A critical review of Emile Durkheim – ‘Suicide’

The following analysis of Emile Durkheim’s ‘Suicide’ will comprehend and critique
both the methodological approach to his research, as well as the conceptual and
subjective interpretations transmitted through his study. Furthermore, the
analysis will take the specific work regarding suicide and place in context
amongst Durkheim’s wider theoretical and empirical publications, in addition to
subjective and objective critique of his work by other respected theorists. More
specifically; contrasting the positivist approach adhered to by Durkheim with the
anti-positivist and reductionist methods and theories proposed by Karl Marx,
amongst others. Yet, the focus will remain to determine the integral factors of
the original text, with explicit emphasis on Durkheim’s conclusions regarding
social facts, religious implications and whether or not his work remains relevant
in contemporary modernity.

In order to contextualise ‘Suicide’ it is imperative to regard the work a

development of Durkheim’s theoretical disposition and greater academic
progression (or arguably regression). The publication of the foundational Rules of
Sociological Method in 1895 provided his ethnomethodological basis for the
study, determining the dogmatic necessity which legitimises Durkheim’s wider
theoretical project. It is this text which establishes Durkheim’s epoch of
positivism defining and governing sociology as an empirically distinct social
science, rejecting historical adherence to analysis of social interactions as being
subjective and ambiguous[ CITATION Les07 \l 2057 ]. Where previous analysis of
social interactions and societal structures in a more general understanding
“proceeds from ideas to things, not from things to ideas” [CITATION Dur95 \p 15 \l
2057 ] Durkheim sought to invert this approach by forming ideologies from “social
facts” in an empirical manner using the same approach of natural sciences;
which resembled scientific investigation as understood in contemporary scientific
research. Yet, despite Durkheim’s commitment to methodological practice there
is still considerable debate regarding the validity of the evidence Durkheim was
able to analyse. Religious structures, particularly at the time of Durkheim’s work
were intrinsically embedded within the moral framework of society, consequently
there was an aversion to declaring a death as an act of suicide due to the
implications from religious scripture and the effects that would result on the
family of the deceased. The major result on Durkheim’s work would therefore
have been an underestimation of the cases of suicide [ CITATION van96 \l 2057 ].

A key component of Durkheim’s analysis of suicide is the acceptance of suicide

as a social fact, which should be explored objectively and empirically, which
permits the categorisation of different types of suicidal behaviour - as
determined by the social conditions which sub-consciously create the individual
act. The method in which Durkheim differentiates types of suicide is “instead of
being morphological, our classification, will, from the start be aetiological”
[CITATION Dur52 \p 147 \l 2057 ]. It considers the causality structure of the suicide
trends, rather than the psychological state of the individual. The resultant cases
of suicide were categorised as follows: altruistic suicide, egoistic suicide,
fatalistic suicide and anomic suicide. The differential motivation behind these
depended on the extent to which they stimulated integration and regulation and
the balances (and imbalances) of the two socially cohesive components [ CITATION
Gil89 \l 2057 ]. It is this establishment of the importance of suicide as a social fact
which determines Durkheim’s work greater emphasis on the importance of
constraints of egoistic behaviours, rather than individualistic deviance. In order
for society to work in the functional manner in which Durkheim’s ideological
framework adhered to then egoistic behaviour, in all forms apart from the
biological, had to be ruthlessly constrained [ CITATION Gar84 \l 2057 ].

Durkheim’s theoretical analysis of acts of suicide relied heavily on observable

social structures; the most obvious at the time of writing was organised religion.
He understood, accepted and analysed the different religious factions separately,
providing a basis for his argument that different religious divisions exhibited
varied levels of suicide rate and within the sections proving that a distinguished
implication on the individual’s propensity to commit acts of suicide existed. An
initial conclusion stated that members of the Catholic Church are least likely to
commit suicide; followed by Judaism and Protestantism, respectively. The case of
religion is an example of egoistic suicide, about Catholicism Durkheim states:
“Catholicism by the very fact that it is an idealistic religion […] it is not
constricted to mechanical ceremonies but seeks the control of the conscience”
whereas “the proclivity of Protestantism for suicide must relate to the spirit of
free inquiry that animates this religion” [CITATION Dur52 \p 158 \l 2057 ]. This direct
and explicit comparison enables a clear distinction to be made regarding the
implication of conformity to institutionalised religion, the resulting effects on
structures of social solidarity and the final determination of the extent to which
the individual may commit acts of suicide.

