Introduction
No theory is right or wrong; some theories are more useful than others are and some theories can distract us from the most profitable way forward.
There are many theories of suicide and they can usefully be categorised as two, theories of individual, often innate, causality and theories of social causation. For many years, one might say for the whole hundred and fifty years that suicide has been the subject of scientific investigation, the theories of individual causation, the psychological theories, have held the limelight. During that time suicide has grown rather than diminished as a problem.

The reasons for the pre-eminence of psychological theories over social theories are principally three. First, people feel the impact and pain of the suicide of relative or friend at a personal level and they relate to individual victims as individuals; thus they want an individual understanding. Secondly, health professionals, psychiatrists (particularly psychoanalysts), psychologists and others, have been intimately and professionally involved with suicide victims and their families and friends and seek explanations within their own paradigms. Thirdly and related to the previous, the vast bulk of writing on suicide has come from within the ranks of the medical and psychological professionals. Sociologists do not have the same influence over public opinion as do psychologists. We are conscious that psychological theories have held such sway that it is initially difficult to oppose what has essentially become folk wisdom.

Sigmund Freud summarized the proceedings of a psychoanalytic symposium on suicide in Vienna in 1918, ‘Despite the valuable material obtained in this discussion we have not succeeded in arriving at any definite conclusion . . . let us therefore refrain from forming an opinion until the time comes when experience will have solved the problem' The story is no different in 2001 to what it was in 1918. It is past time to explore other avenues of approach. This brings us to the theories of social causation. We take our lead from two social scientists, Emile Durkheim and George Herbert Mead.

Before we go further two analogies may help. On entering County Kerry, one sees a board with two figures on it, 46 and 45. These are the running averages of deaths on the county's roads for the years 1997 - 2000 and the years 1998 - 2001. There is little difference between them. The same is true for most other counties. Rates are very consistent. Various reasons can be given for road deaths and we know the common ones, drink and speed. But thousands who drink and speed do not get involved in accidents yet fortune will harvest a steady amount from those who do. The reason why people drink and drive is the basic value system that allows a carelessness about others' well-being. The second analogy is rates of drowning from boats at sea. Various factors may be adduced to explain rates of drowning, from poor maintenance of boats to non-wearing of life jackets, yet the most important one is the temperature of the water. Thus it is in the surrounding milieu, social or physical, that we must seek the etiology of suicide. Every analogy limps yet it is to be hoped that these examples may help us understand external, social, causation.

In Suicide, a work he published in 1897, Durkheim proves conclusively that suicide is not an individual act, though individual characteristics may predispose particular individuals to suicide, but, rather, do rates of suicide run through society like currents in a stream. The strength of the current, the volume of suicide, depends on the state of solidarity, of external cohesiveness, that exists in the particular society and, indeed, in the particular element of the society in question. Durkheim showed, statistically, that while many factors could be shown to correlate with suicide, (factors such as age, gender, marital status, urban living, time of year, religion), none of these is in and of itself the cause of suicide. Suicide is caused by the loosening of bonds of solidarity within the groups that are important to one's identity and wellbeing.

Durkheim focused on the concepts of normality and morality. Normality as applied to rates of behaviour indicates that there is always a rate for a particular form of behaviour that will vary with the degree of solidarity within the society. Morality means that there are forces within society that constrain individuals and lessen their selfishness so that all may live together in relative harmony. It is these forces of morality and their cohesiveness that determine rates of suicide. The ritual of enforcement of morality is called socialization. This is effected through a process Durkheim call the internalization of norms. Socialization is the work primarily of the family and, beyond that, of peer groups, religious groupings and other associations like work groups.

In his later work Durkheim came to value the concept of the Sacred as the key element in ensuring solidarity. It must be emphasized that Durkheim was an agnostic who, nevertheless, was forced to recognize that commitment to the Sacred and respect for tradition was at the heart of solidarity and of individual stability. At the heart of Durkheim's argument is the need of all to recognize the existence of something greater than themselves, individually and collectively. For Durkheim the sacred did not necessarily involve a divinity or god; in fact, he was happiest conceiving of the sacred as the concept of society in the minds of individuals. His developing thoughts place the greatest emphasis on the decline of religion and the Sacred as the principal cause of loss of solidarity and consequent rise in the rate of suicide.

To summarize, Durkheim has shown that society is not an aggregate of individuals; rather does a pre-existing society create and mould individuals, controlling their selfishness and integrating them as persons and as members of society. Durkheim points out most clearly that the first and most important function of Society is ‘the creation of the autonomous individual human being' The success of this operation depends on the degree of solidarity within the society.

George Herbert Mead, philosopher and social psychologist, gives us a theory known as symbolic interaction. Where Durkheim, the sociologist, was primarily interested in the macro events of society's influence over the individual, Mead the social psychologist began with the micro interactions between humans. There is no contradiction between the two; from different starting points they arrive at exactly the same terminus. Mead develops the theme of Charles Horton Cooley who famously said ‘self and society are two sides of the same coin' and, more felicitously still, ‘self and society are twin-born'. Using the concepts of Mind, Self and Society, the title of his best known publication, he places them as three concentric circles though not as one might intuitively arrange them.

Mead puts Mind on the outside as the communicative medium within which, and by virtue of which, human beings interact. The Self is the conscious communicating and interacting individual yet the structure of the self, the inner circle, is society, its norms and roles. The structure of society within the individual subsists in the symbols that encapsulate the values and desired activities of the particular society. Like Durkheim, Mead saw the structure of society as the structure of each individual. This structure makes possible the social activities that make us human. Thus in both Durkheim and Mead we see the cohesion and solidarity of society as the launching pad of individual initiative. We find the structure of society become the structure of each individual yet not in a way that lessens the autonomy of the individual.

We may finish with one example, men's rates of suicide are five times that of women in Ireland. Why is this? The most obvious explanation is that of Durkheim and Mead. The degree of bonding and communication among women is far greater than that among men. They are more social beings and their degree of socialization shows in their rates of suicide.

Only the conquest of individualism and consequent growth in solidarity will reduce the rate of suicide. We must have the wisdom and courage to move from our present concentration on individualism and psychology to recognizing the social basis of suicide and other events like drunkenness and road deaths. Only when we address the need to rebuild social and community solidarity - something like plain old-fashioned religious commitment - will we bring down the rates we have looked at.

Dr. Gearoid O Donnchadha is a Lecturer and Social Pyychologist