Sociology’s Suicide: A Forensic Autopsy?

Abstract

For decades Durkheim's theory of suicide has been tested and found wanting. Yet, rather than being consigned to the dust-bin of history, it lives on and is pointed to as an exemplar of the powers of sociological theory and research. If this rationalizing and/or dismissal of so many falsifications of the theory were an isolated phenomenon, it might be evidence of some lemming-like propensity for suicide or a disciplinary death-wish, among a few sociologists. But it appears to be a much more widespread and common occurrence. In this paper we explore some possible explanations of this 'falsification denial'

Reconsidering Durkheim's Assessment of Tarde: Formalizing a Tardian Theory of Imitation, Contagion, and Suicide Suggestion

“…), despite numerous theoretical flaws (Johnson ; Pope ), methodological problems (Kushner ; Stark, Doyle, and Rushing ), and some spotty empirical evidence supporting his typology (Breault ; Nolan et al. ). Without question Durkheim's theoretical argument remains powerful when its most basic principles are isolated from the nineteenth‐century constraints on his own sociological imagination (Pescosolido ): (1) the structure of suicide is shaped by the structure of social relationships and (2) the most important dimensions of social relationships are (a) the level of attachment ( integration ) and (b) the clarity and stability of moral guidance ( regulation ).…”

“…; Tishler ), and attempts (Abrutyn and Mueller ; Bearman and Moody ). The ultimate goal, then, is not to eliminate Durkheim as some critics have suggested (Nolan, Triplett, and McDonough ), but rather to acknowledge the fact that social psychology must be considered a part of the study of suicide. Many of these social psychological processes can be found in Tarde's work, and we believe, deepen our understanding of the sociological forces surrounding suicide, provide explanatory mechanisms that replace vague ones like “vicarious rewards,” and help point suicidology in new and fruitful directions.…”

The Socioemotional Foundations of Suicide

“…Arguably, it is the ambiguity surrounding these two dimensions that undergirds the theoretical and methodological critiques leveled against Durkheim (Breault 1994; Johnson 1965; Nolan et al 2010; Pope 1976). The two underlying issues stem from (1) the tacit use of functionalist imagery when Durkheim implies there is an “equilibrium” point for being appropriately integrated and regulated (see also Bearman 1991) and (2) his tendency to sometimes separate the two dimensions but sometimes see them as interdependent.…”

“…Durkheim’s ([1897] 1951) Suicide is a classic in sociology for its methodological ingenuity, theoretical import, and inspired sociological imagination; it is also one of sociology’s most visible works for non-sociological social scientists. Like most classics, in addition to praise, it has drawn criticism on epistemological (Douglas 1967), methodological (Kushner 1994; Pope 1976), and theoretical (Johnson 1965) grounds, and some exasperated sociologists have questioned its contemporary utility (Nolan, Triplett, and McDonough 2010). One persistent limitation to Durkheim’s theory is that even though it was meant to be a general theory—and unfortunately is still often taught as such—it fails to touch on key aspects of the phenomenon of suicide (for a recent review, see Wray, Colen, and Pescosolido 2011).…”

Suicide among elders: a Durkheimian proposal

“…He provided empirical evidence to support his claims. Although not all agree (Nolan & Triplett 2010), we see replication studies which illustrate that Durkheim's theory remains as relevant today as it was then (Baller et al 2010;Classen & Dunn 2010;Davenport & Davenport 1987;Helmut 2010;Maimon et al 2010). Durkheim (1897) proposed four types of suicide related to structural factors.…”