Le Suicide in Poland Analysis of the Spread and Reception of a Sociological Classic

Antoni Sułek

Abstract: In 2006 a Polish translation of Émile Durkheim’s Le suicide was published in Warsaw. Polish sociology is one of the most active in the Euro- pean sociological tradition, both drawing and contributing to this, and has developed in close touch with the world’s centres of sociology. Yet Le suicide was not translated into Polish until more than one hundred years after the original edition. The paper explores this paradoxical situation, and traces the work’s career from its early reception in Poland, through the inter-war years, the post-Stalinist ‘thaw’ after 1956, the Solidarity movement and the crisis of the 1980s, up to the present day. But also, in taking the example of Le suicide and Poland, it aims to show how a classic work created in the centre of Europe spreads across other countries; which paths it takes; how it reaches a country situated far from the metropolis; how it is perceived there, accepted or rejected; how it is assimilated and included in the body of public and scientiﬁc work.1

Keywords: diffusion of ideas, Durkheim, Polish sociology, suicide

Introduction

Émile Durkheim’s Le suicide is one of the most important books in the history of sociology, and the Polish sociological tradition is one of the richest in Europe (Kwas;niewicz 1994, Szacki 1995, Mucha and Vaitkus 2006). But its translation was ﬁrst published in Poland only in 2006, more than a hundred years after the original, and later than in some countries with lesser sociological traditions.2 However, Le suicide was present in Poland in different forms from its ﬁrst publication, and the aim of this paper is to show the diffusion and reception of the work with reference to its fortunes in the sociology and to developments of the Durkheimian movement in Poland and world-wide (Besnard 2000, Collins 2005). In addition to a documentary

Durkheimian Studies, Volume 15, 2009: 41–63,  Durkheim Press doi:10.3167/ds.2009.150107 ISSN 1362-024X Antoni Sułek

role, this paper is meant to be a case study. Using the example of Le suicide and Poland, one book and one country, it sets out to show how a piece of work created in the centre of Europe radiates across other countries; which paths it takes and how it reaches a country situated far from the metropolis; how it is perceived there, accepted and rejected; how it is assimilated and included in the body of public and scientiﬁc work. The early masters of sociology dealt with the diffusion of ideas, institutions and social practices. The subject of this paper is the diffusion of their own ideas and the works that carry those ideas. The sources for the paper are scientiﬁc texts, constituting evidence of the presence (and absence) of Durkheim’s work in Polish sociology, or providing information about the work’s dissemination and content.

Initial Reception

At the time when Durkheimian sociology appeared in France, Poland had not existed as an independent state for a hundred years. At the end of the eighteenth century Russia, Prussia and Austria carried out their third and final partition of Poland. The history of each of the three partitions took a different path (Wandycz 1974, Davies 1982). The central part of Poland, including Warsaw, was under Russian rule. At the end of the nineteenth century, the Russian-occupied lands had over- come the inertia caused by the defeat of the 1863 uprising. A late industrial revolution took place, and was followed by social and intellectual revival. Social thought, which had lagged behind wider European developments, was concerned with incorporating everything that was a factor for progress or that could justify it. Sociology, a new science, offered this opportunity. Polish sociological thought taking shape at that time was eclectic. It was nonetheless dominated by the positivist approach, with it naturalism and belief in laws of social evolution. Many positivist scientific works were translated, while others were known from reviews published in journals and weeklies. At the turn of the century, the philosophy of science that was the basis of positivism was questioned by the anti-positivism movements. These stressed the role of individual experiences and activities in social processes, as well as the specificity of culture. Interest in sociology also developed in Lvov and Cracow in the Austrian- occupied sector, which enjoyed a high degree of autonomy as a province in the Habsburg monarchy, as well as in Poznan in the Prussian-occupied lands. Poles fought against ‘Germanization’ by building a civil society, set- ting up their own associations and publishing journals. Early sociology in Poland was strongly connected with sociology in other countries. The first Polish sociologists found their main reference in Euro-

42 Le Suicide in Poland pean sociology, not only following its output, but also taking an active part in it. However, the new science had no university basis: the University in Warsaw was Russian, and the Polish Universities in Lvov and Cracow were too conservative. Sociological interests were developed elsewhere – in scientific publications and the press for the intelligentsia; in self-study clubs, which at first had been illegal; and at the universities of Western Europe, where Poles studied and sometimes taught (Kłoskowska 1966, Szacki 1995). When Le suicide came out in 1897, Durkheim was not a well-known scholar in Poland, but was not completely unknown. When his article ‘Sui- cide et natalité’ (1888d) – his first work on suicide – appeared in the Revue philosophique, it was noticed and favourably discussed in Przeglaçd Pow- szechny, a journal published by the Cracow Jesuits. This was probably the first printed mention of Durkheim in the Polish lands. The reviewer cited Durkheim’s findings that in France ‘suicide goes hand in hand with low population growth’, and that where ‘families are strong ... where divorces are rare, suicides are also rare’. He also listed Durkheim’s explanations: both suicide and the ‘infertility of the masses’ have ‘moral reasons’, depending above all on the ‘customs and ideas of the society’. ‘We can be grateful to Durkheim,’ he wrote, ‘for showing the close relationship between suicide and the vicious limitation of the number of children in the family and for emphasizing that those two destructive factors have been present in France since the great revolution’. The explanations offered by Durkheim – ‘one of the “independent” philosophers’ – were not deemed deep enough by the Catholic author, who argued that the two ‘criminal symptoms’ are caused by weak faith, which ‘descended to the most numerous of classes … the people’ (Werszczyn;ski 1889: 148–150). In 1896, the Warsaw positivist magazine Prawda published an article ‘Nowy francuski socyolog’ [‘New French Sociologist’], which was fully dedicated to Durkheim, and which also announced his forthcoming book on suicide. Albert Barbanel, who wrote the article, explained that for some years there had been a department of sociology in the Arts Faculty at Bor- deaux, and continued:

Professor Émile Durkheim, who has been spoken of a lot this year, gives lectures there. So far, he has written, apart from his articles, two books of different size and content but of equal value, the ﬁrst of which, The Division of Labour in Society (1893), went rather unnoticed, whereas the second, The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), was received with such numerous disputes and criticism that there has not been an issue of the Revue philosophique without a comment on the author.

