Suicidal Masculinities

8/11/2019 Suicidal Masculinities

1/15

Suicidal Masculinities

by Jonathan Scourfield

Cardiff University

Volume 10, Issue 2, 30 0! 200"

Sociological Research Online , Volume 10, Issue 2,#htt$% &&&'socresonline'or('u) 10 2 'html*'

To cite articles published in Sociological Research Online, please reference the above information andinclude paragraph numbers if necessary.

Received: 26/3/2004 ccepted: 23/2/200! "ublished: 30/6/200!

+bstract

cross the #est$ suicide rates in young men have been rising for some time. This trend has attractedconsiderable media attention and is often cited %ithin media discourse as evidence of a &crisis ofmasculinity&. The field of suicide research 'or suicidology( is dominated by )uantitative methodology$ andalthough there has been research attention to the gendered character of suicidal behaviour$ studies tend tocompare &men& as a group %ith &%omen& as a group. There is also relatively little consideration %ithin thisliterature of po%er relations and the social*political dimension of masculinities. This paper argues the casefor a )ualitative sociological approach to the study of gendered suicide and begins to outline a frame%or+

for understanding the diversity of suicidal masculinities. ,onnell&s theoretical %or+ on masculinities isused to analyse evidence from the suicidology literature. The frame%or+ includes consideration of %henhegemonic masculinity fails- the subordinated masculinities of gay se uality and mental illness- andcontrol in intimate relationships.

ey&ords% Suicide, Masculinity, Men, -ender, Crisis, .e(emonic, Subordinated, Mental.ealth, +uto$sy, /ualitative

Introduction

1'1 t is often argued that many men are not coping %ith the conse)uences of changes in the gender order$such as shifting patterns of %or+ and relationships. The &social facts& 'to use ur+heim&s phrase 1 1 "2 (that are arguably most crucial to these claims that %e have a &crisis of masculinity& in the #est are thechanging suicide rates. et%een 5!0 and 55 $ suicide rates in 7ngland and #ales doubled in malesunder 4!$ %hilst rates for older men and %omen of all ages declined ' -unnell et al', 2003 (. #hen the
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield/scourfield.htmlhttp://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#durkheim1952%23durkheim1952http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#gunnell2003%23gunnell2003http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#durkheim1952%23durkheim1952http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#gunnell2003%23gunnell2003http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield/scourfield.html


2/15

7nglish epartment of 8ealth published its suicide prevention strategy in 2002$ it declared that suicidehad become the most common cause of death in men under 3! in 7ngland ' e$artment of .ealth, 2002 (.

n fact the most recent figures sho% suicide rates in young men to be decreasing since 55 $ although thegender gap in suicide rates is still largest in the 20*25 age group ' IM. , 200" (. There is considerableongoing media interest in this gendered pattern in suicide rates$ most li+ely because they are generally

interpreted %ithin the mainstream media as supporting the dominant narrative of gender crisis ' Coyle andMor(an4Sy)es, 1 5 (.

1'2 classic account of this idea of masculinity in crisis can be found in 9usan aludi&s boo+ 9tiffed: Theetrayal of the ;odern ;an ' 1 (. The idea here is that %or+ing class men in particular are unsure ho%

to respond to a changing %orld. They are confused by a mismatch bet%een e pectations of masculine privilege on one hand and a changing economy and social gains for %omen on the other. aludiemphasises the effects on %or+ing class men in the


3/15

studies tend to compare &men& %ith &%omen& as se groups$ perhaps alongside a consideration of socialclass$ rather than further brea+ing do%n these categories. ,ompared %ith )ualitative research on suicide$these +inds of statistical studies are easier to conduct in terms of access to data and are also ethically morestraightfor%ard because they are less intrusive. 9tac+ ' 2000 ( provides a useful summary of sociological

research on differences bet%een the se es that have implications for the differential suicide rates 'see table1(.


4/15

;y focus is different from t+inson&s classic study$ ho%ever. t+inson concludes 'pp. ?3ff.( that anyresearch other than ethnomethodological deconstruction of official disposals is pretty %orthless. 8e mayhave an epistemological case$ up to a point$ but to my mind this is sociological self*indulgence. espitethe enormous methodological challenges of researching dead people$ %ould argue that %e have to

attempt to get as close as %e can to the stories of those %ho have +illed themselves$ in order to understandthem and to inform prevention strategies.

