Durkheim studied suicide rates across societies to understand their social causes. He found patterns indicating a social influence, since individual decisions alone would not produce regularities. Durkheim argued suicide varies with social integration: more integrated societies have lower rates. However, critics argue Durkheim's scientific methods cannot capture the subjective meanings of suicide or how official classifications are socially constructed. Interpretive sociologists emphasize understanding suicide through how people interpret their world.

1. The Sociology of Suicide<br />Suicide is in many ways the ultimate deviant act, as it destroys the single most important element of society – the people in it.<br />This area of sociology focuses on positivists who believe in following the methods of the natural sciences, and the interpretive sociologists, who prefer to explore the way society is constructed through peoples interactions.<br />Suicide: A Scientific Approach<br />Durkheim’s study of suicide<br />Durkheim (1987/1952) chose to study suicide in an attempt to prove that the (then) new subject of sociology could provide an explanation for an act that seemed to be very opposite of what could be considered social.<br />By proving that sociology had something useful to say in explaining suicide, Durkheim hoped to secure the status of sociology amongst the newly emerging sciences.<br />This attempt to locate sociology as a science, with its adherence to more social-scientific methods of research, is crucial in understanding how Durkheim tackled the issue.<br />He used a technique now called ‘multivariate analysis’, which consisted of comparing the incidence of various social factors with the frequency of a particular event – in this case suicide.<br />He therefore studied the statistics of suicide that he collected from death certificates and other official documents and found a number of clear patterns.<br />Over 20 years, patterns of suicide varied across countries, regions, religions and social groups.<br />These regularities supported Durkheim’s argument that there was a social explanation for suicide, because if it was an individual matter based on individual decisions, no such patterns would exist.To explain these patterns, Durkheim used the theme of shared values and social cohesion.<br />He argued people are naturally selfish and are not concerned by the problems faced by others, unless society forces them to be – this is achieved by making people aware of their social bonds to others.<br />Greater social integration means a more harmonious society, which in turn achieves forms of social control by drawing people together on the basis of common values taught through the family & reinforced by religion (120 years ago).<br />Durkheim argued that individuals who feel most closely integrated into society are those with close family relationship and vice versa.<br />Religion is said to provide morals and shared values, but also varying levels of individual fulfilment: Protestants give great importance to individual fulfilment, while Hinduism and Catholicism stress the importance of the group. <br />The significance of family and religion in societies resulted in varying degrees of integration with Protestant being less and Hindu/Catholic being more integrated. <br />Durkheim’s categorisation of societies<br />Durkheim argued that suicide is directly related to levels of integration in society; as a result he placed societies into four categories depending upon their levels of social integration.<br />Egoistic – individual rights and welfare are of great importance while allegiance to the group is weak; people are encouraged to look after themselves so social bonds and integration are weak. Egoistic societies are closely related to Protestantism. Culturally, individual failure or unhappiness are viewed as acceptable grounds for people to take their own lives – egoistic suicide. This is typical of European and North American societies. However, there are social institutions that do provide a sense of belonging, e.g. other forms of religion such as Catholicism. In his analysis of the two religions, Durkheim felt that higher rates of suicide were found in Protestantism ‘because of it being a less strongly integrated church than the Catholic Church’. Durkheim also notes that in times of threat societies are drawn together e.g. 9/11 or particularly cruel murders. Durkheim argued high suicide rates = low social cohesion. Those integrated in families or religious groups are less likely to commit suicide, e.g. married person is less likely to take their own life than a single person.<br />Altruistic – welfare of individual far less important than that of the group, so there is less motivation for suicide apart form one exception. Altruistic suicide is said to occur when a person sacrifices their own life out of a sense of duty to others, i.e. they believe their own suicide will actually benefit wider society. Examples of this type of suicide include Hindu widows who would kill themselves at their husband’s funeral (a practice known as suttee) and suicide bombers. In this case individuals were said to be so integrated into society that they would make the ultimate sacrifice for the benefit of others. Egoistic on the other hand commit suicide because of individual unhappiness.<br />Anomic – Durkheim argued people are naturally selfish and will look after their own interests unless society restricts their actions by providing a framework of what is acceptable. If this weakens people may revert to selfishness or become bewildered. Durkheim argued that this is most likely to occur in periods of rapid social change. Therefore increases in suicide rates can be linked to times of rapid social change – anomic suicide<br />Fatalistic – in extremely oppressive societies people may lose the will to live and prefer to die. Durkheim described such deaths as the ‘suicide of persons with futures pitilessly blocked and passions violently choked by oppressive discipline’. Durkheim considered such fatalistic suicide a rare occurrence, but it could be argued that it accounts for the very high levels of suicide in prisons and historically the lives of slaves. <br />Internal Criticisms of Durkheim<br />Durkheim’s work was widely used for 70 years as an excellent example of how to conduct positivistic sociological analysis but he has faced criticisms from those who agree with his approach.