The article shed light on attacks that Durkheim’s works faced in France, and supplemented it with its own evaluation. It criticized his treatment of social phenomena ‘as things’ and his theory of the ‘normal’, but ﬁnished

43 Antoni Sułek

with the view that ‘his future work, which he is preparing right now on Sui- cide, should considerably diminish the number of his scholarly opponents’ (Barbanel 1896a: 547–548). The writer elaborated on these opinions the same year in an extensive analysis ‘Prace socyologiczne prof. Emila Durk- heima’ [‘Sociological works of Professor Émile Durkheim’], which was published in the university review Przeglaçd Prawa i Administracji, in Lvov in the Austrian sector, and which again announced Durkheim’s book on suicide (Barbanel 1896b; see also Barbanel 1902).3 After this book came out in 1897, readers of Warsaw’s Przeglaçd Katolicki had the possibility to get acquainted with its main theses. In an essay ‘Reli- gia i samobójstwo’ [‘Religion and Suicide’], Władysław Deçbicki, a popular writer, priest and theologian, used Durkheim’s work to find reasons for the increase in the number of suicides in Europe. He referred to a table from Le suicide, showing suicide rates in countries that were Protestant, Catholic and of mixed religion and including a comparison of suicide rates in the Catholic and Protestant cantons of Switzerland. He then cited the famous explanation that ‘the only essential difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that the second permits free inquiry to a far greater degree than the first … The proclivity of Protestantism for suicide must relate to the spirit of free inquiry that animates this religion’. And he was eager to agree that, as he put it, ‘the principle allowing people to consider the Book and the secrets of Faith on their own sentenced Protestantism … to lack of moral vitality, which has such a terrible effect on suicides’. However, he pro- tested against seeing this principle as the only important difference between ‘Luther’s doctrine’ and Catholicism. The moral vitality of Catholicism, ‘proved so definitely by the statistics on suicide’, has its source in the character of faith and in the strength of relations with God. Catholic faith makes it possible to deal with despair, and this is ‘undoubtedly one of the best cri- teria of its divine origin and eternal truth’ ( Deçbicki [1898] 1901: 31–45). Thus he used empirical sociology to ‘prove’ the theological advantage of Catholicism over Protestantism, even if for us the non sequitur is obvious. In 1899, the Warsaw weekly Przeglaçd Tygodniowy published a discussion of Durkheim’s book by Leon Winiarski, a political economy lecturer in Geneva who was connected with Pareto and who co-operated with Polish periodicals. Calling Durkheim ‘one of the most famous modern French sociologists’, he referred to Durkheim’s classification of different types of suicide and research into their detailed causes. But it was to ask: ‘Beyond those specific motives, is there any more general cause? Could a given social state cause an illness favourable to development of the seeds of suicide, of abnormal impulses?’ And he answered: Durkheim is of the opinion that the environment is like this at the moment, and that it explains the enormous increase of this plague in our century. Durkheim sees this environment in the lack of order in modern society, in indi-

44 Le Suicide in Poland

vidualistic anarchy, and claims that the cure lies in occupational associations. Corporations should become primary institutions in society, as collective units with their customs and traditions, their laws and duties, their unity and moral personality. (Winiarski 1899: 566–567) Sociology at that time was learned in self-study circles, and a multi-volume, comprehensive handbook was prepared for their purposes. In the volume on social statistics, Stanisław Posner (1900: 59–60) gave a short summary of Le suicide and recommended it for self-study by sociology enthusiasts. This recommendation is evidence, not only that French was at the time well known by the intelligentsia, but that Durkheim’s book was available in Warsaw, rather than only in the library of the Russian university, which was closed to the public, and where it had been acquired as early as 1897, within months of its release in Paris. Posner presented Le suicide as one in a series of works on suicide, which included studies by Morselli, Masaryk, von Oettingen and von Mayr, and which were also used by Durkheim himself. He described the essence of Durkheim’s Le suicide as follows: ‘Contrary to his predecessor, Morselli, who approached suicide according to the two main factors of race and cli- mate, the author, after reviewing all possible physical and biological factors, comes to conclusion that reasons for suicide lie solely in social conditions … Durkheim claims that the constantly increasing number of suicides in Europe is proof of lamentable moral relations’ (Posner 1900: 59–60). A few years later, in his book Nauki społeczne w szkole wyzszejæ [Social Sciences in Higher Schools], Posner (1905: 74–75) again took the example of Le suicide – still ‘a very serious work’ – but to teach caution in using statistical data. In arguing against a relationship between alcoholism and suicide, Durk- heim claims that ‘the most cultural and wealthy classes have the biggest number of suicides, and these are not the classes with the biggest number of alcohol lovers’. But he deﬁnes alcoholics as people ‘persecuted for alco- holic crimes’ – ‘The law, however, only persecuted alcoholics wallowing in the gutter, and not the ones wallowing under tables in closed aristocratic clubs’ (Posner 1905: 74–75). The emotions in this opinion are easily under- stood, when one keeps in mind that Posner was a socialist. In sum, the ﬁrst opinions on Durkheim’s book were favourable, even if formulated by such diverse authors as a Catholic priest, a political economy lecturer and a socialist activist. From what we know of Le suicide’s early reception elsewhere, we can say that Durkheim’s work was received better in Poland than in France (see Besnard 2000). Even commentators from Durkheim’s own intellectual milieu were unenthusiastic about his radical approach to the ‘individual-society’ relation, and had doubts about his research procedure. The American Journal of Sociology published harsh criticisms of the book’s theoretical content, while Pareto attacked it in terms of the ‘experimental method’. In Poland, the book was not analysed

45 Antoni Sułek or evaluated from these perspectives. It was emphasized and appreciated that Durkheim’s analysis was systematic, and that what was important for him was the ‘symptomatic meaning of suicides’ – not merely the rates of suicides, but what they were symptoms of (see Znaniecki 1911). They were symptoms of ‘the lack of order in modern society’, of ‘individualistic anarchy’, of ‘lamentable moral relationships’. This was a new approach. The issue of suicide, so alive in Europe, was also an issue in Poland. The authors who have been cited wrote about suicide and a ‘new plague’, an ‘illness of the millennium’, ‘something of a spiritual cancer’. They expected sociology and statistics to research the reasons for these phenomena. Thus the basic works of Legoyt, Morselli and Masaryk were well known in Poland. And when Eugen Rehfisch’s Der Selbstmord was published in Berlin in 1893, summaries were quickly published in Warsaw (Tilles 1893, Pietkiewicz [1894)] 1898), followed by a translation (Rehﬁsch 1895). These gave newer data on suicide in Europe, up to the late 1880s. But as for explanation, they were full of emotive, general statements. For example: ‘Gold fever and constant consumption, on the one hand, and poverty and despair, on the other, draw more and more victims into the abyss of suicide’ (Tilles 1893: 167). Or again: ‘The nest-bed of this catastrophe for civilization is its apparatus of means, eating out spiritual and physical energy in moral and economic struggles’ (Pietkiewicz [1894] 1898: 256). Durkheim’s work was better received in Poland than in the West, because its study of suicide was at ﬁrst seen as above all a study of modern social life and its pathologies. It was not just another book on suicide in nineteenth-century Europe. If that had been the case, it would nowadays be known only by specialists in the history of sociology and ideas.

Le Suicide in Theoretical Debates of the Early Twentieth Century

Durkheim intended Le suicide as an indisputable argument about the character of relations between the individual and the society, and a confirma- tion of sociology’s emerging status as a science (Lukes 1973). He wanted to bring out how even such a personal act as a suicide, the final breach of ties with society, is socially conditioned. His work aimed to show that social facts may be studied as external to individuals, that there is a social reality sui generis, and that sociology has its own subject-matter – contrary to Gabriel Tarde’s thesis that the subject of sociology is merely the sum of psychological acts of individuals. It was meant to confirm Durkheim’s social ontology, and to demonstrate his rules of sociological method. But in early twentieth-century Poland, Le suicide did not have this role. True, there were the same debates to which it aimed to contribute. When it

