Durkheim’s study, to achieve a scientific explanation of suicide.

Jack Douglas (1967) takes a largely Interactionist approach to suicide. He is interested in the meaning suicide has for the deceased and in the way coroners label deaths as suicides. He criticises Durkheim’s study of suicide on two main grounds.

The decision to classify a death as a suicide is taken by a coroner and influenced by other social actors and this may produce bias in the verdicts reached. Douglas argues this may explain the patterns Durkheim found. For example the finding that a high level of integration leads to low suicide rates can be explained by the fact well integrated individuals may have friends or relatives who deny the death was suicide out of their own feelings of guilt, or even cover up the suicide by destroying a suicide note. Contrastingly socially isolated individuals have no one to oppose a suicide verdict on their behalf. Thus although it might seem as if integration prevents suicide, in fact integration merely affects the likelihood of a death being labelled and recorded as a suicide rather than it actually being a suicide. For Douglas suicide verdicts and the statistics based on them are the product of interactions and negotiations between those involved; relatives, doctors, coroners ECT and factors such as integration influencing these negotiations.

Douglas criticises Durkheim for ignoring the meanings of the act for those who kill themselves and for assuming that suicide has a fixed or constant meaning. Douglas notes that the meanings of suicide can vary between cultures. For example a Japanese samurai and western businessmen may attach different meanings to suicide. These motives and meanings must be understood within their own social and cultural context and this means Durkheim’s attempts to compare rates across cultures are faced with problems. Douglas also rejects Durkheim’s aim to categorise suicide in terms of their social causes. Instead we must classify each death according to its actual meaning for the deceased. To do so we must use qualitative methods and sources to produce case studies based on the analysis of suicide notes and diaries and in depth interviews with the victims friends and relatives. From these we can build up a typology of suicide meanings. Although Douglas did not carry out any case studies himself he suggests that in western societies the social meanings of suicide include escape, repentance, search for sympathy ect. However he points out suicides may have different meanings in other cultures, for example religious ones such as getting into heaven. For Douglas using qualitative data overcomes the problems of using official statistics. Analysis of suicide notes would allow us to get behind the labels that coroners attach to cases and discover the real meaning of the death for the person involved. From this we can get a better idea of the real rate of suicide than the socially constructed one that appears in statistics.

Douglas produces a classification of suicide based on the supposed meanings for the actors. However there is no reason to believe sociologists are any better than coroners at interpreting dead person’s meanings. Sainsbury and Barraclough (1968) found that the rank order of suicide for immigrant groups to the USA correlated closely with the suicide rates of their country of origin despite the fact a different set of labellers were involved. This suggests statistics reflect real differences between groups rather than coroners labelling. Douglas is inconsistent, sometimes suggesting that official statistics are merely the product of coroner’s opinions. At other times he claims we can really discover the causes of suicide; yet how can we if we can never know whether a death was a suicide and all we have is the coroner’s opinions.

J. Maxwell Atkinson (1978) takes a different Interpretivist approach from Douglas, that of ethno methodology. Ethno methodology argues that social reality is simply a construct of its members. We create reality using a stock of taken for granted commonsense knowledge. The sociologist’s job is to uncover what this knowledge is and how we use it to make sense of the world. From this perspective Atkinson reviews Douglas’ contribution. Douglas argues official statistics are constructs of coroners and using qualitative data allows us to get behind meanings of suicide for the deceased. Atkinson accepts Douglas’ first point but rejects his second. Atkinson argues we can never know the real rate of suicide since we would have to know for sure what meanings the dead gave to their deaths, which is impossible. Thus it’s pointless trying to discover the real rate. All we can study is how people make sense of their world. With suicide this means studying how the living comes to classify the death as a suicide. The statistics are neither right nor wrong; they’re merely interpretations made by certain officials and so all we can study is how they are constructed. Atkinson thus focuses on how coroners categorise deaths. He uses qualitative methods. From this research he concludes coroners have common sense knowledge about the typical suicide. This includes what kind of person commits suicide, for what reasons, a typical place of death ect. If a particular case fits their common sense theory coroners are more likely to categorise the death as suicide.

