Assess different sociological explanations of suicide - June 2012 exam paper
The study of suicide within the sociology of crime and deviance is long established. Suicide
in many ways is seen as the ultimate act of deviance in Western societies and in fact it was a
criminal offence in England and Wales until 1961. In sociology there is a longstanding
debate over how suicide can be explained. In 1897 the functionalist sociologist Emile
Durkheim produced a classic study of suicide which has been taken as a model of positivist
research methodology due to the approach he took and his attempt to establish laws
determining social behaviour. However there are a number of other explanations which
offer insightful viewpoints on suicide, for example from an interactionist standpoint.
The following essay will focus on outlining and assessing a variety of sociological
explanations of suicide.
Section 1
In 1897 Durkheim published his study entitled ‘Le Suicide.’ He argued that even though at
first glance you would assume that suicide is a highly individual act, actually it is influenced
by society. Durkheim studied official suicide statistics covering the period 1840 to 1870,
taken from a range of European societies, looking at suicide rates in different societies and
between different sub groups in the same society. He used the comparative method which
relies on comparing statistics that have already been collected in order to establish
correlations and possible cause and effect relationships. He noted three trends. The first
being that within single societies the suicide rate remains constant over time, the second
being that there are significant differences in the suicide rate between societies and the
third being that within the same society there are significant differences between different
social groups, for example between single and married people and between those living in
urban and rural communities. Durkheim argued that if suicide were merely an individual,
personal act you would expect to find a more random pattern, rather than the consistency
and stability which he noted. He concluded therefore that the causes of suicide must lie
outside the individual and in forces at work in society itself. He then attempted to isolate
the variables that appeared to be linked to the suicide rate, such as religion, family ties and
political upheaval. From this he produced the following hypothesis “the suicide rate varies
inversely according to the degree of social integration and moral regulation of the social
group of which the individual is a part”, ie the higher the level of social integration the
lower the suicide rate.”
By social integration Durkheim meant the degree to which an individual is integrated into a
social group and feels a sense of ‘belonging’ to society or a social group. By moral
regulation Durkheim meant the extent to which a society controls a member’s values and
beliefs. From his analysis of official statistics he concluded that too much or too little social
integration can cause suicide and too much or too little moral regulation can cause
suicide. Durkheim argued that social stability depended on social integration and moral
regulation being balanced, with neither too much nor too little of either. In situations
where this state of balance was disrupted, there would be an increase in social disorder,
including the number of suicides.
From his analysis of official suicide statistics his main findings were, that in urban areas
suicide rates were high but in rural areas they were low. His explanation was that urban
areas are more often impersonal and lonely, characterised by a lack of community, people
have fewer social bonds with one another, compared with close-knit rural communities.
Consequently this lack of integration and social support contributes towards suicide. He
also found that family status had an impact on suicide rates, arguing that people with no
family or children were more likely to commit suicide than people with children and
relatives. He explained this by pointing out that having a family and children integrates
people into society and means that they are less likely to experience the social isolation
which can trigger suicide. Durkheim also linked suicide to marital status arguing that
married people are less likely to commit suicide than single people as partners and
responsibilities to them act as integrating forces. He also argued that there is a positive
correlation between some types of religion and suicide, suggesting that Protestants were
more likely to commit suicide than Catholics because Protestantism is individualistic, it
emphasises free will and leaves people to make their own decisions and choices whereas
Catholicism integrates people into the church and society and regulates individuals by
providing clear guidelines on how people should behave and values.
Durkheim identified four major types of suicide, egoistic suicide, where there is too little
integration, where people do not feel a sense of belonging to society, altruistic suicide
where people are too integrated into a social group and will consequently do anything for
the group. Examples include suicide bombers and the mass suicides committed by religious
sects such as the ‘Peoples Temple.’ The third type of suicide Durkheim identified is anomic
suicide, where there is not enough moral regulation or where there is anomie, eg there are
are no clear guidelines for how people should behave and people feel lost. Durkheim
believed that this can happen in periods of rapid social change or economic crisis where
existing norms and values are undermined and constantly changing. The final type of
suicide which Durkheim identified was fatalistic suicide which results from the
overregulation of the individual for example, in a prison or psychiatric institution.
