Durkheim
(¡®On Suicide¡¯)
Introduction:
¡®mimesis¡¯/¡¯recognition¡¯. The crisis of self-image, of self-identity is often
characterized as ¡®mimetic¡¯ (it is the ¡®other¡¯s¡¯ view that is copied, even where
no such view exists¡) or as ¡®recognition¡¯ (denied by real or imaginary others,
the ¡®significant¡¯ others of group identification, so, in ones¡¯ mind, denied by
self¡ denied self¡). The position of self is imaginary and so often does not
accord with social economic position as in fact or as feared¡ Theories of
mimetic exchange begin here, with self-image as related to others, as a copy¡
(Girard). But we must know who to copy¡ However, ¡®mimesis¡¯ is a dead end in
Girard¡¯s take on sacrifice, not explaining adequately sacrificial violence
(Durkheim too has this problem, from ¡®On Suicide¡¯, to the more profound, ¡®The
Elementary Forms of Religious Life¡¯). The issue is that the same model must be
able to explain the varieties of identity crisis, the categories of suicide as
described by Durkheim and the violence of Girard¡¯s notion of ¡®sacrificial
crisis¡¯, as well as the modalities of the gift and its relation to ritual
through to the pogrom, mass terror and the suicide bomber. If we take the path
of ¡®recognition¡¯, rather than ¡®mimesis¡¯, as key category then we are lead to
the concept of ¡®identity exchange¡¯ as key to conceptualizing the gift or
sacrificial relation. Indeed, ¡®mimesis¡¯ needs to be linked, via
(self-)recognition, to the theory of identity exchange in order to work (that
is, it cannot function as a primary concept). When one imagines ones¡¯ self as
one fears others see one, as one would see, and judge ones¡¯ self (if one was
another) then a crisis is evoked¡ The turning of the energies released,
individually or collectively, back on the self or onto the other, are the topic
of this reconsideration of Emile Durkheim¡¯s categories from ¡®On Suicide¡¯ (a
reconsideration which I believe is implied by the development of these ideas in
¡®The Elementary Forms of Religious Life¡¯).
There
are three kinds of suicide in Durkheim: ¡®ego¡¯; ¡®anomie¡¯; ¡®altruistic¡¯. Linked
to three kinds of situation, or mode of identification with others¡
respectively: membership; position; role: so basically
variations on one theme. I would suggest the order of relation as: ¡®group¡¯
(membership), ¡®position¡¯ (in group), ¡®role¡¯ (as key to position or membership
of group) as the best way of relating the three¡ Otherwise, in each one self-image
and relation to others, ¡®(self)recognition¡¯, all play the fundamentally same
role.
Durkheim
first dismisses the purely economic level, or the struggle for survival as
consistent hardship as a key variable (otherwise the further back in history we
go, and the further down the social ladder we go, the more suicide we would
find as the conditions of life worsen). Although a change down often is¡
Moreover, we might note that the Romans accepted suicide as right and proper
for the highest level of citizen, when faced with a fall, a loss of face, or
just a decline in powers due to aging.
It
seems ¡®face¡¯, ¡®honour¡¯, social or peer group
standing, ones¡¯ adequacy before ones¡¯ ego ideal (real or imaginary) provide the
key; a matter of our ¡®recognition organ¡¯, ¡®evolved¡¯ throughout our life, the
history of our interaction with others, from (M)Other onwards; it is our sense
of self as interpersonal that is in play - and it is not happy.
Face
or honour, identity or recognition, social position
or belonging, map out in three forms: (i) the desire
for sacrifice for the group, the desire for a role, so realizing training and
ambition¡ (¡®altruistic¡¯); (ii) the loss of membership of the group (real or
imaginary) Durkheim uses ¡®ego¡¯ but it would perhaps be better to use ¡®anomie¡¯,
as the later has come to be read as the more general condition of lack of
belonging; (iii) a loss of position (nominated ¡®anomie¡¯), but I would suggest
that it is better to use ¡®ego¡¯ as operating in relation to other egos, our
peers on the minuscule gradations of the ladder of distinction and
differentiation. All three involve groups as key background or larger set, with
(ii) superimposing grade or position, on membership (i),
with (iii) as a special case of ambition or need for role¡ within the group,
and as part of the war of position, as the key to recognition.
Summary:
Group Position Role
Anomie Ego
Altruistic
Or: loss
of membership, loss of position, loss of role.
