Emile Durkheim was considered one of the greats of the sociology world. His use of scientific methodology to identify social factors which contributed to suicide has produced a foundational model for empirically based social research still relevant in sociology today. The purpose of this essay is to examine Durkheim’s study of the social causes of suicide, specifically how his theory of social integration and regulation contributed in interpreting these differences in suicide rates.This essay will argue that although heavily criticised Durkheim’s findings of the social factors which contributed to suicide are still relevant in Australia today more than a century later. In order to support this claim, firstly an overview of Durkheim’s social theory will be provided, specifically of his social causes of suicide.
In addition it will then focus on how Durkheim interpreted these differences in suicide rates between various groups using his theory of social integration and discuss the two types of suicide Durkheim identified in this area.We will then discuss social regulation and its two forms of suicide. Criticism of his theory will then be discussed, before providing relevant statistics from Australia in regards to suicide rates of teen and indigenous communities and examine these figures to explain these variances in light of Durkheim’s social theory’s, to support the fact that Durkheim’s theory’s are still relevant in Australia today. Emile Durkheim was born in 1858 in a small town in Alsace-Lorraine, becoming a professor of sociology at the Sorbonne in Paris and passed in 1917.
Durkheim came from an early positivist school of thought which insisted that sociology should be looked at as a scientific discipline which could be modelled off the natural sciences. This approach led to Durkheim using scientific methods of research, statistics and empirical data to help determine circumstances which contributed to human behaviour, for which the psychology discipline could not answer at the time.He wrote about this in his first book titled the division of labour published in 1893, which Kosky (1998) described well saying, Durkheim looked at society as if governed by rules similar to those that govern biological organisms, comparing government departments to the operating system of that of animals. Durkheim’s second book the rules of sociological method, written in 1894, expanded on his first book to include how he defined these social rules outlined in his first book, he called social facts.
“Durkheim described these social facts as forces outside the individual, such as common beliefs, ideas, and moral sentiments which transcends the individual and shapes his or hers consciousness” (as cited in Van Krieken et al. , 2010, p. 542), arguing that these social facts were manifestations of society’s social forces which could be investigated and identified, Kosky (1989). Durkheim believed sociologist needed to prioritize the use of these facts, saying “The first and most fundamental rule is to consider social facts as things”, Durkheim (1938, p. 14).
Le suicide was Durkheim’s third book which he used as a vehicle to showcase his scientific methodology approach (Van Krieken et al. , 2010). He endeavoured to apply these principles to his study of suicide, which was made easier with a large collection of statistics available at the time (Van Krieken et al. , 2010), by establishing correlations between variables, using comparative methods and discovering patterns and trends in the data.
He spent seven years collecting and analysing statistics on suicide and reading numerous studies and interpretations by researchers from other countries (Jereidini & Poole, 2000).He studied various European countries suicide rates and concluded that these figures were relatively stable over time. He compared data between these countries and that of the social groups associated and which operate within them, including religious groups, families, schools, military and political groups. He found correlations in these areas and concluded that there was a direct relationship that suicide was caused by social forces or facts and not those of individual circumstances implied by many at the time.Although Durkheim did acknowledge the psychological characteristics of an individual’s decision to commit suicide, he believed this did not explain the rates of suicide, believing that these rates were caused by social forces based off an individual’s level of integration and regulation into their respective social groups within their social structure (Van Krieken et al.
, 2010). Durkheim described these social facts as the intersection of regulation and integration within a society.Durkheim believed social integration was a person’s level of involvement in to their respective social groups, or a sense of belonging to a collective group with a collective conscious . Meaning that a well-integrated person has less chance of committing suicide than an individual who is lacking in support from their social group. It resulted in two types of suicide, egoistic and altruistic.
Egoistic suicide is caused by a person lack of integration in society. This results in individuals having a sense of meaningless in their lives (Jerideau & Poole, 2000).Durkheim believed this was due to modernisation and a breakdown of social values in areas of family, religion and politics and generally weakens society and contributes to suicide (Nielson, 2005). An example from a religious social group is the fact that Protestants have higher suicide rates then Catholics and Durkheim believed this was due to the fact that the protestant community had a more individualistic attitude towards their religion and community which resulted in less social integration.This is in contrast to the Protestants who shared more of a collective conscious and enforce their strict religious and moral views throughout their community.
Durkheim viewed these stronger levels of integration in the social group as the primary reason suicide rates were lower among Catholics. Durkheim also found that low levels of integration in family units impacted suicide rates with people who were single, divorced and married without children having higher suicide rates.The second and rarest type of suicide is altruistic, which is excessive integration into their social group or the individual is consumed with the external goals of the group (Jereidini & Poole, 2000). Past examples of this would be the Japanese suicide bombers from WW1 and WW2, and also Hindu woman who killed themselves at their husband’s funerals. Also modern day terrorist organisations are rising and can be classed as a form of altruistic suicide where members end their life for the greater good of the cause.In contrast social regulation was described as the levels of control over individuals from societal forces or the extent to which the actions and or desires of an individual are constrained by moral values.
