SuicideDurkheim used his study of suicide to prove

sociology is a science. There are observable

patterns to human behaviour which can be

explained.

Suicide Rates as Social Facts

Durkheim believes our behaviour is caused by social facts - social

forces found in the structure of society. Lukes identifies three

features of social facts…

1. They are external to individuals

2. They constrain individuals, thereby shaping their behaviour

3. They are greater than individuals; they exist on a different

‘level’

Social Patterns

Durkheim, a positivist, compared suicide rates for different societies

and discovered four regular patterns…

1. Suicide rates in any society remain more or less constant

2. When the rate did change, it coincided with other changes in wider

society (economic depression, war, prosperity booms)

3. Different societies have different rates

4. Within a society, rates varied between social groups (for example,

single/widowed/childless individuals have a higher rate than those

who are married and/or have children)

Conclusion

So, Durkheim concluded that suicide cannot just be

the result of individual motives. He proves this by

pointing out that the population of Paris is constantly

changing and the French army, too, is made up of

different individuals as the years go by. But, in both

cases, suicide rates remained constant.

Therefore he believes in each group and society, the

forces act with differing degrees of intensity.

Durkheim devised four types of suicide…

Type Cause Motivation Example Society

Egoistic Too little social

integration

• Individualism

• Social

detachment

Protestants Modern

Altruistic Too much social

integration

• Collectivism

• Calm duty of

duty (e.g.

Hindu women

are expected

to perform

‘sati’ when

their husbands

die so they

aren’t a

burden)

Military

Religious Martyr

Leader/Follower

Traditional, pre-

industrial

Anomic Too little moral

regulation

• Frustration

• Inability to

adapt to social

change (e.g.

the Wall St

Crash)

Divorce

Economic booms

(come about

quicker than can

be fulfilled)

Modern

Fatalistic Too much moral

regulation

• Overly

disciplines

lifestyle

• Lack of

personal

freedom

Slavery Traditional, pre-

industrial

Positivist Responses

Halbwachs (one of Durkheim’s students!) largely confirms Durkheim’s

findings. However, he argues the main reason for variation in suicide

rates is differences between rural and urban dwellers. Similarly,

Sainsbury found suicide rates in London boroughs were highest in

places of social disorganisation.

Gibbs and Martin argue Durkheim’s concept of integration is not

operationalised (measurable or testable). They define integration as a

situation with stable and lasting relationships. They use their idea of

status integration to show that in places where there is such integration,

suicide rates are lower. This is because compatible statuses do not

conflict with one another.

Criticisms

Many of the statistics Durkheim used were incomplete and

unreliable as autopsies were rare in the 19th century

Many countries in the 19th century lacked the sophisticated,

modern administrative system to collect and compile results

on a national scale

Interpretivists

Interpretivists believe behaviour is the result of each individual’s

subjective interpretations and interactions with others. They believe

official statistics are socially constructed and they tell us nothing about

the reasons for behaviour. Douglas criticises Durkheim in 2 ways…

Use of suicide statistics Actor’s meanings and qualitative data

Decisions to classify a death as a

suicide is made by the coroner and

influenced by other social actors (family,

friends). Highly integrated individuals

may not want to label a death as suicide.

So, social integration actually increases

the likelihood of a death being labelled

and recorded as suicide

Durkheim ignores personal meaning,

which varies between individuals and

cultures. So, they must be understood

within their own social and cultural

context. We should use qualitative data

to build a typology of suicidal meanings

to the deceased

Douglas: the Meaning of

Suicide

Transformation of the self:

Repentance suicide

Suicide as a self-punishment to

show repentance for wrong doing

Transformation of the soul:

Escape suicide

Suicide as a means of escaping the

misery of life

Revenge suicide Suicide to attach guilt and blame to

those who wronged them

Sympathy suicide Suicide as a ‘cry for help’, often

found among attempted suicide

(hope they will be found in time)

Criticisms

No reason to believe sociologists can interpret a

deceased person’s meaning better than a coroner

He is inconsistent: how can we discover the

causes of suicide if we don’t know if a death is a

suicide, and we only have a coroner’s opinion?

Sainsbury and Barraclough found statistics

actually reflect real differences between groups.

For example, immigrants’ in the USA suicide rate

correlated closely with the rate for their countries

of origin, despite different labellers.

Douglas’ Methods in Action

Baechler argues suicide is a way of responding to and trying to solve a

problem. He identifies 4 main types…

Escapist Suicide Flight from an intolerable situation,

response to grief/loss, self-punishment

Aggressive Suicide Vengeance to make another feel guilty,

blackmail, appeal

Ludic Suicide Taking deliberate risks which might lead

to death (e.g. ordeal, playing Russian

Roulette)

Oblative Suicide To achieve something, sacrificing

yourself, transfiguraton (e.g. to join a

loved one)

Ethnomethodology

Atkinson agrees with Douglas that official statistics are the

construct/labels coroners give to deaths, but reject his ideas of

qualitative data being able to discover the meanings of suicide. For

Atkinson, we can never know the real rate of suicide; it is impossible to

know for sure people’s meanings so all we can study is how people

make sense of their world. We need to know: “How do deaths get

categorised as suicide?”

From his research, he concludes coroners have a commonsense theory

about the typical suicide. This theory leads them to believe 4 pieces of

evidence are relevant: a suicide note; the mode of death; location and

circumstances; life history.

Evaluation

Coroners regard these as clues. Therefore, he concludes coroners are

engaged in analysing cases using taken-for-granted assumptions about

what constitutes a ‘typical suicide’. Nevertheless, he is criticised…

Hindless criticises ethnomethodology for being self-defeating. If all we

have is interpretations of the social world, than ethnomethodologists

accounts are more than interpretations, which they claim a coroners

opinion is. Why should we accept an ethnomethodologists opinion over

a coroners opinion if both are interpretations?

However, most ethnomethodologists accept this, and don’t claim to have

superior interpretations to those they are studying.

Realist Approaches

Like interpretivists, Taylor believes suicide rates cannot be taken as valid. However, like positivists, he still believes we can explain suicide. Taylor found that out of 32 people hit by a London tube train, over half resulted in suicide despite there being no conclusive evidence. So, Taylor aims to reveal underlying causes and structures.He dispels a number of myths about suicide:

People who talk about suicide are likely to actually commit it. They usually give others a warning of their intention

There is no evidence to support the idea that people who commit suicide are mentally ill

Amongst survivors, first opportunity re-attempts are very rare

Responses with no sympathy and concern increase the likelihood of the actor attempting suicide again

Taylor’s Typology

Inner-directed

suicide

Other-directed

suicide

Certainty Submissive Suicide:

“I give in”

Sacrifice Suicide:

“You killed me”

Uncertainty Thanatation Suicide:

“Should I live?”

Appeal Suicide: “Do

you want me to live?”

Evaluation

Taylor is original and useful in explaining some observed patterns.

He also accounts for failed and successful attempts

There is no way of being certain about actor’s meanings as there

may be multiple motives

He used small samples, so this study is likely to be unrepresentative

Similarities

Taylor’s idea of certainty and uncertainty parallels

with Durkheim’s idea of fatalism and anomie

Taylor’s idea of self-directed and other-directed

parallels with Durkheim’s egoistic and altruistic