Co-existence and co-development: the sociological perspective Essay

One of the early sociologist who tackled suicide is Emile Durkheim who related polarities in social integration and control with suicide. There are four types of reasoning which would account for suicidal or self annihilating moves (Durkheim, 1951). Altruistic reasoning is when a person feels his act of suicide will serve a social purpose. This is more like a self sacrifice and is associated with high social integration. Egoistic reasoning is when a person feels alienated and socially isolated lacking social support. Such reasoning is associated with low social integration. Fatalistic reasoning behind suicidal acts is associated with aversion to control deemed undesirable like slavery even if it means getting killed in the attempt of gaining freedom. Such an act is associated in this conception with high regulation or control. Anomic reasoning refers to cope with undesirable situational changes (Durkheim, 1951). Such early works on suicide were important attempts in systematization of an approach to a particular social issue which marked sociology as scientific discipline and opened the possibility of mapping social situations which may lead to particular set of actions like committing suicide. Another theory which explored social integration and regulation is Kolberg’s stages of moral development. Kolberg’s theory is a take off from the moral judgment model of Piaget who introduced development or changes associated with growing up (Crain, 1985). Piaget observed differences in age levels as far as perceptions on moral dilemmas. Younger children view rules for example as fixed and absolute but older children tend to recognize that rules as tools of cooperation and an agreement on rules are important. Another insight was that younger children tend to view consequences as compared to older children who tend to value motivation behind a particular action (Crain, 1985). Kolberg expanded on this notion and identified six stages of moral development essential in the development of particular social formations. Level I is preconventional morality which comprised stage 1 obedience and punishment orientation and stage 2 individualism and exchange. The marked change is similar to Piaget’s that is, recognition of the relativity of right and wrong (Crain, 1985). Level II is conventional morality made up of stage 3 in moral development, good interpersonal relationships which corresponds to early teens. Here the young person learns of what is expected of his/her behavior, what is and not acceptable. Stage 4 is maintaining the social order. At stage 4, the concept of society as a structure and functions is more or less fairly developed (Crain, 1985). Level III is postconventional morality made up of stage 5 social contract and individual rights. Stage 5 is abstraction of society and what ought to be the attributes of good governance. Consensus and participation in such a consensus system is the main virtue at this stage. Dissonance and value judgment is more profound as delineation between what is moral and what is legal may not coincide and difficult conflict to resolve may arise (Crain, 1985). Stage 6 in Kolberg’s social construct is universal principles. Adherence to higher ideals like justice and dignity of a human being. Thus impartiality and equal opportunity as a higher standard of behavior if moral dilemmas are to be resolved (Crain, 1985). There are theoretical dilemmas in the model as the scale system in Kolberg’s model failed to fully distinguish between stage 5 and 6 though intuitively the difference between the two stages is quite clear. In stage 6 an invitation for action to change society is embedded (Crain, 1985). The importance of such conceptions of social order hence how people would be integrated and agree on forms of regulation and at what point will there be a break and hence opens possibility for risk situations such as those that would reinforce self-annihilating acts (Crain, 1985). We take note that at this point of discussion that at any time in the developmental stages of a human being, the psychological premises are operative. Cognition is essential to Kolberg’s model recognizing behavior patterns as so complicated that it would be impossible to teach every detail of certain behavior pattern. Still the notion of each according to his/her configuration is very much evident. The individual learns because he has the ability and others are important as models or patterns which they too can do (Crain, 1985). And here is perhaps a thread we can to track suicidal tendencies, suicide acts affects other people, invoking the possibility. An invitation into the domain of death. Death is a loaded word with different layers of meaning. Just how do people convey meaning? What could be the unit of sharing and comparing abstractions and theories so essential in gaining knowledge. Another perspective which shed more light on how could people agree or reach a consensus on a moral dilemma or coming into a critical decision is symbolic interactionism. This thinking maintains that the mind is a dynamic process of creating and sharing significant symbols embedded with defined and clear meanings. This is a product of interaction resulting to social symbols. With such a perspective, it would be easy to recognize that a consensus or an agreement is agreement first on the particular symbol to use to construct such agreements. Language remains the more potent symbolic system universal across human societies. According to this view, learning is not simply observing as contended by Kolb or an imitation as Bandura maintained but according to Mead, an ability of â€Å"taking the role of the other† through empathy enabling a continuing internal dialogue. Blumer the social psychologist who coined symbolic interactionism summed up the three premises underlying this concept. The first premise is that humans behave towards things according to meanings attributes to such things. The second premise is that these meanings are products of social interactions with others. The third premise holds that such meaning undergoes interpretation and modification. By and large, though there are disagreements, one thing is emerging thus far, that the dynamic relationship between nature and learned is a continuing and developing process leading perhaps to the question of what is the ultimate potential or purpose of life and how could a divergence such a violent act against others or self-annihilation could transpire. What is apparent though that understanding a suicidal act could be seen as a process leading to the risk situations of increasing likelihood of committing such acts (Sandstorm, Martin, & Fine, no date).