Assess the usefulness of different sociological approaches to suicide

Durkheim wrote in the 1890s and was one of the starting signal sociologists right at the forefront of establishing and defining sociology as a scientific discipline. Durkheim argued that it was non only possible to apply scientific principles to cordial phenomena but that it was essential to do so in order to grow purposeful sociology. His 1897 book self-annihilation a psychoanalyze in sociology uses his scientific methods to look self-destruction. Durkheim chooses self-destruction deliberately, be cause as the most somebody, orphic and psychologically driven act it was considered by most non to be a companionable phenomenon.If sociology could identify companionable factors and causes of self-destruction, this would demo the power and regard of companionship on case-by-case behaviour. So in Durkheims view he believes our behaviour is ca apply by kind facts and they ar said to be external from the individual, constrain individuals and be greater than the individual s. After Durkheims analysis of semi prescribed statistics on felo-de-se it revealed some social groups are more handlely to saddle suicide than others. For Durkheim, the social patterns of suicide he disc all everywhereed is not a hit-or-miss individual act but as stated by Lukes social factors play a key role.Durkheims work showed a correlation amidst suicide and social facts like suicide rates were higher in preponderantly protestant countries than in catholic ones, Jews were the spectral group with the confusedest suicide rate, espouse people were less likely to set up suicide and those with higher education had a higher suicide rate. Durkheim said assorted forms of suicide related to how lots consolidation and polity there was in society and this would provide us with a multiple typology. The term social integrating meat socialisation into the norms, values and vivificationstyles of social groups and society.Regulation heart the control that society and socia l groups has over an individuals behaviour. With these two factors Durkheim brings upon egocentric suicide not adequate integration. The individual isnt successfully integrated into groups or society, anomic not enough economy society has insufficient 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 exceedingly controlled by society. Durkheims work cease also be applied into sheath of society.As Durkheim states modern societies and tralatitious society differ from one and other in their levels of integration and regulation. Durkheim discovers that modern industrial societies spend a penny start out levels of integration due to lack of granting immunity this weakens bonds and give rise to egoistic suicide. Whilst, traditional pre-industrial societies urinate higher levels of integration as the group is more important than the individual and t his gives rise to altruistic suicide. Durkheim has been criticised by other positivist sociologist.Halbwachs largely supported Durkheims conclusion but meridianed 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 pull down though hed stress 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 tin can live how anyone can know what figure levels of integration and regulation are.Interpretivist sociologists have devised alternative theories of suicide they say social truth is not a series of social facts for sociologists to discover, but a series of incompatible sums and interpretations that each mortal brings to and takes from each situation. Durkheims work is fatally flawed from this opinion because he relies on the unquestioning use of official statistics. According to interpretivists, statistics are not fact they are a social construction establish on the rendering of the people who compile 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 goal as suicides. He criticises Durkheims study of suicide on two master(prenominal) grounds. One of them world the use of suicide statistics because the decision to classify death as a suicide is taken by a coroner and this may bring in bias 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 meet death being labelled as a suicide, rather than it act ually being one. Thats why people feel integration plays no dividends. Douglas second point criticises Durkheim for ignoring the meanings of the act for those who kill themselves and for assuming that suicide has a fixed or perpetual meaning.Douglas backs this up as he notes the heathenish differences by Japanese samurai warrior who kill themselves because they have been dishonoured by western society. Douglas also states that we guide to categorise suicides according to their social meanings because the triggers and rejoinder to suicide are different in different cultures. These social meanings consist of sack 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 ha ve is coroners opinions? Douglas also produces a classification of suicide based on the supposed meanings for the actors. However, there is no originator to believe that sociologists are any break away than coroners at interpreting dead persons meanings.