1'5 The main arguments in this paper about the limitations of e isting published research are t%ofold. Thefirst is that the dominant approach is to compare men %ith %omen$ as though these t%o population groups%ere homogenous$ and there is little consideration of the diversity of masculinities and femininities.


5/15

2'2 ,onnell does not shy a%ay from careful use of the concept of patriarchy. 8e is clear that even men%ho oppose patriarchal beliefs and practices can gain certain social privileges simply by virtue of beingmen. This is the &patriarchal dividend&. 8is is not a crude$ monolithic version of patriarchy. 8e insists onthe post*structuralist plurality of the term &masculinities&. 9o there are multiple possible %ays of being a

man$ and men&s practices vary according to culture$ class$ ethnicity$ se uality and other mediating factors.ecoming a man is not a passive process of socialisation$ but an active construction of an identity.dentities and practices are not freely ac)uired$ ho%ever$ but there are social structural constraints$ and

po%er relations are crucial. @endered discursive practices configure into a hierarchy. 9o$ for e ample$compulsory heterose uality is an important aspect of &hegemonic masculinity& and gay men thereforerepresent a form of &subordinated masculinity&. #hat distinguishes ,onnell&s from other sophisticatedsociologies of gender is that he also appreciates the importance of a psychic dimension. 8e incorporatesan understanding of sub>ectivity by including e istential psychoanalysis in his frame%or+ forunderstanding gender relations.

2'3 lthough his %or+ is undoubtedly influential$ it has also not gone unchallenged. There have been

several criti)ues of ,onnell in the last decade. T%o recent e amples are those of Aefferson ' 2002 ( and#hitehead ' 2002 (. These criti)ues are perhaps particularly relevant to the inevitably psycho*social topicof suicide$ as both dispute ,onnell&s theorising of men&s sub>ectivities.

2'7 mongst other things$ Aefferson argues that ,onnell underestimates the e tent of crisis incontemporary masculinity and that a more psychologically comple theory of masculinity is needed- one%hich incorporates an appreciation of fantasy as %ell as the social. s he argues in a response to Aefferson$,onnell ' 2002 ( has a different reading of the evidence on contemporary masculinities and puts moreemphasis on men&s continued social dominance on a global level than Aefferson does. n fact$ as go on toargue in this paper$ ,onnell&s %or+ can be seen to be relevant to an understanding of individual andcollective masculine crises. 8e does accept that &crisis tendencies& can be seen in #estern masculinities

' Connell, 1 " ( but admittedly puts less emphasis on these than does Aefferson. Bne important reason forthis difference in emphasis is the role of corporate masculinity in economic and cultural globalisation' Connell, 2000 (. ,onnell has in fact al%ays asserted the need for a psychological dimension. n his 55!te t Masculinities he ma+es reference to e istential psychoanalysis as an essential element of a roundedsocial scientific theory of men. t is admittedly the case that psychoanalytical ideas are not as %elldeveloped in his %or+ as sociological ideas are. This emphasis appears to reflect his disciplinary

bac+ground.

2'" #hitehead ' 2002 ( sees hegemony as a slippery concept that claims to bridge the structure*agencydichotomy but lac+s an ade)uate analysis of the sub>ect. 8e argues that although hegemonic masculinityoffers a more nuanced interpretation of male dominance than patriarchy$ the concept &ultimately suffersfrom the same deficits& 'p.52( and is &as reductionist a term as patriarchy& 'p53(. ccording to #hitehead$the &primary underpinning& of the idea of hegemonic masculinity is &the notion of a fi ed 'male( structure&'p.54(. ut ,onnell ' 2002 ( in fact sees hegemony not as fi ed but as historically concrete and he insiststhat &li+e class relations$ gender relations change historically$ and the pattern and depth of hegemonychanges also& 'p. 5(. &8egemony in gender relations can be contested and may brea+ do%n& ' Connell,2002 : 5(.

2'! #hitehead also argues that >ust %hat hegemonic masculinity is$ &%hen only a minority of men e press

!
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#jefferson2002%23jefferson2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#whitehead2002%23whitehead2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell1995%23connell1995http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#whitehead2002%23whitehead2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#jefferson2002%23jefferson2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#whitehead2002%23whitehead2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell1995%23connell1995http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#whitehead2002%23whitehead2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002


6/15

it or perform to its pattern..... is never illuminated& '53(. ,onnell is clear that hegemonic masculinity refersto &the circulation of models of admired masculine conduct& ' Connell, 2002 : 50(. These &e emplarymasculinities& do not &correspond closely to the lives of the ma>ority of men& but they e press &ideals$fantasies and desires$ provide models of relations %ith %omen and solutions to gender problems& 'p.50(.

mention some aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are relevant to suicide in the ne t sub*section of the paper.

