Wednesday, August 01, 2007

History of Suicide

The comments on the previous post reminded me of this article in the TLS I had read sometime back. It is actually a review of a book of cultural history titled The History of Suicide: Voluntary Death in Western Culture. It is very informative about how the attitudes towards the act have changed over time in the western societies. I don't know if there can ever be a discipline of suicidology, that we can find general theories in sociology, psychoanalysis and other disciplines which can ever convincingly explain the act in general terms. The final act will always be mysterious and deeply private decision, always dependent on particular circumstances surrounding the individual. Though I wish we had some way of predicting, so many lives could be saved then. My personal position is against suicide (my only gripe is with joie de vivre) I also support all sorts of chemical interventions if it helps people live a "normal" and productive life.

I also think that suicide should be discussed and talked about in more open terms. There certainly should be no feelings of guilt and secrecy about it. If one can think about suicide just as an intellectual problem, the chances are he or she will never act on the impulse (although suicidal poets are again an exception. They openly talk of suicide and dying as art and then commit suicide as well.) As the review also concludes:

The trouble with history is that it keeps on repeating itself. Georges Minois's History of Suicide would depress the reader past bearing, if it didn't exasperate. Thank heavens for that. Like the persecution therapy prescribed by Stendhal, exasperation can stir up the instinct of self-preservation.

(The Stendhal observation comes from his book "On Love" (earlier post here) where he prescribes the cultivation of an imaginary persecution complex as a way of dealing with suicidal tendencies borne out of unrequited love. It would then trigger an animalistic self-preservation instinct. Sounds very reasonable.)


contrarian said...

Though its a crude way of putting it but what is the point in trying to save lives where they happen to be devoid of any lack of purpose. Suicide as an idea has roots in weakness even if the act itself may require courage. And any signs of weakness simply follow the rules of Darwin.

Alok said...

a lack of purpose in life is not something that can be objectively proved. if it can be like in case of terminal disease suicide is okay. that's why i said i support euthanasia.

and that weakness/darwin philosophy will lead you in very murky waters. darwinian theory doesnt say what *should* be done. it just explains show things are in nature. confusing values with facts will result in terrible moral confusions (like it happened in Germany under Hitler). btw, have you read dostoevsky's crime and punishment? It deals with the same subject.