Using Item A and elsewhere, assess different sociological explanations of suicide

Later positivist approaches from Gibbs and Martin, have criticised Durkheim’s typology, because integration is hard to define and therefore hard to conceptualise and measure, and therefore sought to define it as a situation where there are stable and long lasting relationships, which happens when there is status integration, for example when a person’s educational attainment level are compatible with their occupation, and they predict that in societies where there is little status integration, there will be a higher rate of suicide. Durkheim’s method has also since been criticised because when Durkheim was studying suicide rates, there wasn’t the technology to determine whether a death was a suicide or not, and autopsies were still rarely performed, however, this only criticises his methodology, rather than his original premise that suicide has social causes and leads to social patterns that can be predicted scientifically.

Interpretevists have heavily criticised the idea of being able to study suicide scientifically, on the grounds that we should study suicides by the meanings attached to the death given by the victim or the deceased, which is what is argued by Douglas. Douglas criticised Durkheim on two grounds: The use of suicide statistics isn’t scientific, because the way the coroner labels a death as a suicide is subject to bias from other actors i.e. family, police and friends. He argued that the reason why there could be a low number of high integration suicides is because family members may cover it up due to the guilt or purely being in denial that they would commit suicide. Douglas also criticises Durkheim for ignoring the meanings that suicide has for the deceased, and for arguing that there are fixed and social causes for suicide, for example a Japanese warrior and western business man facing financial ruin may attach different meanings of suicide for them, which can differ greatly from culture. Douglas argued that we should find the meanings from interviewing family and friends of the deceased to get the true meanings behind the suicide, rather than using official statistics that have been created by the coroners. However, Douglas criticises himself this way because he argues that the meanings aren’t always valid from coroners, and there’s no reason why Douglas may be any better at categorising a death as a suicide any more than the coroner. He also argued that family may cover up the suicide, and therefore sets himself back again when he says interviews should be conducted with the families. Atkinson, another interpretevists agreed with Douglas’ first point but not second. He argued that it is impossible to find the real rate of suicide, so it is pointless trying, so instead focuses on how coroners label deaths as suicide, through the use of qualitative research. He argues that coroners have a common sense knowledge of suicide, meaning they know who are the type to commit suicide, using suicide notes if there is one, mode of death, as hanging via rope is typical suicide whereas walking into traffic can be debatable, as well as drug overdoses, whether or not they were accidental, as is the case with Marilyn Monroe. Therefore the way suicides are labelled as suicides are as a result of these taken for granted common sense points. Criticisms of Atkinson are the same as Douglas’ as it is self-defeating as there is no reason why we should accept Atkinson’s interpretation over anyone else’s.

Taylor mixes both positivism and interpretevism, for example he believes that there are social underlying causes to explain suicide, but he disregards the use of statistics, and believes that we can reveal the structures through the observable evidence, and he used case studies to discover the underlying structures of meaning that cause suicide, and came up with the idea of realism. Taylor criticises Durkheim’s definitions of suicide because he says that the victims are intending to definitely killing themselves, whereas Taylor focuses on successful and unsuccessful attempts, where there is room to say that there isn’t always intent there, as not all people who attempt suicide want to die, but rather are trying to communicate with others of their own personal struggles. Taylor comes up with a typology of suicide, the first two are ectopic meaning they are to do with the self, and the other two are symphysic which are to do with other people. Ectopic: Submissive suicides, are where the person is certain of themselves, they know they will not make it in the world so definitely want to die, and the other is thanatation suicide, where the person is uncertain of themselves, and their suicide attempt involves risk taking and uncertainty. The symphysic ones are: Sacrifice suicides, and appeal suicides. A sacrifice suicide is where they are certain of another person, who may have hurt them in some way and must feel guilt by making them feel like they caused the suicide, and it is a deadly serious attempt. Appeal suicides, are where the person is uncertain of others, and have doubts of their importance to someone and their attempt is a mix between wanting to die and wanting to change things for the better, to then realise how important they are to others. The positives of Taylor’s theory is that it offers explanation on successful and unsuccessful attempts of suicide, whereas others only focus on successful attempts on the meanings and causes of those. However, it is still impossible to conclusively categorise a death as a suicide, even more so when the attempt succeeded because there is no way of gaining the true meaning, as many who attempt and fail, report that they feel ashamed, so can come up with other meanings to justify their actions.  Also, it becomes a problem when a death could be categorised as different types of suicide as it requires more interpretation and therefore more potential for failure and over complication.

In conclusion, the evidence suggests that the realist method is the best way to explain the causes of suicide, because the evidence is broadened out to look at successful and unsuccessful attempts and recognises that suicide statistics are soft statistics, which positivists fail to do.