<br />His analysis focuses on social cohesion but he never defines it nor provides a method for measuring it.<br />He claimed cohesion was linked family & religion but provides no way to prove or disprove his theory – something that is key in the debate about sociology and science.<br />Durkheim used official statistics, yet these are open to dispute, e.g. in Catholic countries suicide is regarded with great stigma so doctors are reluctant to put this as a reason for death. <br />Interpretive Criticisms of the Scientific Approach<br />They argue that the method is totally flawed – they claim that the methodologically should be used to explain why the use of traditional scientific methods in sociology is a mistake.<br />Interpretive sociology stress the way that people interact and share meanings – they have paid much attention to the way meanings are constructed and how they influence behaviour.<br />Douglas and Atkinson have been particularly effective in their criticism<br />Douglas – the meaning of suicide<br />Douglas (1967) argues that suicide has different meanings to those who take their own lives and this cannot be explored by using scientific methods.<br />Therefore we can only understand society by understanding the way people interpret the world.<br />He questions the use of official statistics and their validity.<br />He also argued that a verdict of death is decided by a coroner who may be influenced by other people such as the family and friends of the deceased.<br />Douglas suggested that those who commit suicide may define their actions in at least 4 ways:<br />Transforming the self – person commits suicide to gain a release from the cares of the world.<br />Transforming oneself for others – the suicide tells us how deep their feelings are on a certain issue.<br />Achieving fellow feeling – person is asking for help and suicide, this includes ‘suicide attempts’.<br />Gaining Revenge – person believes they have been forced into a position where they have to commit suicide.<br />Because the meanings are different, it is a mistake to categorise them as the same because the only similarity is death. As a result Durkheim’s statistical comparisons are worthless!<br />Atkinson – the social construction of suicide<br />Atkinson (1971) further criticised Durkheim for failing to understand that categories such as suicide are really socially constructed.<br />In Britain for example, a death can only be classified as suicide once the coroner has carried out an inquest. Atkinson argues that official statistics reflect the coroner’s decision rather than any reality.<br />In order to make this decision the coroner must piece together certain clues, Atkinson claims the following are the most important:<br />Suicide Notes – In around 30% of cases a note is found, although more may have been written but destroyed by the family because of accusations made.<br />Mode of Death – some types of death are seen as more typical of suicide than others<br />Location and Circumstances of death – coroners believe that suicides are committed in places where they will not be discovered and where they are sure the outcome will be successful.<br />Life history and mental condition – coroners believe suicide is often related to depression caused by significant events in the deceased’s life – they search for evidence of such events.<br />Therefore according to Atkinson, suicide should be seen as the coroner’s interpretation of the event – an interpretation that stems from a set of taken-for-granted assumptions. <br />Jean Baechler – Suicide as Problem Solving (1979)<br />Baechler further developed Douglas’ work using case studies and argues that suicidal behaviour is a way or responding to and trying to solve a problem – suicide is adopted when there seems no alternative solution.<br />Baechler divides suicides into 4 categories:<br />Escapist Suicide – could be a result of loss of loved one or form of self punishment if they think they have done wrong.<br />Aggressive Suicide – could be vengeful to make someone feel guilt; a crime suicide where someone kills themselves having already killed someone or blackmail suicides which may be threatened by those not entirely serious.<br />Oblative Suicide – can involve joining a loved one in the afterlife (known as transfiguration suicide).<br />Ludic Suicide – taking deliberate risks that may lead to death e.g. Russian Roulette<br />Criticisms of Interpretive Theories<br />Steve Taylor criticises both Douglas and Baechler for failing to recognise the value of Durkheim’s work. <br />In reference to Baechler, Taylor argues that individual cases often fit a number of categories, depending on the interpretation the researcher makes of the victims motives.<br />As such there is no reason to believe these interpretations are any more reliable than suicide statistics.<br />Taylor also criticises Douglas for contradicting himself with regard to the fact that he implies that official statistics can never be reliable since it is always a matter of judgement (by a coroner) as to whether a death is suicide, whilst on occasions he suggests that causes of suicide can be found.<br />It is difficult to see how this can be true if it is impossible to be certain whether an act is suicide. <br />Integrating positivistic and interpretive approaches<br />Taylor (1990) has suggested that both Durkheim and his critics miss the significance of parasuicides (the person is not sure whether they want to live or die so they gamble with their life) because in many cases people who attempt suicide do not die. <br />Taylor points out that it seems most attempts at suicide are a gamble where the outcome is left to fate; if they survive they were meant to etc.<br />Taylor also argues that parasuicide allows us to discuss suicide in terms of ‘risk taking’; he also supports Durkheim’s belief that suicide is more likely in individuals too detached from others in society (egoistic) and those over attached (altruistic).<br />