In his approach to deviance and criminality, Durkheim departed from the conventional path. Previously, most criminologists perceived crime as a pathological or physiological phenomenon, seeking psychological or biological causalities in the mind and body of the criminal and essentially neglected to consider external forces. Durkheim viewed crime as normal in terms of its consequences. Crime was normal, in that no society could enforce total conformity to its injunctions. If society could, it would be so repressive as to leave no leeway for the social contributions of individuals. He saw deviance from the norms of society as necessary if society is to remain flexible and open to change and adaptation (Coser, 1977). His most notable ‘positivistic’ study, ‘Suicide’ was first published in 1897. ‘Positivism’ attempts to emulate the scientific process of analysing evidence and apply this framework to humans and their behaviour. Essentially, observing measurable statistical information, in an attempt to establish human laws. Fundamentally, Durkheim facilitated the social phenomenon of ‘suicide’ as a vehicle for projecting his personal methodological approach. Suicide is regarded as the most common of individual actions, which Durkheim believed was influenced by the ‘social collective’ and not as a result of psychological causalities as other studies had tried to imply.
In an attempt to disprove the psychological hypothesis, he sought evidence that would identify the social nature of suicide. This was facilitated through the availability of suicide-rate statistical data collated from a variety of societies located within European countries. From this quantitative research, now termed ‘multivariate analysis’, he devised three conclusions. Within single societies the incidence or rate of suicide remains constant over time, the suicide rate varies between societies and that the suicide rate varies between different groups within the same society. However, “Durkheim did not deny that particular circumstances would lead to a particular person taking his or her own life, but personal reasons could not account for the suicide rate” (Haralambos et al, 1995, pp819:2). In an endeavour to refute the claim that there was a relationship between the incidents of insanity and the suicide rate, he examined data compiled from members of the Jewish community who had reportedly higher rate of insanity than other religious groups. On conclusion, he found that they had considerable lower rates of suicide (Durkheim, 1952: 166-168). He discovered that a collective tendency or social force, beyond the individual’s control, was evident, for if suicide was an entirely individual act, how would such patterns emerge?
“In one sense, few cases of death exist which are not immediately or distantly due to some act of the subject. The causes of death are outside rather than within us, and are effective only if we venture into their sphere of activity" (1897b: 43). Also, "Collective tendencies have an existence of their own; they are forces as real as cosmic forces, though of another sort; they, likewise, affect the individual from without..." (Thompson, 1982, p. 109 [excerpt from Suicide]).
Durkheim proposed this definition of suicide: "the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result" (ibid: .110 [excerpt from Suicide]), in an endeavour to eliminate the cases of ‘accidental death’. In an attempt to refine his research results, he disregarded other possible causalities, such as climate, heredity, alcoholism and psychological explanations of suicide, which failed to explain variations of rates across populations. He did however acknowledge that certain individuals may possess a predisposition to psychological causalities. His study found no identifiable correlation between the mental state of an individual and the occurrence of the act. However, other identifiable social facts, such as religion and marital status did pose a correlation to suicide rates. He argued that the weakening of religious traditionalism ‘simultaneously reinforces the need to know and the penchant to suicide’ (1897a: 131-152). Suicide rates were higher in predominantly Protestant countries, whose members were less likely to belong to a community unified by a commitment to religious beliefs and practices, opposed to those based on Catholicism, supported by the low-rates of suicide in Bavaria. An area of Germany with the highest number of Roman Catholics. This could be explained in terms of the elements of religious faith. Catholicism integrates members more, unified by religious beliefs and who defines the act and the assisting of it as ‘mortal sin’, if they are done freely and with full deliberation. Also, married people were generally more prone to ‘suicide’ than those individuals who were single. In an attempt to explain the consistency of suicide rates, Durkheim hypothesised that there was a direct correlation between the levels of social integration in a society or group and the proclivity of suicide. Arguing that suicide was related to the nature of the bonds between self and society, and that when desires can no longer be satisfied, suicide is the natural conclusion (Jones, 2001, pp157:3).
