A glimpse of the history of suicide reveals the changing attitudes and conceptual frameworks. Suicide is as old as history and ubiquitous. Throughout the ages it has been variously regarded as an altruistic act, a crime against the state, a sin against religion and an immoral act. As Robin Anderson (2000), a psychoanalytic colleague, points out:
In Europe during most of the Christian era, suicide was regarded with even greater condemnation, and therefore presumably fear, than murder. The unsuccessful suicide was not only punished severely, but the successful suicides could not be buried in an ordinary cemetery. They had to be buried at a crossroads either with a stake through the heart or with stones on top of the body to prevent their spirit rising and haunting the living.
Shakespeare (1914) refers to this in A Midsummer Nightâs Dream (Act Three, Scene II, 380â7) where Puck says:
And yonder shines Auroraâs harbinger,
At whose approach ghosts, wandâring here and there,
Troop home to churchyards. Damned spirit all,
That in crossways and floods have burial,
Already to their wormy beds are gone,
For fear lest day should look their shame upon;
They wilfully themselves exilâd from light,
And must for aye consort with black-browâd night.
Here Shakespeare refers to the burial of murderers and suicides at crossroads and the âfloodsâ in which people had drowned themselves and are left permanently excluded from society even after their deaths. The fear seemed to be that such a terrible act would come back and infect the living. (We will return to this early recognition of the impact of the suicide on others.)
Although we have now done away with these barbaric and superstitious practices, suicide was illegal in the United Kingdom until 1961, and it was still possible to be sent to prison for attempted suicide. Perhaps the law, without realising it, for a long time understood the unconscious intention of suicide. It is noteworthy that attempted suicide is still an offence in Singapore and people may still be sent to jail.
Until the end of the eighteenth century, suicide was seen as a crime against God. In the early nineteenth century this gave way to a model of disease in which suicide was seen either as a disease in itself â a special form of insanity or as a manifestation of a more general mental disorder not to be found in sane persons (Bourdin and Esquirol as cited in Berrios & Porter, 1995). Later, Durkheim (1951) introduced the first sociological perspective in his monumental work Le Suicide, which viewed suicide as a collective phenomenon, influenced by specific factors characterising the society in which it appeared â where social solidarity was strong, there would be little suicide, where it was weak, there would be more.
Modern medicine and psychiatry have studied the epidemiology, genetics and biology of suicide together with the influence of life events both personal and societal; also the impact of various forms of treatment â pharmacological, physical and psychological â on suicidal ideation and behaviour. Each is important but outside the scope of this book. There are excellent and compendious books, often multi-authored (e.g. Hawton & van Heeringen, 2000), which cover those various views of suicide. We restrict our task to a psychoanalytic study of suicide, and recommend Essential Papers on Suicide (1996) by Maltsberger and Goldblatt for those who are interested in the psychoanalytic papers that have influenced our thinking.
As a consequence of their study and treatment of suicidal individuals, psychoanalysts are in a position to extend and also to challenge various assumptions and part-truths that other professionals and laymen have made about suicide. As we hope will become clearer in this book, the psychoanalytic process gives us the opportunity to study in minute detail the many component parts of the self-destructive process, and its waxing and waning control over a personâs life. Psychoanalytic theory has as its cornerstone the concept of the unconscious, which differentiates it from all other theories. It is in the unconscious that the fundamental suicidal fantasies reside; it is the purpose of analysis to make those fantasies conscious and thus more within the personâs control. Obviously psychoanalytic treatment is time consuming and not available to many people, but the insights psychoanalysis provides can be extended and integrated into the management and treatment of any suicidal individual. It is our hope that this book will convince you, the reader, of the usefulness of the psychoanalytic model, both in general mental health settings and in specialist psychotherapy services.
Suicide is commonly held to be part of a depressive state in which the person feels that life is not worth living and that death is preferable. Certainly, sadness and pessimism are often present, but they do not in themselves account for the major drive towards suicide. A second assumption is that suicide is a cry for help. This is a view that may be influenced as much by the professionalâs need to help as it is by the patientâs crying out for it. A third assumption is that suicide is a means of manipulating others. Again, this is in part true. A fourth assumption is that suicide can be a solitary or solipsistic act in which the person rationally decides to take leave of life. This has also been referred to as the rational suicide, or the suicide of anomie. Although such acts may occur, they are, in our experience, extremely rare. Each of these assumptions is only partly true, and, if taken as the whole truth, is misleading because they fail to recognise the complexity of the act and the centrality of the violence inherent in the suicidal act.
If a self-destructive act is examined superficially, the patientâs conscious intentions may well confirm one of the popular assumptions about suicide. However, closer scrutiny of unconscious processes reveals the less acceptable face of suicide as an act aimed at destroying the selfâs body and tormenting the mind of another. The contradiction between a benign view of suicide and the perception of the act as violent or cruel may be apparent to the observer but is unlikely to be acknowledged by the patient. Usually, aggressive wishes are so unacceptable to the patient that they are relegated to the unconscious by repression. The patient, therefore, continues to deal with the contradiction between his conscious view of the suicide attempt and unconscious wishes by resisting any attempt to bring anger, sadism or aggressive intentions into consciousness.
Ambivalence and contradiction are at the centre of the suicidal act. A patient reported that he had taken 199 aspirins. One had fallen on the floor and he refused to take it because it might have germs on it. It would be potentially dangerous for a clinician to respond only to the patientâs conscious wish to live, that is, to protect himself from germs, and not to pursue the intent behind swallowing the other 199 pills.
In the authorsâ opinion, therefore, to identify any self-destructive act as either suicide or parasuicide is both simplistic and incorrect. The most useful term is a suicidal act with the outcome unstated. Our working definition of the suicidal act is the conscious or unconscious intention at the time of the act to kill the selfâs body. We are proposing the concept of a split between the self and the body regarded as a separate object. Later, we will contrast this with acts of self-mutilation in which the intention is not to kill but to torture the body.
Although we have not studied the cross-cultural aspects of suicide in any detail, it is our experience that the fundamental dynamics are remarkably constant, although the precipitants and methods will be influenced by cultural and social phenomena. Much of the literature in other books and journals is devoted to this topic, so we will not dwell on it here.
Our purpose, then, is to provide a psychoanalytic view of the purposes, courses and impacts of suicidal acts. Our source material is our clinical experience to which we have sought to give our own theoretical structure, and our goal is to integrate this theory into that of other psychoanalysts. We start, however, by comparing the psychoanalytic view with that of mainstream psychiatry.