46 Le Suicide in Poland was published, however, anti-positivist ideas were beginning to gain ground. These assumed that the bases of social life are always psychological phenomena, whether individual or collective. Even if they accepted the reality of collective psychological phenomena, they would not study them ‘as things’. Opinion about Durkheim and the Durkheimian school in general was critical or, at best, distanced. Moreover, it is important to notice that Le suicide does not show up clearly in theoretical debates of the time, either as a source of arguments or as a focus of discussion. These roles, especially the second, were taken in comment on his earlier work and on the Année sociologique (cf. Krzywicki 1900, Balicki 1903). Nor did it turn up as an example of empirical research to test hypotheses. In Poland, the new social research was mainly sociographic. It referred to the works of Freder- ick Le Play, and was an epoch behind Durkheim’s work. Programmes for such research did not develop until the 1950s and 1960s, not without an influence of Le suicide itself, as will be shown later. From today’s perspective, the most prominent of Durkheim’s Polish crit- ics was the young Florian Znaniecki, educated in Geneva, Paris and Cra- cow, and well acquainted with contemporary philosophy and sociology. For him, Durkheim and his school became an ‘important structure of negative reference’ (Szacki 1995: 68). Yet although his early philosophical works cite Le suicide, the reference is marginal. Thus his Elementy rzeczywistosci; praktycznej [Elements of Practical Reality], which investigates the relations between the individual and the society, negates both the social psycholo- gism and the ontology of the Durkheimian school, since it ‘excludes individual ideals from moral reality’ and groundlessly treats values ‘as things’. Given that ‘there is a single social and individual world, it is practical, a world of dynamic values, in which individuals and societies are shaped’ (Znaniecki 1912: 187). But he does not go into specific works by Durkheim, and instead apparently talks about things known to his readers, in a critique that refers to Le suicide, since its preface involves a key formulation of ‘sociologism’. Theoretically, sociology in Poland was varied. But the dominant orienta- tion became humanistic sociology, as presented by Znaniecki. In his influential Wsteçp do socjologii [Introduction to Sociology], published in 1922 and written to meet the needs of sociology as an emerging academic discipline in Poland, he repeatedly discusses the relation between the social and the individual. The preface to Le suicide’s first edition is discussed in a chapter that criticizes the concept of ‘social facts’. Durkheim wanted to show there that ‘the individual is dominated by a moral reality greater than himself: namely, collective reality’ (1897a: x, 1951: 38). However, ‘social facts’ are about ‘the meaning of group, supra-individual or inter-individual facts that result from a synthesis of individual facts but also have their own nature, which cannot be analysed into separate elements’ (Znaniecki 1922: 309).

47 Antoni Sułek

Znaniecki’s critique is scathing. The Durkheimian school thus

does not deal with aims and aspirations, it only sees social situations. It only talks of norms; in fact it is mostly, if not only, concerned with schemas, especially legal. It consciously ignores social ideals. It argues that the ideal sphere of life should be excluded, since it can only be researched through individual lives, and sociology, according to Durkheim, only deals with group phenomena, leaving the individual to psychology (Znaniecki 1922: 424).

In short, Durkheim’s concepts lack ‘the humanistic coefficient’ – ‘a specific change operates in a different ideal ground in cases of different individuals or groups with different aspirations, norms and ideals, and so it is “received” differently. This ideal ground is, therefore, a necessary factor determining the impact of change’ (ibid.: 425). In later writings, Znaniecki made numerous references to Durkheim’s concepts, but with little or no reference to Le suicide. It is only in The Method of Sociology (Znaniecki 1934) that it gets a mention, as one of the examples of ‘first-rate works based chiefly on second-hand sources’, and Znaniecki himself did not rate highly works based on a single type of source, especially indirect sources. In discussing the beginning of his ‘analytical induction’, he wrote:

The school centred around Durkheim tried to use it consciously and purpose- fully, but made the mistake of believing that a self-sufﬁcient theory can be built on one thoroughly analyzed instance. This was done by Durkheim, deﬁning the essence of religion on the basis of a study of Australian totemism, and by Czarnowski when he drew from the study of the legend of St. Patrick conclu- sions about the cult of heroes in general. (Znaniecki 1934: 247)

However, it can be observed that it is in Le suicide itself that Znaniecki could have found an important example of use of the ‘varied instances method’ to construct a theory explaining social phenomena. As sociology in inter-war Poland began to be institutionalized and became more of a ‘normal science’ (in Thomas Kuhn’s sense), general discussions about the fundamentals of sociology tended to cease, and were replaced by speciﬁc theories and empirical research (Markley Znaniecki 1945). One of the exceptions to this, which is signiﬁcant in the context, was a book published in 1930 by Znaniecki’s student, the Rev. Franciszek Mirek, entitled Metoda socjologiczna. Przyczynek na podstawie analizy krytycznej metod Tarde’a i Durkheima [The Sociological Method. A Contribu- tion Based on a Critical Analysis of Tarde’s and Durkheim’s Methods].4 Although, where it relates to Durkheim, it is based mainly on De la division du travail social and Les régles de la méthode sociologique, it also refers directly to Le suicide and to suicides.

48 Le Suicide in Poland

Mirek shows that Durkheim looks for the ‘determining causes’ of suicide in a ‘society’, its ‘states of mind’ and ‘collective tendencies’, and that he ‘excludes the study of final causes from sociology’ – the intentions and plans of individuals, and their pursuit of happiness and the good. But Mirek opposes the very definition of suicide presented by Durkheim, and the possibility of identifying ‘conscious and voluntary suicides’ based on suicide statistics alone. In his view the quality of statistical data is ‘both suspicious and inadequate’. Finally, he asks: ‘is a suicide, even when conscious and voluntary, a social or personal fact?’ He claims this question can only be answered after every specific case has been analysed. The only suicides he would see as social are those influenced by others, ‘with some kind of inter- action with another individual/s leading to suicide’: treating personal and social facts in the same way ‘should be called a significant scientific inac- curacy’ (Mirek 1930: 148-149). Mirek claims that the weakest point in Durkheim’s argument is the explanation of the regularity of suicides. Apart from mentioning the general weaknesses of statistical research, he points out that regularity on its own does not prove that the cause lies in a group or ‘a collective consciousness’. Especially in the periods covered by the statistics, which involve the division of labour’s organic solidarity, individuals may perform ‘creative acts’. Mirek defends the meaning of final causes, the ‘purposes’ present in the consciousness of active subjects. In general, and like his master, Znaniecki, he sees the individual’s ‘reasoning self’ as the primary productive cause of ‘social facts’, and claims that ‘citing “society” as such a cause, to the exclu- sion of the individual self, cannot stand up in any way’ (Mirek 1930: 163) Mirek’s book is an interesting case of the reception of Le suicide, since the author discusses Durkheim’s views on Durkheim’s own ground. In taking Durkheim’s selection of the example of suicide as a typical social fact, he shows that it is impossible to explain social facts without reference to individual aims. More generally, he encourages what we would today call multilevel explanation in sociology, connecting individual, especially subjective factors with those that are structural and external. He argues for what was later said more precisely by Steven Lukes (1973: 213–222), in his monograph on Durkheim. Franciszek Mirek, a Catholic priest, pretty much like his contemporary Catholic theologians, did not think highly of Durkheim’s sociology, and even went so far as to state that ‘a study of Durkheim’s sociological views may be left for a time of leisure, and the sociological method is better learned from other authors’. However, he was aware this was not a popular opinion, and reluctantly admitted that ‘in Polish writing of recent years we constantly hear that Durkheim is a “great and original sociologist”’ (Mirek 1930: 163).

49 Antoni Sułek

Indeed, in Poland by this time, Émile Durkheim had become seen as a classic founder of sociology.

