Suicide Essay, Research Paper
Emile Durkheim was born in the eastern Gallic state of Lorraine on April 15, 1858. He was the boy of a rabbi and descended from a long line of rabbis. He decided to go a rabbi like his male parent. He studied Hebrew, the Old Testament, and the Talmud while traveling to school. Soon after, he decided he did non believe in what he was taught and moved off from his engagement in faith. During the clip of graduation, he decided to give his life to the scientific survey of society. Durkheim started a calling in doctrine because schools were non learning the topic of sociology. He introduced the system and conjectural model of accurate societal scientific discipline. Emile Durkheim has frequently been seen as the laminitis of professional sociology. Durkheim wanted people to see sociology as professional and scientific like other traditional societal scientific disciplines. Harmonizing to Herbding and Glick ( 1996 ) , Durkheim was the first sociologist to prosecute in big graduated table scientific research. ( Pg. 9 ) In order to make this, he argued that it was of import to province clearly the sphere or country of survey for sociology. He said that sociology should be concerned with societal procedures. Besides, this should be separated from the psychological and single countries. Emile Durkheim made many parts to the survey of society: The Division of Labor, Rules of Sociological Method, Elementary Forms of Religious Life, and Suicide. The focal point of this paper will be to depict Durkheim s positions of self-destruction. In the paragraphs that follow, I plan to discourse Durkheim s scrutiny of extra-social causes, societal causes and societal types, and suicide as a societal phenomenon. But first, we need to briefly define self-destruction.
What is suicide? The American Heritage Dictionary ( 1983 ) defines it as, The act or an case of deliberately killing oneself. ( Pg. 680 ) . Durkheim ( 1951 ) defined suicide, as applied to all instances of decease ensuing straight or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will bring forth this consequence. ( Pg. 44 ) Now that we have defined suicide, we should get down to discourse the extra-social causes.
Harmonizing to Jones ( 1986 ) , Durkheim discusses two sorts of extra-social causes. ( pg.87 ) First, in the psychological frame of an person, there is a inclination that is normal or pathological, that leads people to perpetrate self-destruction. Second, cosmic factors might hold the same consequence. Jones ( 1986 ) says, insanity is seen as a disease that is comparatively stable for a society and variable from one society to another. ( 84 ) Suicide as a effect of insanity would account for that stableness. Durkheim said self-destructions are non a effect of insanity and he wanted to extinguish insanity as a likely cause of self-destruction. He dismissed the fact that self-destruction is a particular signifier of insanity by sorting self-destructive insanity as a possession, which is a signifier of mental unwellness limited to a individual act or object. He argued that there is no illustration of possession that exists. He rejected the position that self-destruction is merely an consequence of assorted types of insanity because all self-destructions committed by insane people are either free from consideration and motivation or based on motivations that are hallucinatory. So, there are many self-destructions that are non connected with insanity.
As for psychopathologic conditions like neurasthenia and alcohol addiction, Durkheim concluded these conditions might predispose persons to perpetrate self-destruction, but it is ne’er in itself a good cause of the lasting and variable self-destruction rates. Harmonizing to the Scandinavian Sociological Association ( 1991 ) , Durkhiem sees alcohol as an person job instead than that of society. He believes there is no correlativity between alcohol addiction and self-destruction. Although, it is argued that the rate of intoxicant maltreatment in society is a societal fact and can be explained beyond the single self-destructions. ( Pg. 193 )
Next, he paid attending to race and heredity. Durkheim dismissed the thought of race as a cause for self-destruction. He said there was differences in societal self-destruction rates seen in each societal type. He rejected heredity because the fact that suicide on a regular basis appears in the same household can be explained by other causes like contagious disease. Plus, within racial types, there are forms in the fluctuations between hubbies and married womans, which would do this thought unaccountable. Lester ( 1990 ) says that whites commit suicide twice every bit much as inkinesss. ( 222 ) Stack ( 1998 ) goes on to state that when inkinesss are frustrated, they tend to fault society or others and demo their aggression in the signifier of force. White persons, on the other manus, can non fault society for their societal and economic failures. So, when whites become frustrated, they are more likely than inkinesss to fault themselves. In bend, they are more likely to turn their aggression toward themselves and perpetrate self-destruction. ( 53 )
Cosmic factors, harmonizing to Durkheim, didn Ts have any influence either. Climate or seasonal temperatures have no consequence. Durkheim s observations show that self-destruction additions when societal life is more active and decreases when activity decreases.