Through his research on suicide Durkheim believed that he had established the social causes
of suicide. He had achieved this as in the natural sciences, using observable quantitative
data (suicide statistics) and he had established a law of human behaviour: that the suicide
rate always rose during periods where there was too little or too much social integration
or moral regulation.
However a number of criticisms have been made of Durkheim’s conclusions. Many
sociologists have pointed out that the suicide statistics collected between 1840 and 1870
are not reliable because there was no systematic medical examination of the dead in many
parts of Europe until the late 19th century.
Furthermore Halbwachs (1930) suggests that Durkheim over emphasised the importance of
religion at the expense of the features of rural and urban life. He also argues that Durkheim
is very vague in terms of his definitions of social integration, anomie and excessive
individualism, therefore they are difficult to measure.
Furthermore Durkheim did not give any real guidance on how to recognise different types of
suicide. Interactionist sociologists argue that without knowing the intention of the
deceased it is hard to use Durkheim’s classification.
Durkheim also makes assumptions about what being a Catholic or Protestant means to the
individual. He takes for granted a meaning that might not be there for the individual.
Individual Catholics might well not see the religion as integrating and individual Protestants
might not experience it as individualistic. Similarly marriage may well not be an integrating
or regulating force as it can be a stressful and destructive.
Durkheim’s work is of course based on analysis of official statistics which he sees as a true
record of the number of suicides. However there are clearly problems with the validity
and reliability of official suicide statistics and interactionist sociologists see such statistics
as simply social constructions, eg the end product of a set of complex interactions and
interpretations involving victims, doctors, friends, relatives of the deceased and significantly
coroners.
Scowcroft (2013) argues that contemporary official suicide statistics on suicide lack
reliability and validity and underestimate the true numbers and rate of suicide. For
example, the stigma attached to suicide in some cultures may mean that coroners (those
responsible in law for deciding whether a suspicious death is suicide) may decide not to give
a statement of intent on the death registration out of sensitivity for the family of the suicide
victim, even if it was fairly clear it was a suicide.
He also argues that some coroners quite simply may get it wrong and misclassify deaths as
not suicides when in fact they were because they judge there is not enough evidence to
establish whether there was intent by the individual to kill themselves, such as deaths in
road accidents or by drowning. Importantly Scowcroft also points out that there is little
consistency in terms of corners classifications as corners may reach different verdicts on
similar evidence.
Interactionist sociologists agree that suicide statistics lack validity and reliability. They argue
that suicide statistics are social constructions – simply a record of how officials have chosen
to interpret what seem to be unnatural and sudden deaths. There is no reliability or
consistency involved. Interpretivists argue that there is really no point in trying to discover
the causes of suicide, as Durkheim attempted, because it is impossible to be certain that
the act was really a suicide or not, as the only witness able to provide definitive evidence
is dead. Interactionist approaches suggest that the sociologists should move away from
quantitative analysis using suicide statistics to using more qualitative methods and sources
of data, like studying diaries and suicide notes, and interviews with coroners, relatives,
and attempted suicides.
The interactionist Douglas (1967) is very critical of Durkheim’s approach. He believes that
Durkheim’s work is flawed and argues that whether a sudden death is classified as a suicide
or not depends on the very things Durkheim claimed caused suicide and these vary between
countries and between social groups within the same society.
Douglas argues that the more integrated a community the more likely it is that they will try
and cover up a suicide. Family and friends of socially integrated victims may, for example,
destroy suicide notes, or text messages and attempt to convince the coroner that it was not
suicide, because of their own sense of shame and guilt. Those who are less integrated with
no relatives or friends may have no one to cover up their suicide or argue on their behalf
that it was not suicide.
Douglas also suggests that the social meaning given to suicide can affect the suicide
statistics. Societies attach different meanings to suicide, some see the act as more
positive than others. Catholics for example regard suicide as a sin, and in Catholic countries
corners may be more likely to bring in a verdict of accidental death to spare relatives the
social stigma attached to suicide. On the other hand in Japan, suicidal action is regarded as
positive or honourable, and because of this coroners may be more likely to classify a death
as suicide.