A Little-known Classic: The 1930s

The ﬁrst comprehensive and sympathetic account of Durkheim’s sociology in a popular book is in Klasycy socjologii [Classics of Sociology], published in 1933 by Aleksander Hertz, a consistent promoter of sociology and a pio- neer of the sociology of politics. He learned about Durkheim at the beginning of the 1920s at the University of Vienna, from lectures by Wilhelm Jerusalem (see Hertz 1979: 80). And his book put Durkheim in the same rank as Marx, Weber and Pareto. Without mentioning Le suicide, it summarized Durkheim’s thought on the deeper, social character of suicide, and presented him as using suicide to show how ‘all processes that could be loosely called spiritual or cultural owe their content to society and to changes in its structure’ (Hertz 1933: 143). It also promoted, in Poland, Durkheim’s view that ‘the suicide curve rises or falls depending on the moral structure at a given time within a given society’ (ibid.). Hertz was an exception because, generally speaking, in inter-war Poland, Durkheim was considered a classic but was little known. Thus, even though numerous authors wrote about him in the 1930s, it was still without referring to Le suicide. The thought of the French sociological school was developed mostly by Stefan Czarnowski. A Durkheimian and student of Hubert and Mauss, he was educated at the Sorbonne and the École Pratique des Hautes Études, and completed his studies in 1911 with a thesis on Saint Patrick and the cult of the hero, published in 1919 in a series of monographs of the Année sociologique (see Sułek, R. 2008). Czarnowski was more interested in the analysis of cultural processes and of social and religious consciousness. From this point of view, Le suicide had marginal value. He nonetheless initiated what is still a vivid tradition of interest in sociology and Durkheim in War- saw, especially at the University of Warsaw. Le suicide was not included in Wprowadzenie do socjologii [Introduction to Sociology], published in 1932 at the initiative of Czarnowski, and based on Introduction à la sociologie by René Maunier, a scholar of the Durk- heimian school. Czarnowski supplemented this work greatly, and wrote about Durkheim: ‘no one stated, better than him, the value of the comparative method in ﬁnding the explanations of facts that are necessary for a true science. The whole work of his school operates in this way: compare in order to explain, with proper attention and methods’ (Czarnowski 1932: 155). But he did not cite Le suicide as a paradigmatic example – which it was – of the comparative method for an explanation of facts. Instead, he

50 Le Suicide in Poland recommended study of the development of Durkheim’s thought by reading the ﬁrst and the last of his works: De la division du travail social and Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. However, we do ﬁnd a mention of Le suicide in a discussion by Maria Ossowska, a founder of the science of morals. Durkheim was one of the authors important to her, and she dedicated to him an analytical paper ‘Moralnos;c; jako ‘fakt społeczny’” [‘Morality as “social fact”’] (Ossowska 1934). But it is in Podstawy nauki o moralnosci; [The Elements of the Science of Morals], written just before the war, that she is concerned with Le suicide as one of three monographs on suicide produced by the Durkheimian school, and she explains their interest in suicide as ‘serving as an indicator of social euphoria’ (Ossowska 1947: 22).5 It is hard to judge to what extent Le suicide’s core thesis – the relation between suicide and social integration – was familiar, in the 1930s, among the still small but growing number of sociologists, not to mention scholars outside sociology. But it does not seem to have been widely known. A small illustration: the author of a work on suicide in Warsaw was a doctor- statistician, and observed that Jews committed suicide less often than Christians (Grzywo-Daçbrowski 1935). In a situation where the Jewish population was about 30% of Warsaw’s inhabitants, suicide attempts among Jewish people accounted for only 14% of the total and successful suicides for 18%. Someone who had at least heard about Le suicide would probably not have just observed such a rate, without trying to explain it in terms of the greater cohesion of the Jewish community. True, as Durkheim himself said, ‘an illustration is not a proof’ (1897a: vi, 1951: 35). But such a small knowledge of Le suicide would not be surprising, since there were no popular articles on Durkheim’s sociology and Le suicide itself was hard to get in Poland.6 It would also not be surprising, since worldwide Le suicide was not becoming a classic – quite the opposite, it was being forgotten. After the First World War it was re-published only once, in 1930, and translated only into Spanish, in 1926; there were no Eng- lish or German translations. Le suicide was the least known of Durkheim’s works, and in France the sociologists who were the most distanced towards it were the Durkheimians themselves. Nor was there a response to it in the Chicago school, with their focus on social disintegration (see Besnard 2000). A small additional illustration: Paul Lazarfeld and his co-workers in research on the unemployed in the 1930s, in Marienthal near Vienna, are said not even to have heard of Durkheim (see Lazarsfeld 1971). This could be true. In their classic work on psychological consequences of unemployment, Zawadzki and Lazarsfeld (1935: 245) showed suggestively that when ‘the social bond – the consciousness of being together – does not bind any longer’ and communities fall into ‘only scattered, loose, perplexed, and hopeless individuals’, it is the unemployed that constantly have suicidal

51 Antoni Sułek

thoughts. But Zawadzki and Lazarsfeld did not refer to Durkheim, although their ideas clearly ran along the same lines as his. The spread of Durkheim’s ideas was seriously hindered in inter-war Poland. This was despite the fact that Polish society was strongly inte- grated around a shared culture and images, which should have made Durkheim’s ideas popular; and despite the fact that many renowned Polish sociologists had studied in Paris. The terrain, however, was already occupied by other approaches, and the task of making sociology a university discipline was taken up in 1919 by Florian Znaniecki, who had just come back from Chicago. Stefan Czarnowski, who was predisposed to promote Durkheim’s sociology in Poland, had serious problems in trying to create a sociology faculty at the University of Warsaw and could not use his energy and intellectual potential to the full. The Lvov-Warsaw school in philosophy, similar to the Vienna Circle, was suspicious of Durkheim’s sociology, while, ﬁnally, Catholic circles criticized his view of religion and his ideas on education and civic morals. The situation would change only after the Sec- ond World War, in fact, only after study, research and publications in sociology were started anew in 1956.

After the War

Polish sociology suffered greatly during the war, but was quickly reborn afterwards. A sociology faculty was established in 1945 at the newly founded University of Lodz, and the following year in Warsaw, with programmes that included lectures and seminars on French sociology and Durkheim (Abel 1948). A translation of Armand Cuvillier’s textbook, Intro- duction á la sociologie, was published in 1947. It had already been tested in lectures in Lodz, and had a large run of 5,375 copies. The author not only dedicated a whole chapter to ‘Durkheim’s sociology’, his whole book is written from this point of view. It also contains some information about Le suicide and Durkheim’s research. It presents the ‘statistical method’ based mainly on Durkheim’s work. In arguing that ‘the whole needs to be homogenous’, it gives as an example the precise deﬁnition of suicide and the differentiation of altruistic, anomic and egoistic suicides. It advises that in the interpretation phase of research, it is necessary to avoid treating cor- relation as a causal relationship, since the two sets of correlated phenomena may be results of a third factor. And it uses Le suicide to provide examples of both correct and incorrect interpretations; mistakes are made when one does not appreciate the complexity, interdependence and inter- actions of social facts (Cuvillier [1936] 1947). These and other ideas and teachings of Durkheim and Cuvillier did not inﬂuence the minds of sociology’s students and supporters in Poland, since

