A Comparative Analysis of Durkheim's Theory of Egoistic Suicide

A Comment

Datos Bibliográficos

ID2276296
AutoresStack (0000-0002-1312-9773, Pennsylvania State University, autor de correspondencia), Steven Stack (Pennsylvania State University)
Año1983
Volumen24
Número4
Páginas625-627
Fecha de publicación1983-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaSociological Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0038-0253 • E-ISSN: 1533-8525
EditorialInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1533-8525.1983.tb00723.x
OpenAlexW2091144090
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas9

K. D. Breault and Karen Barkey's recent paper makes a number of important contributions to the sociological research on suicide. As Emile Durkheim once said, good sociology is comparative sociology. The generalizations documented in the Breault and Barkey investigation are more solid than those in noncomparative research. The relationships between suicide and selected independent variables were found to hold in the institutional and cultural frameworks of over 40 nations. In addition, Breault and Barkey make an important advancement in the methodology of suicide: they are the first to systematically document an inverse exponential function between suicide and political and variables. While their paper has a number of strengths, there are a number of important weaknesses left unaddressed. These lie in the areas of their conceptual framework, model specification, and literature review. First, there are some conceptual problems regarding the phenomena of integration and commitment (Breault and Barkey, 1982: 325). What Durkheim really meant by integration has been the subject of much debate (Johnson, 1965; Pope, 1976). It is important that authors address the thorny issue of how their measures get at the heart of the integration problem. The present authors have an innovative and ingenious measure of the factor: book production. There is a problem, however, seeing this as an index of Durkheimian integration. Breault and Barkey do not clearly demonstrate how book production is a measure of integration They assert that it is a measure of religious commitment, which, in turn, is used as a synonym for integration (Breault and Barkey, 1982:322, 325). However, integration and commitment are distinct concepts. Durkheim (1966: 156-70) used the term integration to describe a group with a large number of shared beliefs and practices. Catholics-with a rigid church hierarchy to preserve traditional orthodoxy and with a greater number of practices, such as mandatory weekly church attendance and confession-were viewed by Durkheim as more than Protestants. Whether Catholics produce or consume more books is open to question. It is possible for a group to be highly integrated without publishing a disproportionate number of books. Conversely, it is also possible for a nation to be low in integration and high in book production. For example, nation marked by pluralism (many denominations and/or religions with varied beliefs and practices) would be low in integration, but its level of religiosity or commitment could be quite high. Considerable debate between denominations over orthodoxy and norms regarding practices would indicate each

Economics · Epistemology · Function (biology) · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Social science · Sociological theory · Sociology · Strengths and weaknesses · Subject (documents) · Computer Science · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Emile Durkheim and Sociology · Law · Philosophy