Usefulness Of Different Sociological Approaches To Suicide

Durkheim wrote in the 1890s and was one of the first sociologists right at the forefront of establishing and defining sociology as a scientific discipline. Durkheim argued that it was not lonesome(prenominal) possible to apply scientific principles to sociable phenomena but that it was essential to do so in order to produce officeful sociology. His 1897 book self-annihilation a excogitate in sociology utilisations his scientific methods to explore self-destruction. Durkheim chooses felo-de-se deliberately, be display case as the near individual, private and psychologically driven make a motion it was considered by most not to be a tender phenomenon.If sociology could identify friendly factors and causes of self-annihilation, this would usher the power and impact of society on individual behaviour. So in Durkheims view he entrusts our behaviour is caused by social facts and they atomic number 18 said to be external from the individual, constrain individuals and be great er than the individuals. after Durkheims analysis of official statistics on self-destruction it revealed some social groups argon more likely to commit suicide than others. For Durkheim, the social patterns of suicide he discoered is not a random individual act but as stated by Lukes social factors fetch a pick out role.Durkheims wrench showed a correlation surrounded by suicide and social facts like suicide rates were higher in predominantly protestant countries than in catholic ones, Jews were the religious group with the low suicide rate, married people were less likely to commit suicide and those with higher education had a higher suicide rate. Durkheim said varied forms of suicide related to how much(prenominal) integration and regulation there was in society and this would provide us with a fourfold typology. The term social integration means socialisation into the norms, values and lifestyles of social groups and society.Regulation meaning the run that society and so cial groups has over an individuals behaviour. With these two factors Durkheim brings upon egoistical suicide not enough integration. The individual isnt successfully coordinated into groups or society, anomic not enough regulation society has inferior control over individuals, altruistic too much integration an over integrated individual sacrifices their life for the group and fatalistic too much regulation the individual is too highly controlled by society. Durkheims track down can also be applied into type of society.As Durkheim states neo societies and handed-down society differ from one and other in their levels of integration and regulation. Durkheim discovers that modern industrial societies afford lower levels of integration due to lack of liberty this weakens bonds and give rise to egoistic suicide. Whilst, traditional pre-industrial societies have higher levels of integration as the group is more important than the individual and this gives rise to altruistic suici de. Durkheim has been criticised by other positivist sociologist.Halbwachs largely supported Durkheims induction but pointed out that the impact of rural versus urban lifestyles on suicide rates hadnt been considered. Also, Gibbs and Martin argued that Durkheim hadnt used vigorous enough scientific methods even though hed stressed how important they were. The key concepts of integration and regulation werent defined closely enough to be measured statistically. Gibbs and Martin query how anyone can know how anyone can know what everyday levels of integration and regulation are.Interpretivist sociologists have devised alternative theories of suicide they say social reality is not a series of social facts for sociologists to discover, but a series of different meanings and interpretations that each someone brings to and takes from each situation. Durkheims work is fatally flawed from this perspective because he relies on the unquestioning use of official statistics. According to int erpretivists, statistics are not fact they are a social construction based on the definition of the people who compose them.Douglas takes an Interactionist approach to suicide and he is interested in the meaning that suicide has for the deceased, and the way that coroners label death as suicides. He criticises Durkheims study of suicide on two main grounds. One of them being the use of suicide statistics because the decision to classify death as a suicide is taken by a coroner and this may produce preconception in verdicts reached. So Douglas savors these are the patterns Durkheim found and that well integrated have friends and relatives who may deny death and this explains their low level of suicide.So Durkheim indicates that suicide verdicts and statistics are based on interactions and negotiations between those involved like friends, doctors and police as they may affect death being labelled as a suicide, rather than it actually being one. Thats why people feel integration pla ys no dividends. Douglas second point criticises Durkheim for ignoring the meanings of the act for those who kill themselves and for presume that suicide has a fixed or constant meaning.Douglas backs this up as he notes the cultural differences by Japanese samurai warrior who kill themselves because they have been dishonoured by western society. Douglas also states that we need to categorise suicides according to their social meanings because the triggers and reception to suicide are different in different cultures. These social meanings dwell of transformation of the soul, transformation of the self, achieving sympathy and achieving revenge.Douglas can be criticised, as he is inconsistent, sometimes suggesting that official statistics are merely the product of coroners opinions. At other times, he claims we really can discover the cause of suicide-yet how can we, if we can never know whether a death was a suicide and all we have is coroners opinions? Douglas also produces a clas sification of suicide based on the supposed meanings for the actors. However, there is no reason to believe that sociologists are any better than coroners at interpreting dead persons meanings.