Theory of suicide
Dukheim in his book ‘Le Suicide’ made it very clear on the basis of statistics that suicide is not the result of any personal cause but it is a social fact. Explaining this, Durkhim’s statement that scholars who have explained suicide on the basis of hereditary defect, poverty, despair, mental imbalance or climate etc., make the mistake of considering self-murder a personal phenomenon. The reality is that there is something special about suicide. Social conditions and the amount of personal adaptation done to them. In Durkhim’s words, “The relationship between suicide and the various conditions of the social environment is more direct and clear than the biological and physical conditions that explain an uncertain and ambiguous relationship with suicide. Based on this statement Durshim made it clear that for a balanced personality it is necessary that the effect of social conditions and collective consciousness on a person’s life is healthy. Conversely, when the control of a group over a person’s life increases or decreases more than necessary When it happens, social conditions start affecting the person unhealthily. This condition is the cause of suicides.
Durkheim made it clear based on the data collected by him that men commit more suicides than women; less. Suicide rates are found to be higher among people of older age than people. Soldiers generally commit more suicides than the public; Suicides compared to those who are deprived of unmarried and happy family life. The rate is higher for those who are married or living a happy family life. Similarly, those who follow Protestant religion commit more self-murders than those who believe in Catholicism.
The rate of suicide among those who believe in Protestant religion is so high that their religion is not able to establish so much control over the behavior of individuals that they can be fully integrated into a moral community because of the greater emphasis on personal liberty. This means that religious belief and religious conduct do not necessarily control suicide. The more organized a particular religion is by its ethics, the lower the suicide rate among its followers. This again makes it clear that suicide incidents can only be understood on social grounds.
A question may arise in this regard, that if social conditions are the cause of suicide, then why do the incidents of self-murder in people living in similar social conditions differ from each other? Explaining this, Durthim states that the conditions leading to suicide remain active in every society but their impact on different individuals is not the same. This implies that some people consider a particular condition very normal and leave it like that or remain completely indifferent to it. On the other hand, there may be some people who either get completely broken when the same condition arises or they are ready to fulfill their duty to the extent that they are not worried about their lives. This means that the more people who feel attached to the various social conditions that motivate suicide, the greater the probability of moving to suicide. For this reason, Durthim has written, “It seems certain that no collective sentiment can affect individuals as long as they remain indifferent to it.” Durshim wrote on the basis of the various conditions leading to suicide. Three major types are mentioned:
(1) Egoistic Suicide – This suicide is the result of a social situation in which due to lack of control of the group, the individual and the group’s relationship becomes so loose and weak that the person not only neglects himself Rather, I feel completely isolated from society. Durkheim, citing the example of Western societies, said that as a result of excessive increase in individualism here, most of the people have started giving so much importance to their personal pleasures and interests that beyond this. . . The virtues of renunciation, love and sympathy are being lost. When these impersonal numbers increase so much that individuals become anxious only to fulfill their selfishness by worrying about social control, then this condition becomes very humiliating for the ego of sensitive mind. He begins to feel that he has no ‘own’ in the group. Such a person at some stage of life not only starts feeling very lonely, unfamiliar and abandoned but also sometimes considers his life to be unusable. Suicide is the natural result of this condition which is done by the person to protect himself. This shows that lack of social intimacy, formalization of relationships and decline in social control are the main causes of critical suicide.
(2) Altruistic Suicide – – This form of suicide makes the situation completely opposite to the critical suicide. Altruistic suicide is committed not to the satisfaction of the individual ego but to take into account the interests of another person or group. This implies that in certain circumstances, the existence of a person gets mixed up in his group in such a way that the person starts to consider his group more important than his life. Whatever he thinks or behaves in this situation, everything is done keeping in mind the welfare of the group. In a particular situation, if the person feels that his sacrifice will enhance the prestige of his group, protect another important person or make the group more organized, then the person is often ready to sacrifice his life.
This is altruistic suicide. Durkhim clarified that suicides in this category occur on two major grounds – on moral grounds and on psychological grounds. The moral ground makes the person more aware of the welfare of his group, while on the psychological basis, the idea of suicide gives him a feeling of personal satisfaction. For example, the practice of ‘Harakiri’ in Japan or ‘Jauhar practice’, which has been prevalent in India for a long time, are moral suicides. On the other hand, a suicide committed by a lover in the interest of his girlfriend or a family sick woman taking into account the hardships of a family is a psychological suicide related to psychological grounds. Durthim also clarified that the smaller the size of a group and the greater the primacy of individual and sacrificial relationships, the greater the number of suicides in this category.
(3) Anomique Suicide – This type of suicide is related to the condition of society which Durthim has called ‘Anomaly’ or Anomic. Defining the discrepancy, Durthim wrote that, “Discrepancy is the ideal – the termination of rules, a general nullity, suspension of rules and is a condition we often call rule deficiencies.” 28 implies that When any accidental conditions deteriorate the organization of the society and its moral balance and individuals are unable to reconcile with these changed conditions, then this condition becomes anomaly. This is the reason why we commit suicide in this situation called suicide caused by disorganization or rulelessness. Explaining this form of suicide, Sorokin wrote that, “When a society’s system of values and normative rules is traumatized and disintegrated, the rate of illogical suicide itself goes up Starts arising. “For example, in the event of economic crisis in a society or in the event of intense political upheaval, not only the ideal rules in the society cease, but many people leave a void in their life. Start feeling The natural result of this is seen as suicide committed by many individuals.