These provide quite different explanations from Durkheim’s as the differences in suicide
rates between societies and groups may not actually reflect real differences arising from
different levels of social integration influencing whether people commit suicide, but may be
because different levels of social integration and social attitudes to suicide lead to different
chances of a sudden death being labelled as a suicide and classified as such in official
statistics.
Atkinson (1971) again is critical of Durkheim’s use of official statistics, arguing that whether
or not a death gets categorised as a suicide is simply a product of the interpretations of
others, and that it is impossible to know the real number of suicides. Atkinson specifically
focuses on the role of coroners. These are legal officers whose function is to investigate
suspicious death. He notes that officially a death is not a suicide until it has been labelled as
such by a coroner’s court. Atkinson argued that when investigating a suspicious death
coroners have five possible verdicts in the UK. These are death by natural causes, death by
misadventure, homicide or suicide. The’ open verdict’ is used if the coroner cannot come
to a definite decision because there is not enough evidence either way. Atkinson adopted a
qualitative approach, looking at decision making, he interviewed coroners and staff and also
observed at inquests (legal investigations in the courts to try and establish how a person
died, which are held if on post mortem a coroners finds that a death was not from natural
causes). Atkinson argued that the problem that coroners have is that they cannot ask the
person who has died whether they meant to kill themselves, so they can only guess at the
truth by looking for ‘clues’ in the circumstances surrounding the death. Atkinson argued
that like the rest of us coroners have common sense assumptions about the causes of
suicide, and if the information about the deceased fits their theory they are likely to
categorise his or her death as a suicide.
Atkinson argued there are four main types of evidence which coroners take into account
when deciding whether someone intended to die. These are suicide notes, mode of death
(how someone died, for example death by hanging is more likely to be interpreted as suicide
than death in a car crash, even if the hanging was an accident and the car crash was really a
suicide). The third is location and circumstances of the death and finally what is taken into
consideration is the mental state and life history of the victim, eg did they suffer from
depression, were they a ‘loner,’ where they in debt, had they suffered a divorce or
bereavement etc. Atkinson argues that dominant cultural meanings of suicide (that it is
caused by despair and great unhappiness) influence coroners.
Atkinson notes that details of the deceased’s life history or state of mind (and therefore
whether they are unhappy or not) often come from negotiation with relatives, who may
attempt to influence the corners verdict.
Steve Taylor (1982), a realist sociologist, looked at deaths at the London underground. Like
Atkinson he also interviewed coroners and observed at inquests. He discovered that
coroners see breakdowns in personal relationships, unemployment, history of both mental
and physical illness, and coming from a broken home as important aspects of unhappiness
and as such are more likely to issue a suicide verdict if the deceased fits their picture.
Taylor investigated 32 deaths under London underground trains in 1982, where the mode
and scene of death were identical and no suicide notes were left. Only 17 of these were
eventually labelled as suicide. When he observed at inquests, Taylor concluded that suicide
verdicts were not returned on the other 15 because relatives influenced the coroner’s
interpretation of the state of mind and life history of the deceased prior to the death.
Atkinson also highlighted the unreliability and invalidity of suicide statistics by examining the
use of the open verdict in the UK. He carried out a social experiment, in which he gave the
same suicidal clues to English and Danish coroners and asked them to decide on a verdict.
Danish coroners tended to be more vigorous in their scrutiny of the evidence, as the open
verdict does not exist in the judicial system. English coroners were more likely to give an
open verdict.
In conclusion, then, both Atkinson and Taylor suggest that we cannot take suicide statistics
at face value as Durkheim did. We must look at the way such statistics are socially
constructed. It may be that official statistics tell us more about the ways in which they are
collected and interpreted by coroners that they tell us about the causes of suicide.
In conclusion there are a number of different sociological views on suicide with sociologists
such as Durkheim arguing that it is possible to identify the causes of suicide but other
sociologists such as interactionists arguing that it is very difficult to ascertain whether a
death was a suicide or not, given the fact that the only definite witness is no longer around.
Importantly Interactionists have also highlighted the nature of suicide statistics as being
social constructions which may be more insightful in highlighting coroner’s stereotypical
assumptions and the role of relatives and friends in influencing verdicts than the actual
reality of suicide rates.