2'6 Recognising that ,onnell does not have the last %ord on masculinity$ and that there is a need to buildon his %or+ psychologically$ as Aefferson attempts to do$ maintain that ,onnell&s theoretical frame%or+ ise tremely useful. t ac+no%ledges both structural relations of po%er and the multiplicity of genderedidentities and gendered practices$ and also recognises the importance of a psychic dimension. s ,onnell' 2002 : 50( has argued in defence of the concept of hegemonic masculinity$ although it has at times beenmisunderstood or employed inappropriately$ &the fact that the concept has been %idely used suggests that itmeets a need&.

:hen .e(emonic Masculinity =ails3'1 Ce% has recently argued that &the very practices %hich construct men&s capacity to oppress %omen andinterest in doing so$ %or+ by systematically harming men& ' e&, 2001 : ?30(. #hether or not theysystematically harm men 'a more controversial claim($ the discursive practices that ,onnell groups underthe heading of &hegemonic masculinity& are associated %ith some suicide in men. s ,onnell ' 2000 $ p. 4(

puts it$ &some masculiniDing practices damage bodies&. 8egemonic masculinity is constituted by theconfiguration of discursive practices that are culturally authoritative in a given conte t and men&srelationship to hegemonic masculinity is &often fraught$ the enactment partial$ contested and capable ofshifting into violence& ' Connell, 2002 : 54(. %ill mention some aspects of hegemonic masculinity in the#est that have e planatory potential in relation to suicide.

8oss of honour

3'2 refer here to the loss of the status and regard associated %ith hegemonic masculinity. Bne domain%here loss of honour occurs is in relation to %or+. The bread%inner ethic is still strong$ at least in the or factor in men&s suicides in the #est. s the systematic revie%

by "latt and 8a%ton ' 2000 ( reveals$ it is fairly clear that unemployment is lin+ed to suicide ris+ in men.;ore generally$ there are indications from several studies that social comparison is an issue for men.

arber&s '2001 ( analysis of mental health in seven countries sho%s that young men&s suicide does notsupport a connection bet%een suicide and &absolute misery&. ndeed$ higher rates of male suicide %ere

associated %ith higher levels of psychological ad>ustment amongst the general adolescent population.arber&s interpretation is that men tend to ma+e social comparisons %ith the situations of others by perceiving themselves to be not as happy as their peers. 8e proposes a &relative misery& hypothesis %heresuicidality is related to up%ard social comparison %hich re)uires a level of psychological malad>ustmentand the perception that one is %orse off than one&s peers. This fits to some e tent %ith ,ra%ford and"rince&s '1 ( research sho%ing that there is greater pressure placed on men %ho are still out of %or+%hen general employment levels are improving.

6
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#new2001%23new2001http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#new2001%23new2001http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#platt%20and%20hawton2000%23platt%20and%20hawton2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#barber2001%23barber2001http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#crawford%20and%20prince1999%23crawford%20and%20prince1999http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#new2001%23new2001http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2002%23connell2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#platt%20and%20hawton2000%23platt%20and%20hawton2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#barber2001%23barber2001http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#crawford%20and%20prince1999%23crawford%20and%20prince1999


7/15

3'3 These studies suggest perhaps the essentially competitive character of hegemonic masculinity. t is notonly important to be successful in culturally approved %ays$ but also to see oneself as successful inrelation to others. There are indications from a pilot study have recently underta+en that notcommunicating to others the reality of &failure& in terms of e pected masculine achievements$ and the

pressures of the accompanying deceit$ can lead to suicide. This pilot study is an analysis of 20 randomly*selected case files on suicides and open verdicts from the early 2000s in a #elsh coroners& office. #ithinthis very small sample there have already been three cases %here problems such as a failed business andfailing at university have been +ept from family members$ sometimes for many years$ prior to suicide.

