The Meaning of Anomy and of Anomic Suicide*
*
From Suicide, pp. 246, 247-49, 250-51, 252-54, 256, 257-58.
No
living being can be happy or even exist unless his needs are sufficiently
proportioned to his means. In other words, if his needs require more than can be
granted, or even merely something of a different sort, they will be under
continual friction and can only function painfully. Movements incapable of
production without pain tend not to be reproduced. Unsatisfied tendencies
atrophy, and as the impulse to live is merely the result of all the rest, it is
bound to weaken as the others relax.
In
the animal, at least in a normal condition, this equilibrium is established with
automatic spontaneity because the animal depends on purely material conditions .
. . .
This
is not the case with man, because most of his needs are not dependent on his
body or not to the same degree. Strictly speaking, we may consider that the
quantity of material supplies necessary to the physical maintenance of a human
life is subject to computation, though this be less exact than in the preceding
case and a wider margin left for the free combinations of the will; for beyond
the indispensable minimum which satisfies nature when instinctive, a more
awakened reflection suggests better conditions, seemingly desirable ends
craving fulfillment. Such appetites, however, admittedly sooner or later reach a
limit which they cannot pass. But how determine the quantity of well-being,
comfort or luxury legitimately to be craved by a human being? Nothing appears in
man's organic nor in his psychological constitution which sets a limit to such
tendencies. The functioning of individual life does not require them to
cease at one point rather than at another; the proof being that they have
constantly increased since the beginnings of history, receiving more and more
complete satisfaction, yet with no weakening of average health. Above all, how
establish their proper variation with different conditions of life, occupations,
relative importance of services, etc.? In no society are they equally satisfied
in the different stages of the social hierarchy. Yet human nature is
substantially the same among all men, in its essential qualities. It is not
human nature which can assign the variable limits necessary to our needs. They
are thus unlimited so far as they depend on the individual alone. Irrespective
of any external regulatory force, our capacity for feeling is in itself an
insatiable and bottomless abyss.
But if nothing external can restrain this capacity,
it can only be a source of torment to itself. Unlimited desires are insatiable
by definition and insatiability is rightly considered a sign of morbidity. Being
unlimited, they constantly and infinitely surpass the means at their command;
they cannot be quenched. Inextinguishable thirst is constantly renewed torture.
It has been claimed, indeed, that human activity naturally aspires beyond
assignable limits and sets itself unattainable goals. But how can such an
undetermined state be any more reconciled with the conditions of mental life
than with the demands of physical life? All man's pleasure in acting, moving and
exerting himself implies the sense that his efforts are not in vain and that by
walking he has advanced. However, one does not advance when one walks toward no
goal, or--which is the same thing--when his goal is infinity . . . . But it
would be a miracle if no insurmountable obstacle were never encountered. Our
thread of life on these conditions is pretty thin, breakable at any instant.
To achieve any other result, the passions first must be limited. Only
then can they be harmonized with the faculties and satisfied. But since the
individual has no way of limiting them, this must be done by some force exterior
to him. A regulative force must play the same role for moral needs which the
organism plays for physical needs. This means that the force can only be moral.
The awakening of conscience interrupted the state of equilibrium of the animal's
dormant existence; only conscience, therefore, can furnish the means to re-establish
it. Physical restraint would be ineffective; hearts cannot be touched by physio-chemical
forces. So far as the appetites are not automatically restrained by
physiological mechanisms, they can be halted only by a limit that they recognize
as just. Men would never consent to restrict their desires if they felt
justified in passing the assigned limit. But, for reasons given above, they
cannot assign themselves this law of justice. So they must receive it from an
authority which they respect, to which they yield spontaneously. Either directly
and as a whole, or through the agency of one of its organs, society alone can
play this moderating role; for it is the only moral power superior to the
individual, the authority of which he accepts. It alone has the power necessary
to stipulate law and to set the point beyond which the passions must not go.
Finally, it alone can estimate the reward to be prospectively offered to every
class of human function ary, in the name of the common interest….
Under
this pressure, each in his sphere vaguely realizes the extreme limit set to his
ambitions and aspires to nothing beyond. At least if he respects regulations and
is docile to collective authority, that is, has a wholesome moral constitution,
he feels that it is not well to ask more. Thus, an end and goal are set to the
passions. Truly, there is nothing rigid nor absolute about such determination.
