Psychological versus Sociological Perspectives on Suicide: A Reply to Mauk, Taylor, White, and Allen

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

This article addresses three issues raised in Mauk et al.'s (1994) artide on country music and suicide. First, Mauk et al.'s charge that suicide is an individual act that cannot be assessed through group statistics is a paradigmatic critique that can be leveled against the bulk of sociological work on suicide. The position of Mauk et al. is precisely that which Durkheim ([18971 1966) polemicized against in order to legitimate the discipline of sociology in the nineteenth century. Second, their notion that autopsies constitute the legitimate methodology for studying suicide is an overstatement. Third, the noted problems can, in fact, be remedied through properly specified models. Many relationships involving suicide have been replicated with individual-level data. Fourth, the charges that our subcultural argument is barely implied and that the notion of a country music subculture is a myth are inaccurate. We reiterate our subcultural as well as the evidence in support of such a subculture. Mauk et al. (1994) first criticize our study on the basis of alleged 'statistical errors (1250). This translates into two identifiable issues: the problem of the ecological fallacy and a higher level or paradigmatic critique on the sociological study of suicide per se. Sociological Method vs. Psychological Autopsy According to Mauk et al. (1994), who are presumably psychologists, Some behaviors are solely the act of individuals and should not be aggregated. is certainly one of them (1252); and in their conclusion: Suicide is an individual act that cannot be assessed through group statistics' (1254). In place of the sociological method used in work on suicide, which is fundamentally * Direct correspondence to Steven Stack, Criminal Justice Program, 2239 FAB, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202. ? The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, June 1994, 72(4):1257-1261 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.122 on Thu, 19 May 2016 05:26:55 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 1258 / Social Forces 72:4, June 1994 based on groups and group statistics (Durkheim [1897] 1966), they call for work employing psychological methodologies; the autopsy is cited as the only (1252) legitimate method of studying the phenomenon of suicide. Sociologists have dealt with Durkheim's ([1897] 1966) classic work on suicide as a polemic against what was then the dominant method of studying suicide: suicide was seen as a highly personal or individual event. Durkheim's treatise on suicide was used to legitimate sociology as a field of study. He demonstrated that even the allegedly most private or personal behaviors such as suicide are subject to group-level processes such as modernization, secularization, the breakdown of extended family systems, the development of free inquiry, and other social forces. Sociological work on suicide since Durkheim has been overwhelmingly based at the level of the group (for reviews see Lester 1992; Stack 1982). Recent research continues this heritage and includes work on the societal or group level of alcohol consumption and suicide (Wasserman 1989) and the impact of economic development on suicide rates (Girard 1993). In such work we have no conclusive evidence that, for example, people who are heavy drinkers are the ones accounting disproportionately for suicide or that, for example, suicide in advanced industrial societies is disproportionately located amongst persons in achievement-oriented career paths. Such research may be suggestive of these patterns but work on the individual level would be needed as a check on such individualistic interpretations. In a related area, some sociological on deviant behavior such as Merton's anomie theory is often said to be testable with data (e.g., Bernard 1987). For example, the relationship between income inequality and homicide. rates, a subject of substantial debate in the last 15 years is best tested with data since income inequality is not a property of individuals.