These three currents of opinion- that an individual has a certain personality (egoism), that this personality would be sacrificed if the community needed it (altruism) and that the individual is aware of the ideas of social progress (anomie) exist in all societies. This pushes individuals into three different directions. When one of these factors becomes a lot stronger in the individual than the others- that’s when there’s a problem. This is a cause of self-inflicted death. This strength is also affected by a further three causes, the nature of individuals which make up the society, the way they associate and the things that happen to ‘disrupt collective’ life.
Durkheim had a huge interest in suicide, he researched the topic by reading many books and becoming familiar with the reasons for and the different factors that lead to it. He applied a sociological method to the way he went about his analysis. The book ‘Suicide’ gives us an insight into Durkheims mind and we can see how he thinks. He questioned social ethics in the 19th century. His work is based on the work of 18th century suicide authors. One of the important things Durkheim focuses in on distinguishing specifically is the separation between the level of rates of suicide and analysing individual cases of suicide. Statistics from the 19th century show that the rate of suicide shows an even distribution from year to year, with a predictable ‘fluctuation’ in different periods. However nearly all the relationships between suicide and society that Durkheim had used to state his points had already been used by writers before. He also says that he does not hold geography and biology responsible for suicide, he discusses these two in detail, but he looks to the social factor to explain suicide rates.
He divided his project into three parts. Firstly he looked at extra-social causes that have a possible effect on the suicide rates but in fact have little influence, secondly he determined the nature of social causes, and thirdly he looked at the “suicide aptitude” which looks at ‘collective tendencies’ and social facts. He decided to study the amount of suicides in each society and studied them sociologically.
Extra-Social Causes
He believes that there exists some psychological factor in the individual that inclines them to directly commit suicide. This varies from country to country. He also believes that some factors in the physical environment, for example climate or temperature, is an indirect affect. He also wanted to eliminate insanity for being a probable cause of suicide, so he attacked the fact that suicide is a type of insanity. He instead gave this the name ‘monomania’. This was a form of mental illness which leads to a simple act. He also claimed that suicides committed by the insane are not deliberate and are due to hallucinations. On these grounds he believed that many suicides are not connected to insanity.
Other conditions like alcoholism or neurasthenia are often associated with suicide. Durkheim felt that social suicide shows no relation to neurasthenia, and that this has no affect. He looked at the geographical distribution of alcohol and proved that the patterns in suicide and alcoholism bear no relation so this was also dismissed. The variety in suicide rates makes alcoholism to hard to prove as a social suicide.
He further examined psychological conditions such as race and heredity. If it was found that these psychological conditions are not causes of suicide than surely climate and temperature must come into it? In every country with statistics available, the suicide rate is higher in spring and summer than in autumn and winter.
Durkheim does not believe that suicide is committed in a state of excitation, he believes depression comes before it. There were again variations in this ‘seasonal’ theory.
Durkheim insisted that there was no other phenomenon so “contagious” as suicide. He dismissed ‘imitation’ as being a cause, he called it purely repetition, and claimed it had no intellectual or moral bond with the predecessors. He insisted that imitation has no effect on suicide whatsoever. “It only exposes a state which is the true generating cause of the act.”
The factor he found most decisive was that a sharp changing in the social environment is often followed by a sharp change in the suicide rate.
The way Durkheim argues seems to be by using an elimination process. He has tried to show that for every social group there is a tendency to be unexplanatory and he has tried to show it as being a collective phenomenon. This must mean that there would be social causes. Durkheim just simple disregarded the causes and looked to the “states of the various social environments” to base his argument.
Egoistic Suicide
Durkheim looked to religion. He tried to explain the fact that Protestantism had a higher suicide rate than Catholics and Jews. He again went about it by using elimination. He dismisses religious hostility because it is an object of public condemnation. Religious hostility leads people to rebel against it so this could not be an effect. He also says that the lower suicide rates of Catholics are not to do with the fact that they are minority.
Durkheim also says that he could not refer to the religion itself. This is because Protestantism only promotes free enquiry. The Jews are highly educated and have low suicide rates.
Religion, family and politics are all societies and protect man from suicide. Durkheim showed that marriage protected against suicide but this only counts for men. The chance of suicide also increases with the size of the family. By examining political studies, you can see that the rates of suicide increase as society matures and disintegrates. This answers the question. The rates drop during wars. Durkheim answers “These disturbances rouse collective sentiments, stimulate partisan spirit and patriotism, political and national faith alike, and concentrating activity toward a single end, at least temporarily cause a stronger integration of society.” Therefore suicide varies with the level of integration of the religious, domestic and political groups.
Altruistic Suicide
Altruistic suicide is accounted for because of an overly strong regulation of individuals. In the Hindu example I used earlier, the fact they are required to commit ritual suicide in the funeral of their husbands. Durkheim was trying to have a balance between the claims of the individuals and society, instead of just blaming the individual. “The altruist kills himself because he is unhappy. He seems sad because the individual does not seem realistic”. (Robert Alun Jones)
The difference with egoistic is that egoistic elevates the human personality. He still dismisses the influence of mental states on suicide. He is still set on the theory that suicide is to do with the moral make up of the societies in which they occur. He still claims that suicide is an exaggerated expression of behaviour.
Anomic Suicide
“Anomie is a constant and specific factor in suicide in our modern societies, it is one of the sources upon which the annual contingent is nourished”. (‘A typology of suicide’) According to Durkheim anomie is a ‘pathological’ phenomenon. This means that a certain level of anomie is needed in society to make progress.
Durkheim did not find a relationship between the type of suicide and the way the suicides came about. It is true that the way it came about is linked to social causes. Therefore the mode of suicidal act and the nature of suicide itself are not related. I think Durkheim’s elimination process to try and prove that suicide was inversely related to the level of integration in society was an attempt to come up with some new explanation for the phenomenon that is suicide.
Bibliography
1. Durkheim, Emile. Suicide: a study in sociology / translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson edited with an introduction by George Simpson, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952
2. Coser, Lewis A. Masters Of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Sociological Context (2nd Edition), Fort Worth, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc, 1977, Pg 132-136
3. Jones, Robert A. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works, Beverly Hills CA, Sage Publications Inc, 1986, Pg 82-114
4. Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971, Pg 82-94