Another psychological theory was imitation. Imitation exists when the immediate ancestor of an act is the representation of like act, antecedently performed by person else ; with no explicit or inexplicit mental operation which bears upon the intrinsic nature of the act reproduced step ining between representation and executing. ( Spaulding and Simpson 129 ) Imitation is a psychological phenomenon, non a societal 1. So, imitation is an deficient cause for alterations in the self-destruction rate. In fact, it s non a existent cause of single self-destructions either. Although, in recent research, Stack ( 1989b ) explored the impact of publicised mass slayings followed by the slayer s self-destruction, on the self-destruction rate. An analysis of mass slaying self-destructions that were covered on two or more web Television intelligence found that they were associated with a important addition in self-destruction in the universe. ( Pg. 5 )
What Durkheim has done is fundamentally eliminate alternate accounts. He explained how extra-social causes are non accounts for self-destruction. Suicide is a corporate phenomenon and depends on societal causes. But, it can merely be seen in through single self-destructions. So, Durkheim classified self-destructions into different types and looked at the societal conditions responsible for them.
Harmonizing to Herbding and Glick ( 1996 ) , egocentric self-destruction occurs when engagement in group life is limited along with the emotional fond regards and supports that engagement includes. ( 209 )
Durkheim looked at what causes of the fluctuations in self-destruction rates could be found in spiritual confessions, household, and political relations. First, he looked at how the different spiritual confessions affected self-destruction. Coser ( 1971 ) says Durkheim studied how the groups created solidarity among their members in order to explicate the differential rates of self-destruction in spiritual and occupational groups. He noted that where Protestants were most legion the suicide rate was highest, and where Catholics were it was much lower ; where Jews there was even lower. Protestant faith gives more freedom to believe and to the person because there are fewer normally accepted beliefs and patterns. It allows free enquiry into the reading of the bible. Durkheim concluded that Protestants would see more isolation and less integrating into a church. ( 130 ) With free enquiry and more cognition, self-destruction additions. Harmonizing to Jones ( 1986 ) , Durkheim concluded that Protestants would see more isolation and less integrating into a church. Therefore, there is less suicide. The Jews, on the other manus, are more educated. But, they don t learn things to replace their traditional beliefs ; they do it to protect themselves from those with more cognition, says Jones. ( 90 ) All of this, harmonizing to Durkheim, means free enquiry and cognition consequence in the diminution of traditional beliefs and lead to suicide. Harmonizing to some recent research, Breault ( 1982 ) says there is no grounds that says Jews commit suicide less than Catholics or Catholics less than Protestants. But he goes on to state that regardless of denomination, church rank is negatively correlated with self-destruction in the 60 largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical countries. Although Durkheim s statement is incorrect, the driving force of his theory could be right because spiritual committedness does guard against self-destruction. ( 322 )
Following, Durkheim turned to the household. He noticed that matrimony had an consequence against self-destruction, but it was limited to work forces. In recent research, Stack ( 1998 ) analyzed single informations and it showed that divorced adult females of about every age group are at hazard of self-destruction. The extent of this hazard relative to married adult females is about the same as the extent of hazard of divorced work forces relative to married work forces. ( 20 ) Jones ( 1986 ) says that when one spouse dies, the one remaining loses some of that unsusceptibility of self-destruction. ( Pg. 91 ) Although, when the household size additions, so does the unsusceptibility to suicide. This is due to the fact that there are more household members to assist the person through the difficult times. Breault and Barkley ( 1982 ) found a strong relationship between household integrating and self-destruction. This survey focused on merely one twelvemonth, but the step of household integrating that was used in this survey is non similar in all the states that were analyzed. These comparings should be made in western states that are more advanced and where divorce Torahs are reasonably much the same. ( 633 )
Finally, harmonizing to Jones ( 1986 ) , Durkheim examined political societies and found that self-destruction additions as society grows and to the full develops. As opposed to this, during wars or other societal perturbations, the self-destruction rate diminutions. ( Pg. 91 ) This is because people jointly acquire together and concentrate on work outing the job. But, when society gets weak, for whatever ground, the single depends less on the group and more on himself. This produces the egocentric self-destruction. They suffer, because detachment lesions, and some seek to get away this agony in decease. But their decease amounts up their individuality: they die as lone existences, cut off from meaningful societal life. ( Cladis 64 ) So, each person is influenced by society in many ways. But, when they separate from it, they become down and autumn victim to egocentric self-destruction.