So recognition
(¡®mimesis¡¯ in other models, ones¡¯ self-image as others might see one) is seen
as the key factor (belonging and being seen to belong and feeling as belonging
in ones¡¯ rightful place¡). With loss also is a common factor. Gradations range
from (a) (loss of) basic belonging, desire to belong (¡®ego¡¯ as a function of
group membership (part loses whole)) identification and acceptance, real or
imaginary; to (b) (loss of) position within the group (Durkheim¡¯s ¡®anomie¡¯,
Hobbes¡¯ ¡®distinction¡¯, hierarchy-seeking desire of identity) self and important
others¡ desired position not gained or worse lost (part is devalued with in the
whole); with (c) as a special form of desired position which has been lost or
foreclosed. Or, more deeply, (c) as the desire for self-sacrifice, glory, or
less dramatically, service and recognition due¡ (Even if only by the self?
Sometimes initially. Then usually public, and/or peer recognition is desired¡).
So (c) is a case of a loss of role as yet unattained. We might note the
temporalities involved: the latter is future based (intention/subjunctive
wish/will); the other two are past based, a case of previous position lost¡ (a
mixed case may be found in a desired position never attained (marriage), also
future based but not quite the same as the desire for self-sacrifice not
attained). A temporal distinction which crosses the distinction between, the
role desired and that role as self-sacrifice, as giving the ultimate meaning of
life, as giving the ultimate meaning to life¡ This later also has the ¡®rhetoric
of eternity¡¯ in the background as the reference to first and last things¡ as in
belief and religious systems¡a role as including death as necessary. So from basic belonging and position we move to special
duty, a heroic role as extra-distinction (extra-position), as ultimate
recognition (self and others) the ultimate form of giving¡
Regarding
the loss of actual group or position (past to present), this loss is more
likely to present a crisis, than the loss of un-attained membership or position
(present to future). With respect to this latter case (but also in the case of
the first two cases of loss), suicide as a response to the lack of role may
take the form of addiction, or alcoholism or indirect death, all the way to
direct death as part of the said role (mercenaries, causes, terrorism) and so
finally to suicide, with death as the key to the role (suicide bombers). Loss
due to the past position fallen, and the inability to envisage a way to ones¡¯
desired future may anyway combine to provoke a suicidal or destructive motion
(individually or collectively, from narcotics or other ¡®passive¡¯ forms of
self-destruction, to scapegoating or rioting, to politics or war).
Identity
exchange is a crucial part of the recognition process (and the mimetic nexus).
Rituals which fill the gaps, and repair the work of
loss and entropy through a network of ritual ¡®loss¡¯, sacrifice, destruction, up
to self-destruction (¡®altruistic¡¯, suicide bombers). An exchange is made in
identity such that materiality and time are exchanged for self-image or
identity and belonging or recognition; from handshake to festival a continuum
of identity exchange underpins our connections to others; in effect matter and
time are exchanged for spirit (¡®disjunctive reciprocity¡¯). Ritual bridges the metaphysical
divide of things and ideas, spirit and matter, material and spiritual culture,
body and mind. Either the rituals are fixed as in traditional societies or
become a less visible part of the mass commodity market or modern societies, as
gift and commodity merge (the exchange value is material, the use value is
¡®spiritual¡¯, identity based, whatever the ostensible function of the commodity
bought). These provide the individual supports for identity and its needs in
modern societies. National rituals and national identity (the new ¡®metaset of
belonging¡¯) evolve to replace and complement older, collective, religious
ritual and identity in mass market capitalist societies (¡®modernity¡¯). These
all provide the ritual glue with degrees of what is ¡®payed for¡¯ to ¡®belong¡¯, to
obtain that key sense of belonging¡ So in reverse
order, in the ¡®fame¡¯, ¡®glory¡¯, ¡¯altruistic¡¯ category, the exchange is clear; of
self, offered up in total. In the ¡®position¡¯ category (¡®anomie¡¯, for which I
would suggest ¡®ego¡¯) an exchange of time for training as for goods and services
(¡®favours¡¯) offered for post or position ¨C with
peer-related sacrifices, activities (marriage). In the ¡®group¡¯ category (¡®ego¡¯,
but I suggest it would better to use the more general ¡®anomie¡¯) similarly, an exchange
of time, for training (if appropriate) or time for meetings, reunions,
religious observance, rituals, and so offerings of goods and services
(¡®presents¡¯, favours, etc.). Note how people ¡®buy
back¡¯ their connection, their position or group belonging, after a loss of face
(or honour, or ¡®cred¡¯, esteem, fame or celebrity). Or
repair the entropy of being absent from family and friends for some time¡ In
many cases the suicide has already lost these connections or cannot repair
them¡ or they may be irreparable (criminal disgrace, socio-economic fall,
divorce), and require a drastic life change as a solution (people move, get
re-educated, or get religion¡).
Copyright Peter Nesteruk, 2018