Psychological versus Sociological Perspectives on Suicide: A Reply to Mauk, Taylor, White, and Allen* SIEVEN SrACK, WayneState University JIMGUNDLACH, Auburn University Abstract This article addressesthree issues raised in Mauk et al.'s (1994) artide on country music and suicide. First, Mauk et al.'s charge that suicide is an individualact that cannotbe assessed through group statisticsis a paradigmatic critique thatcan be leveled against the bulkof sociological work on suicide. Thepositionof Mauket al. is precisely that which Durkheim ([18971 1966) polemicized against in order to legitimate the discipline of sociology in the nineteenth century. Second, their notionthat "psychological autopsies" constitute the only legitimate methodology for studying suicide is an overstatement. Third, the noted ecological fallacy problems can, in fact, be remedied through properly specified models. Many ecological relationships involvingsuicidehave been replicated with individual-level data. Fourth, the charges that our subcultural argumentis "barely implied" and that the notion of a country music subculture is a myth are inaccurate. We reiterate our subculturaltheoryas well as the evidence in support of such a subculture. Mauk et al. (1994)first criticize our study on the basis of alleged 'statistical errors" (1250). This translates into two identifiable issues: the problemof the "ecological fallacy"and a higher level or paradigmatic critiqueon the socio- logical study of suicide per se. Sociological Method vs. Psychological Autopsy According to Mauk et al. (1994), who are presumably psychologists,"Some behaviors are solely the act of individuals and should not be aggregated. Suicide is certainly one of them"(1252); and in theirconclusion: "Suicide is an individualact thatcannotbe assessed through groupstatistics' (1254). In place of the sociological method used in work on suicide, which is fundamentally * Direct correspondence to Steven Stack, CriminalJustice Program, 2239 FAB, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202. ? The University of North CarolinaPress Social Forces, June1994, 72(4):1257-1261 This content downloaded from 141.217.20.120 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 08:44:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions