Interpretivists Approach to Suicide

Suicide is a phenomenon understudied in early 1960s. One of the reasons was over payable to Durkheims Le Suicide (1897) had been widely ruled in sociology. Durkheim utilise a scientific approach to work the causalities of self-destruction. It was believed that there was little to a greater extent to study on felo-de-se. However, interpretivists such as Douglas criticised Durkheims study as not being reliable due to the item he employ quantitative data. Douglas believed that he failed to take into account society is constructed by means of peoples interactions and tout ensemble statistics be social construct.Interpretivists seek to fall out the reasons of felo-de-se by reign how society is socially constructed through the social interactions between people in society. Recently, there has been a red-hot interpretive approach which has formed new explanation signifi orduretly diverse explanations to Durkheims positivistic approach. Although interpretivists approaches have p roduced a oft valid meaning to self-destruction as whatsoever may learn, it is withal flawed. Douglas classification of felo-de-se was trough social meaning through revenge,self-destruct,sympathetic,guilt etc.He believed that self-annihilation was a way of responding by try to solve a problem. He looked at categorizing suicides according to their social meanings beca implement the causes and responses to suicide vary from society to society. Douglas criticised Durkheims study of suicide rates ground on its methodological grounds. He argued that suicide statistics hardly lacked any form of validity in the main because it could be misinterpreted by the coroners verdict.For example, Durkheim suggested that suicide rates were humbled 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 put pressure on coroners to reach an alternative verdict and the suicide figures were low d ue to inaccuracies. Douglas sees suicide statistics as the result of negotiations between the polar parties involved which can lead to distorted statistics.He thus says that Durkheims study of suicide isnt useful in society because the statistics were based on coroners interpretations (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 also suggested that we study 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 invalid as he failed to show any kind of assure to back 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 quadruplet types of evidence relevant for orbit a verdict and if the evidence matches the incident thence it is considered suici de. Their verdicts are based on suicide notes, location and circumstances, life history and finally the trend of death. Atkinson also criticises Durkheims method of studying suicide, he identified that different cultures imply different interpretations for suicide.For example, he studied four English and Danish coroners and gave them the same case studies . He embed 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 useful because suicide cant be explained alone in terms of external factors. Not everyone whose business fails, or whose pardner dies, or who is a protestant in an urban area, kill themselves.Thus, to Baechler, suicide must always be at least partially explained through personal factors that are particular to an respective(prenominal) and this isnt possible with the use of official statistics he thought that it would be more useful to study individual suicide cases and to categorise them therefore suggesting that Durkheims study of suicide isnt particularly useful in society because it was out of the question to find the true meaning behind the suicides using only statistics.On the other hand, however, Steve Taylor criticises twain(prenominal) 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 over the fact he used a lot of secondary data and is unsuspecting 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 by chance the interpretivists. We should instead examine the interpretive theories of suicide.However, Hindess argues that such writers, whilst criticising the social construction of suicide statistics, si mply 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 want us to believe in their interpretations which are no more useful then Durkheims study on suicide. Nevertheless, Durkheims study was published in the 19th century so maybe it isnt useful in modern industrial society as the results may not infer to contemporary society.