Suicide — a conscious act of ending one’s life. However, there is much more to that definition. For one to fully comprehend suicide, one must understand the common factors behind it. Émile Durkheim, in his book Suicide: A Study in Sociology, argues that for us to fully comprehend the variations in the rates and types of suicides, we must first consider the social structure, and the two components that make up the structure: social integration and social regulation. This key factor is crucial when fully comprehending such variations as the nature of suicides is social, not individual, according to Durkheim. Based on the statistical evidence regarding the suicide rates from different European nations and how the data's variability “proves the concrete and individual quality of these same characteristics” because they differ “with the individual character of society itself,” Durkheim concludes that “these statistical data express the suicidal tendency with which each society is collectively afflicted” (1951, 51). In other words, judging from the data demonstrating the tendency for suicides to possess shared traits in its variabilities, it can be deduced that suicides are a social phenomenon according to Durkheim. Because suicides are a social factor, the two components of integration and regulation play a crucial role in determining the type of suicide Durkheim categorizes — be it altruistic, anomic, egoistic, or fatalistic.
With the four categories in place, real life examples should be made to visualize how those four particularly act on specific groups of individuals. The first group to be examined are veterinarians. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “male vets are 2.1 times as likely and female vets 3.5 times as likely to die by suicide compared with the general population” (Simon, Balaban, and Doubek 2019). With vets having financial stress to pay off the debt left after expensive medical schools with an annual median pay of $94,000, which is “less than half of that for physicians and surgeons,” along with emotional stress to deal with “disease, disability and death on a daily basis,” it can clearly be seen that the occupation is strenuous — involving high levels of regulation (Simon, Balaban, and Doubek 2019). Vets also experience online harassment with many of their customers treating them as public scapegoats to blame the loss of a beloved pet (Simon, Balaban, and Doubek 2019). Clearly, vets experience levels of much higher regulation as compared to other individuals with less high stake jobs. Along with it, vets often “practice alone,” and with the long hours of work, they are often resorted to a life of low social integration. With these two factors of high regulation and low integration, it can likely be determined that the type of suicide vets are experiencing is of a fatalistic nature. With intense levels of social control along with isolation, the vets, by Durkheim’s standards, fit appropriately into the category of fatalistic suicide, or “the suicide deriving from excessive regulation, that of persons with futures pitilessly blocked and passions violently choked by oppressive discipline” (Durkheim 1951, 276). Because vets are continuously exposed to overwhelming external factors that regulate their life, whether it is financial pressure or online harassment, and because they are less socially involved due to their free time barricaded by sudden medical emergencies and long hours of work, the vets would feel as if there is nothing but suicide to which they can turn.
Not only are veterinarians at the risk of fatalistic suicide, but also are another marginalized group — homeless LGBT teenagers. Out of the 1.6 to 2.8 million estimated homeless youths in the United States, 20 to 40 percent are LGBT — a stark contrast to a mere 5 to 10 percent of the overall youth population (“Gay and Transgender Youth”, 2010). Unfortunately, 62 percent of LGBT youths have attempted suicide, while only 29 percent of their heterosexual counterparts have done so (“Gay and Transgender Youth”, 2010). With LGBT teenagers often discriminated against, there is high social regulation for their community. In 2007, 86 percent of gay and lesbian students reported being verbally harrassed at school based on their sexual orientation (“Gay and Transgender Youth”, 2010). Suffering from high levels of discrimination, LGBT teenagers have less people to turn to, resulting in low social integration. With 31 percent of gay and transgender students receiving no response from staff members when they report incidents of violence and harrassment at school, LGBT teenagers are less likely to be supported, and thereby less likely to be integrated within the society. On another note, LGBT teens are more likely to end their own lives 8.4 times more than when not rejected by their families (“Gay and Transgender Youth”, 2010). This demonstrates that if levels of social integration were higher, and the LGBT teenagers were accepted by their families, then they would less likely be willing to commit suicide.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The third group, the Amish, can be categorized into a different sociological suicide group. According to a 1903 New York Times article, a 22-year old Amish farmer by the name of S.J. Shrock hanged himself. The article reads that 'No motive for the deed is known, as he was wealthy and popular” (“An Amish Suicide”, 2008). The Amish society, with almost “100% employment, low alcohol and drug use, and marked by a strong sense of identity,” seem to display traits of mechanical solidarity (“An Amish Suicide”, 2008). Centered around religion and family, the Amish seem to have high social regulation and integration. The exceptional suicide highlighted in the article can represent that of an altruistic suicide. Perhaps Shrock could have been engaging in optional altruistic suicide, in which he simply ended his own life because it was honorary or prestigious to do so in his society (Durkheim 1951, 223). However, the article does not mention any of those details, and based on the Amish society resembling mechanical solidarity — one with high regulation and integration — it can be safe to deduce that this suicide is categorized as altruistic.
Finally, lottery winners exemplify the fourth Durkheimian suicide group: anomic. Many lottery winners experience what is dubbed as a “curse” (Chan, 2016). With the sudden transformation in their societal status, lottery winners are thrust upon a new environment — one where they do not know how they can manage their newly found money. Whether it is going broke after using up all the wealth or witnessing changes in personal relationships, such winners face tremendous stress with the sudden changes (Chan, 2016). As Durkheim puts, anomic suicide “results from man's activity’s lacking regulation and his consequent sufferings” (1951, 258). Because the lottery ticket suddenly provides excessive wealth, the individual does not understand how to manage the money — on how to play a role in his new environment, resulting in distress. One’s needs are not “sufficiently proportioned to [one’s] means” (Durkheim 1951, 246), and therefore causes internal turmoil. Richard Lustig, the only lottery winner listed as a counterexample in the Time article, advises that “the key to staying happy” after winning the lottery “is to hire a good financial planner and a good accountant after paying off all debts.” He continues on to say that those “horror stories” of people going from riches to rags is “because it's usually from people who have never had that kind of money before in their lives” (Chan, 2016). With low social regulation following the great amount of financial power suddenly obtained, and with high integration with the personal situation they are in, individuals not acustomed to face such changes will ultimately become distressed, potentially leading to anomic suicide. On the other hand, for those like Lustig, who had been both wealthy and poor having won the lottery seven times, the anomy is not there (Chan, 2016). With experience and knowledge on how to manage the money (with a “good financial planner”), there is no conflict to drive him to suicide.
In conclusion, based upon Durkheim’s key factor of social structure consisting of regulation and integration, we can clearly see how each of the two factors can play a role in individual suicides depending on its spectrum — low or high. Any of the extremes have been found to result in suicide. Connections of Durkheimian suicide categories to the real world are visible when taken into examination through the four key groups — veterinarians, homeless LGBT teenagers, the Amish, and lottery winners.
Stuck on your essay?
