Theory of Suicide by Emile Durkheim

Durkheim’s study of suicide is widely regarded as a classic example of how sociologists should connect theory with empirical research (Merton, 1968). He made it clear that his work not only deepened the understanding of suicide as a social problem but also demonstrated a new sociological method. Unlike psychologists or biologists who might study why an individual commits suicide, Durkheim focused on explaining why some groups have higher suicide rates than others (Berk, 2006). While individual factors may explain personal cases, Durkheim argued that only social facts—external forces that shape group behavior—could explain the differences between groups. To analyze suicide rates, Durkheim suggested two approaches: comparing different societies or groups, and observing changes in suicide rates within the same group over time. He began by rejecting alternative explanations such as individual mental illness, alcoholism, race, heredity, and climate. Although not all of his arguments are entirely convincing today, his rigorous empirical dismissal of these factors underscored his focus on key social causes.

Durkheim also challenged the imitation theory by Gabriel Tarde, which claimed that people commit suicide by copying others. Durkheim countered this by showing that bordering countries do not necessarily share suicide rates, suggesting imitation is a minor influence at best. For him, the fundamental drivers were social facts—collective sentiments that create social currents influencing individual choices, including suicide. Durkheim identified two main social forces shaping suicide rates: social integration (the strength of bonds individuals feel with society) and social regulation (the degree of external constraints on behavior). When these forces are too weak or too strong, suicide rates rise, leading to four types of suicide:

1. Egoistic Suicide: Occurs when social integration is too low. Individuals often feel disconnected from society, lacking a shared morality and support, which makes them vulnerable to despair. For instance, Durkheim found that unmarried people have higher suicide rates than those embedded in family life. He also noted that Protestant communities, which emphasize personal faith over communal ties, show higher suicide rates. National crises like wars, which increase social integration, tend to reduce egoistic suicides.

2. Altruistic Suicide: Happens when social integration is powerful. Individuals often feel compelled to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the group. A tragic example is the 1978 mass suicide of Jim Jones’s followers in Jonestown, where tight social bonds pushed people to take their own lives. Similarly, in military settings, extreme integration can lead individuals to suicide out of perceived failure or dishonor to the group.

3. Anomic Suicide: Linked to low social regulation, this type occurs during periods of social or economic upheaval. When norms break down—such as during a boom or bust—people lose control over their desires and goals, leading to frustration and despair. For example, job loss during a depression can sever individuals from societal structures that once provided stability, increasing vulnerability to suicide.

4. Fatalistic Suicide: The least discussed type, fatalistic suicide arises from excessively high regulation. Individuals who feel oppressed by relentless control and hopeless about their futures—such as enslaved people or prisoners—may take their own lives. This extreme repression stifles passions and creates a sense of despair that can lead to suicide.

Durkheim argued that these social currents—egoism, altruism, anomie, and fatalism—are not merely aggregates of individual feelings, but powerful forces that shape behavior on a societal level. This explains why suicide rates remain relatively stable within societies over time. When considering prevention, Durkheim emphasized that suicide is fundamentally a social issue, not merely an individual one. Efforts to stop individuals directly often fail because the underlying causes lie in social structures and currents. Moreover, some suicides are a byproduct of societal virtues: economic progress can trigger anomic suicides, individualism may increase egoistic suicides, and self-sacrifice leads to altruistic suicides. These are, in part, inevitable in a functioning society.

Criticism

Durkheim’s suicide theory has faced several criticisms. Critics argue that it places too much emphasis on social factors, such as integration and regulation, while overlooking individual psychological, biological, and personal influences. Its four-category classification of suicide is seen as overly simplistic, failing to capture the complexity and mixed motivations behind suicidal behavior. Additionally, Durkheim’s focus on social currents tends to downplay individual agency and choice. His findings, based primarily on late 19th-century European data, may not be fully applicable to modern or diverse cultural contexts. Methodologically, reliance on official suicide statistics raises concerns due to potential underreporting and misclassification. Furthermore, the theory does not adequately address how gender, class, ethnicity, and other social divisions affect suicide risk, limiting its explanatory power across different groups.

References 

Sociological Theory by George Ritzer