3'7 n using the phrase &%hen hegemonic masculinity fails&$ mean the failure of the &patriarchal dividend&' Connell, 1 " $ 2000 ( to deliver as promised. There are connections here %ith ,onnell&s concept ofmarginalised masculinities. 8e defines these as:

gender forms produced in e ploited or oppressed groups$ such as ethnic minorities$ %hich may share manyfeatures %ith hegemonic masculinity but are socially de*authorised. ' Connell, 2000 $ pp.30*3 (

3'" ut the gap bet%een aspiration and reality in suicidal men becomes absolutely overt and recognised$rather than submerged or socially embedded. #hat happens here$ to put it very crudely$ is that life is notseen as %orth living %ithout masculine privileges. n considering masculine honour$ it should be notedthat there is also a potential connection bet%een loss of honour and relationship brea+do%n. 8o%ever$ deal %ith relationships primarily under the heading &controlling others& belo%$ so %ill not do so here.

motional illiteracy

3'! nother aspect of hegemonic masculinity %hich can be related to suicidal behaviour is emotionalilliteracy: the limited emotional repertoires that many men develop$ %hich can lead to a failure to cope

%ith a range of challenges$ such as$ for e ample$ relationship brea+do%n. Bb>ective rationality$ unclouded by a complicating emotional dimension$ has been associated %ith dominant ideas about masculinity sincethe 7nlightenment ' Seidler, 1 7 ( and limited emotional repertoires are learned because they facilitatesocial dominance. 7motional distance enables men to stay focused on achievement in the public sphere. tallo%s competition to thrive. #hen %e consider mental and emotional %ell*being$ not only can having alimited emotional repertoire cause problems in relationships %ith others 'and not >ust intimate others($ butit also has the potential to cause profound tensions %hen situations arise that provo+e emotional reactionsthat have not previously been encountered.

Subordinated Masculinities

7'1 ,onnell argues that it is crucial to consider po%er relations bet%een men as %ell as bet%een men and%omen. 8egemonic masculinity has its Bther in subordinated masculinity. n the conte t of suicide$ refer here to t%o aspects of subordination in the gender order: gay masculinity and mental illness.

-ay and bise?ual men

7'2 t is very difficult to +no% ho% many men %ho +ill themselves are gay or bise ual$ because %e cannote pect same*se relationships necessarily to be made public. 8o%ever$ some epidemiologists have found

?
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell1995%23connell1995http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#seidler1994%23seidler1994http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell1995%23connell1995http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#seidler1994%23seidler1994


8/15

mar+edly higher levels of suicidal ideation in the gay and bise ual population than the heterose ual population 'see$ for e ample$ @emafedi et al', 1 5 -=er(usson, 1 (. 8ar%ood and Rasmussen ' 2007 (have cautioned against the alarmist tone of some associations of gay se uality and suicide$ arguing thatthis debate de*emphasises the pleasure e perienced by gay youth. #hilst there is indeed potential for the

insensitive handling of gay suicidality to become pathologising$ %ould argue that this issue should beta+en seriously as a mental health problem$ and that the elevated ris+ for gay and bise ual youth needs to be understood in the conte t of victimisation and psychological pressure in %hat is still arguably a conte tof compulsory heterose uality for men.

Mentally ill men

7'3 f %e ta+e oucault&s '1 !6 ( conceptualisation of mental illness as all about the regulation ofrationality$ and apply this more broadly to include &ne%er& disorders$ such as depression 'as does ;usfieldA1 !B($ then diagnosed mental illness in men can be understood as subordinated masculinity$ %hererationality is hegemonic ' Seidler, 1 7 (. large proportion of men&s suicides in fact come from the

psychiatric patient population. The 7nglish epartment of 8ealth&s National Confidential In uiry intoSuicide and !omicide by "eo#le with Mental Illness ' e$artment of .ealth, 2001 ( reported thatappro imately one )uarter of people %ho +illed themselves in the


9/15

homicide rate$ %hich are usually also countries %here the rate of homicides %ith firearms is high.ustralian statistics ' Carcach and -rabos)y, 1 5 ( indicate a higher degree of conscious control in these

incidents than in other homicides$ as murder*suicide perpetrators are significantly less li+ely to be underthe influence of alcohol than perpetrators of other homicides.

