In the British Journal of Psychiatry, two psychiatrists and an anthropologist discuss recent cases of self-immolation as a form of political protest in the Arab world:Since ancient times there has been a difference between suicide (an act of self-destruction) and self-immolation which, although self- destructive, has a sacrificial connotation. Self-immolation is associated with terrible physical pain (burning alive) and with the idea of courage... It is, however, a new phenomenon in Arab Muslim societies.There's certainly a perception that some suicide is "political", and quite different from similar actions done for "personal" reasons. The same goes for breaking the law: we make a distinction between "common criminals", who do it for their own sake, and people who do so for an ideal.
The self-immolation of the young Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor, expresses both the extreme hurt associated with the harassment and humiliation that was inflicted on him after his wares had been confiscated, and the fact that there were no other ways to be heard in a country where he knew no kind of political system other than dictatorship...His gesture is now being replicated, mostly by other young men in Arab countries.
These events ....raise important issues for psychiatrists and mental health professionals. First, these events highlight the social, political and cultural dimensions of suicide as a powerful collective idiom of distress. In the Tunisian case there is a shift from an individual sinful suicide to a sacrifice which evokes martyrdom. Fire symbolises purification...
Second, in spite of the fact that the idiom of distress put forward by these Arab youth is radically different from the usual profile of youth suicide in Western countries, these events may also be an invitation to rethink the collective dimensions of youth suicide as a protest against society. Without minimising the role of psychopathology and interpersonal factors, it may be time to revisit the collective meaning associated by youth with the decision to exit a world in which they may feel they do not always have a voice.
But I wonder whether this political/personal distinction is so clear-cut, psychologically speaking. Even "political" suicide has a personal component: in most cases, millions of people are in the same political situation, but only a few people burn themselves. Politics alone doesn't explain any individual case.
Conversely the idea that "personal" suicide is simply a symptom of an individual's mental illness is likewise inadaquate - most people with mental illness, even very severe cases, do not do it. We have to look into the social sphere as well.
Emile Durkheim drew a distinction between "egoistic" suicide, related to an individual's "prolonged sense of not belonging, of not being integrated in a community" and "anomic" suicide, caused by upheavals in society leading to "an individual's moral confusion and lack of social direction". But aren't those different ways of looking at the same thing?
Cheikh IB, Rousseau C, & Mekki-Berrada A (2011). Suicide as protest against social suffering in the Arab world. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 198, 494-5 PMID: 21628715
11 comments:
However you look at it, it's insane. Your primary goal is to survive in order to procreate. Anything that goes against that is insane by definition.
I have no tolerance, understanding nor pity for political suicides.
Stark raving mad would be my official diagnosis.
Ostracism has been termed "social death". It's a form of murder leaving the victim biologically alive and self aware of his "dead" status. So the concept of a forceful stripping of voice is present in this population, too. Ostracism was practiced as a form of death penalty, and it was and remains lethal. In fact, Alford's work points to whistleblowers who are ostracized as having rapid health declines and early deaths -suicides and disengagements with survival - eating, drinking, self care, along with acute and exacerbations of chronic diseases.
All this to say that the act of suicide by those who are oppressed and ostracized is really no such thing. It's the active stopping of externally applied terminal suffering when the means for physiologic and psychologic survival have been intentionally and maliciously removed.
I think the problem is much deeper, not that i justify suicide at any level.So after procreating if the person commits suicide would that be any different.Man,being a social animal,is largely influenced by the society(system).I look at suicide as failure of the system(political suicide is even worse)By the way nice pic,it is one of the rage against the machine album cover.
@petrossa:
Even from your evolutionary perspective it is not insane 'by definition'.
Ultimate goal is not necessarily one's survival- evolutionists speak about "inclusive fitness". Basically, what you supposedly care about are your genes, rather than your survival per se. Thus, attempts to increase fitness/survival/mating success of people who share genes with you is beneficial, and yes, sometimes it might mean suicide (as 'your' genes still stay in the population!).
Then you can say that political suicide is not only about family, so inclusive fitness does not fit here. However, bare in mind that humans developed a thing called "culture", and cultural transmission generally favours cooperation and well being.
If you mix these two togather (and possibly some other stuff), a sacrifice of a person in an attempt to indirectly affect well being of his community does not look to me insane (by any definition).
I would be rather carefull with using the term "insane"...
oh, and about political suicides- there are lots of really interesting studies on altruism and reciprocity games, and I was thinking, wouldn't political suicide be an extreme example of "strong reciprocators"?
here's a general paper on altrusim:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6960/abs/nature02043.html
do you think that saying political suicide can be seen as some kind of altruism is a stretch, or there's a chance of simillar mechanisms/principles going on for both altruism and political suicide?
In my opinion, the explanation (i.e. political motivation or a personal distress) given to a suicidal act is misleading in understanding the underlying mechanism of suicidal behavior. Rousseau and Mekki-Berrada are jumping to conclusions that if there is a significant difference in motivation to commit a suicide, then there are significant differences in profiles of those suicide types. I would argue that by drawing a comparison between these two types, we would still find some general overlap in psychological profile (e.g. higher rates of impulsivity, personal distress (be it operationalized as a sense of feeling not belonging to or a sense of being misunderstood by society), or...).
Also, I would expand my argument by claiming that medication effective to reduce the symptomatics of "classical suicide" would have an effect on symptomatics of "political suicide".
Last, but not least, the count of suicide attempts by women is higher than by men, but men succeed more in actually committing a suicide. As far as I am concerned, men are being the majority of those committing a political suicide. This, again, can be tracked back to men being more impulsive...
All in all, if I were a professional dealing with suicide risk group, my target of intervention wouldnt be the sadness of Sally or martydrom of Ahmed, the factors that trigger these thoughts and feelings would.
Meh!
Those losers just need some medication...
kozioł said...
Ultimate goal is not necessarily one's survival- evolutionists speak about "inclusive fitness".
Evolutionists can speak how they choose. One survives in order to procreate. Once thats done you are useless and rot away because you only use up precious resources.
Sanity is to me behaving as is most conducive to attaining your goal.
Therefore suicide itself is already a sign of not being compos mentis, but for political reasons it's totally insane.
There's no sane way one can assume that killing oneself helps anybody anywhere.
The current destabilization of the middle east/north africa a marked case in point.
The deaths keep on stacking up.
petrossa:
I'm not saying that suicide always helps to resolve any problems. Suicide might be an attempt to address the problems, be it mere drawing attention to a specific problem. The fact that no one can be certain or entirely control the outcome of his actions doesn't necessarily contradict this argument.
pettrossa said...
Evolutionists can speak how they choose. One survives in order to procreate. Once thats done you are useless and rot away because you only use up precious resources.
yes, evolutionists can speak as they choose, as you chose to speak as one. So, using the same line of thinking, I'll dare to say that the ultimate goal is not procreation, and that it is not that we regard people who raised their children as useless, same as we don't exterminate people who can't have children... we have to remember that there is a thing called culture as well. Do you think that Seppuku is insane? I bet not all people think so, and there are reasons for that.
And I think it is pretty sane to think that sacrifice can help anyone. Even if it's not always succesfull.
What I'm trying to deliver here is that I think it's unfair to call certain instances of suicide as a "pure insanity"- there's probably more to it, and simple labels does not always deliver the whole meaning.
kozioł said...
We agree to differ. What one considers sense is to others nonsense.
Your arguments didn't convince me, specially when you label me and in the same piece accuse me of labeling someone else.
Shows the logic is flawed.
Let me leave exactly the same response: your arguments didn't convinced me and your logic is flawed. Thank you.
Post a Comment