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

One of the wee sociologist who tackled suicide is Emile Durkheim who related polarities in genial integrating and control with suicide. There ar four types of reason which would account for self-destructive or self annihilating moves (Durkheim, 1951). altruistic reasoning is when a soul feels his signise of suicide leave serve a genial purpose. This is to a greater extent alike(p) a self sacrifice and is associated with extravagantly social integration. Egoistic reasoning is when a person feels alienated and socially isolated lack social support. much(prenominal)(prenominal) reasoning is associated with minor social integration.Fatalistic reasoning lavatory suicidal acts is associated with aversion to control deemed unwanted like slavery even if it pith 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 transforms (Durkheim, 195 1). Such advance(prenominal) works on suicide were weighty attempts in governing bodyatization of an approach to a particular social issue which marked sociology as scientific discipline and un intractable the possibility of mapping social situations which whitethorn lead to particular set of actions like committing suicide.Another theory which explored social integration and regulation is Kolbergs portrays of object lesson growing. Kolbergs theory is a take onward from the chaste judgment model of Piaget who introduced development or varietys associated with growing up (Crain, 1985). Piaget observed dissimilaritys in age levels as uttermost as perceptions on moral dilemmas. young children view rules for ex adenylic acidle as hardened and absolute only if previous(a) children list to have sex that rules as tools of cooperation and an breakment on rules are of import.Another insight was that younger children tend to view consequences as compared to older childr en who tend to value motivation nates a particular action (Crain, 1985). Kolberg grow on this notion and identified half a dozen stages of moral development essential in the development of particular social formations. take aim I is preconventional morality which comprised stage 1 obedience and punishment orientation and stage 2 various(prenominal)ism and exchange. The marked change is similar to Piagets 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 manner, 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 squelch and individual rights. Stage 5 is induction of society and what ought to be the attributes of good governance.Consensus and date in such(prenominal) a consensus frame is the main virtue at this stage. haphazardness and value judgment is more overweight as delineation between what is moral and what is legal whitethorn not hold and difficult conflict to resolve may arise (Crain, 1985). Stage 6 in Kolbergs social construct is comprehensive principles. Adherence to higher ideals like referee and dignity of a valet being. thence impartiality and equal opportunity as a higher standard of sort if moral dilemmas are to be resolved (Crain, 1985).There are theoretical dilemmas in the model as the scale system in Kolbergs model failed to to the full 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 passel would be integrated and agree on forms of regulation and at what point will there be a jade and hence opens possibility for chance situations such as those that would reinforce self-annihilating acts (Crain, 1985).We take cross out that at this point of discussion that at any time in the developmental stages of a human being, the psychological expound are operative. Cognition is essential to Kolbergs model recognizing behavior patterns as so complicated that it would be impossible to initiate every detail of certain behavior pattern. Still the notion of each agree 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 flush toilet 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. remnant is a loaded word with antithetical layers of meaning. Just how do people cana lize meaning? What could be the unit of communion 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 finis is typic interactionism.This thinking maintains that the mind is a moral force demonstrate of creating and sharing evidentiary 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 contract is agreement first on the particular symbol to use to construct such agreements. phraseology remains the more potent symbolic system universal across human societies.According to this view, learning is not al cardinal observing as contended by Kolb or an imitation as Bandura maintained but according to Mead, an ability of taking the billet of the other through empathy enabling a continuing inte rnal dialogue. Blumer the social psychologist who coined symbolic interactionism summed up the three laying claims primal this concept. The first lead is that humans suffer 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 knowing is a continuing and developing process leading perhaps to the question of what is the crowning(prenominal) potential or purpose of disembodied spirit and how could a divergence such a violent act against others or felo-de-se 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 d ate).