7'6 part from murder*suicides$ %hich are a very small proportion of suicides$ the other issue %herecontrol of others is central is the cases of men %ho +ill themselves primarily as a punishment for someoneelse$ more often than not a %oman partner. There is evidence to suggest that violent men commonly usesuicide threats and attempts in the conte t of divorce and custody battles ' Conner et al' 2002 (. This %ouldtend to suggest that a proportion of all suicides might happen in a similar conte t. t seems$ ho%ever$ thatthis issue of suicide as punishment is under*researched. There is general agreement from the )uantitativeresearch on suicide that men are more brittle to relationship brea+do%n than are %omen. The message offeminist research on domestic violence is that this e treme coercion has to be understood in the conte t ofa broader culture of men e pecting to control %omen in relationships ' obash et al', 2000 (. t may be thatsome suicides follo%ing relationship brea+do%n should be understood in this conte t. The suicidal act

may not be directly intended to itself have a controlling impact on an e *partner$ but the loss of control'and loss of honour( that comes %ith the end of the relationship may be too hard to bear for some men.

Some other +s$ects of -endered Suicide

"'1 t should be noted that there are points of contact bet%een the discursive practices have mentionedand overlaps bet%een my categories in relation to suicidal behaviour. These are not neat social categories.There are some other issues to note before concluding the paper: some distinctive +inds of suicidal conte tthat %arrant further e ploration and also some more general aspects of the gendered socio*cultural conte tto suicides in men.

"'2 t is important to mention political murder*suicide$ %hich is again predominantly$ but not e clusively$carried out by men '%omen have been involved in "alestine in particular(. These are small numbersglobally$ but as %ith other +inds of murder*suicide they are culturally very po%erful because of mediaattention. The suicide attac+ has become an important part of the global repertoire of slamist terror$ and inmost cases these incidents need to be understood in terms of gender ideology as much as religious and

political ideology. There is not scope in this paper to e plore this phenomenon in full$ but it is clearly animportant issue for sociological e ploration. @erami ' 2003 ( has started to analyse the slamist masculine&prototype& of the martyr$ at least in an ranian conte t. To an e tent$ some political suicides could perhapsalso be understood in terms of loss of honour. am loath to ma+e any strong claims about political suicide$ho%ever$ %ithout giving serious consideration to their cultural$ religious and historical conte t 'and thatconsideration is beyond the scope of this paper(.

"'3 nother issue for future e ploration is the post*abuse suicide. small number of suicides seem to berelated to either conscience or at least to self*protection in the aftermath of violent crime or abuse. Therehave been high profile cases of murderers +illing themselves * red #est$ 8arold 9hipman * and on a moremundane level$ cases of men sho%ing either conscience or the desire to end negative attention or

punishment follo%ing their involvement in child abuse or domestic violence 'as offenders(. "ritchard and=ing ' 2007 ( found$ in their study of over 000 coroners& files$ that suicide rates in perpetrators of intra*and e tra*familial se ual abuse$ %ere 2! and ? times the general population suicide rate$ respectively.

5
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#carcach1998%23carcach1998http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#conner2002%23conner2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#dobash2000%23dobash2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#gerami2003%23gerami2003http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#pritchard2004%23pritchard2004http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#carcach1998%23carcach1998http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#conner2002%23conner2002http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#dobash2000%23dobash2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#gerami2003%23gerami2003http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#pritchard2004%23pritchard2004


10/15

The perpetrator cases could perhaps be understood in terms of the failure of hegemonic masculinity$insofar as the conte t that allo%ed the abuse of po%er changes in some %ay and the man is leftunprotected from punishment or from his o%n conscience. gain$ this is an under*researched issue forfurther e ploration.

"'7 There is a range of masculinised practices not hitherto discussed in this paper that are generallyrelevant to suicide$ so need to be briefly raised here as they are all issues contributing to a researchagenda. There is the )uestion of method mentioned at the start of the paper$ %here men are more li+ely touse more lethal methods. There is the issue highlighted by ,anetto and 9a+inofs+y ' 1 5( of &culturalscripts& relating to suicidal behaviour. These authors ma+e reference to data sho%ing that in most #esternconte ts$ suicide is considered a more acceptable end for men than for %omen$ %ith &unsuccessful& suicideattempts being seen as emasculating or feminine and decisive &successful& suicide seen as masculine. Thesame authors note that differing e pectations of men&s and %omen&s suicidal behaviour can effect bothchoice of suicide method and also the official processing of potential suicides by coroners and their staff.There are certainly cultural associations of suicide as a noble death for men. There is a glamour attached

to popular cultural and/or celebrity suicides$ such as that of =urt ,obain$ although there have also beenmoral panics %ith regard to some musicians that clearly over*state the ris+s to young people ' :ri(ht,2000 (. t is generally clear that men ta+e more ris+s %ith their bodies ' Connell, 2000 ( and there appears to

be an association bet%een certain masculinities 'perhaps especially marginalised masculinities( and bodilyris+s such as substance misuse. The gendered character of alcohol and drug use is an important issue$though both alcohol e cess and recreational drug use are becoming much less straightfor%ardlymasculinised in the #est. Goung %omen are drin+ing heavily and using drugs more than ever andoverdose is also a popular choice for suicides in %omen.

