Interpretivists Approach to Suicide

Suicide is a phenomenon understudied in early 1960s. wizard of the reasons was due to Durkheims Le Suicide (1897) had been widely ruled in sociology. Durkheim used a scientific approach to remove the causalities of self-destruction. It was bankd that there was little more to get word on self-annihilation. However, interpretivists such as Douglas criticised Durkheims tuition as non being reliable due to the fact he used quantitative selective information. Douglas believed that he failed to take into account order of magnitude is constructed finished stacks interactions and all statistics are social construct.Interpretivists seek to find the reasons of suicide by find how society is socially constructed by means of the social interactions between people in society. Recently, there has been a new interpretive approach which has make new explanation significantly diverse explanations to Durkheims positivistic approach. Although interpretivists approaches have produced a more valid meaning to suicide as some may say, it is still flawed. Douglas classification of suicide was trough social meaning through revenge,self-destruct,sympathetic,guilt etc.He believed that suicide was a way of responding by try to solve a problem. He looked at categorizing suicides according to their social meanings because the causes and responses to suicide vary from society to society. Douglas criticised Durkheims athletic field of suicide grade base on its methodological grounds. He argued that suicide statistics hardly lacked any form of hardship mainly because it could be misinterpreted by the coroners verdict.For example, Durkheim suggested that suicide rates were crushed in Catholic countries due to high social integration. Douglass criticised this he would say that as for Catholics suicide is a mortal sin families would puke pressure on coroners to touch on an alternative verdict and the suicide figures were low due to inaccuracies. Douglas sees suicide stati stics as the result of negotiations between the different parties problematical which can lead to distorted statistics.He thus says that Durkheims champaign of suicide isnt recyclable in society because the statistics were based on coroners readings (therefore suicides are socially constructed) and so his study wasnt reliable. He suggests it is more important to look at the meaning of suicide. He as well as suggested that we need to study them with qualitative methods and use case studies. However he denies that suicide could be explained by external factors. In this case, Douglas theory was considered hinder as he failed to show any kind of evidence to justtocks his research.Atkinson (1978) believed that coroners had a common sense theory of suicide. They categorise suicide based on information from this theory they consider four types of evidence germane(predicate) for reaching a verdict and if the evidence matches the incident then it is considered suicide. Their verdict s are based on suicide notes, location and circumstances, life history and eventually the mode of death. Atkinson also criticises Durkheims method of studying suicide, he determine that different cultures imply different interpretations for suicide.For example, he studied four side of meat and Danish coroners and gave them the same case studies . He found that the Danish coroners are much more likely to come to a verdict on suicide based on probability of balance, whereas the English coroners looked for evidence to reach to a conclusion if a suicide was intent. Furthermore, Jean Baechler argued that Durkheims study of suicide isnt utilitarian because suicide cant be explained wholly in terms of external factors. Not everyone whose business fails, or whose spouse dies, or who is a protestant in an urban area, come break through themselves.Thus, to Baechler, suicide must constantly be at least partially explained through personal factors that are particular to an individual and this isnt realizable with the use of official statistics he thought that it would be more utilizable to study individual suicide cases and to categorise them therefore suggesting that Durkheims study of suicide isnt particularly profitable in society because it was impractical to find the unfeigned meaning behind the suicides using only statistics.On the different hand, however, Steve Taylor criticises both Douglas and Baechler for failing to recognise the value of Durkheims work. He criticises Douglas for contradicting himself. At some points Douglas implies that suicide statistics can never be reliable since its always a matter of judgement whether a death is a suicide, but at other times he suggests that causes of suicide can be found its difficult to see how this can be true if its impossible to be certain whether an act is a suicide.Commenting on Baechler, Taylor points out those individual cases often fit a number of categories, depending on the interpretation the rese archer makes of the victims motives, and there is no reason to believe that these interpretations are any more reliable than suicide statistics. From this he suggested that suicides could be classified into four types such as thantation, submissive, sacrifice and appeal. Taylor approach is useful as it combined both qualitative and quantitative methods making his study both reliable and valid.However, Taylor has received a lot of criticism all over the fact he used a lot of secondary data and is unaware of the inaccuracies it contained. It has also been shown that in reality you cannot simply classify suicide into four types. In conclusion, there are many criticisms against Durkheims study on suicide which suggest that it is not suitable to study the causalities of suicide and maybe the interpretivists. We should instead examine the interpretive theories of suicide.However, Hindess argues that such writers, whilst criticising the social formula of suicide statistics, simply ask us to believe that their interpretations of the reality of suicide are more valid than Durkheims. He also states that interpretivists have no evidence to support their approach on suicide and simply ask us to believe in their interpretations which are no more useful then Durkheims study on suicide. Nevertheless, Durkheims study was create in the 19th century so maybe it isnt useful in modern industrial society as the results may not generalise to contemporary society.