52 Le Suicide in Poland in the Stalin era during the 1940s and 1950s sociology was wiped out from universities and Cuvillier’s text was withdrawn from bookshops and libraries. After 1956, as part of the post-Stalinist ‘thaw’, sociology was back in universities and Émile Durkheim was back with it (Labedz 1959). Basic knowledge about Durkheim was greatly promoted by a popular textbook, Socjologia. Rozwój problematyki i metod [Sociology: Development of Issues and Methods], published by Jan Szczepan;ski in 1961. This presented and analysed the ‘sociological system of Émile Durkheim’ as it had never been presented and analysed before. The author referred to the concepts of social reality sui generis and of the social fact, as presented in Le suicide. He claimed that Durkheim’s monograph ‘had a significant influence on the development of sociological research. It was an example of the application of statistical research on social facts as a basis for sociological analysis. And at the same time, an example of the application of sociological theory to explain facts that might seem individual’ (Szczepan;ski 1961: 414) . He brought out the classification of suicide, the basic empirical findings to do with differences between religious denominations, and Durk- heim’s explanation, involving a group’s internal integration and a more general ‘moral constitution of society’. Every student had a chance to read Durkheim’s statement:

At any given moment the moral constitution of society establishes the contin- gent of voluntary deaths. There is, therefore, for each people a collective force of a deﬁnite amount of energy, impelling men to self-destruction … Each social group really has a collective inclination for the act, quite its own, and the source of all individual inclination, rather than their result. ([1897a] 1951: 299)

Durkheim was also carefully read, promoted and developed in the works of Stanislaw Ossowski, a sociologist theoretically and ideologically close to Czarnowski. For him, the most inspiring part of Durkheim’s sociology concerned the concepts of social facts, religion and collective representations, the last of which he used to define one of four types of social order as an ‘order of collective representations’. His writings are full of references to Durkheim. And in his book O osobliwosciach; nauk społecznych [On the Peculiarities of the Social Sciences] (Ossowski 1962), he discusses Le suicide. Although the actual references to it are not numerous, they are significant. Writing about the origin of sociology and about the history of ‘modern empirical quantitative sociology’, Ossowski considers it much older than usually thought. He observes the tendency to quantitative empirical research in the Durkheimian school, and he claims the ‘precursor of that work was Durkheim himself, in a work written still in the nineteenth century (Le suicide, 1897)’ (Ossowski 1962: 203) . He backs this statement with an opinion of Alex Inkeles (1959: 118), who saw Le suicide as ‘the first dis- tinctively sociological research of the modern variety’. Moreover, Ossowski

53 Antoni Sułek

emphasizes the value of the continuity and accumulation of scientific knowledge. Thus he favourably cites Le suicide’s re-edition in 1930 and the ‘verification of Durkheim’s thesis in new materials, as well as the development of some of the issues in light of new findings’, taken up, for example, by Halbwachs in Les causes du suicide (see Ossowski 1962: 163). He himself formulated a whole programme of analysis of classical sociological concepts – which he called ‘continuatory analysis’ – in order to investigate opportunities for their development. In line with this project, the social psy- chologist Andrzej Malewski (1959) set out to extract ‘the empirical meaning of the theory of historical materialism’ from classic Marxist writings and to present it as a theoretical system of empirically testable statements, while the sociologist Stefan Nowak aimed to analyse Durkheim’s output (see Karpin;ski 1989: 108). Nowak’s analysis would surely have included Le suicide, which he knew from its American translation, but his plans were never realised. A further significant step in the propagation of Durkheim’s ideas in Poland was his intellectual biography, published by Jerzy Szacki in 1964, together with translations of selected texts. Szacki, well acquainted with French sociology, was a link in the Durkheimian tradition started in Poland by Stefan Czarnowski. The translations included a section on types of suicide, consisting of carefully selected extracts from Le suicide. For Polish sociologists, this frequently cited text became a source of direct knowledge about suicide in Durkheim’s approach and his theory of anomie. But it could be added here that this knowledge rarely extended beyond the extracts. Le suicide also reached Poland by a more roundabout route. As in many other cases, including interest in classic works, it reached Poland through American sociology, which discovered Durkheim in the 1930s and helped to save his legacy within world sociology. Copies of the American translation of Le suicide, published in 1951, reached Poland after 1956, where English, and not French, was becoming the lingua franca of sociologists. However, innovation and new ideas make more headway when taken up by opinion leaders, and at least as important as the work’s American translation was its discovery by the influential Paul Lazarsfeld circle at Columbia University. Herbert Hyman’s Survey Design and Analysis (1955) identified and used Le suicide as a prototype of ‘multivariate analysis’ in ‘empirical social research’. Hanan Selvin’s paper, ‘Durkheim’s Suicide and Problems of Empir- ical Research’, considered the work a ‘model of sociological research’ – indeed, in his opinion, ‘few, if any later works can match the clarity and power with which Durkheim marshalled his facts to test and refine his theory’ (Selvin 1958: 607). The Lazarsfeld circle and their research style were at the time influential in Polish sociology, and Stefan Nowak at the Univer- sity of Warsaw was the main intermediary of this influence (see Sułek, A. 1998).

54 Le Suicide in Poland

In his important and popular handbook Metody badan; socjologicznych [Methods of Sociological Research] (Nowak 1965), a selection of American methodological texts included examples of research procedures taken from Le suicide. Morris Rosenberg’s The Logic of Survey Analysis (1968), published in Poland in summaries, also had a lot of such examples. A decade later, extensive sections of Le suicide were included in Logika analizy socjologicznej [Logic of Sociological Analysis] (Sułek, A. 1979), a selection of methodological texts published by the University of Warsaw for sociology students. Although chosen on the basis of the Sociological Research handbook prepared at Columbia (Riley 1963), the extracts from Le suicide were translated from French, and the aim was to make it possible for students to observe the work’s method for themselves. However, there were many other opportunities to find out about Durk- heim’s procedures and reasoning, through Polish translations of foreign textbooks on sociology, social research methods and the philosophy of social science. Particular statements on relations between social integration and suicide, or on differences in suicide rates between Catholics and Protes- tants, were often mentioned as canonical examples of scientific law and empirical generalization in sociology. A popular work in Poland, Robert Merton’s Social Theory and Social Structure ([1968] 1982: 163–166), used those examples to explain the functions of theory in sociology and its value for empirical research. Similarly, the suicide rate was often given as a typical example of an indicator of a theoretical ‘construct’, in this case the ‘construct’ of social integration (Nowak 1985: 188). However, references to Le suicide were sometimes ritual and purely decorative. In sum, long before the work’s eventual translation into Polish in 2006, it was present in Polish sociological writing and teaching as an illuminat- ing way to show the role of theory in inventing hypotheses, in social defi- nitions in the statistical data construction process, in issues to do with the reliability of official data, risk of the ecological fallacy, control of causal relationships, etc. – almost everything that is important in sociological methodology! Le suicide is not always a positive example; sometimes it is a source of warning. At the University of Warsaw, where the book and its author are held in high esteem, students are challenged to criticize Durk- heim and encouraged to approach the classics with clear-headed love. Durkheim’s theory of suicide was also summarized and analysed in textbooks and monographs on social pathology (Podgórecki 1976, Siemaszko 1993). All these publications promoted Le suicide among sociologists and sociology students, so that its explanation of suicide is one of Durkheim’s best- known ideas – next to social facts and their analysis ‘as things’; mechanical and organic solidarity; collective representations; and the integrative functions of religion. Durkheim’s name became a symbol of explaining suicide

55 Antoni Sułek

through social factors. Even so, acquaintance with Le suicide in Poland remained superﬁcial; hardly anyone had actually read the whole book; it was known mainly through translated extracts and secondary sources and discussions. Indeed, there has not been a work in Poland with Le suicide or its theory of suicide as its sole subject. And although there have been several monographs on Weber, there has not been an intellectual biography of Durkheim since Szacki’s book in 1964.