Herbding and Glick ( 1996 ) say that selfless self-destruction consequences from excessively much integrating into a group or society. The individual is so caught up that he or she would be willing to kill themselves if the values of the group required it. ( 209 )
Durkheim says that selfless self-destruction occurs when there is a strong ordinance of persons. They are, in a manner, absorbed into a group or society. The single feels
obliged to perpetrate self-destruction. In all such instances adult male kills himself non because he esteems life, but because the ideal to which he clings requires this forfeit. ( Halls 191 ) This is normally found in crude civilizations. For illustration, in Hindu societies adult females commit suicide by throwing themselves on their hubbies funeral pyre ( Jones 92 ) . They do this because they fear being dishonored. Peoples who commit selfless self-destruction have personalities with small value. Durkheim ( 1951 ) called this obligatory selfless self-destruction because people feel it s their responsibility to take their ain lives. There are more types of selfless self-destruction that are non imposed by society. There is a signifier of optional self-destruction that one commits because there is a societal prestigiousness attached to it. ( Pg. 222 ) Person will kill himself without being forced to. Society will non coerce
them, but it is favourable to them. In this instance, keeping on to life is non seen as a good quality. So, person who kills himself for some simple ground, for illustration, is praised for making so. These people don t cherish life and despise those who do. Another signifier of selfless self-destruction occurs where and single putting to deaths himself for the joy of it. ( Pg. 225 ) It is considered applaudable. These people have ends that are outside of life. Therefore, this life is merely an obstruction. This belief depends on a beautiful life beyond this 1. This and the other signifiers of selfless self-destruction disregard the person and set his religion in something beyond him.
Anomic Suicide, harmonizing to Herbding and Glick ( 1996 ) , is a deficiency of integrating between cultural ends and the handiness of agencies to achieve those ends. ( 206 )
Anomie is a status in which an person s desires are no longer regulated by society s common norms and where, persons are left without moral counsel in the chase of their ends. When people have a set of meaningful ends and have a set of regulated regulations and norms, self-destruction will be in diminution. But, when ends lose their effectivity and significance or can t be achieved because something has changed, self-destruction will increase. Keel ( 2000 ) says when the person has no counsel or restrictions, society can t command the behaviour of its members because of a deficiency of regulative restraints. ( Keel, Internet ) If the thought of society were extinguished in single heads and beliefs, traditions and aspirations of the group were no longer felt and shared by the persons, society would decease. ( Swain 389 ) Without boundaries, bounds, and norms, the single life becomes meaningless and their behaviour becomes unmanageable. The consequence is alienated self-destruction. Levin ( 1999 ) says that anomy can go on through several ways. War, a physical catastrophe, a dramatic bead in income, or losing a household member are some illustrations. ( 9 ) Social alteration can make anomies. Any rapid motion in the societal construction that changes the life style of an single brings a opportunity of anomy. This is because it increases the sense of purposelessness, and makes ends and norms impracticable. Harmonizing to Kenneth Thompson ( 1982 ) , Durkheim divided alienated self-destruction into four classs: ague and chronic economic anomy, and ague and chronic domestic anomy. ( Pg. 109 ) He describes acute economic anomy as, occasional lessenings in the ability of traditional establishments to modulate and carry through societal demands. ( Pg. 109 ) . For illustration, faith, which one time helped the hapless and restricted the material aspirations of the rich, has lost most of its power. Besides, Jones ( 1986 ) says authorities, which one time restrained economic maps, is now their