Also, either excessive or deficient levels of social forces, ‘social integration’ and ‘moral regulation’ leads to four "ideal types" of suicide: In an ‘Egoistic’ societies, based on rights, liberty, welfare and low levels of ‘social integration’, such as America, social bonds are weak. Stress is placed on the individual, to make their own decisions and look after those that are close to them at the expense of the wider society. ‘Egoistic suicide’ is a direct result of ‘excessive individualism’ amongst individuals with few social-ties. This accounts for the high amounts of suicide rates amongst young males. That is, when individuals become detached from the values and expectations shared by those around them, a low degree of integration gives rise to a high suicide rate (Bilton, et al, 1988, pp 491:3). The present decline in marriage and the social solidarity and stability it creates, could explain high levels of ‘egoistic suicide’. Occurring at the opposite end of the social integration axis, excessive integration produces ‘Altruistic suicide’. Where individuals become completely immersed within their social group, “so highly integrated that in effect the individual has little or no value”, (Bilton et al, 1988, pp 492:2). Individuals become willing to ‘self- scarification’, often associated with members of a cult, religious sect or military actions taken by soldiers. The self-annihilation that the person feels will serve a social purpose, such as the self-immolations practiced by Buddhist monks during the Vietnam War (Davidson et al, 1994). Also, a study conducted by Haddad (2004, pp337-363) compared public perceptions regarding suicide bombings using data from two surveys of Palestinian refugees and Lebanese Muslims. The data revealed that approval of suicide operations is more pronounced among Lebanese than Palestinians. For both samples, the most important determinant of support for suicide attacks is attachment to political Islam. The greater the commitment to political Islam the more likely respondents are to endorse suicide activities. It should be noted however, that the impact of political Islam is more evident among Palestinians than Lebanese.
An imbalance of the social force of ‘moral regulation’, according to Durkheim, produces ‘Anomic’ and ‘fatalistic’ suicides. ‘Anomic suicide’ occurs when society’s members have lost the normative order by which their behaviour and expectations are regulated. When society has lost its ability to regulate the moral order, when there is a lack of a clear definition of norms, individuals have little to guide them and no longer derive a sense of satisfaction about their social position (Bilton et al, 1986, pp 493:1). ‘Fatalistic Suicide’ is a result of excessive ‘moral regulation’. Restriction upon the individual’s life and liberty, such as slavery, gave rise to fatalism. However, Durkheim gave little attention to this sub-category of suicide, based on it’s relevancy to more historic models of society.
Criticisms by others who have adopted a ‘Positivist’ methodology suggest that Durkheim failed to define the concept of ‘integration’ in a sufficiently precise and measurable way (Gibbs et al, 1964). Suggesting that an integrated society exhibits stable and durable relationships and that these are most likely to occur when the individual has compatible statuses (cited in Bilton et al, 1986, pp 494:1). They believed that ‘status integration’ could be used as an indicator of ‘social integration’. ‘Status integration’ is the degree to which individuals occupy sets of social roles that are commonly found together, such as employment and family. The greater degree of ‘social integration, the lower the suicide rate will be (Haralambos et al, 1995, pp821:3).
Academic criticisms have been suggested by sociologists preferring a more interpretive methodology, that Durkheim’s use of and over-reliance on statistical data invalidates his study. Symbolic Interactionism, a social action theory, posits that ‘actions’ are based upon ‘meanings’, focusing on the situational dynamics out of which meanings emerge and sees society as the product of the everyday interactions of individuals. Interpretive theories of suicide, rooted in the ‘micro perspective’ of Symbolic Interactionism (Weber, 1864-1920), have been proposed by Douglas (1967, p 154) who questioned the reliability of statistical data and suggests that systematic bias may enter the decision process, which could explain Durkheim’s findings. “The decision as to whether a sudden death is suicide is made by a coroner and is influenced by other people such as the family and friends of the deceased” (cited in Haralambos et al, 1995, pp821:6). Also, Douglas (1967, p 185) cites an American coroner who refused to label a death as suicide unless a note was found with the body. Another criticism posed by Douglas, is Durkheim’s failure to investigate the meanings attached to the act by the victim and the differentiating cultural meanings of ‘suicide’. However, ‘Symbolic Interactionism’ also has its weaknesses. Its micro-orientation sometimes results in the error of ignoring the influence of the larger social structures and overlooks the effects of culture and class.
‘Phenomenological’ theorists such as Atkinson (1971) completely reject quantitative methodology and suggest that some individuals after their deaths are predominantly labelled as ‘suicides’, merely because of a set of pre-judgemental and perhaps incorrect assumptions made by coroners. Not being employed is known to be associated with death by suicide, but it is unclear whether this association is causal. Lower socioeconomic position has also been associated with increased suicide risk, with some studies suggesting that this association is attributable to confounding by labour force status. In his recent study, ‘Unemployment and Suicide: Evidence for a Causal Association? (Atkinson et al, 2003, pp 594-600) attempted to determine the independent association of labour force status and socioeconomic position with death by suicide. This was achieved by a cohort study assembled by anonymous and probabilistic record linkage of census and mortality records, over a three year period. Among 25–44 year old men and women and 45–64 year old men there was an approximately twofold to threefold excess risk of suicide among the unemployed compared with the employed. Among 18 to 24 year old men, an increased risk of suicide was associated with lower school qualifications, lower household income, and unemployment.
