Durkheim begins by saying that in order to be happy their needs must be met. If they needs more than they are able to obtain then they will feel “friction and can only function painfully.” He says that animals needs are only on “material conditions.” They needs something, they get it, they are satisfied and they don’t want anything else but men are not the same way. What I believe he is saying is that even though we can meet our physical needs like animals that really doesn’t do it for us. There are other things that we want too like “well-being, comfort or luxury.” Over time it seems that we need more and more of these things to be satisfied because there is no psychological limit or point where we won’t want anything else. Durkheim says that our “capacity for feeling is in itself an insatiable and bottomless abyss.”
Unlimited desires can torture us because it’s something that we will never reach or be happy with. He says that we will never make any progress if we don’t have any goals and if our goals are unending or unreachable then you might as well say that you aren’t making any progress because you will never get there. To try and do this would create “perpetual unhappiness.”
Durkheim argues that our passions needs to be limited but we aren’t able to do that ourselves so we need some outside force to do that for us. He says that force needs to be a moral force. He says that society can be this force and play this role because it is authority that the individual will accept. In other words, we will accept what limits society puts on us. He says that there are kind of certain places that each person should be at depending on where they are in society. For instance if you are a rich person you shouldn’t live like a poor person, that would be below your limit but you also shouldn’t live so luxuriously that you live above your limit either. He also says that these ideas can change as society changes their morals or things change economically. If this type of structure is in place then people have goals that they can meet and not exceed and I feel what he is trying to say here is that they will be happy when they meet their goals versus striving infinitely to achieve something that you’re not even sure of. He thinks people should work on making what they have better instead of longing for other things and the only way to make people do that is to kind of define limits for them.
All this is seems really good but if there are major problems or transitions going on in society at the time, society can’t regulate people in that way and suicide rates go up. Sometimes people are moved to a “lower state” than the one they were at and they just can’t adjust to it so they commit suicide. Durkheim is saying that people need regulation and when they don’t have it they don’t know what to do with themselves. He calls this state of deregulation “anomy.”
I find it interesting that Durkheim points out that poverty protects against suicide because the less someone has the less they will want. He say that lack of power pretty much does the same thing too. Another things that he stated could prevent it and worked for a while was religion but now he feels government has taken over the power that religion once held.
Durkheim says that if these crisis that society goes through where there is no control happened only once in a great while then suicide rates and crazy reactions to it wouldn’t really happen that often either, but he says that in some places anomy is constant and normal. He says in societies where people are used to discipline they can handle these hard economic and social blows better.
The highest rates of suicide fall into the industrial and commercial occupations. They are higher than agriculture because that occupation is still fairly regulated. He says that suicide is most common among people at the top of social ladder because there is nothing above them. Those at the middle and lower levels at least have someone above them to place a cap on what they can achieve so they are not expecting the world and then getting disappointed when they never get it. This type of condition in which people commit suicide is called anomic suicide.
A second kind of suicide is called egotistic suicide is when a person cannot find a foundation or reason for their existence so they kill themselves.
A third kind of suicide is called altruistic suicide where a person sees that this reason for existing goes beyond life itself, in this situation a person would give their life up so someone else could live.
When society isn’t present (or the individual feels that way) the first two types of suicide are present (anomic and egotistic).
I hope that my interpretation of this is accurate and easy to follow! I’ve studied suicide by Durkheim a little before and I think I’m on the right track but if not please let me know what which parts you think are off.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
So I think Durkheim was on the right track. This chapter (the way I interpreted it) actually made sense to me and related with the world, how it is today. I think Durkheim’s idea that a lot of people never being satisfied is dead on. Most people want more and more no matter what they have and a prime example is my Leadership and communication class today. A guest speaker came and talked all about money being everyone’s goal, and as I sat there and thought of how much of a tool bag this guy was I couldn’t help but agree that most people’s goals are to obtain as much money/property/power and they can. This was only reiterated on when he went around the class and asked people what their goals were. 95% of people’s goals included jobs that would make them a generous amount of money. Going back to Durkheim however I also found his thoughts on suicide to be interesting (and I mean this seriously not that I’m holding the ideas at bay I’m agreeing with them). Egotistic suicide I think is the most relevant in today’s society. I feel like it is a number one cause because if people can’t find a reason to live it’s easy enough to end your life. Anomic suicide I understood to be is suicide when you have nothing else you want to achieve. If you are at the highest level you think you can be at and you have everything you want then you again feel like what else is there to do now. I can’t achieve anything else. I think this makes sense however I feel like it is a ridiculous reason to commit suicide. Altruistic suicide I didn’t understand but reading the first post it was defined as “a person sees that this reason for existing goes beyond life itself, in this situation a person would give their life up so someone else could live”. I guess I have never thought of that as suicide however it is, but you hear stories about people giving their life to save their children and most would agree that an act of that kind is heroic. I have never really put that in the same category as suicide although it is giving up your life so it is in the same category as the other suicides. I think this was the most reasonable one and obviously the most unselfish. In this chapter I feel like Durkheim’s beliefs about society were completely true about today’s society as well.