retainer. ( 92 ) Thompson ( 1982 ) says, chronic economic anomy is the interrupting down of societal ordinance. Durkheim identified this with the industrial revolution, which helped destruct traditional societal regulators and frequently failed to replace them. Industrial ends of wealth and belongings were non plenty to supply felicity. This was demonstrated by higher self-destruction rates among the rich than the hapless. ( pg.109 ) Acute domestic anomy was the sudden alterations on the microsocial degree, which resulted in an inability to accommodate, which produced higher self-destruction rates. ( Pg. 110 ) For illustration, if divorce is hard or impossible to obtain, the differences between suicide rates increased. Durkheim thought that the more modulating a matrimony was, the less the divorce rate and the less suicide. Finally, Kenneth says chronic domestic anomy refers to the manner matrimony regulates the sexual and behavioural agencies and demands balance among work forces and adult females. Marriage gives different ordinances for each. Bachelors committed suicide more than married work forces because of deficiency of ordinance and established ends and outlooks. Although, matrimony has traditionally served to over modulate the lives of adult females by curtailing chances and ends. So, single adult females don t experience chronic domestic anomy every bit frequently as single work forces. ( Pg. 110 ) Each of these involves an instability of agencies and demands, where agencies were unable to carry through demands.
Fatalist self-destruction is merely briefly described. It is a rare phenomenon. It refers to that state of affairs when there is excessively much ordinance and the norms imposed externally are really great. It is the state of affairs when people s hereafters are blocked and they are oppressed. Some illustrations would be slaves, childless married adult females, and immature hubbies. They had in common over regulated, unrewarding lives. They had excessively many regulations and controls. This led to fatalistic self-destruction.
Durkheim found no relation between the type of self-destruction and the nature of the self-destructive Acts of the Apostless. The pick of suicidal agencies is determined by societal causes, but the causes that lead person to perpetrate self-destruction in a peculiar manner are different from those that lead one to kill himself in the first topographic point. The civilization of some societies makes decease easier than others. Even though they are dependent on societal causes, the signifier of the self-destructive act and the nature of self-destruction itself are unrelated.
Suicide can merely be explained as a corporate phenomenon. Egoistic self-destruction refers to the types that result from high individuality because society is non incorporate plenty. Under the fortunes, the determination to perpetrate self-destruction can be sad or cheerful. As opposed to this, selfless self-destruction is an active self-destruction, with composure. Anomic self-destruction is different. It deals with unregulated emotions or the letdown following perturbations in ordinance. These different societal conditions can besides impact the person at the same clip and bring forth combined affects. Egoism and anomie some resemblance. The egotist is separated from society and doesn Ts have a good clasp on him or herself. Anomie can besides be related to selflessness. Finally, egoism and selflessness can unite their influence.
So, self-destruction is socially determined and independent from the person. The corporate inclinations that are responsible for self-destruction have a head of their ain ; they are moral and societal. Social life is external to the person. Since the necessary conditions of life are utile, self-destruction is likely to happen. Social ordinance and integrating are needed in any society. If societies place high value on the person or constrain him, suicide consequences from those societal provinces. But, the big addition in the figure of self-destructions over the last century is due to the peculiar conditions under which advancement has really occurred. These conditions are pathological. So, the present rate of self-destruction is pathological.
