Similarly, when one marital partner dies, the survivor loses a degree of suicidal immunity; but this loss is less a consequence of the severing of the conjugal bond alone than of the more general shock to the family that the survivor must endure.
Aren't there different kinds of "social goals and rules," for example, and aren't some of these dis -harmonious? We imitate other human beings in the same way that we reproduce the sounds of nature, physical objects, or the movements of non-human animals; and since no clearly social element is involved in the latter, neither is there such an element in the former.
Durkheim had already pondered this difficulty in Book One, in his discussion of suicide by insanity, and his solution there was repeated here.
Finally, the immunity to suicide increases with the size of the family, 22 a fact Durkheim attributed to the greater number and intensity of collective sentiments produced and repeatedly reinforced by the larger group.
Unlimited desires are, by definition, insatiable, and insatiability is a sure source of human misery: "To pursue a goal which is by definition unattainable," Durkheim concluded, "is to condemn oneself to a state of perpetual unhappiness.
How are these data to be explained? A society in which intelligent individualism could not be exaggerated, for example, would be incapable of radical innovation, even if such innovation were necessary; inversely, a society in which such individualism could not be significantly reduced would be unable to adapt to the conditions of war, in which conformity and passive obedience are elevated into virtues.Standing above its own members, it would have all necessary authority to demand indispensable sacrifices and concessions and impose order upon them But this does not mean that every suicido-genic current is "normal"; on the contrary, these currents must produce suicides only in a certain measure which varies from one society to another as well as over time. The latter represents an insufficient state of integration which detaches the individual from society with dangerous consequences, the former unites the members of a society in a single thought, the disinterested impersonal conception of an "ideal humanity" which transcends and subordinates private, selfish goals cf. The industrial goals of gaining wealth became insufficient in creating happiness which led to higher suicide rates in the rich people as compared to the poor. Moreover, the terms that Durkheim employed in making this argument -- "collective tendencies," "collective passions," etc. Suicides like that of Lamartine's Raphael, for example, committed out of a morbid mood of melancholia -- were considered the consequence and expression of egoistic suicide, as were the more cheerfully indifferent "Epicurean" suicides of those who, no longer able to experience the pleasures of life, see no reason to prolong it. The decisive influence of these currents, however, is rarely exerted throughout an entire society; on the contrary, its effect is typically felt within those particular environments whose conditions are especially favorable to the development of one current or another. I will stress the importance of suicide that Durkheim considered and how he was competent enough to present reasons to the social causes, as well as examining the variations in suicide rates by means of his hypothesis of social integration and regulatory functions of society. This is not to say that a melancholy view of life automatically increases the inclination to suicide. Consistent with The Rules of Sociological Method, therefore, Durkheim began his work with a warning against notiones vulgares, together with an insistence that our first task This makes an individual retract from the social groups. Here Durkheim was particularly concerned to dismiss the view that suicide, the rate of which had increased exponentially in western Europe since the eighteenth century, was the "ransom money" of civilization, the inevitable companion of social progress.