Suicide is clearly a topic that people have various view points about. I feel that it truly is one of those issues that people do not clearly understand unless you are in that situation.
I think the issue that poverty prevents suicide is crap. I do agree that people from the upper, middle, and lower class have different goals. It seems that people are striving to move up in the world. But once you’re upper class, where are you going to go from there? There’s clearly hope for a better life if you’re poor, or even middle class. However, if you are completely poor, living in the worst situations, little to no food, clothes, or shelter, how does that prevent suicide exactly? It would seem from an outside perspective that these would be the unhappiest of individuals. Poor people have goals, everyone does, big and small. But to say that the less someone has, the less they will want- I completely disagree. Sure there are some who do not hope for much, but there clearly who are others who have the largest dreams for an amazing life and happiness.
I feel that it is difficult to say what types, or groups of people have the highest suicide rates. The majority of people know someone, or know of people who knows someone who has committed suicide. Not all people who take their life are from the same background. Poor people, middle class, and even high class elite celebrities commit suicide. When I think of what people feel makes them happy, the answer is usually one thing: money. People want nice cars, a big house, vacations, etc. It is very understood that people think buying things will bring them happiness: it won’t, at least in the long run. I know a girl from growing up who was always unhappy, even though she has a stable family and living environment. But it wasn’t enough for her. We keep in touch time to time, and it seems that she always has some new purchase to talk about. She’s buying expensive cars, getting expensive animals, moving constantly and redecorating what seems like every other month. The girl has bought nearly everything to anything and the same issue comes up: she is still unhappy, with her image, with her life. She constantly complains about how horrible her life is, oh-but she has plans to buy a huge salt-water fish tank with exotic fish. Seriously? Seriously. When is enough, enough? When are people, such as her, going to realize that “money can’t buy you happiness?” It comes from within.
Alyssa wrote this: “He thinks people should work on making what they have better instead of longing for other things and the only way to make people do that is to kind of define limits for them.” EXACTLY! There is absolutely nothing wrong with appreciating what you are given, rather than never enjoying where you currently are. But don’t get me wrong, we all are entitled to want to better ourselves. Everyone needs goals, it’s what keeps us going in life, but they should be reasonable.
Life is going to throw us twists and turns, and it may be really awful for a while (ex: current economy!), but I do not feel that it is a reason to give up on yourself, and on life.
Durkheim says that men will be unhappy if they don’t have a goal because they will continue going forward towards nothing and therefore will never be satisfied because there is no goal to meet. He says that there must be limits set on desires and must be done by an outside force, like the society. I agree with what Durkheim is saying here because if someone was to spend their whole life moving forward toward no goal then there is no way that they can feel justified with what they are doing if they never a goal to reach. It also makes sense that an individual can’t necessarily put a limit on their own goals because they might set goals that are reachable meaning that the society has to put a limit on those goals because the limit has to be made by an authority that men respect.
I agree with alyssa.cook when she says that it is quite different when Durkheim says that poverty helps to prevent suicide because they know the limits to the goals that they are able to reach. I don’t really understand how he can say that because I feel that people that are living in poverty might know these limits but I don’t think that would decrease their unhappiness. I guess I could kind of understand how people at the top of the ladder might have the highest suicide rates because they have no goal to reach towards, they have already reached the highest goal they can but I still think that they should be happy that the reached the highest goal that they have had set for them.
I also agree with the three different types of suicide because people kill themselves because of various different reasons. Some people believe that the world will be better without them in it. Sometimes suicide is the only way to save someone they love so they believe that it is worth it to give their life and some people kill themselves just because they are unhappy and they can’t handle it anymore.
I think you have done a very great job defining exactly what Durkheim was trying to get across; I definitely understood it a lot better after reading your post. I do wish you would’ve wrote more of your thoughts on if you feel he is right or wrong since you did get a good sense of it.
From what I think of this passage Durkheim had some very good theories that I do agree with but at the same time disagree with. Starting off with what I do agree with is the section of goals, everyone does need goals or they could start to feel as if there is nothing to live for or achieve in life, and every day is just another day. I disagree though with achieving too many goals can be bad, when I feel like life can’t get any better, all my goals at that time are met and I am so happy; not feeling suicidal at all. I am so-so on his theory of money equaling to suicide. We all know money can’t buy happiness, but being in poverty one might feel as if they have nothing therefore they having nothing to live for so I was surprised to hear Durkheim think of them as least likely to commit suicide. As bad as it sounds I don’t think feeling on top the world with money and no one above me as in materialistic ways would make me feel hopeless either but that goes along with the way I feel about reaching all goals set. I believe all types of suicides Durkheim wrote are very true especially egotistic which I think are in most cases.
Thank you again for really defining this section!
Post a Comment