Finally, Durkheim s SUICIDE provides a theory detailing four types of self-destruction harmonizing to what their societal causes are. The four types are egocentric, selfless, alienated, and fatalistic. He explained them through integrating and ordinance. In that when societal integrating is low, the consequence is egocentric self-destruction. When there is high integrating, selfless self-destruction is the consequence. When ordinance is low, the consequence is alienated self-destruction ; and fatalistic self-destruction consequences when there is high ordinance. ( Breault and Barkley 1982 ) Breault ( 1986 ) says that selfless and fatalistic self-destruction does non use to modern society. Even if they did, they would be excessively hard to prove. Altruistic self-destruction is seen in crude societies and the military. So, it is non accountable. Some research has been done on economic variables related to the anomy theory. The degrees of industrialisation are positively related to suicide. But, this was done in merely 45 states. ( 323 ) Stack ( 1978 ) found that there is a positive correlativity between economic growing and self-destruction. Most recent research has been done on egocentric self-destruction. Breault and Barkley looked at spiritual, domestic, and political indexs. Durkheim was non wholly correct in his theory that Jews commit suicide less than Catholics and Catholics less than Protestants. However, spiritual committedness does assist somewhat to protect against self-destruction. Family integrating is seen to hold an influence on the self-destruction rate. Recent research has found that, married people are more incorporate than individual 1s, married people are more incorporate than widowed and divorced people, widowed and divorced people are more incorporate than individual people, married and widowed people with kids are more incorporate than married and widowed people without kids. This supports Durkheim s position that there is a relation between self-destruction and household interaction. Finally, Durkheim s informations on political integrating is deficient. There is non adequate sufficient informations to back up his place. ( Breault and Barkley 1982 )
In my sentiment, these surveies may be more accurate than those done in earlier times, but no survey is of all time traveling to be perfect. There is no manner to cognize precisely what causes self-destruction. There is non adequate research done in every state, by every age, race, gender, etc. This is non to state that we should halt looking wholly. It is clear to me, after composing this paper, there is non adequate assortment in the ways information is gathered. There must be research done in every topographic point self-destruction is committed, by every type of individual. This is the best and most accurate manner of finding the cause of self-destruction.
A Laurel Book. 1983. The American Heritage Dictionary. 10, July, pg. 680
Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Groups, Inc. 666 Fifth Avenue, New York
New York 10103
Breault, Kevin D. & A ; Barkey, K. 1982. A Comparative Analysis of Durkheim s Theory of Egoistic Suicide. Sociological Quarterly. Vol. 23, 321-331
Breault, Kevin D. 1986. Suicide in America: A Trial of Durkheim s Theory of Religious and Family Integration. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 92, 628-656
Coser, Lewis A. 1971. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. Edited by Robert K. Merton: U.S. : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Cladis, Mark S. 1992. A Communitarian Defense of Liberalism: Stanford University Press, Stanford, California
Durkheim, Emile. 1951. SUICIDE. Translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson. Edited by George Simpson: New York, NY. The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc.
Durkheim, Emile.1965. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain, New York, NY: Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by W.D. Hallwaies: New York, NY: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillin, Inc.
Herbding, Daniel E. and Glick, Leonard. 1996. Introduction to Sociology: A Text with Reading. 5th Edition. Pg.8-9, 209: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Jones, Robert Alun. 1986. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications
Keel, Robert O. rok @ umsl.edu Last updated: Monday, August 28, 2000
Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.umsl.edu/ rKeel/suicide.html
Levin, Jack. 1999. Sociological Snapshots 3. Sing Social Structure and Change in Everyday Life. Pine Forge Press ; Thousand Oaks, California. London. New Delhi.
Lester, David. 1990a. Mortality from Suicide and Homicide for African Americans in the USA: A Regional Analysis. Omega 22: 219-226
Norse Sociological Association. 1991. Alcohol and Suicide-Durkheim revisited. A cta Sociologica, Fall 1991. Vol. 34n3 p.193 ( 14 )
Stack, Steven. 1998. Suicide: A 15 Year Review of the Sociological Literature. Wayne State University, February 11, 1998
Thompson, Kenneth. 1992. Emile Durkheim. London: Tavistock Publications