Atkinson argues that coroner’s commonsense theories lead them to see the following types of evidence as relevant; a suicide note or suicide threats prior to death. The mode of death for example hanging is seen as a typical suicide, a road death an accident while drowning is less clear. Location and circumstances, death by shooting is more likely to be labelled suicide if it’s in a deserted lay by rather than a hunting party. Life history; a disturbed childhood or bankruptcies are seen as likely cause of suicide. Coroners regard information such as this as clues to whether the deceased intended to take their own life. For example Atkinson (1971) quotes one coroner saying that in the case of drowning he looked to whether clothes where neatly folded on the beach; if they were it usually points to suicide. Atkinson concludes that coroners are engaged in analysing cases using taken for granted assumptions about what constitutes as a typical suicide. A verdict of a suicide is simply an interpretation of a death based on these taken for granted assumptions. If correct this poses serious problems for theories such as Durkheim’s that treats statistics as facts as all they do is spell out coroners theories of suicide. For example if coroners believe that typical suicides are socially isolated people then more of these people will end up in statistics. The sociologist who then takes the statistics at face value and produces a theory such as lack of integration causes suicide is merely echoing the coroners commonsense theory; not discovering the real cause of suicide.

Structuralist Barry Hindess (1973) criticise ethno methodologists’ approach as self defeating. Atkinson’s view that the only thing we can study about suicide is the coroners’ interpretation can be turned back on him. If all we can have is interpretations of the social world, rather than objective truth about it then ethno methodologist’s accounts are themselves no more than interpretations. If so there is no good reason why we should accept them. However most ethno methodologists accept that their accounts are merely interpretations. Unlike positivists who claim to produce objective, scientific accounts they do not claim that their interpretations are superior to those of the people they study.

Steve Taylor (1982) takes a different approach to both positivists and interpretivists. He argues suicide statistics cannot be taken as valid. For example in a study half of people hit by a train were classed as suicide even though there was no conclusive evidence of suicidal intent. Taylor found that coroners saw factors such as a history of mental illness as indications of suicidal intent and this increased the likelihood of a suicide verdict. However like the positivists Taylor still believes we can explain suicide. He believes we can discover real patterns and causes, though unlike positivists he doesn’t base his explanation on suicide statistics. Instead he adopts a realist approach. This aims to reveal underlying structures and causes, which though not directly observable can explain the observable evidence. He uses case studies to discover the underlying of meaning that cause suicide.

Many theories on suicide focus on acts where the individual was intent on dying and that resulted in death. For example Durkheim’s study is about causes of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act by the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result. However Taylor notes that in many cases those who attempt suicide are not certain their actions will kill them. Nor are all who attempt suicide are aiming to die; some are communicating with others. Thus we should look at both successful and unsuccessful attempts and adopt a broader definition of suicide as any deliberate act of self damage or potential self damage where the individual cannot be sure of survival.

Taylor suggests that a situation where the person is most likely to attempt suicide is those where there is complete certainty or uncertainty either about themselves or about others. This gives him four possible types of suicide. The first two types are inner or self directed suicides which Taylor calls ectopic, where the individual is psychologically detached from others. Because of this the suicide attempt is a private, self contained act. There are two types of ectopic suicide. Submissive suicides; where the person is certain about themselves. For example they may know they have no reason to go on, for example a terminal illness. Their suicide attempt is deadly serious, because they know they want to die. Thanatation suicides; where they are uncertain about themselves. For example they may be uncertain about what others think of them. Their suicide attempt involves risk taking, they may or may not survive it, chance will decide for example playing Russian roulette.

The other two types are other directed or symphysic suicides where the individual has an overwhelming attachment to some other person. For example they feel that the other gives them a reason for living. These suicides are not self contained but a way of communicating with others. There are two types. Sacrifice suicides; where they are certain about suicides and know they have to kill themselves. Like submissive suicides their attempt is deadly serious. Usually either they or the person has done something that makes it impossible for the person to go on living, for example betrayal through an affair. This suicide is a form of communication in which they may seek to blame the other for their death, usually so they will suffer guilt. Appeal suicides; where the person is uncertain about others. They have doubts about their importance to the other and attempt suicide to resolve the uncertainty. The attempt is a form of communication that seeks to change the others behaviour. Like Thanatation suicides they involve risk taking and uncertainty about the outcome. They are acts of despair and hope, combining the wish to die and things to change things for the better.

Taylor’s theory is based on his interpretations of the actors’ meanings and there is no way of knowing if these are correct, especially in the case of those who succeeded. Also individual cases may involve a combination of motives and may be difficult to categorise. Taylor’s small sample as case studies while useful in giving insight into motives is unlikely to be representative of suicides in general. Unlike Durkheim, Taylor has not connected the four types to wider social structures. However there are similarities between the two. Taylor’s ideas of certainty and uncertainty parallel Durkheim’s notions of fatalism and anomie respectively. Nevertheless his theory is original and useful in explaining some of the observed patterns of suicide such as why attempts differ in seriousness and why only some leave notes. It also deals with both failed and successful attempts.