Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, is widely recognized as a prominent figure in the realm of sociology. He played a pivotal role in advancing this developing field through his influential monographs, which explored diverse methodologies and subjects. These works garnered both acclaim and disapproval. The translation of his writings into English has preserved their significance in contemporary sociology.
Durkheim is famous for his contributions to social theory, which allows sociological topics to be studied empirically, similar to natural sciences. He was seen as a positivist because he believed that human society follows laws in the same way science does, using empirical evidence and testing. After studying the principles of sociological methodology, he turned his attention to suicide as an example of how a sociologist can examine seemingly personal matters without ignoring their social aspects. Durkheim’s goal was to analyze and clarify the factors influencing human tendencies towards suicide.
According to Durkheim (1952:44), suicide refers to any instance where a person knowingly causes their own death through either positive or negative actions. Durkheim chose to study suicide as an example of how individuals can interact and respond to society as a whole. He believed that sociology could explain behaviors that may appear to be anti-social. By conducting a well-documented and primarily intellectual study on suicide, Durkheim aimed to establish the credibility of sociology as a scientific discipline. Ultimately, he chose suicide because it demonstrated the importance and relevance of sociological explanation.
Suicide, initially perceived as an individual and private act, was recognized to be influenced by external social factors. Consequently, it necessitated an explanation from a sociological standpoint. Durkheim’s approach to understanding society commences with a comprehensive assessment of the entire societal structure. In his book ‘The Divisions of Labour in Society’ (1984), he posits that there are two methods through which society can be unified; the first being mechanical solidarity, which originated from the earliest form of society where individuals shared similar ways of life and were bound together by a collective conscience.
Durkheim’s concept of organic solidarity suggests that individuals are seen as more intricate in their way of life. According to Durkheim, suicide is considered a personal act that signifies a breakdown in social solidarity. In his study on suicide, Durkheim emphasized the role of the “collective conscience” in regulating the dreams and desires of individuals, thus exerting control over society. His influential work, Suicide (1952), consisted of a case study that examined suicide rates across various social categories by analyzing suicide statistics from different police districts. This publication was groundbreaking for its time as it provided a model for what a sociological monograph should include.
This work is considered pioneering in modern social research because it combines theoretical and empirical approaches, making it one of the first attempts within sociology to do so. Durkheim’s sociological view resulted in a scientific method for his study. He specifically focused on the suicide rate as the dependent variable in his research. Durkheim believed that various social factors, such as religion, marital status, economic condition, and military/civilian status, directly influenced suicide rates. These factors are considered independent variables in his study.
Durkheim, like other academics conducting scientific studies, formulated a hypothesis for his study. His hypothesis stated that suicide rates would vary based on the social factors mentioned above. While Durkheim is commonly regarded as a positivist due to his scientific approach, recent evaluations have labeled him as a realist. Some extreme positivists have criticized his methodology. Despite these critiques, those who agree with Durkheim’s general perspective and approach still find some aspects of his process questionable. Durkheim applies a positivist approach to the study of suicide by seeking “real laws,” similar to the methods employed in natural science.
However, Durkheim’s objective was to uncover laws that are not quantifiable or observable, reflecting a more realist standpoint. Realists argue that the hidden structure and unobservable processes are responsible for observable phenomena. In contrast, positivists concentrate on studying measurable and observable aspects. In his research, Durkheim delves into invisible forces driving suicide rates. From a positivist viewpoint, this may be susceptible to criticism since these forces cannot be proven false or disproven.
Sociologists who adhere to the interpretivist approach reject his work because they disagree with the scientific method. Rather, they focus on the meaning behind human action, emphasizing that humans have the autonomy to think and act as they choose instead of being driven solely by automatic responses. Consequently, behavior can reflect an individual’s interpretation of external stimuli.
This perspective contradicts Durkheim’s research, stating that individuals will react differently to stimuli and will not all engage in suicide when placed in certain situations. Another scholar, Jacobs (1967), also critiqued Durkheim’s approach, arguing that it fails to provide sufficient understanding of the reasons behind suicidal acts. Jacobs (1967) conducted a study that focused on clarity and deliberate intention in suicide cases, adopting an interpretivist approach. He examined 112 suicide notes using both primary and secondary data.