The economic ideal assigned each class of citizens is itself confined to certain
limits, within which the desires have free range. But it is not infinite. This
relative limitation and the moderation it involves, make men contented with
their lot while stimulating them moderately to improve it; and this average
contentment causes the feeling of calm, active happiness, the pleasure in
existing and living which characterizes health for societies as well as for
individuals. Each person is then at least,
generally speaking, in harmony with his condition, and desires only what he may
legitimately hope for as the normal reward of his activity. Besides, this does
not condemn man to a sort of immobility. He may seek to give beauty to his life;
but his attempts in this direction may fail without causing him to despair. For,
loving what he has and not fixing his desire solely on what he lacks, his wishes
and hopes may fail of what he has happened to aspire to, without
his being wholly destitute. He has the essentials. The equilibrium of his
happiness is secure because it is defined, and a few mishaps cannot disconcert
him.
But
it would be of little use for everyone to recognize the justice of the hierarchy
of functions established by public opinion, if he did not also consider the
distribution of these functions just. The workman is not in harmony with his
social position if he is not convinced that he has his desserts. If he feels
justified in occupying another, what he has would not satisfy him. So it is not
enough for the average level of
needs for each social condition to be regulated by public opinion, but another,
more precise rule, must fix the way in which these conditions are open to
individuals. There is no society in which such regulation does not exist. It
varies with times and places. Once it
regarded birth as the almost
exclusive principle of social classification; today it recognizes no other
inherent inequality than hereditary fortune and merit. But in all these various
forms its object is unchanged. It is also only possible, everywhere, as a
restriction upon individuals imposed by superior authority, that is, by
collective authority. For it can be established only by requiring of one or
another group of men, usually of all, sacrifices and concessions in the name of
the public interest….
It
is not true, then, that human activity can be released from all restraint.
Nothing in the world can enjoy such a privilege. All existence being a part of
the universe is relative to the remainder; its nature and method of
manifestation accordingly depend not only on itself but on other beings, who
consequently restrain and regulate it. Here there are only differences of degree
and form between the mineral realm and the thinking person. Man's characteristic
privilege is that the bond he accepts is not physical but moral; that is,
social. He is governed not by a material environment brutally imposed on him,
but by a conscience superior to his own, the superiority of which he feels.
Because the greater, better part of his existence transcends the body, he
escapes the body's yoke, but is subject to that of society.
But when society is disturbed by some painful crisis or by beneficent but
abrupt transitions, it is momentarily incapable of exercising this influence;
thence come the sudden rises in the curve of suicides . . . .
In the case of economic disasters, indeed, something like a
declassification occurs which suddenly casts certain individuals into a lower
state than their previous one. Then they must reduce their requirements,
restrain their needs, learn greater self-control. All the advantages of social
influence are lost so far as they are concerned; their moral education has to be
recommenced. But society cannot adjust them instantaneously to this new life and
teach them to practice the increased self-repression to which they are
unaccustomed. So they are not adjusted to the condition forced on them, and its
very prospect is intolerable; hence the suffering which detaches them from a
reduced existence even before they have made trial of it.
It is the same if the source of the crisis is an abrupt growth of power
and wealth. Then, truly, as the conditions of life are changed, the standard
according to which needs were regulated can no longer remain the same; for it
varies with social resources, since it largely determines the share of each
class of producers. The scale is upset; but a new scale cannot be immediately
improvised. Time is required for the public conscience to reclassify men and
things. So long as the social forces thus freed have not regained equilibrium,
their respective values are unknown and so all regulation is lacking for a time
. . . .
. . . . The state of de-regulation or anomy is thus
further heightened by passions being
less disciplined, precisely when they need more disciplining.
But then their very demands make fulfillment impossible. Overweening
ambition always exceeds the results obtained, great as they may be, since there
is no warning to pause here. Nothing gives satisfaction and all this agitation
is uninterruptedly maintained without appeasement. Above all, since this race
for an unattainable goal can give no other pleasure but that of the race itself,
if it is one, once it is interrupted the participants are left empty-handed. At
the same time the struggle grows more violent and painful, both from being less
controlled and because competition is greater. All classes contend among
themselves because no established classification any longer exists. Effort
grows, just when it becomes less productive. How could the desire to live not be
weakened under such conditions?
