Topic 2 - Mental illness and suicide: the sociology of deviance

Durkheim studies it, aim of showing socio is science. Used official stats, claimed to have discovered causes of suicide in how effectively society integrated individuals + regulated behaviour.

Interactionists reject D's positivist approach + reliance on official stats. Argue to understand suicide, must study meanings for those who choosed to kill themselves.

Interactionist approach - critical of use of official stats - socially constructed. Whether death labelled as suicide depends on interactions + negotiations b/ween social actors eg coroner, relatives etc. Relatives may feel guilty about failing to prevent death, press for verdict of misadventure.

Stats tell nothing about meanings behind decision to commit suicide. Should use qualitative data eg analysis of suicide nots/unstructured interviews w/ deceased's friends. Allow us to 'get behind' labels coroners attach to deaths to discover true meanings.

Agrees official stats socially constructed. Record of labels coroners attach to deaths. Argues impossible to know meanings dead gave to deaths.

Focuses on on taken-for-granted assumptions coroners make when reaching verdicts. Found ideas about 'typical suicide' important; certain modes of death, location + circumstances seen as typical suicides. 

Interactionists reject official stats on mental illness b/c regard as social constrcts. Record of activities of those eg psychiatrists w/ ability to attach labels. Not objective social facts.

Interactionists interested in how person comes to be labelled as mentally ill + effects of labelling. Lemert's (1962) study of paranoia. Some don't fit easily into groups. As result of this primary deviance, others label person as odd + begin to exclude him. Neg response to this is beginning of secondary deviance, gives others further reason to exclude. May begin discussing best way of dealing w/ diff person. Confirms susppicions people conspiring against him. Reaction justifies fears for mental health, may -> psychiatric intervention, -> officially beind labelled, placed into hospital against will. Label 'mental patient', becomes master status.

Rosenhan's (1973) - 'pseudo-patient', researchers had themselves admitted to hospitals, claimed 'hearing voices'. Diagnosed as schizophrenic, became master status. Despite acting normally, treated by staff as mentally ill.

Goffman's (1961) - Asylums study, shows poss effects of being admitted to 'total institution' eg psych hosp. 

On admission, inmate undergoes 'mortification of self' - old identity symbolically 'killed off', replaced w/ new - 'inmate'. Achieved by 'degredation rituals' eg confiscation of personal effects.  

While some inmates become institutionalised, internalise new identity, unable to re-adjust to outside world, others adopt forms of resistance/accommodation to new situation.

Braginski et al (1969) study of LT psychiatric patients. Found inmates manipulated symptoms to appear 'not well enough' to be discharged, 'not sick enough' to be confined to ward. Able to achieve aim of free movement around hospital.

Criticisms:
 - deterministic, implies once labelled, deviant career inevitable
 - emphasis on neg effects of labelling gives offender victim status - realists argue ignores real victims of crime
 - fails to explain why people commit primary deviance in 1st place, before labelled.