To fully comprehend the information required, one must adopt the perspective of the person who is contemplating suicide. In this regard, Durkheim’s sociological approach would not be as effective. Durkheim employed a method that involved observing and analyzing multiple statistical variables pertaining to suicide. He compared different social factors with known incidents. Sociologists accept that even though many things are not directly observable, they still exist; hence, indicators are utilized to measure them.
Durkheim utilized official suicide rates statistics as an indicator for measurements in his study, which he subsequently examined. His approach serves as a model for testing a hypothesis, dismissing incorrect explanations, and sifting through numerous possibilities. Durkheim employs a theory he devised called argument by elimination, which entails systematically rejecting alternative explanations of a particular phenomenon to solidify the authority of the sole remaining candidate (Lukes 1985:31).
Durkheim examines data and evidence to reveal the main factors associated with suicide, but acknowledges that the relationship between the data and suicide rates is not a straightforward explanation. He looks for social causes that are expressed through these patterns. Some may criticize Durkheim’s methodology for being insufficiently rigorous and not positivist enough. On the other hand, interpretivist sociologists would completely reject the use of official statistics in Durkheim’s work and argue that these statistics are socially constructed. They are a result of negotiation, interpretation, and decisions made by officials, making them inaccurate measures of patterns. Furthermore, the use of official statistics can raise issues of validity and reliability. Validity may be compromised due to potential under-reporting of a stigmatized topic like suicide. Reliability can be problematic when comparing data from different regions due to varying interpretations of suicidal intent.
In ‘The comparability of suicide rates’, Atkins et al (1971) conducted a study to demonstrate the flaws of relying on interpretation. They enlisted four English and five Danish coroners to evaluate forty cases. They discovered that the Danes were more inclined to classify a case as suicide. This may mistakenly suggest a higher suicide rate in Denmark, when in reality it was shown to be a result of differing criteria for determining a verdict. The Danish coroners could label a death as suicide if it was more likely than not, whereas the English required conclusive evidence of suicidal intent.
This study challenges the credibility of Durkheim’s work due to his utilization of statistics from various regions, which may have had differing regulations. In addition, Atkins (1971) critiques Durkheim for relying on official statistics pertaining to suicide, suggesting that these statistics merely reflect the opinions of coroners rather than objective reality. Durkheim’s study reveals that religion plays a significant role in relation to suicide rates, as evidenced by higher rates of suicide in Protestant communities compared to Catholic ones.
When looking at the statements about suicide from various religions, Durkheim notes that they all view it as negative. He concludes that the condemnation of suicide is similar in each religion. However, Durkheim believes that the key difference lies in the social organization and collective conscience of the two religions. Therefore, he suggests that the causes of suicide rates are related to social solidarity rather than the actual religious beliefs. Durkheim asserts that the degrees of integration and regulation within a society are the most significant factors affecting differences in suicide rates.
The concept of integration, defined as the extent to which collective sentiments are shared, and regulation, defined as the degree of external constraints on people, were discussed by Ritzer (1992:90). Durkheim (1952:47) referred to a table that presents the stability of suicide in the principal European countries, and from this table, he observed a sudden rise in suicide rates that eventually stabilized after fluctuation. Durkheim attributed this rise to several social factors in the countries at that time, including war, government change, and commercial revolution.
Each of these examples represents social movements, making them social currents within the social order. These currents have an impact on society and contribute to social integration. Durkheim emphasized that the explanations he discovered must be socially-oriented and not solely influenced by natural factors. Rather, the natural factors must affect certain social aspects that are connected to suicide. Regarding his observations on weather, Durkheim accurately asserts that “If voluntary deaths increase from January to July, it is not due to heat disrupting the body, but rather because social life becomes more intense” (Durkheim 1952:121-122).
According to Durkheim, the examination of how stimuli affect social currents and integration is approached realistically. He argues that integration is not solely caused by stimuli but rather influenced by their consequences. Durkheim maintains that these tendencies stem from social causes and should thus be regarded as a collective phenomenon. Society can display either extremely high or extremely low levels of integration and regulation. When an individual lacks dedication to a social group, it can result in egoistic suicide.