This explanation is confirmed by the remarkable immunity of poor
countries. Poverty protects against suicide because it is a restraint in itself.
No matter how one acts, desires have to depend upon resources to some extent;
actual possessions are partly the criterion of those aspired to. So the less one
has the less he is tempted to extend the range of his needs indefinitely. Lack
of power, compelling moderation, accustoms men to it, while nothing excites envy
if no one has superfluity. Wealth, on the other hand, by the power it bestows,
deceives us into believing that we depend on ourselves only. Reducing the
resistance we encounter from objects, it suggests the possibility of unlimited
success against them. The less limited one feels, the more intolerable all
limitation appears. Not without reason, therefore, have so many religions dwelt
on the advantages and moral value of poverty. It is actually the best school for
teaching self‑restraint. Forcing us to constant self-discipline, it
prepares us to accept collective discipline with equanimity, while wealth,
exalting the individual, may always arouse the spirit of rebellion which is the
very source of immorality. This, of course, is no reason why humanity should not
improve its material condition. But though the moral danger involved in every
growth of prosperity is not irremediable, it should not be forgotten.
If anomy never appeared except, as in the above instances, in
intermittent spurts and acute crisis, it might cause the social suicide rate to
vary from time to time, but it would not be a regular, constant factor. In one
sphere of social life, however--the sphere of trade and industry--it is actually
in a chronic state….
From top to bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused without knowing where
to find ultimate foothold. Nothing can calm it, since its goal is far beyond all
it can attain. Reality seems valueless by comparison with the dreams of fevered
imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned, but so too is possibility abandoned
when it in turn
becomes reality. A thirst arises for novelties, unfamiliar pleasures, nameless
sensations, all of which lose their savor once known. Henceforth one has no
strength to endure the least reverse. The whole fever subsides and the sterility
of all the tumult is apparent, and it is seen that all these new sensations in
their infinite quantity cannot form a solid foundation of happiness to support
one during days of trial. The wise man, knowing how to enjoy achieved results
without having constantly to replace them with others, finds in them an
attachment to life in the hour of difficulty. But the man who has always pinned
all his hopes on the future and lived with his eyes fixed upon it, has nothing
in the past as a comfort against the present's afflictions, for the past was
nothing to him but a series of hastily experienced stages. What blinded him to
himself was his expectation always to find further on the happiness he had so
far missed. Now he is stopped in his tracks; from now on nothing remains behind
or ahead of him to fix his gaze upon. Weariness alone, moreover, is enough to
bring disillusionment, for he cannot in the end escape the futility of an
endless pursuit….
Industrial and commercial functions are really among the occupations
which furnish the greatest number of suicides. Almost on a level with the
liberal professions, they sometimes surpass them; they are especially more
afflicted than agriculture, where the old regulative forces still make their
appearance felt most and where the fever of business has least penetrated. Here
is best recalled what was once the general constitution of the economic order.
And the divergence would be yet greater if, among the suicides of industry,
employers were distinguished from workmen, for the former are probably most
stricken by the state of anomy. The enormous rate of those with independent
means (720 per million) sufficiently shows that the possessors of most comfort
suffer most. Everything that enforces subordination attenuates the effects of
this state. At least the horizon of the lower classes is limited by those above
them, and for this same reason their desires are more modest. Those who have
only empty space above them are almost inevitably lost in it, if no force
restrains them.
Anomy, therefore, is a regular and specific factor in suicide in our modern societies; one of the springs from which the annual contingent feeds. So we have here a new type to distinguish from the others. It differs from them in its dependence, not on the way in which individuals are attached to society, but on how it regulates them. Egoistic suicide results from man's no loner finding a basis for existence in life; altruistic suicide, because this basis for existence appears to man situated beyond life itself. The third sort of suicide, the existence of which has just been shown, results from man's activity's lacking regulation and his consequent sufferings. By virtue of its origin we shall assign this last variety the name of anomic suicide.