In India, a large number of suicides related to the inhumanity which encouraged the reservation policy in 1990, only explain the condition of illogical suicide. In this context, Durseem also referred to the family discrepancy that if the family organization is destroyed due to the death of one of the spouses in the family, then the suicide of the other party also leads to the nature of illogical suicide. It only explains. The reality is that due to discrepancy or rulelessness in the society, many people completely fail to reconcile with their conditions and hence try to save themselves from this crisis by suicide. In this way, Durvim considered suicide as a social event, only in the context of social conditions, the nature and rate of suicide.
They start getting stressed. This implies that rulelessness is not related to any animal classical condition but it is related to social conditions only. Merton, in his book Social Theory and Social Structure, gave a detailed discussion of the principle of lawlessness, taking forward the ideas of Dur;him. The principle of lawlessness remains an important place in the mid-way theory presented by Merton.
_Merton made it clear that the condition of rulelessness is closely related to social structure. In different situations, there are certain situations within the social structure that put pressure on the person to behave in a manner that is contrary to social norms and norms. To clarify the relationship between lawlessness and social structure, Merton presented a systematic analysis.
He explained that each social structure develops many social codes or rules of behavior that teach an individual to behave according to social norms. It is only social beliefs that show what kind of behavior society expects of an individual. Merton posed the question that when the function of social structure is to teach a person to behave in a manner recognized by society, what are the conditions that result in social lawlessness? Answering this question, Merton explained that every social structure consists of certain cultural values that prevent the achievement of the goals of many individuals or the means related to achieving the goal. These values put such pressure on the person that according to his social status, he started to behave in some way which is different from the prevailing rules or norms of the society. According to Mattan, “cultural structure is the organized form of normative values that control the behavior of members of a group.” On the other hand, by social structure we mean that organized form of social which is formed by various actions of the group members mmyTVRATRI implies that social and cultural structure consists of many elements but from the point of view of understanding of lawlessness, more than two elements of it Robert K. Merton 323 is important . We call these cultural goals and Institutional Norms. Mutton explained the concept of lawlessness on the basis of these.
Cultural Goals and Institutional Norms
Each cultural structure consists of certain goals which are considered important for the members of the society. According to Merton, these goals are interrelated and their basis is some real facts of society. Each of these goals is related to our social value. The higher the goal, the more important the value is associated with, the higher it is considered. For example, winning the war or annihilating death is an important value in the Semurai of Japan. According to it, fighting bravely is an important cultural goal of the Semurai race. Merton _ _ _ states that cultural goals determine what the aspirations will be in a society and how they will behave in their group. This implies that the way of life of a particular society or group is determined only by its cultural facts. Another important element of the ALTERNER cultural structure is what Merton called the institutional paradigm. These paradigms are the accepted modes of behavior that serve as instruments for achieving cultural goals.
In fact, each group develops certain genetics, practices, ethos, procedures or institutions to achieve cultural goals. It is these institutional paradigms that teach individuals to behave in a particular way. For example, raising a family is a cultural goal whereas in our society the rule of a marriage is the institutional model or means by which this goal can be achieved. It is clear from the above discussion of lead cultural goals and institutional paradigms that these two elements are intimately related and only analysis. . From the point of view, they can be separated from each other. The reality is that cultural goals and institutional paradigms jointly influence human behavior and it is these combined forms of functional balance in society. lives . Merton states that every cultural structure has this effort. That this balance between cultural goals and institutional paradigms may remain but
This does not always happen. Merton explained this on the basis of several reasons. (1) The first reason is that cultural goals in a society are determined by the values of that society whereas in different cases the values of individuals may differ from one another. For example, one person’s goal may be to achieve a respected position in society through hard work, while another person’s goal may be to gain more wealth through hard work. In this way, individual values also change according to the values of a particular period. (2) The second reason is that there can be a situation of conflict or conflict between the values of the same person under different conditions. For example, there is no conflict between values like nationalism and non-violence in general. Even after this, if a person’s nation is attacked by an enemy, then a situation of conflict arises between these two values. If a person makes war, then the value of non-violence is hurt, whereas the goal based on the value of the national suit is destroyed if the war is not done. (3) According to Merton, it is also possible that the achievement of some specific goals is emphasized by the culture of that society but the institutional means of achieving these goals are not clear and systematic. In this situation, a person often starts achieving those goals through such means which are contrary to the traditional values or social norms of the society.
As a result of these conditions, some people disregard cultural goals and accept only institutional means, while some people try to achieve cultural goals by changing the institutional means in new ways. There are some individuals who neither accept their cultural goals nor consider institutional paradigms useful. When such situations arise in the society, then a situation of rulelessness arises from it. It is clear from this that due to lawlessness, they exist within the social and cultural structure of the society.