"'" nother issue of general relevance is the lac+ of empathy and regard for the feelings of those left behind. #hilst people %ho +ill themselves are undoubtedly in e treme distress$ they inevitably have to

decide that the need to +ill themselves overrides concern about the effect of their actions on significantothers. 8a%ton&s ' 2000 ( revie% notes that having a child is a protective factor against suicide for %omen but not for men. f a man is to succeed in hegemonic gender terms$ he not only needs to develop a limitedemotional range 'see above( but also a distance from the emotions of others. 7mpathy challenges aspectsof hegemonic masculinity.

"'! nd finally there is the phenomenon 'so beloved of media narratives( of men&s un%illingness to see+help. This is an important factor that can be seen right across research on men&s health and as %ith many of the factors that feed the elevated suicide ris+ in men$ it needs to be understood in the conte t of the socialconstruction of the &stronger se & ' Courtenay, 2000 (. t is another e ample of ho% &masculinising practicesdamage bodies& ' Connell, 2000 (. ;en&s reluctance to see+ help is not universal$ ho%ever$ and it isimportant to recognise the impact of the diversity of masculinities on help*see+ing behaviour ' -reenlandet al', 2007 (.

Conclusion

!'1 This paper has had t%o main aims$ each intended to contribute to setting a research agenda. The firstaim has been to revie% some of the e isting research on suicide in men$ highlighting %here there has beenvaluable %or+ done and %here there are gaps. second aim has been to s+etch out some initial ideas

0
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#canetto%20and%20sakinofsky1998%23canetto%20and%20sakinofsky1998http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#wright2000%23wright2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#wright2000%23wright2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#hawton2000%23hawton2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#courtenay2000%23courtenay2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#greenland2004%23greenland2004http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#greenland2004%23greenland2004http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#canetto%20and%20sakinofsky1998%23canetto%20and%20sakinofsky1998http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#wright2000%23wright2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#wright2000%23wright2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#hawton2000%23hawton2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#courtenay2000%23courtenay2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#connell2000%23connell2000http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#greenland2004%23greenland2004http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/scourfield.html#greenland2004%23greenland2004


11/15

to%ards a sociological account of suicide in men that encompasses both diversity of masculinities and alsothe structural relations of po%er. There has been valuable %or+ done by social scientists on men&s healththat does consider both diversity and po%er relations ' Sabo and -ordon, 1 " -Connell,2000 -Courtenay, 2000 (.


12/15

"sychiatry $ 3!: 45*!?.

;+@ S $ A. '2000( ;urder follo%ed by 9uicide in ustralia$ 5?3* 552: Research Cote$ )ournal ofSociology $ 36$ : * .

;+@@+C8 U-. $ . and 8 RR 9$ ,. '2002( 9uicide preceded by murder: the epidemiology ofhomicide*suicide in 7ngland and #ales$ 5 *52. "sychological Medicine $ 32$ !??*! 4.

;US=I 8 $ A. ' 556( Men, *omen and Madness $ Hondon$ Routledge

C+


13/15

of Nursing . 2'2(:52*5.

9+@


14/15

)ournal of 'ffective $isorders $ !0$ 2/3: 265*2?6.

.+:< $ =. '2000( 9e and suicide: @ender differences in suicidal behaviour$ .ritish )ournal of "sychiatry $ ??: 4 4*4 !.

J == @S $ T. '2002( 9ubordinating hegemonic masculinity$ Theoretical Criminology $ 6$ : 63* .

@ . = $ .A. .;. '2000( ttempted suicide: patterns and trends. n =. 8a%ton and =. van8eeringen$ '7ds.( The International !andbook of Suicide and 'ttem#ted Suicide : #iley$ Hondon. pp.45*64.

IMM 8 $ ;. ' 5 ?( The contemporary &crisis& of masculinity in historical perspective. n 8. rod '7d.(The Making of Masculinities The New Men+s Studies . oston$ ; : llen and


15/15

S I 8 @ $ F. ' 554( ;nreasonable Men, Masculinity and Social Theory $ Hondon$ Routledge.

S

Documents

Suicidal Masculinities