This book, written by a pioneering sociologist, is one that is frequently used to teach and apply sociological concepts. The book, which was initially published in 1897, is regarded as the main source for a thorough examination of subjects relating to suicide and its social causes. Additionally, it was the first book to advance sociological research.
The book analyzes how suicide rates differ amongst different religious traditions. Durkheim primarily examined the disparities in suicide rates between the Catholic and Protestant cultures. According to the book, there are fewer rates of suicide among the Catholic faithful and theorized that the reason for this was because of strong social ties evidenced among the Catholics, unlike their evangelical communities (Breault, 1980).
Besides, Durkheim’s works unearthed that suicide was more pronounced among men than women, more common among singles than ones with partners and less frequent in people with children while the childless were more affected. Also, he found out that military men are more susceptible to committing suicide than the civilian population, and the author further claims that soldiers commit suicide more during times of peace and less during periods of war (Stack, 2004).
Based on the findings from his data, Durkheim postulates that social factors apart from individual psychological problems can compel people to commit suicide. According to Durkheim’s reasoning, social integration is one of the primary causes of death. When people are more connected to the society and view themselves as valuable members of the society, they are less likely to commit suicide, whereas when social cohesion declines, the tendency of people to commit suicide increases (Maimon, Browning & Brooks-Gunn, 2010).
Durkheim formulated a typology of suicide to elaborate the various effects of social causes and how they can potentially propel a person to commit suicide. These typologies are as follows:
First, anomic suicide: this type of death takes place when an individual develops an anomie or a sense of alienation from the society and holds views of not being part of others which emanate from declining social connections. Anomie grows during the time of serious political, social and economic upheaval, which leads to fast and extreme transformations in society and day to day life. In such situations, people may feel so much disconnected and confused that the only option is to take their lives. The following classes of statistics make the picture clearer (Van Tubergen, Te Grotenhuis & Ultee, 2005):
i. Singles vs. married people: through social integration, Durkheim highlighted that people who are not married are more like to commit suicide than their married counterparts. His idea is that married people have more connections than singles and feels more connected and part of the large community.
ii. Protestants vs. Catholics: the author postulates that Jews or Protestants have higher chances of committing suicide than Catholics. The reason is that the two latter denominations stress on more close social linkages within their members, unlike the Catholics. When people do not develop close relationships with others they tend to be exposed to suicidal thoughts.
iii. Males vs. females: in many communities, men enjoyed a lot of freedom and are guaranteed more independence than women. While this feels like a brilliant idea, and it can drive some men to feel that they have less meaningful relationships with other people and admitting such may be viewed as weakness. Such can lead to alienation from the social groups or the community.
Secondly, altruistic suicide: this category of suicide emerges when people are excessively regulated by social forces to the extent that a person will be compelled to hurt or poison themselves for a perceived benefit of the entire community. The best example is when an individual commits suicide for the political or religious cause. For example the famous Japanese Kamikaze pilots during the Second World War, or the Hijackers of the Aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon, world trade center and a field in Pennsylvania all of which took place in the year 2001. In such contexts, people are strongly inclined and connected to respective societies and are expected to do anything including killing themselves in an attempt to achieve the ‘perceived collective objectives.’
Thirdly, Fatalistic suicide: this one takes place under conditions of extreme social control that leads to a harsh environment and a denial of agency and self. Under such circumstances, people may choose to die instead of carrying on with the life of endurance and harsh conditions. The best example of this, as Durkheim postulates is the suicides committed by prisoners (Stack, 1983).
Fourthly, egoistic suicide: this class of suicide takes place when individuals feel totally disconnected from the rest of the people in society. Usually, people are connected to others through social bonds, work, family and public roles. When these bonds loosen, through loss of family members, friends, and retirement, the probability of egoistic suicide to take place increases (Pescosolido & Georgianna, 1989). Specifically, elderly folks who lose this ties are the most vulnerable to an egocentric form of suicide.