Types of Individual Adaptation Merton clarified that the state of lawlessness is related to the negative adaptation by an individual to cultural goals and institutional means. This implies that the nature of rulelessness can be understood on the basis of the manner in which the person adapts to the social structure. Merton recognized that the role of individuals is important in setting cultural goals and determining institutional means in society, so the format of rulelessness can be understood only with the help of individual adaptation. To illustrate this statement, NA presented a systematic table which is as follows:
Types of Adaptation Cultural Goals, Institutional Means, Conformity, Innovation + Ritualism, Rcbeltion, in the appropriate table, Merton put individuals in different circumstances Has explained various ways of adapting to society. His statement is that it is not a type of personality but it is only related to different types of adaptation. Their nature can be understood as follows:
(1) Conformity: This is the type of personal adaptation in which an individual loses according to his cultural goals and institutional means. For example, religion, artha, kama and moksha are cultural goals of marriage in our society. To fulfill these goals, when one accepts the traditional means, then it can be said that the similarity in the society. Condition exists. In other words, we can say that Jaw institutional means are used by the person to fulfill the traditional cultural goals, then it explains a level of adaptation in which there is no rulelessness.
(2) Innovation – – literally, innovation means ‘new behavior’ or ‘new way of behavior’. Merton recognized that innovation is a condition that to some extent leads to a state of lawlessness. Clarifying this, Merton wrote that when a process of innovation occurs in a society, then individuals accept their cultural goals. But their faith in the institutional means of obtaining them begins to diminish. Thus the state of innovation illustrates a situation of adaptation from the social structure in which deviant behavior to some extent begins to occur. Merton tried to clarify this situation keeping in mind the economic structure of American society. He pointed out that many cunning people and white-collar criminals in American society show faith in their cultural goals but start using the means with personal desire, by rejecting the institutional means to achieve those goals. In our society if we accept the cultural goal of marriage but reject the institution’s previous ways of marrying and start intermarriage or love marriage etc. then it also clarifies the type of personal adaptation as innovation. Merton states that in the state of innovation, it leads to a state of rulelessness due to less emphasis on acceptance of institutional means.
(3) Ritualism is a form of personal adaptation in which the individual not only over-values his cultural goals but only considers the institutional means set by the tradition as more important. It is a conservative method of social balance. Explaining this, Merton wrote that when someone says that playing in a traditional way is the best way to play, it explains the state of traditionalist adaptation. This means that a player can move away from the goal of victory by playing in a protective or traditional manner but does not want to change the way the game is played. If this fact is explained by the example of our society, then it can be said that if a person disobeys the cultural goal of marriage, he likes to keep his daughter unmarried but does not allow her to be married to a man of another caste. Such adaptation will be called traditional adaptation. Merton states that traditionalism is not ordinarily called a rulelessness because even in this case one accepts the means related to the goal.Of course it does. Even then, this adaptation makes the condition of rulelessness clear because in this condition the person accepts the same rules or means which are compatible with his feelings and values. Thus, in Murdon’s words, traditionalism is also a special type of social lawlessness. “
(4) Retreatism: Mutton states that escapism is a negative form of adaptation, just as Conformity is the best form of adaptation. Escapism is a condition in which a person neither recognizes his or her cultural goals nor is interested in achieving any goal through institutional practice. In fact, the people who have escaped the society also treat some values as the basis, but those values are those which do not get any acceptance of the society. Merton cited the example of excessive drinkers, drug users, and mentally challenged people, stating that such individuals generally do not accept any social norms, so it is appropriate to classify their behavior as irresponsibility or rulelessness. is . According to Mattan, all failures, Quietist and Disgusted people (Resignist) are those who do not meet the criteria of cultural goals and institutional means and become indifferent to society. The behavior of the people of hippie culture in the present era shows the rulelessness of this category.
(5) Rebellion – The type of adaptation in the form of rebellion indicates a condition in which the elements of rule are the highest. Merton states that “when the institutional system of society is perceived as an obstacle to the attainment of statutory goals, then adaptation in this state can be called a level of rebellion.” 16 Adapting in this way People want complete change in social system. They neither accept their archaic cultural goals nor have any faith in institutional means. Not only this . This person considers some new cultural goals to be important and tries to achieve them through new institutional means. Merton explained the difference between the rebels and the Natsists, stating that the Natschists (supporters of Hitler) are dissatisfied, but they only accept archaic ideas. On the contrary, rebellious people are those who want to change the whole society by giving effect to new faults and new rules. It is clear that in the event of rebellion, individual behavior is quite different from social norms. This is the lowest level of insensitivity. Through the above concept of lawlessness, Merton made it clear that rulelessness does not refer to the abolition of rules in society, rather it is related to the lack of influence of social goals related to cultural goals and institutional means, changes in them or their total rejection. Is from Thus only on the basis of lawlessness one can understand the nature of deviant behavior in a society.