It should also be noted that institutionalised religion is not an exclusive method

of binding the individual to societal norms and structures; it is the fact that it was
one of the most prevalent methods able to achieve a sense of necessary
functionality. Durkheimian theory of religious institutions again devolves
components of even the most homogenous religious institution on a more
profound level. The separation of sacred and profane aspects of a particular
religion allows for a more committed comprehension of religious cohesion, the
sacred elements of religion are those which the highest propensity to bind an
individual; the ceremonial aspects and process of deification are able to propel
religion into a higher state of moral authority than the individual is able to
comprehend or externalise [ CITATION Gra07 \l 2057 ].

A key argument in response to Durkheim’s positivist approach is the anti-

positivist and reductionist theory of Karl Marx. As an economic reductionist Marx
would dispel the empirical nature of Durkheim’s research. The constraints of
social actors by economic controllers ultimately lead to alienation from labour,
alienation from oneself and alienation from societal structures. This breakdown
and disintegration of creativity would, arguably, be the causality structure
behind acts of suicide. Although this is clearly distinguishable from Durkheim’s
analysis, in terms of the causality being from economic disparity and
exploitation, there is reasonable ground to draw comparisons. This failure to bind
‘oneself’ to society and the structures within it resemble Durkheim’s notions of
anomie and the suicidal motives which this can invoke [ CITATION Joh64 \l 2057 ].

The impact of Durkheim’s work should not be underestimated, the

methodological approach towards suicide provided modern sociology with the
scientific and positivist nature which is still widely practiced. Despite the
condition of the evidence used being a source of argument to question the
overall validity of his work, the consideration of this by Durkheim ensured that
his work remained exceptionally valuable. Where Durkheim’s work distinguishes
itself is the adherence to examination of causality, this positivist approach allows
his work to decipher the difference between cause and effect and determine the
causes of a phenomenon. Despite this, the commitment to his methodology
means that there is a limitation in the conditions which are considered. The
emphatic adherence to religious authorities and the societal structures which
they impose does not allow for consideration of a wider range of causality
structures, thus Marxist interpretations may provide a more resonate analysis in
the age of capitalism. Suicide, despite its comprehensive understanding of the
subject of suicide, remains very much a piece of research relevant to the time of
its development. As previously mentioned, the firm devotion to religious
implications may not be so relevant in contemporary society, a greater belief in
secularity from intrinsically embedded capitalist structures has eroded the
devotion to institutionalised religious and the practices they promote, combined
with a greater pathological understanding of suicidal tendencies.

References
Davie, G., 2007. The Sociology of Religion. 1st ed. London: Sage Publications.

Durkheim, E., 1895. The Rules of Sociological Methods. 8th ed. New york:
Macmillan.

Durkheim, E., 1897. Suicide. In: K. Thompson, ed. London: Routledge, pp. 91-
116.

Durkheim, E., 1952. Suicide, A Study in Sociology. In: G. Simpson, ed. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Gilbert, M., 1989. On Social Facts. 1st ed. New York: Princeton University Press.

Jones, P., 2003. Introducing Social Theory. 1st ed. London: Polity.

Marx, K. & Engels, F., 1975. Collected Works. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Stack, S., 1983. The Effect of Religious Commitment on Suicide: A Cross-National

Analysis. American Sociological Association, 24(4), pp. 362-374.

van Popel, F. & Day, L., 1996. A Test of Durkheim's Theory of Suicide--Without
Committing the "Ecological Fallacy". American Sociological Review, 61(3), pp.
500 - 507.

Ward, L., 1907. The Establishment of Sociology. American Journal of Sociology,

12(5), pp. 581 - 587.