In what ways have natalist views been suppressed?

1.   In 1897, Durkheim published his seminal work on Suicide using two key constructs – “social integration” and “moral regulation” (emphasising religion, but also mentioned about regulation by law, social norms, etc) to explain that for a society to function (then), these two key constructs need to be in equilibrium.

2.   This framework was developed during rapid changes in lifestyle (at that time) facing European society due to industrial revolution, new economic theory of division of labour, capitalism, some elements of discussion on socialism, free market, individualism, changes in governance, family structure, gender roles, Catholics vs Protestants practice, income disparity, urbanisation, (in context of that time), etc. It seems United States was more concerned on domestic matters during this period. Another feature of Europe at that time was its colonisation and empire building interest. Against this backdrop Durkheim tried to develop his framework for a functioning society – of which there can never be a stable equilibrium all the time.

3.   One of the products of disequilibrium is suicide. To him suicide is a product of society disequilibrium and not just a mental illness. He argued that it is like mortality rate and homicide rate. Naturally at the individual level, there are differences how an individual react to external forces in the society and there are bound to be some groups who are more prone to depression and suicidal behaviour. However, he noted the suicide rate is stable across major European cities then (think the various local governments started to have some statistics gathered sometime in early 19th century in Europe) throughout certain time period, but each country has slightly different suicide rate. To Durkheim, if there is sudden and continuous rise in suicide rate of a country, it shows certain societal forces in work which may make the society in disequilibrium, and if persists for too long a time, may paralyse a society. Thus, as a philosopher and sociology, his focus was not on individual aspects, but on the suicide rate.

4.   We may interpret his framework is more to explain a macro phenomena in the society, something like a macroeconomics framework which can never be quantified and which can never be perfect. However, as I believe at the base of human being, there are certain elements which do not change in time. Lifestyle can change, the way we eat and live, and work can change, our roles can evolve, but certain basic emotions internal to the psychology of a human being remain similar 100 years ago and today … things like joy, sadness, anger, melancholy, depression, etc. Certain so-called human’s tendency like anger, lust, greed, attachment, ego, etc., will also be there, but maybe expressed in different manner. There is also greed for power and influence in the society then and now. I supposed some of the emotions we discussed today in relation to suicide besides mental health, like, hope, meaning in life, purpose of life, faith (whether religiosity or philosophical, or faith in other perspective for those without an official religion), love, usefulness, etc., also remain similar.

5.   Thus, wouldn’t his two building blocks of level of “social integration” and level of “moral regulation” (through certain mix of religion, laws, social norms, etc) which he insisted as something important to sustain a society throughout a period of time important? If we were to reject this notion, then some of his other works build on these two big pillars may be shaky?

6.   Durkheim developed his framework during a period of rapid change brought about by industrial revolution. We are now three to four decades into our so-called information revolution age, driven by advent in technology, IT, internet, and changes in urbanisation, globalisation, changes in family structure, gender roles, work roles, lifestyle, materialism, politics, different forces working against the society, etc. Will these two building blocks of “social integration” (as against social isolation) and “moral regulation” still important building blocks for a society to function today?

Ideally aimed towards researchers who have been published both before and after 'Web 2.0', but open to everyone. I would love to gain an understanding into any major differences in research/publication practices that have come about as a result of the internet, as well as your opinion on how resources like ResearchGate have impacted on you as a researcher. Any personal accounts/anecdotes welcome!

Did you know there are over 6900 languages in the world with a strong correlation between language loss and biodiversity loss? And the exciting thing to me is that if my language frames my worldview then other languages might frame other ways to see the world, adding beauty and knowledge to the human experience, but also adding diversity to how we face challenges. So how many stories are we losing that share a different worldview? And how do we grow connections to value the diversity of the wholeness of our world as a gift, not dividing value between humanity and other? I’ve witnessed that those of us who feel this, and those of us who act to protect biodiversity have trouble talking with people who don’t see the same way we do. Yet the global problems we face will take more than the actions of a few individuals to solve.  And maybe we need to take a look at our own biocultural landscapes, what we’ve created from our world-view and ask what our biocultural landscapes might look like if they mirror the humanity we seek for ourselves before we can understand how to support others in their work.  Therefore I'm looking for stories and images that reflect what we currently think our biocultural landscape is.

I am Dr Sonal Pandey PhD from IIT Kharagpur India. I was interested in some visiting scholar or research position in sociology/Social anthropology

I need to come up with an inventory of scenarios where the white are in advantage compared to people of color in Australia.

As a social scientist I do a lot of community based research work (interviews). Through my own experiences over 20 years I wondered how other researchers experience their research contexts. I find it difficult in South Africa to research in a variety of communities; example: (a) Affluent communities will generally tell you they don't have time for interviews; (b) Poor communities associate research with government agencies - so they will tell you; "...you people were here last week and you didn't deliver on the problems I communicated". (c) An amazing experience was when a group of us were doing water quality and water access research and a village chief in Kwazulu summoned us to his palace. He appointed one male figure among us as our spokesperson to ask all questions and the chief decided that he will respond to questions on behalf of all households (our sample unit) in his community and it was not negotiable. I can share many more stories but space here may not allow. So I wonder if field survey interviews are still working in your various contexts? Your own anecdotal experiences would help me understand these challenges from your perspectives. But do suggested mitigation strategies where possible.

3+ major earthquakes and thousands of aftershocks in the last 3 years, schools being amalgamated due to reducing numbers, businesses folding, empty suburbs and a knowledge that mental health issues start surfacing after year 3 of an upheaval. Anecdotal evidence from Cantabrians shows that we are more socially aware, more giving and are more accepting of the ever changing environment.

Is there any research from overseas that shows this is the case amongst human beings after social upheavals?

There are many kind of policies , Laws , Rights , Acts which are created to reduce and even eradicate Ethnic conflict and Ethnic problems in a country where there are a multicultural group living all together. But how the country helped in stabilising this peace and harmony for people to live together and prevent this Racial and Ethnic tensions among them ?