Theory and methods

What can sociology contribute to an understanding of suicide?

Sociology is the science of society; its techniques were created and developed by Comte and Durkheim. Sociology techniques have been applied to the social issue of suicide to try to find out the reasons behind certain groups and types of people commit suicide. The leading person into research about suicide is Emile Durkheim, he took Comte theoretic ideas about applying the natural science methods to find a positive science of society and create rules that he tested in his research into suicide around the world.

Emile Durkheim performed a world-recognised piece of research into suicide in the late 18th century; in this research he applied the methods and rules of sociology that he developed in his first book ‘The Rules of Sociology Methods’. The method he used to research into suicide was statistical secondary data in the form of official public statistics from around the world. This data suggested that suicide rates were influence by certain social factors and when an individual is exposed to them the end result maybe a death. Durkheim found that suicides rates variety from time to time and place to place. Durkheim’s research found that suicide rates were higher in towns then they were in the countryside, higher in richer than poorer countries and higher amongst Protestants then Catholics. Durkheim concluded that the people who are prone to suicide all fit into four different types of suicide. He then applies these types of suicides to different types of social conditions. The first suicide type Durkheim identified was ‘althrutistic suicide’; Durkheim claims this occurs when an individual has a close connection with a group and holds a strong sense of solidarity and would perform any selfless act for the group. This is mainly found in the ancient societies. The second suicide type Durkheim identified was ‘Egoistic suicide’; Durkheim claims this occurs when an individuals social ties are weaken or not existence, these people are usually withdraw from group activates and are usually isolated. This is mainly found in the ancient societies. The third suicide type Durkheim identified was ‘anomic suicide’; Durkheim claims this occurs when a group of people who have shared norm and values are weakened by rapid social change, which creates uncertainty in the group’s members. This is mainly found in the modern societies. The fourth suicide type Durkheim identified was ‘ fatalistic suicide’; Durkheim claims this occurs when societies are oppressed and the individuals have no rights and their sprits are so broken that they believe their only way out of this nightmare is death. This is mainly found in modern societies.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Maurice Halbwachs was influenced and holds similar views to Durkheim; he was one of Durkheim students and also researched into suicide rates in the western world, by using secondary statistical records. Halbwachs blames societies withdrawal from religion, and also the effect industrialisation and urbanisation had and still has on the society organisation. This is similar to Durkheim theory that a person’s suicide is influenced by certain social conditions they are exposed too. While performing his research into suicide in Europe Halbwachs found that suicide rates were closely linked to how developed an area was. If an area had a good economy and was highly industrialised the suicide rate was high compared to the suicide rates of those who lived in less industrialised areas. Similar to Durkheim research into suicide Halbwachs found that between the two Christian religions groups, people in the Protestant community had a high tendency to commit suicide than people in the Catholic community. Halbwachs also found that in certain areas in Germany urban Catholics had higher suicide tendency then rural Protestants. During Halbwachs research a miscarriage of justice was occurring in France, this was the Dreyfus affect. Halbwachs found and proved that the crisis had an effect on the suicide rates in France; he claimed that the suicide rate changed according to the development in the case and returned to normal after the crisis was over.

Peter Sainbury attempted to correlate the social characteristics from the London Boroughs with their suicide rates. Sainbury found significant correlations between the London Boroughs suicide rates and certain characteristics, these characteristics are similar and can be viewed as the same two of the types of suicide identified by Durkheim in his suicide research. The first characteristic Sainbury found that contributes to a person attempting suicide was ‘social isolation’, which Sainbury measured by the proportion of people living alone and in boarding houses. This characteristic is similar to Durkheim second view on a type of people who commit suicide; Durkheim would use the term ‘egoistic’ to describe a person who is ‘social isolation’. The second characteristic Sainbury found that contributes to a person attempting suicide was ‘geographical and social mobility’ he measured this by the turn of the proportion of immigrants. Durkheim would use the term ‘anomic’ to describe developments in geographical and social mobility. The third characteristic Sainbury found that contributes to a person attempting suicide was ‘social disorganisation’ he measured this disorganisation by looking into secondary data sources of rates of divorce and legitimacy. Durkheim would use the term ‘anomic’ to describe diversity and choice in society.

Jack Douglas is a critic of Durkheim suicide research he claims that his suicide research was based on a variation in suicide rates. Douglas claims that these rates were obtained from a number of public records such as government records, coroners’ records and parish records. Douglas criticises these 19-century official statistics as unreliable answer to the reasons behind the dead person intentions. Douglas claims that these records are ‘at best’ the records made about the intention of those who have died by official people in society. Douglas agrees with Durkheim’s claim that suicide rates vary from time to time and place to place, but Douglas go further then Durkheim and claims that the meanings imposed on a death change over time and vary in place to place. Douglas criticises Durkheim uses of these records and claims that these records are in fact the records of verdict reached by the social powerful about a person, who is unable to give reasons for their death.

J. Gibbs & W. Martin are supports of Durkheim’s and Halbwachs research into suicide and claims that suicide should be studied using scientific statistical data. Gibbs and Martin criticises Durkheim for deviating from his own methodological recommendation of comparing one social factor with another. Gibbs and Martin claim that his concept ‘integration’ cannot be directly observed or measured due to no-one being able to see an individuals ties to society in any physical sense, they also claim that integration is impossible to show that a lack of it can lead to a high suicide rate in society. Gibbs and Martin concluded by claiming that Durkheim’s research isn’t positivist enough and is not scientific enough to be reliable.

Steve Taylor takes a realist approach to his suicide research, he criticises Gibbs and Martin claims that Durkheim research into suicide was ineffective due to their claims that integration into society cannot be measured. Taylor pay tribute to Durkheim research into suicide and claims that it is from a realist view rather then a positivist view, due to the research involving an investigation into the underlying causes of the relationships between the things that are observed. Taylor does however criticise Durkheim use of official suicide rates statistics, as Taylor holds that these statistics are inappropriate source for research into society. Taylor himself performs his own research into suicide and used the sociological method of examining case studies performed by actors and finding the intentions within the contexts of their immediate situations. Taylor performed a study suicide on the London Underground; he wanted to investigate what factors would make the cause of death given by the social powerful be given as suicide. Taylor’s research suggested that the cause of death verdict and suicide rates and statistics made by the social powerful could be influenced by factors other then the victims mind at the present time. Which makes the statistics used by Durkheim in his research unreliable and should not be taken at face value. Taylor disagrees with the phenomenology claim that suicide is caused by social causes, but take the position of a realist and claims that to study and explain suicide rates research needs to be underlying, observable structures or causable process

In 2004 Taylor criticised his own research method in his suicide research and claimed that case studies don’t provide a representative sample of the whole society, and that when he was perform the examinations into these case studies he failed to investigate the movement from the immediate suicide to the immediate situation of the wider social contexts. Where Taylor believed he might have found the wider levels of causality of these suicides, and claims that his work was not sufficiently realist.

In conclusion sociology methods can be used to find answers into issues that are usually difficult to research into, due to the high level of emotions involved in these cases. The leading researcher into suicide is that of the positivist Emile Durkheim, he was the first research to apply sociology methods to research into suicide. Durkheim uses of secondary public statistics has been widely criticised by fellow positivists, phenomenology and realist researchers, due their view that the 19 century statistics are unreliable and just assumptions made by the social powerful.