Anomic suicide was described as being attributed to a lack of social regulation.. Durkheim believed this to be the major type of suicide of industrial societies, which was associated with the disturbance of established norms and as a consequence of rapid social change and economic upheaval (Van Krieken et al, 2010).There may be contributing factors where anomic suicide can lead to egoistic suicide or where a suicide is caused by a combination of the two. He believed egoistic and anomic suicide were social ills associated with the industrial society’s, which endangered specialisation and the division of social labour, leading to insufficient integration and regulation.
Fatalistic is the least common type of suicide which is caused by excessive regulation imposed on the individual.Durkheim gave examples of the large numbers of slaves who committed suicide, which was “attributed to excessive moral or physical disposition (Durkheim, 1897/1951, p 276). This was due to repressive conditions and is common in prisons and detention centres, (Jereidini & Poole, 2000). The loudest critics of Durkheim’s were that the statistics he used were unreliable and unverifiable in the larger context of society.
For example, when a suicide occurs the family may not want this to be made public and influence the decision as to whether it is documented as a suicide, hence affecting the reliability of these statistics (Douglas, 1967).Although a study by (Pescosolido & Mendelsohn, 1986) to test the validity of official suicide statistics found these errors in official statistics were not large enough to affect meaningful analysis (Hassan, 2001). Also with the world health organization and United Nations advancement of computer operations and sophisticated statistical software which has helped analyse large amounts of data which has helped test sociological theories of Durkheim (Hassan, 2001) Durkheim was also criticised for his inability to acknowledge individual motives in people ending their lives and relied solely on social facts.“His pre occupation with social factors probably prevented him from fully recognising the role of psychological factors in suicide (Hassan, 2001).
Also from recent study’s, biological factors have been show to possibly pay a large factor in suicide but, to criticise Durkheim for these factors may be unfair due to technological availability of the time, or lack thereof (Hassan, 2001) He was also criticized for the fact that he used the Protestants and Catholics debate to support his theories. As Kosky (1998), investigated he failed to mention discrepancies that Irish Catholics had a suicide rate 10 times less than that of Catholic France.He also received criticism to the fact that varying cultures may define and give different meaning to the term suicide. ‘For suicide in Japan would be considered quite different to suicide in Australia (Van Krieken et al.
, 2010, p. 419). Durkheim’s theories can still be shown to be relevant in today’s contemporary society, due to the increased rates of teen suicide, especially in young males. Teen suicide was almost non-existent in Durkheim’s day, but as Hassan (2001) insists, this is now the leading cause of death for 15 to 19 year old males in Australia today.Australian Bureau of Statistics also indicates this is due to insufficient support networks provide for these individuals (ABS, 2011).
During Durkheim’s time, youth suicide was not as prevalent as it is today, although his theories can still be relevant in identifying factors which may contribute to this epidemic. This increase could be contributed by the fast changing pace of contemporary society’s today as some young people are unsure of where they fit into this every changing world.The youth of today are more isolated and alienated from society and not equipped to deal with modern day life pressures (Thois, 1995). This may be due to society’s weakened values, which fails to provide a clear sense of values and norms that contribute to regulating an individual’s behaviour.
The high rates of male youth suicide can also be due to a woman’s ability to offer support to each other and engage more in the respective social groups ,for which some males do not do as well (Thois, 1995).The higher rates of male youth suicide rates have also been found to be higher in rural areas, with Hassan (2001) attributing this to the rural crisis which is caused by a downturn in the economy, difficulty accessing health and welfare services and peoples inability to seek help due to stereotypical view that country people are more hardworking and self-sufficient. These circumstances are representative of Durkheim’s theories of egoistic and anomic suicide, and support his theory’s that a lack of social integration and excessive regulation can cause rates of suicide to rise, especially in today’s fast changing contemporary society.His theories can also be evident when investigating indigenous and non -indigenous suicide rates. With (ABS, 2012), figures indicating that indigenous individuals are twice as likely to end their own life than that of non-indigenous people.
This form of suicide was considered rare in pre-colonial era, but has increased significantly since the 1980’s (ABS, 2012). The royal commission into aboriginal deaths in custody highlighted the fact that over three quarters of these deaths were contributed by individuals having been removed from their natural family unit as children (RCIADIC, 1991).In relation to Durkheim’s theory’s this can be related to the characteristics of egoistic suicide which is caused by a lack of integration in to contemporary society’s norms. This can also relate to anomic suicide in the respect that, insufficient levels of social regulation which fails to provide the individual with adequate value systems which affects an individual’s regulatory behaviour.
Despite criticisms of Durkheim’s work, the new outlook he provided in regards to his social theories into the study of suicide was a dramatic breakthrough of his time.He provided a way of looking at suicide which provided a greater overview in relation to the way social circumstances can contribute to suicide. Although Durkheim’s theories were designed to disprove the dominate theory of the time in which certain psychological issues of the individual were the contributing factors in a person’s decision to commit suicide. His theories did discredit this somewhat at the time, but his work inadvertently has added a whole new element to the way suicide is looked at.
When combining this individual approach with Durkheim’s social integration and regulation theories, it gives a much more detailed analysis of the varying forces which can contribute to suicide. It has been shown that Durkheim’s theories of social integration and regulation can still be applied to contemporary society, in respect to the high levels of teen and indigenous suicide rates. This highlights the importance of contemporary society’s need to provide individuals with balanced levels of social integration and regulation.