Egoistic suicide is one of the categories of suicide identified by Durkheim. It occurs when an individual feels disconnected and not integrated into a community, which can result in feelings of meaninglessness and depression. Conversely, excessive commitment often leads to altruistic suicide, where individuals feel overwhelmed by a group or belief. According to Pope (1976:238), egoism and altruism represent opposite ends of the integration continuum and both describe different levels of collective conscience.
According to Durkheim, fast social change and unstable environments can lead to anomic suicide, which is characterized by a person’s confusion and lack of direction. Additionally, Durkheim identified fatalistic suicide, in which a person is excessively regulated to the point where their future and passions are oppressed by a discipline. These two categories, anomie and fatalism, represent the two extremes on the regulation continuum. Durkheim categorized suicide based on the imbalance of two social factors: social integration and regulation. (Pope 1976:238)
Douglas also conducted research on suicide but approached it from a different sociological perspective. He argued that suicide required a deeper understanding of its meaning and should not be simply grouped together as Durkheim believed. Instead, Douglas proposed his own classification system for individuals, which included categories such as transforming oneself, transforming oneself for others, achieving a sense of connection with others, and seeking revenge. Douglas criticized Durkheim’s statistical approach to analyzing suicide, considering it to be without value because it wrongly assumes that all cases should be viewed as the same phenomenon.
Durkheim’s scientific method and analysis remain relevant today. Many sociologists have been influenced by his research on suicide and conducted their own studies in response. While some reject his approach, believing in the importance of interpreting actions’ meaning, others demonstrate how Durkheim’s work effectively explains suicide. Additionally, some aim to enhance and refine his theory.
Despite the methodological validity of Durkheim’s work being debated, it is widely seen as a pivotal moment in sociology and a foundation for future research in social sciences. While sociologists may disagree on the accuracy of Durkheim’s findings about suicide, his work remains an important accomplishment that successfully blends theory and empirical evidence. According to Kushner and Sterk (2004:1139), Durkheim’s study on suicide is frequently cited as proof of how contemporary life weakens social cohesion, resulting in increased rates of sickness, mortality, and self-inflicted harm like suicide.
Durkheim’s research on suicide is utilized to analyze the subject matter, with researchers employing his classifications of different types of suicide to aid in comprehension and explanation of the phenomenon. In essence, his approach serves as a model for academics to adopt a scientific method in comprehending social factors connected to various phenomena by discerning patterns within data. Durkheim’s examination of these patterns reveals that they do not directly cause suicide, but rather serve as indicators of an underlying cause, necessitating the establishment of a social explanation.
Durkheim’s sociological approach to the analysis of suicide involves positivism, as he seeks observable and measurable aspects. However, his analysis is also regarded from a realist perspective due to the statistics indicating the level of solidarity or lack thereof. While the use of official statistics has led Durkheim to be criticized and labeled as a positivist, his belief as a realist is evident in viewing suicide rate statistics as indicators of underlying social structures. Durkheim’s contributions to sociology have provided a comprehensive understanding of suicide, which can be modified or expanded upon, but are fundamentally well-founded.
Bibliography
-Atkins, J. M. (1971) ‘Social Reactions to Suicide: The role of coroners definition’s’, in S. Cohen (eds) Images of deviance, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
-Douglas, J. D. (1971) The Social Meaning of Suicide, Princeton, N. J: Princeton university press.
-Durkheim, E. (1952) Suicide: A study in sociology, London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
-Durkheim, E. (1982) The Rules of Sociological Method, New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
-Durkheim, E. 1984) The Division of Labour in Society (English translation by W. D. Halls), UK: Macmillan publishers Ltd.
-Jacobs, J. (1967) ‘A Phenomenological Study of Suicide notes’, Social Problems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp 60-72.
-Kushner, H. And Sterk, C. (2004) ‘The limits of social capital: Durkheim, Suicide and Social Cohesion’, American Journal of Public health 2005, vol. 95, no. 7, pp 1139-1143.
-Lukes, S. (1985) Emile Durkheim, his life and work, Stanford: Stanford university press.
-Pope, W. (1976) Durkheim’s Suicide- A Classic Analyzed, United States: University of Chicago press
-Ritzer, G. (1992) Emile Durkheim, London: Tavistock publications.