Part 3
Weaknesses of the book
The book reveals from the onset some limitations through the application of the systematic principles espoused in the 1895 manifesto. This revelation provides an avenue for rethinking certain restrictions basically, the argument by elimination or the “petitio principle” defined as the wrong distortive use of language. This weakness is much pronounced throughout Durkheim’s text. Durkheim’s trademark “argument by elimination in the book” for instances is infiltrating. Nevertheless, there are no better ways of expressing Durkheim’s views of extra social causes in his literal work (Pescosolido & Georgianna, 1989). Another point of concern is the deliberate and systematic dismissal of other possible options for explaining or defining of social facts, in a manner both precise to the writer and his audience. Argument by elimination has two serious weaknesses, first, that the alternative elaborations either singly or jointly are inadequate. Secondly, the optional definitions cannot be used in a mutually exclusive manner. The firm belief held by Durkheim that an individual outcome results from a particular effect and that the cause and the effect must be closely related.
The “petitio principle” is a logical fallacy which postulates that all conclusions must be debated is another weakness. At the core level, Durkheim explains religion as a collection of beliefs and actions defining follows in any society. Further, the book finalizes that that is one of the primary functions of religion. But a critical look reveals that there is no connection of this kind of argument to how the author views suicide which in the long puts doubt on the explained factors which cause suicide (Pescosolido & Georgianna, 1989). This argument is not trying to invalidate Durkheim’s view but rather trying to reveal that there might be other reasons or theoretical explanations of the causes of suicide.
Another point of great concern and precisely a weakness is Durkheim’s view that sociology is a science in its respect for unchangeable reality. This made him adopt a very metaphorical and language which can be regarded as misleading. This weakness is clearly seen first in “The Division of Labor” where several figurative words primarily biological phrases are used to expound society as an organism in an unqualified and unspecified ways (Fernquist, 2007). Also, this problem is more profound in “The Elementary Forms” where the social genesis of religious principles and practices, their figurative meanings are rampantly hidden under “physical” and “electrical current forces” language. Suicide brings together the worst facets of both, especially the complicated language which explains how people receive, interpret and react to suicidal conditions. Using this approach is not the best way of expressing and sharing sensitive information especially the one about suicide (Fernquist, 2007). The best way of educating society on suicidal feelings, causes, and consequences should be a simple and clear language which can be understood both by the elite and the semi-elite groups.
In conclusion, Durkheim’s central theme in his book that when social conditions fail to help people with appropriate social guideline at various levels of need leads to impairment of the social and psychological health and the worst affected take their lives is not conclusive and needs to investigations. It cannot be simply finalized like that. For instance, I intend to think that lack of social cohesion is not the end of life. A person can connect to people online and through social media if physical relationships are difficult to come by.
References
Breault, Kevin D. "Suicide in America: A test of Durkheim's theory of religious and family integration, 1933-1980." American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 3 (1986): 628-656.
Fernquist, R.M., 2007. How Do Durkheimian Variables Impact Variation in National Suicide Rates When Proxies for Depression and Alcoholism are Controlled?∗. Archives of Suicide Research, 11(4), pp.361-374.
Maimon, D., Browning, C.R. and Brooks-Gunn, J., 2010. Collective efficacy, family attachment, and urban adolescent suicide attempts. Journal of health and social behavior, 51(3), pp.307-324.
Maimon, D. and Kuhl, D.C., 2008. Social control and youth suicidality: situating Durkheim's ideas in a multilevel framework. American Sociological Review, 73(6), pp.921-943.
Pescosolido, B.A. and Georgianna, S., 1989. Durkheim, suicide, and religion: Toward a network theory of suicide. American Sociological Review, pp.33-48.
Stack, S., 2004. Emile Durkheim and altruistic suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 8(1), pp.9-22.
Stack, S., 1983. The effect of religious commitment on suicide: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, pp.362-374.
Thorlindsson, T. and Bjarnason, T., 1998. Modeling Durkheim on the micro level: A study of youth suicidality. American Sociological Review, pp.94-110.
Van Tubergen, F., Te Grotenhuis, M. and Ultee, W., 2005. Denomination, Religious Context, and Suicide: Neo-Durkheimian Multilevel Explanations Tested with Individual and Contextual Data 1. American Journal of Sociology, 111(3), pp.797-823.
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email