When Too Much Integration and Regulation Hurts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Society and Mental Health 2016, Vol. 6(1) 56–71 When Too Much Integration Ó American Sociological Association 2015 DOI: 10.1177/2156869315604346 and Regulation Hurts: http://smh.sagepub.com Reenvisioning Durkheim’s Altruistic Suicide Seth Abrutyn1 and Anna S. Mueller2 Abstract Durkheim’s model of suicide famously includes four types: anomic, egoistic, altruistic, and fatalistic suicides; however, sociology has primarily focused on anomic and egoistic suicides and neglected suicides predi- cated on too much integration or regulation. This article addresses this gap. We begin by elaborating Dur- kheim’s concepts of integration and regulation using insights from contemporary social psychology, the sociology of emotions, and cultural sociology. We then posit a more coherent theory of suicides resulting from too much integration and too much regulation. Importantly, we shift attention away from motives (altruism = self-sacrifice). We also reject the idea that high levels of integration and regulation are in and of themselves harmful. Instead, we propose three sociocultural explanations—(1) disruptions, (2) the spread of negative emotions and ideas, and (3) the pervasiveness of negative, suicide scripts—that elu- cidate how and why too much integration and regulation can become harmful and facilitate suicide. Keywords suicide, Durkheim, emotions, integration, altruism, sociological theory, social contagion INTRODUCTION why any given individual in a highly integrated group may be at more risk of suicide than another. Since Durkheim’s ([1897] 1951) Suicide, the idea We argue that contemporary sociologists have the that social integration plays an essential role in tools to better answer these questions by first strip- mental health has been both theoretically argued ping Durkheim’s insights down to their basic prin- and empirically verified (Pescosolido 2006; ciples (Bearman 1991; Pescosolido 1990; Wray, Turner 2003). Durkheim got much right about Colen, and Pescosolido 2011), bringing them integration, which is why he remains so well cited into dialogue with social psychological dynamics both in the sociology of mental health and the surrounding identity and emotions (Abrutyn broader psychological literature on suicide (cf. Joiner 2005). However, some of Durkheim’s argu- 1The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA ment regarding the link between social integration 2The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA and suicide remains puzzling theoretically and thus hard to test empirically. For instance, what Corresponding Authors: Durkheim terms altruistic suicides—or suicides Seth Abrutyn, The University of Memphis, 305 Clement Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA. motivated by high levels of integration—implies Email: [email protected] that integration is not always protective; yet Dur- kheim offers little insight into how we may distin- Anna S. Mueller, The University of Chicago, Social guish between ‘‘healthy’’ and ‘‘harmful’’ levels of Science Research Building, Rm 103, 1126 E. 59th Street, integration. Moreover, Durkheim fails to explain Chicago, IL 60637. Downloaded from smh.sagepub.com by guest on February 18, 2016 Abrutyn and Mueller 57 2014; Turner 2010), and considering the advances 2009; Mueller and Abrutyn 2015) and clustering made in the sociology of physical and mental (Haw et al. 2012; Niedzwiedz et al. 2014), we health (Thoits 2011; Umberson, Crosnoe, and can discern when and why high levels of integra- Reczek 2010; Umberson and Montez 2010). tion lose their protective shield against risk and As such, this article expands on Durkheim’s self-harm behaviors. concepts to offer a more useful theory of integra- Ultimately, this article offers several contribu- tion. To do this, we focus on the paradox of tions to the suicide literature as well as more gen- ‘‘altruistic’’ suicide, or suicides that are predicated erally to medical and mental health sociology. on what Durkheim would call too much integra- First, while we retain the conventional definition tion, and which rests on the thrust of Durkheimian of integration—that is, a structural dimension of and functionalist sociology: Social ties should be groups related to social ties or embeddedness—we protective and healthy, yet Durkheim proposes argue that this definition is not sufficient to under- a type of suicide resulting from being too inte- stand why integration matters; indeed, it is time grated. Durkheim ([1897] 1951:227) himself sociologists think about integration and Dur- resolved this dilemma by arguing that ‘‘lowersoci- kheim’s other dimension, regulation, not as suffi- eties are the theatre par excellence of altruistic cient causes of suicide but rather structural and suicides,’’ with only the most exceptional cases— cultural conditions shaping suicidality. Hence, like the soldier throwing himself on a grenade to we draw insights from a wide range of extant liter- save his unit (Riemer 1998)—being present in atures in order to elaborate (1) how integration modernity—a claim that lacks empirical validity works to condition mental health and (2) the cir- (Stack 2004).1 Moreover, and quite ironically, cumstances when being highly integrated may Durkheim, in choosing the label altruism, pre- become harmful. Second, we take Bearman’s mised motive (self-sacrifice) over the social facts (1991) reconceptualization of Durkheim seriously (too much integration) that he believed were supe- and believe that altruistic suicides are not simply rior to subjective psychological explanations. And conditioned by too much integration but also by because of this highly restricted view of suicide, too much regulation; and like our treatment of the concept’s utility has been so severely limited integration, we bring social psychology and emo- that it is rarely used (Davies and Neal 2000). tions scholarship to bear on (1) how regulation Indeed, a recent review of empirical research works to condition mental health and (2) the cir- (Leenaars 2004) turned up only one study opera- cumstances when being highly regulated and inte- tionalizing ‘‘over-integration’’ (Park 2004). By grated may become harmful. In short, the theoret- moving away from his label, we gain the flexibil- ical framework in the following provides a more ity needed to elucidate when highly integrated robust and precise social psychological theory of groups and, of equal importance, highly integrated Durkheim’s integration and regulation. Finally, members of said groups lose their protective qual- we add one more component to the analysis that ities and become vulnerable to suicide. addresses a key Durkheimian limitation: If inte- Thus, our goal is to offer a different strategy to gration and regulation, high or low, do not explain understand the connection between high levels of why people in these groups attempt or complete integration and suicide. In short, we argue that suicide, what does? To answer this question, we high levels of integration are not in and of them- examine three sociocultural forces or dynamics selves dangerous for suicide. Instead, we argue that when combined with high levels of integration that to understand when integration becomes and regulation can create toxic environments that harmful, we must examine the interactions among make members vulnerable to suicidality. By doing individual identities, experiences, and group so, this approach to integration (and regulation) cultures—a task that involves incorporating offers a more complex theoretical explanation insights from social psychology, sociology of for suicide while allowing Durkheim’s concepts emotions, and cultural sociology as well as Dur- to be applied to a wider range of contemporary cir- kheim’s concept of regulation. Further, we argue cumstances and accurately reflecting current that too much integration may be more commonly knowledge about how individual identities, inter- associated with contemporary suicides than Dur- actions, and group cultures condition the link kheim suspected; and in cases of contagion (Abru- between social groups and mental health. We tyn and Mueller 2014a; Baller and Richardson begin by briefly reviewing Durkheim’s Suicide. Downloaded from smh.sagepub.com by guest on February 18, 2016 58 Society and Mental Health 6(1) TOWARD A BROADER THEORY OF (Abrutyn and Mueller 2014b) and by building INTEGRATION AND the Durkheimian model from the micro level up (Collins 1988). That is, while Durkheim conceptu- REGULATION alized integration as strictly a macro-level phe- Recall, the core of Durkheim’s ([1897] 1951) the- nomenon, we argue that integration is both an ory revolves around suicides being related to (1) attribute of groups (and other meso-/micro-level the underlying structure of social relationships, social units) and of individual-level identity which are (2) shaped by the dynamics of integra- dynamics. tion and regulation. Despite broad agreement Thus, we identify five dimensions that capture that Durkheim’s insights into regulation and inte- different aspects of both group- and person-level gration are profound and important, as we men- integration. These dimensions are as follows: the tioned previously, he failed to explicate a clear degree to which (1) a person is committed to conceptual definition of both dimensions, and he a role-identity embedded in a relationship, group, often used them interchangeably in his analyses or broader sociocultural milieu (prominence); (2) (for critiques, see Johnson 1965; Pope 1976). the role-identity is immersed in intensive (affec- One need only revisit a brief part of