Reflecting on this 1897 sociology classic, Beatriz Santos considers just how theoretical Durkheim’s concept of ‘fatalistic suicide’ really is…
Émile Durkheim’s Suicide: A Study in Sociology establishes four types of suicides—egoistic, altruistic, anomic, and fatalistic. Egoistic suicide, according to Durkheim, is a result of “excessive individuation”, occurring when individuals display a lack of integration in a community and lack a social basis, leading to feelings of solitude and despair. Altruistic suicide is the opposite of egoistic suicide, the result of an individual’s extreme absorption within a certain community; so much so that they would be ready to die for it if conditions required so. Anomic suicide, meanwhile, has to do with a sense of disorientation and lack of norms, occurring during economical crises or sudden economic growths, with rapid changes in wealth that lead to uncertainty and confusion in societal roles. Finally, fatalistic suicide is related to excessive norms, happening when an individual’s life is so regulated they prefer to kill themselves instead of living in extreme oppression.
This latter suicide category differs from the others in the sense Durkheim saw it more as “theoretical” rather than “practical”. In fact, he did not develop it much, but saw it as some sort of opposite to anomic suicide (in the same way that altruistic suicide is an opposite to egoistic suicide). Durkheim conceived of fatalistic suicide as a situation as extreme as being in prison facing torture and abuse and, thus, preferring to die instead. However, it should be noted that Suicide: A Study in Sociology was first published in 1897, around 40 years before Nazi Germany took authoritarianism to a whole new level and 60 years before the beginning of the Cold War, which highlighted the differences between free populations and oppressed ones. Durkheim did not live to analyse the case of Jan Palach in 1969, let alone the case of Arsen and Tigran in 2022.
Jan Palach is an exemplary case when considering fatalistic suicide. He became a symbol of resistance against Soviet Communism after setting himself on fire in the middle of the Wenceslas Square, in Prague, on a winter day in 1969. A philosophy student at the Charles University, Palach self-immolated himself as an act of protest after the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia and undermined the political liberalisation that had been brought to the country during the so-called Prague Spring. Before his death, he allegedly sent several letters to authorities calling out for freer political practices, including the abolition of censorship.
Some may interpret Palach’s suicide as altruistic because he died for a cause and inspired many of his contemporaries to fight for their freedom, which ultimately resulted in the liberation
and dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1989 and 1993. However, at the same time, it does not seem to fit Durkheim’s definition of altruistic suicide—“When man becomes so completely absorbed in the group that he loses all individual personality and is no longer conscious of his personal interest, only of that of the community, he is in a state of altruism… Here, then, is the group of suicides that we shall call altruistic, since they depend on this extreme integration”. Palach’s case does not seem to be a case of collectivist absorption but rather the opposite – a case of individualistic insurrection against collectivism. The Kamikaze pilots committed altruistic suicide, and their deaths were much different than Palach’s. Most of the Kamikaze were deeply absorbed in Japan’s Nationalism and died for the country without questioning it. Palach, on the other hand, questioned too much and could not handle living in an environment that did not make sense to him. For this reason, his suicide could be considered as being closer to fatalistic suicide. Despite not suffering from torture and physical abuse (as theorised by Durkheim), Palach was certainly suffering from mental abuse—by the state.
Nevertheless, even if Palach’s suicide was fatalistic, a sole case would not mean this type of suicide is more than primarily theoretical. However, Palach’s case was not isolated. During the second half of the 20th century, there were several notable cases of self-immolation in Eastern Bloc countries. Before Palach, Ryszard Siwiec had done the same in Poland and Vasyl Mkukh had done the same in Ukraine. Later, Jan Zajíc and Evžen Plocek followed his example in his native Czechoslovakia, as did Sándor Bauer and Márton Moyses in neighbouring Hungary.
Other notable examples outside of Eastern Europe of people who chose death over oppression were seen, for instance, in Vietnam and in the Middle East. In 1963, the Buddhist monk Thích Quảng Đức burned himself due to the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government of Ngô Đình Diệm. More recently, in 2011, the Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi did the same thing after being repeatedly harassed by authorities for allegedly selling fruits without a permit. Bouazizi’s death had a wide repercussion in Tunisia and its neighbouring countries, becoming one of the main events that sparked the First Arab Spring and leading to a domino effect, as dozens of men decided to self-immolate in the following months as a protest, in Tunisia and countries like Algeria and Egypt.
For an even more recent case, I think it is important to highlight the case of Arsen and Tigran, a young Armenian gay couple who committed suicide in 2022 by jumping off a bridge. In the present day, gay people are granted rights such as marriage and child adoption in many countries, but there are places where they are barely allowed to exist. Despite not banning homosexuality outright, Armenia’s landscape regarding LGBT rights is far from inviting, as societal prejudice is heavy and laws are not exactly protective. Before committing suicide along with his boyfriend, 16 year-old Arsen posted a series of photos on Instagram with the caption “Happy Ending”. The post received numerous comments, most of them hateful, one of them by his own mother. Once again, this was not an isolated case, as there are more stories of same-sex couples ending their lives together in countries where LGBT rights are barely respected, like Russia, Iran, or Arab nations. In India, couple suicides are also a reality, in this case mostly due to the country’s restrictive caste system.
I am aware some of these cases might be confusing and seen as egoistic suicide, since all of these people killed themselves due to a feeling of non-belonging in society. However, I would identify a key word: regulation. Egoistic suicide can happen in any kind of society, even a free one, because it primarily comes from the individual. Durkheim concluded that suicide was more common amongst single people rather than people with a partner, and childless people rather than people with children, because having a familiar basis and corresponding societal expectations matters in people’s decisions of taking their own lives. A person can live in a free country and still choose to commit suicide due to not having enough emotional support, lacking romantic relationships, and feeling unable to form a family. The mentioned cases were different—these people killed themselves because the countries they lived in did not allow them to live the lives they wanted to.
Durkheim did not develop much his idea of fatalistic suicide but saw it as mostly theoretical, imagining an extreme case of unbearable torture and deprivation. Regardless, it would be interesting to know what he would have said about the several cases referred to in this article. I wonder if he would still see fatalistic suicide as theoretical after investigating these individuals who saw death as a gateway to freedom in a world that crushed them.
