Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Concept
The author's concept is based upon an understanding of how the human psyche operates, in addition to how societies operate collectively. The human psyche desires satisfaction in several areas of life. This satisfaction is based not upon what is immediately available, but rather upon the desire itself, which could be unlimited. Individual satisfaction can be limited by external social factors, such as a universally accepted moral value, or the material state of other individuals.
Assumptions
The author assumes that individuals are dissatisfied when all their desires are not met. He also assumes a fundamental difference between human and animal desire and fulfillment. Human beings have the faculty of comparing their own state of well being with what could potentially be acquired. This in turn is based upon what is observed for other individuals. A discrepancy between one's own acquisitions and that of others could lead to unrealistic hope for future fulfillment and therefore perpetual disappointment. Animals, on the other hand, desire only what is immediately necessary to sustain their lives.
Implications
If Durkheim's reasoning is to be accepted, one would have to assume that human beings are more or less at the mercy of internal and external forces. From inside, desire and...
From outside, a continual bombardment of the perceived success levels of others and moral law rule fulfillment. It appears that the author does not recognize the human faculty of reason; that desire could be curbed by the knowledge that the means to fulfill such desires are limited or should be shared. Furthermore, the author also does not recognize the human faculty of philanthropy. The desire to help others reach a certain standard of living may also curb the desire to fulfill one's own individual needs beyond the means to do so.
Point-of-View
As indicated above, I do not entirely agree with the author's point-of-view. While I can understand the reasoning behind the points he makes, I believe that Durkheim has considered the issue from a purely materialistic viewpoint: If my desire for material things are not fulfilled, I am unhappy. In this, he entirely discards the fulfillment that might be derived from other, higher means such as helping uplift those who live in perpetual poverty or committing oneself to some other acts of goodwill. Furthermore, I do not believe that the suicide rate is necessarily higher when a society goes through upheaval or crisis. Nor do I believe that the author is correct in assuming that suicide is necessarily the direct result of not perpetually fulfilling desire.
Durkheim's Study Of Suicide In Emile Durkheim's (1997) book Suicide, he discusses both the causes of and the reasons for suicide. He also addresses the components of different sociological theories that show that what comes from within a person matters equally with their outside environment when it comes to the issues they face during their lives. Strong evidence is provides that peer pressure and the lack of a strong system of
This argument brings Durkheim's theory into modern society. Durkheim's Suicide Theory made a lot of sense in the early 1900s. Over the years, many changes in society have occurred, making some of his work appear outdated. However, Pescosolido's and Georgianna's "network" theory expands Durkheim's theory for modern times. Durkheim expected the circumstances of his argument to change, so it makes sense that modern sociologists should revisit and reapply his theory.
Emile Durkheim on Social Solidarity Durkheim is considered the first French academic sociologist and a significant part of the life of this philosopher was surrounded by his work and writing though he also participated a lot in the affairs of the French as a society. Though a respectable academic, he was still faced with various obstacles among them being the resistance and opposition from his colleagues as scholar who represented a
Durkheim and the Study of Suicide Emile Durkheim was primarily interested in how societies could remain coherent and integrated in present times when shared religious and ethnic background can no longer be relied on (Wikipedia 2005). Along with Herbert Spencer, he set the first scientific approaches to social phenomena that focused on social facts, instead of individual motivation. Durkheim suggested that social phenomena existed apart, independently and more objectively of individual
I am unhappy, why not kill myself?' An anomic suicide might say, 'the old gods have been shown to be false, so their prohibitions against suicide are also false, why not kill myself since I am unhappy?' ("Individual and society," Sociology at Hewett, excerpted from Coser, 1977:132-136). These are the most common types of suicide, although Durkheim also gave some other examples of the social causes of suicide, such as
Another compelling component that confirms Dukheim's consensus is the fact that despite more women than men experiencing depression, the number of male suicides is consistently larger. (Ibid) In Light of Suicide's Darkness In light of suicide's darkness, along with the contention that Durham's explanation of anomic and egoistic suicides is a valid reflection of social reality, several patterns of suicide that might be observed in contemporary American social life include: Greater