Despite these results, there were few suicides among 18 to 24 year old women, and no pattern of suicide by labour force status or socioeconomic factors was evident (ibid: pp592:2). However, marital status and labour force status remained strong predictors of suicide death. Unemployment was also strongly associated with suicide death among 18–24 year old men. Sensitivity analyses suggested that confounding by mental illness might explain about half, but not all, of the association between unemployment and suicide. To conclude, unemployment was associated with a twofold to threefold increased relative risk of death by suicide, compared with being employed. This study of the New Zealand adult population finds that unemployment is strongly associated with suicide.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is clear that the development of Sociology, a systematic study of human society, clearly helps us to identify individuals within a social context. Despite the effective combination of sociological theory and empiricism to explain the social phenomenon of ‘suicide’, quantitative research is problematic in nature. Initially, there are cultural differences in the classification and recording of ‘suicide’ deaths and the meanings attached. Durkheim has also been accused of failing to question the validity of the statistics supplied. Consideration should also be given to the subjective reasons and emotions which could conceive such an individualistic and subversive action, to take ones life, which ‘Positivism’ fails to examine. It also fails to provide valid explanations in relation to particular types of suicide. Such as those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness, who subsequently decide to end their life, in a bid to escape suffering. Suicidal behaviour has emerged in this context as a way of achieving death with dignity. Euthanasia has also attracted fierce debate surrounding its causal influence. Also, other forms of ‘suicide’, committed by those with a mental illness, such as depression and paranoia. Although, some may argue that depression is a direct result of external forces beyond the individual’s control. Above all, there are certain types of ‘suicide’ which his study completely fails to consider, that may be a direct result of social integration; those created by the effects of bullying, which occur during normal levels of social integration to institutions such as education and employment. Despite the various criticisms posed by differing approaches, Durkheim’s study has profoundly dominated the field, resulting in suicide being relatively understudied until recently. Although, a more favourable approach, ‘social action’ theory applies consideration to the actual motives and meanings for suicidal tendencies. Undoubtedly, social forces beyond the individuals control such as economic fluctuations in society are influential. However, it may be contested that Durkheim’s central explanatory hypothesis- that when social conditions fail to provide people with the necessary goals and/or rules at the appropriate levels of intensity, their socio-psychological health is impaired and the most vulnerable of which commit suicide, raises more questions than it answers.
Bibliography
Atkinson, J (1971). ‘Societal Reactions to suicide: The Role of Coroners’ Definitions’, in Cohen, S (eds), ‘Images of Deviance’:Harmandsworth, Penguin.
Atkinson, J, Blakely, T.A & Collings, S.C.D, (2003). ‘Unemployment and Suicide: Evidence from a Causal Association?’ Journal of Epidemiology Community Health. Vol. 57, pp594-600.
Atkinson, J (1971). ‘Discovering Suicide’, London: MacMillan.
Bilton, T, Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Stanworth, M., Sheard, K., Webster, A., (1988). ‘Introductory Sociology’. Second Edition: Macmillan Education.
Descartes, Rene, (1999). ‘Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy’, tr. by Donald A. Cress (Hackett).
Douglas, J (1967). ‘Understanding Everyday Life’ (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1971). ‘The Social Meaning of Suicide’: Princeton University Press.
Durkheim, E (1964). ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’, New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, E (1970). ‘Suicide’ (ed. Simpson, G), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, (first published in 1897).
Gibbs, J. and Martin, W., (1964). ‘Status Integration and Suicide’. University of Oregon Press, Oregon.
Jones, P., (2003). ‘Introducing Social Theory’. Polity, London.
Jones, S.S., (2001). ‘Durkheim Reconsidered’: Polity, London.
Ritzer, G.,(1992). ‘Sociological Theory’, third edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, HM24 R4938.
Sacks, H (1963). ‘Sociological Description’. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, pp 8:2
Selvin, H (1965). ‘Durkheim’s “Suicide”: Further Thoughts on a Methodological Classic’, in Nisbit, R (eds), ‘Emile Durkheim’, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Davidson, G.C. and Neale, J.M., (1994). ‘Abnormal Psychology’, 6th Edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Journals
Haddad, S., (2004). ‘A Comparative Study of Lebanese and Palestinian Perceptions of Suicide Bombers: The Role of Militant Islam and Socio-economic Status’. International Journal of Comparative Sociology. Vol, 45. No. 5, pp 337-363.