Modern Studies of Suicide and the Case of Anomie

The reception of Le suicide includes how, both directly and indirectly, it has inspired research. In Poland, Maria Jarosz has conducted sociological research on suicide for many years, and Le suicide has been an important theoretical source for her. Taking suicide rates as ‘the most sensitive indicator of social integration and conditions’, she has investigated social integration in different segments of society and historical periods (Jarosz 1985, 1998). Official statistics show, for example, the influence of the Solidarity movement (1980–1981) on social integration. There were 38% less suicides in Poland in 1981 than in 1978–1979. In contrast, in 1982 and 1983 – the first years of the counter-revolutionary martial law – there were respectively 11% and 27% more suicides than in 1981. Yet the number of personal situations disposing individuals to commit suicide could not have changed so much in this period. Thus the Solidarity movement was not only bloodless, but saved the lives of several thousand people. Stimulating collective emotions and hopes, it resulted in increased social integration around common aims, and individual problems and concerns became less important. Maria Jarosz established, on the basis of analysis of social features of people committing suicide, a characteristic differentiation of suicides according to groups that were the main participants in the political conflict of those years. The biggest fall in the suicide rate was among workers, especially the industrial ‘core of the working class’. The only group with an increase in suicide consisted of people holding power: higher-level manage- ment in the administration, economy, and political and social organiza- tions. After the introduction of martial law, suicide rates fell in the powerful group, but increased in all other groups. It is mainly thanks to sociologists that the explanation of these suicide rates in light of a Durkheimian approach is right now quite popular in Poland. Durkheim’s work also appears in the investigation of suicide by the criminologist Brunon Hołyst (1983). For him, Durkheim’s view of statistics on suicide motives as a mere mishmash of subjective opinions was too harsh and his call to abandon ‘the collection of such supposed causes of

56 Le Suicide in Poland suicide’ was too hasty. The data on these opinions can be analysed, and he compared Durkheim’s statistics on suicide motives in France in 1874–1878 with similar statistics in modern Poland. He noticed that in the period of 100 years, and in spite of the development of diagnostic methods, the number of ‘etiologically unrecognized cases’ rose from 4–6% to 30%. He con- cluded that ‘we nowadays speak more objectively about the potential motives of suicide, and we make them more inter-subjectively testable; moreover we have become modest in stating that something may be the underlying “cause” of suicide’ (Hołyst 1983: 296). And this encouraged him to work out a systematic analysis of suicide motives in Poland. Le suicide has also been a source for writers beyond sociology and crim- inology. It was used in a study of Polish society during the war and under German occupation, by the historian Tomasz Szarota (1978). He established that in Warsaw in 1938 there was an average of 30 suicides per month. But in the six months between November 1940 and April 1942 there were only six successful suicides, although it is not known if the ghetto Jewish population was included. This is nonetheless a striking result. Referring to Le suicide, the author discussed the two hypotheses of a fall in egoistic suicide and a rise in anomic suicide during war. ‘At the same time we are dealing with two opposing processes: increase of solidarity and national integration, and the phenomenon of social anomie – disruption of the social order, weakening of social bonds and ethical norms’ (Szarota 1978: 574–575). The evidence indicates the strength of integrative and regulative forces of social life in Poland under the occupation. To coun- teract anomie, they had to oppose such powerful factors as the division of families due to repression, being taken away to work in Germany, or strate- gies of secrecy. Finally, the reception of Le suicide includes an introduction and accep- tance of its main ideas in a wider social discourse. One of these ideas is the use of suicide rates as an indicator of social disorganization, and in common perception this loses its link with Durkheim to become a part of public sociology. Another is the idea of anomie, taken directly from Durkheim or indirectly through Merton. The idea of anomie had been present in earlier theoretical Polish sociology – notably in Maria Ossowska’s work on morality – but had its renais- sance in the 1980s during a period of upheaval for socialism, when it was often applied in diagnoses of Polish society. In 1981, at the Sociological Congress in Lodz, Durkheim’s theory of anomie was taken up by Piotr Sztompka (1982) to show the dynamics of the crisis and the movement for renewal. Not long afterwards, in 1984, ‘anomie’ was used for the ﬁrst time in a title of a conference paper, ‘Społeczen;stwo polskie czasu kryzysu w s;wietle teorii anomii’ [‘Polish society in a time of crisis in light of the theory of anomie’], by Stefan Nowak (2009), and then for the ﬁrst time in the

57 Antoni Sułek title of a book, Anomia – przesilenie tozsamosæ ci; [Anomie – The Crisis of Identity], by Krystyna Szafraniec (1986). Another example is how Miro- sława Marody (1988), to conclude her well-known paper on the ‘collective subconsciousness’, presented in 1986 at the Sociological Congress in Wro- claw, took a quotation from Le suicide that characterizes anomie: ‘The lim- its are unknown between the possible and the impossible, what is just and what is unjust, legitimate claims and hopes and those which are immoder- ate’ (1951: 253). The change of system, involving the transition to a market economy and to democracy that started in Poland in 1989, gave new reason to use the notion of anomie and it is present in many scientiﬁc works of this period. As early as 1990, Lena Kolarska-Bobin;ska (1990: 277) pointed to a decline of civil society, increasing apathy, social passivity, and ‘social anomy, a side-effect of transition and its social changes’. Anita Miszalska (1996: 114) then refers to Le suicide in writing about ‘post-revolutionary anomie’ and an ‘anomie of the new times’, while Piotr Sztompka (2004: 171), para- phrasing Durkheim’s the ‘anomie of success’, writes about the ‘trauma of victory’. The word ‘anomie’ (in Polish ‘anomia’) must have been used often enough, since in 1988 it appeared in a popular dictionary of foreign words, and later on in Polish dictionaries. The entry in the 1988 lexicon explains that anomie is ‘a social state resulting from disruption of common norms of conduct; a situation where moral norms or standards of behaviour are absent, unclear or opposing; alienation, disorientation, individual feeling of being lost’, and adds a note: ‘term by French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1897)’ (Kopalin;ski 1988). The entry in a dictionary of modern Polish lan- guage goes even further: ‘In extreme cases, anomie leads to disruption of the whole system of social norms. Anomie can cause the disruption of social bonds. It is one of the main reasons for suicide in modern society’ (Zgółkowa 1995). Such detailed explanation shows that the term is not a synonym and cannot be replaced by another word, that it does actually carry within it a new idea. ‘Anomie’ was incorporated in Polish as a term created by sociologists. A better proof of how Le suicide has made its way into the sphere of public knowledge would be hard to ﬁnd.

