Suicide+and+Modernity


 * Emile Durkheim, “Suicide and Modernity,” in //Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings//, 4th edition, ed. Charles Lemert (Philadelphia: Westview Press, 2010), 81-89. **

Durkheim published //Le Suicide: étude de sociologie// in 1897. It was one of the first major works to establish positivism in sociology, showing that such empiricism could provide a sociological explanation to what was traditionally seen as exclusively psychological and individualistic. In the larger essay, Durkheim draws theoretical conclusions from statistical data from across Europe on the social causes of suicide. Generally, he viewed the degree of imbalance between social integration and moral regulation to account for suicide. He specified four types of suicide (our essay only mentions three) based on different amounts or lacks of these two processes: 1. //Egoisitic suicide // – too little social integration. 2. //Altruistic suicide // – too much social integration. 3. //Anomic suicide // – too little moral regulation. a. //Acute economic anomie // b. //Chronic economic anomie // <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">c. //<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Acute domestic anomie // <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">d. //<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Chronic domestic anomie // <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">4. //<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Fatalistic suicide //<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> – too much moral regulation. <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Our essay, “Suicide and Modernity” deals primarily with the second subcategory of Anomic suicide. <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Durkheim begins by contrasting other animals to humans: Our unique ability to reflect means that our needs do not just derive from the physical. We also have ‘spiritual’ needs. However, these nonmaterial needs raise a problem of quantity à <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> If there is no physical body ‘regulating’ or ‘limiting’ our intake or desire for them, how do we know when we will be satisfied? à <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> “Irrespective of any external regulatory force, our capacity for feeling is in itself an insatiable and bottomless abyss” (82). <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">“To pursue a goal which is by definition unattainable is to condemn oneself to a state of perpetual unhappiness” (82). <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Durkheim then says that these passions (morals) must be regulated, and the only legitimate means of doing so is through society à <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;"> “Either directly and as a whole, or through the agency of one of its organs. Society alone can play this moderating role; for it is the only moral power superior to the individual, the authority of which he accepts” (83). <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Furthermore, Durkheim stresses that there must be social regulations that assign certain people to certain categories which then determine their station in life and what to expect out of it – i.e., a menial worker should not //expect// to live in the lap of luxury. For all of this to be successful, man must perceive these regulations as legitimate and obey them out of respect (versus fear) (85). <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">What happens when such social regulatory institutions (religion, guilds, etc) no longer sufficiently regulate social needs? Durkheim describes it thus: “So long as the social forces thus freed have not regained equilibrium, their respective values are unknown and so all regulation is lacking for a time. The limits are unknown between the possible and the impossible, what is just and what is unjust, legitimate claims and hopes and those which are immoderate. Consequently, there is no restraint upon aspirations” (85). <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">He describes this as a state of deregulation or **anomie**. <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">He then pulls in the ‘Modernity’ part of his thesis by stating that major economic upheavals like that brought about by the Industrial Revolution have caused such a disequilibrium in social relationships. He says, “For a whole century, economic progress has mainly consisted in freeing industrial relations from all regulation” (86). Economic progress is now no longer defined through the attainment of wealth, but rather through the never-ending proliferation of industry. However, this is problematic because, “From top to bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused without knowing where to find ultimate foothold” (87). No one can be happy if they think they should always have more. <span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 11pt;">He then shows statistically that men with industrial and commercial occupations provide one of the greatest sources of suicides and make up the majority of ‘anomic suicides.’