Conclusion

This paper has traced the history of Le suicide in Poland from the book’s debut in France in 1897 to the publication of its Polish translation more than hundred years later in 2006. The work reached Poland quickly and was initially well received, but treated as solely about suicide. What was not recognized was its project for a modern science, in which empirical

58 Le Suicide in Poland facts can be associated with veriﬁable theory, and the theory explains the facts and indicates the directions for further research; at that time nobody thought of such a social science. In the second phase, Le suicide was treated in the same way as all Durkheim’s works, in an opposition to his whole sociological ontology and epistemology, and at a time when new anti-positivistic trends were already becoming dominant in Poland. In the third phase, in the 1930s, Durkheim was acknowledged as a classic author, but Le suicide remained the least known of his works. In the fourth phase, after the Second World War, Durkheim gradually started to gain recognition in a renewal of Polish sociology, particularly after Le suicide’s discovery by American empirical sociology, which became very inﬂuential in Poland during this period. Today, over one hundred years later, Le suicide exists on many different levels in Polish sociology – as a canonical work in the history of social science; as a model of research procedures; as a source, in teaching, of instruc- tive issues and cases; as a basis of modern investigations of suicide; and, together with all Durkheim’s other works, as a source of numerous theoretical inspirations. What is striking is that, even though the phenomenon of suicide constantly attracts sociologists, empirical studies typically have a short shelf-life and fade into oblivion as new works appear with more up- to-date results. Probably Le suicide will one day share their fate, but in the meantime it remains a vital classic piece of empirical social science.

Antoni Sul/ek is a professor at the Institute of Sociology, the University of Warsaw, Poland. His interests cover the history of sociology, sociological methodology, public opinion research, and ethical problems in sociology. His books (in Polish) include: Polish Surveys. Essays on Questionnaire Research (2001), Garden of Sociological Methodology (2002) and History of Sociology at the University of Warsaw (Ed., 2007). From 1994 to 1998, he was President of the Polish Sociological Association, and from 1999 to 2001 he served as Chief Adviser on Social Affairs to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland. E-mail: [email protected]

Notes 1. This is based on a paper presented at the conference ‘Perspectives from the Periphery’, University of Umeå, Sweden, 21–14 August 2008, organized by the Research Committee of History of Sociology of the International Sociological Association, and at the symposium ‘To Émile Durkheim on the 150th Anniver- sary of his Birth’, Warsaw, 19 November 2008, organized by the Cardinal Stephan Wyszynski University Institute of Sociology

59 Antoni Sułek

2. Earlier translations of Le suicide appeared in Russia (1912), Spain (1928), the United States (1951) and Great Britain (1952), in Sweden (1967), Hungary (1967), Italy (1969), West Germany (1973), Portugal (1973), Mexico (1974), Norway (1978), Japan (1980), Brazil (1982), Turkey (1986), China (1988), South Korea (1990), Slovenia (1992), Belgium (in Flemish, 1993), Serbia (1997), Israel (2002), and Greece (date unknown); in 2008 a translation of Le suicide appeared in India. 3. In order to complete the picture, it is worth mentioning that in the Prussian sector the ﬁrst information about Durkheim’s sociology – but without mention of Le suicide – came in the Poznan magazine Ruch Chrzescijan; ;sko-Narodowy in an article on French sociology by Kamil Kantak (1909). Kantak studied theology in Freiburg-in-Baden and encouraged Polish readers to become interested in French sociology, since ‘the professors in the German universities are trying to make their students believe that German science leads the world … this may be due not to ill will but to the megalomania that is typical of modern Germany and that makes them ignore what is going on elsewhere’. 4. Before Mirek ﬁnished his PhD in sociology, he had studied theology in Cracow and had received a doctorate in law at the University of Strasbourg, where he had studied in the early 1920s. This background helps to explain his interest in French sociology. 5. Ossowska used the term ‘euphoria’ in its original meaning – ‘a state of well- being’. 6. The 1897 copy was kept in the library of the University of Warsaw, the 1930 copy in the Sociology Seminary of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. Durk- heim’s other books were much more accessible.

References Abel, T. 1948. ‘Sociology in Postwar Poland’, American Sociological Review 15: 104–106. Balicki, Z. 1903. Metody nauk społecznych w XIX stuleciu. Warszawa: Wende i S-ka. Barbanel, A. 1896a. ‘Nowy socyolog francuski’, Prawda 46: 547–548. ____ 1896b. ‘Prace socyologiczne prof. Emila Durkheima’, Przeglaçd Prawa i Administracji 21: 239–244, 312–320. ____ 1902. ‘Prace socyologiczne prof. Emila Durkheima’, Przeglaçd Prawa i Administracji 27: 120–133. Besnard, P. 2000. ‘The Fortunes of Durkheim’s Suicide: Reception and Legacy’. In W.S.F. Pickering and G. Walford (eds.), Durkheim’s Suicide: A Century of Research and Debate. London: Routledge, pp. 97–125. Collins, R. 2005. ‘The Durkheimian Movement in France and in World Sociology’. In J.C. Alexander and P. Smith (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–135. Cuvillier, A. [1936] 1947. Wprowadzenie do socjologii. Trans. T. ZÆebrowski. Warszawa: Ksiaçzæka. Czarnowski, S. 1932. ‘Uzupełnienie’. In R. Maunier [1929] Wprowadzenie do socjologji. Trans. N. Assorodobraj, Warszawa: Nasza Ksieçgarnia, pp. 75–157.

60 Le Suicide in Poland

Davies, N. 1982. God’s Playground: A History of Poland. Oxford: Clarendon. Deçbicki, W.M. [1898] 1901. Studya i szkice religijno-filozoficzne, vol. 2. Warszawa: Gebethner i Wolff. Durkheim, É. 1888d. ‘Suicide et natalité. Étude de statistique morale’, Revue philosophique 26: 446–461; reprinted in 1975 Textes, vol. II, Paris: Minuit, pp. 216–236. ____ 1897a. Le suicide. Étude de sociologie, Paris: Alcan; 1930 2nd edition, Paris: Alcan; 1951 Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Trans. J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson, Glencoe, IL: Free Press; 2006 Samobójstwo. Studium z socjologii. Trans. K. Wakar, Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa. Grzywo-Daçbrowski, W. 1935. ‘Samobójstwo w Warszawie w r. 1934. Samobójstwa rozszerzone w Polsce w r. 1934’, Czasopismo Saçdowo-Lekarskie, 8: 190–209. Halbwachs, M. 1930. Les causes du suicide. Paris: Alcan. Hertz, A. 1933. Klasycy socjologii. Warszawa: Wiedza i ZÆycie. ____ 1979. Wyznania starego człowieka. Londyn: Oficyna Poetów i Malarzy. Hołyst, B. 1983. Samobójstwo – przypadek czy koniecznosc; ;. Warszawa: PWN. Hyman H.H. 1955. Survey Design and Analysis. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Inkeles, A. 1959. ‘Psychoanalysis and Sociology’. In S. Hook (ed.), Psychology, Scientific Method, and Philosophy, New York: New York University Press, pp. 117–129. Jarosz, M. 1985. ‘Suicides in Poland as an Indicator of Social Disintegration’, Social Indicators Research, 16: 449–464. ____ 1998. Suicide. Trans. H. Grzegorzewska-Klarkowska. Warsaw: Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Kantak, K. 1909. ‘Socyologia we Francyi’, Ruch Chrzescijan; ;sko-Narodowy 16: 441–444. Karpin;ski, J. 1989. Nie byc; w mysleniu; posłusznym. Ossowscy, socjologia, filozofia. Londyn: Polonia. Kłoskowska, A. 1966. ‘Socjologia w Polsce w drugiej połowie XIX w.’, Studia i Materiały z Dziejów Nauki Polskiej A 9: 195–221. Kolarska-Bobin;ska, L. 1990. ‘Civil Society and Social Anomy in Poland’, Acta Sociologica 33: 277–288. Kopalin;ski, W. 1988. Słownik wyrazów obcych i zwrotów obcojeçzycznych, 16th ed. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Krzywicki, L. 1900. ‘Socjologia’. In Poradnik dla samouków, vol. 3. Warszawa: Michalski i Heflich, pp. 330–365. Kwas;niewicz, W. 1994. ‘Between Universal and Native: The Case of Polish Sociology’. In B. Nedelmann, and P. Sztompka (eds.), Sociology in Europe: In Search of Identity, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 165–187. Labedz, L. 1959. ‘The Destinies of Sociology in Poland’, Soviet Survey 28: 1–19. Lazarsfeld, P.F. 1971. ‘Forty Years Later’. Foreword to M. Jahoda, P.F. Lazarsfeld, and H. Zeisel, Marienthal. The Sociography of an Unemployed Community, Chicago: Aldine, pp. vii–xvi. Lukes, S. 1973. Émile Durkheim, His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study. London: Allen Lane. Malewski, A. 1959. ‘Die empirische Gehalt der Theorie des historischer Mate- rialismus’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 11: 281–305.

61 Antoni Sułek

Markley Znaniecki, E. 1945. ‘Polish Sociology’. In G. Gurvitch, and W.E. Moore (eds.), Twentieth Century Sociology, New York: Philosophical Library, pp. 703–717. Marody, M. 1988. ‘Antinomies of Collective Subconsciousness’, Social Research 55: 97–110. Maunier, R. [1929] 1932. Wprowadzenie do socjologji. Trans. N. Assorodobraj. Warszawa: Nasza Ksieçgarnia. Merton, R.K. [1968] 1982. Teoria socjologiczna i struktura społeczna. Trans. E. Morawska and J. Wertenstein-ZÆuławski. Warszawa: PWN. Mirek, F. 1930. Metoda socjologiczna. Przyczynek na podstawie analizy krytycznej metod Tarde’a i Durkheima. Poznan;: Jachowski. ____ 1948. Zarys socjologii. Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski. Miszalska, A. 1966. Reakcje społeczne na przemiany ustrojowe. Postawy, zachowania i samopoczucie Polaków w poczaçtkach lat dziewieçcdziesia; çtych. Łódz;: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Mucha, J. and S. Vaitkus (eds.). 2006. Journal of Classical Sociology 6 (3), special issue on Polish sociology. Nowak, S. 1985. Metodologia badan; społecznych. Warszawa: PWN. ____ 2009. O Polsce i Polakach. Prace rozproszone 1958–1989. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Nowak, S. (ed.). 1965. Metody badan; socjologicznych. Warszawa: PWN. Ossowska, M. 1934. ‘Moralnos;c; jako “fakt społeczny”’. In Fragmenty filozoficzne. Ksieçga pamiaçtkowa ku uczczeniu pieçtnastolecia pracy nauczycielskiej w Uniwersytecie Warszawskim profesora Tadeusza Kotarbin;skiego, Warszawa: Kasa Mianowskiego, pp. 52–66. ____ 1947. Podstawy nauki o moralnosci; . Warszawa: Czytelnik. Ossowski, S. 1962. O osobliwosciach; nauk społecznych. Warszawa: PWN. Pietkiewicz, Z. [1894] 1898. Szkice społeczne: Neçdza i miłosierdzie, Hygiena i zæycie, Kobieta, Samobójstwo. Warszawa: Prawda. Podgórecki, A. 1976. Zagadnienia patologii społecznej. Warszawa: PWN. Posner, S. 1900. ‘Statystyka’. In Poradnik dla samouków, vol. 3. Warszawa: Michalski i Heflich, pp. 1–85. ____ 1905. Nauki społeczne w szkole wyzæszej. Warszawa: Ksieçgarnia Naukowa. Rehfisch, E. [1893] 1895. Samobójstwo. Studium krytyczne. Trans. D. Wiktor. Warszawa: Paprocki i S-ka.Riley, M.W. (ed.). 1963. Sociological Methods, vol. 1. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Rosenberg, M. 1968. The Logic of Survey Analysis. New York: Basic Books. Selvin, H.C. 1958. ‘Durkheim’s Suicide and Problems of Empirical Research’, American Journal of Sociology, 63: 607–619. Siemaszko, A. 1993. Granice tolerancji. O teoriach zachowan; dewiacyjnych. Warszawa: PWN. Sułek, A. (ed.). 1979. Logika analizy socjologicznej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. ____ 1998. ‘Paul Lazarsfeld and Polish Sociology: A Historical Record of Contact, Perception, and Impact’, Journal of History of Behavioral Sciences 34: 367–380.

62 Le Suicide in Poland

Sułek, R. 2008. ‘Droga Stefana Czarnowskiego do socjologii’. In M. Jabłonowski (ed.), Stefan Czarnowski z perspektywy siedemdziesieçciolecia. Warszawa: Instytut Dziennikarstwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, pp. 67–107. Szacki, J. 1964. Durkheim. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. ____ 1995. ‘Krótka historia socjologii polskiej’. In J. Szacki (ed.), Sto lat socjologii polskiej. Od Supin;skiego do Szczepan;skiego, Warszawa: PWN, pp. 11–119. Szafraniec, K. 1986. Anomia – przesilenie tozæsamosci.; Torun;: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika. Szarota, T. 1978. Okupowanej Warszawy dzien; powszedni, 2nd ed. Warszawa: Czytelnik. Szczepan;ski, J. 1961. Socjologia. Rozwój problematyki i metod. Warszawa: PWN. Sztompka, P. 1982. ‘Dynamika ruchu odnowy w s;wietle teorii zachowania zbiorowego’, Studia Socjologiczne 3/4: 64–93. ____ 2004. ‘The Trauma of Social Change: A Case of Postcommunist Societies’. In J. C. Alexander et. al., Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 155–195. Tilles, A. 1893. ‘Samobójstwo, jako objaw społeczny’, Przeglaçd Tygodniowy. Dodatek Miesieçczny 1: 152–167. Wandycz, P.S. 1974. The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795–1918. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Werszczyn;ski, E. 1889. ‘Z dziedziny nauki i odkryc;: Przyczyna samobójstw’, Przeglaçd Powszechny 22: 148–150. Winiarski, L. 1899. ‘Z socyologii’, Przeglaçd Tygodniowy 51: 566–567. Zawadzki, B. and P.F. Lazarsfeld. 1935. ‘The Psychological Effects of Unemployment’, Journal of Social Psychology 6: 224–251. Zgółkowa, H. (ed.). 1995. Praktyczny słownik współczesnej polszczyzny, vol. 2. Poznan;: Kurpisz. Znaniecki, F. 1911. ‘Samobójstwo jako objaw społeczny’, Prawda 10: 6–7. ____ 1912. ‘Elementy rzeczywistos;ci praktycznej’, Przeglaçd Filozoﬁczny 15: 161–187. ____ 1922. Wsteçp do socjologii. Poznan;: Poznan;skie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. ____ 1934. The Method of Sociology. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.