資料：Suicide Survivors’ Diffi culties in Telling Their Own Experiences; Regarding Our Society Twisted Relationship between Wounds and Truth

Nobuyuki Fujiwara
（Graduate School of Core Ethics and Frontier Sciences, Ritsumeikan University）

0. Introduction—Distorted Relations between Wounds and the Truth of Wounded People's Stories in Contemporary Society
As discussed by Arthur W. Frank, in wounded people's stories, their wounds—which can exist at diverse levels—are evidence of their stories' truth (Frank 1995: xi) . This is absolutely true. Yet, in contemporary society, people tend to interpret such wound-truth relations in a twisted way. Storytellers are expected to show their wounds to prove that their stories are true; otherwise listeners tend to completely doubt the veracity of their stories. Takayoshi Doi, for instance, suggests that in contemporary society, physical and mental wounds function as evidence of the truth of wounded people's stories. He says this is particularly true of novels written for mobile phones, and of, what Doi calls, self-nonfi ctions ‒ which are similar to self-biographies, but in which the authors only write about their wounded experiences (Doi, 2008: 110-4). Doi further comments on distorted wound-truth relations in current society, noting that storytellers actively seek to experience trauma so as to show that their stories are true (Doi, 2008: 190-4).
This report explains the suicide survivors 1) ' diffi culties, given the current situation, in attempting to tell of their experiences if they do not offer up acceptance of the wounds from their intimate persons' suicide as evidence of their narratives' truth. For this purpose, I quote and analyze a narrative of Mrs. M in this report.

1. Suicide Survivors Robbed of their Narratives and Forced to Accept Cruel Alternatives
1.1 Complete Denial of Contingency in Suicide

Even though the causes of death are diverse, experiences in confronting the death of another person demand that we suffer from guilt (Wakabayashi, 2003: 16). In particular this truces of suicide, because in our society, especially in the modern and contemporary era, it is understood that suicides are caused either by a willful act of the victims, and/or by the assistance of intimate persons (including them neglecting to prevent the victim's attempt, or failing to perceive victim's attempt). In addition, regarding suicide, it is understood that victims and their intimate persons can anticipate the results of victims' attempt. Accordingly, contingency is denied to both the victims and survivors more completely in suicide than in other forms of death.
Emile Durkheim, a sociologist and the author of Suicide, defi nes suicide as “death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce the result” (Durkheim, 1951: 44). It is evident that suicide differs from other types of death in that it is caused by willing attempt of victims, and in that the victim is aware of the result. In our society, many social systems have been built based on this defi nition. For instance, most life insurance policies have a suicide clause, stating suicide will not be covered at least for the initial period of the policy. Also, Workers' Accident Compensation will not be provided to suicide victims, unless they are recognized to have developed suicidal ideas due to work-related mental disorders.
Psychiatrists, on the other hand, suggest that suicide is primarily caused by mental disorders, particularly depression. Accordingly, from a psychiatric perspective, suicide is not a result of a victim's autonomous decision-making. Whether or not victims were aware of the result is not important, either. Yet, psychiatrists also stress that suicide can be prevented if family members and friends of patients recognize the signs of suicide (and depression, which is primary cause of suicide), take the patients to a psychiatric clinic, and provide them with suffi cient support. To put it another way, the discourse of psychiatrists implies that if someone committed suicide, this is because their families/ friends did not provide them with the necessary support based on their anticipation (Ohara, 2001; Ohno, 2000; Takahashi, 2006; Tsutsui, 2004).
If these opinions are true, we can state that suicide is caused either by a willful act of the victims, and/or by assistance of intimate persons (including them neglecting to prevent the victim's attempt, or failing to perceive the victim's attempt). In addition, regarding suicide, it is understood that the victims and their intimate persons can anticipate the results of victims' the attempt.
Because of this common perception of suicide, suicide survivors undergo various diffi culties as described below.

1.2 Suicide Survivors Who Are Robbed of Their Narratives and Forced to Accept Cruel Alternatives

Suicide survivors are tormented significantly by the common perception that suicide is caused either by a willful act of the victims, or by the assistance of intimate persons (including them neglecting to prevent the victim's attempt, and/or failing to perceive the victim's attempt). In addition, regarding suicide, it is understood that the victims and their intimate persons can anticipate the results of the victims' attempt. As suggested by Yoshiya Soeda, in current society, suicide is often regarded as an abhorrent and shameful form of death (Soeda, 2001: 206; 2002: 30; 32; please note that this is a common view in present society, and not Soeda's view). This view, which shames suicide victims, is based on the perception that “suicide is the result of the victim's own decision-making….clearly distinct from death from illness or in an accident…and therefore not worthy of sympathy.” (Tokioka, 2003: 122) In other words, the notion that we have just introduced is based on the concept that suicides are caused either by a willful act of the victims, and/or by the assistance of intimate persons (including them neglecting to prevent the victim's attempt, or failing to perceive the victim's attempt). In addition, regarding suicide, it is understood that the victims and their intimate persons can anticipate the results of the victims' attempt. In this situation, “Many suicide survivors who lost their parents conceal the fact that their parents committed suicide, and sometimes they do not talk about the incidents even with other family members.” (Soeda, 2002: 30). Because the harsh words used in general society have the effect of humiliating victims, suicide survivors fi nd it extremely diffi cult to talk about their experiences. In this way, they are robbed of their narratives.
Furthermore, suicide survivors are often forced to accept cruel alternatives regarding the suicide of their family members or other related persons. Harvey Sacks, who analyzed police investigation records and telephone calls to a Los Angeles Suicide Prevention Center, suggests that people often impute a vocabulary of motive for the suicide to the survivors' assistance — including them neglecting to prevent the victim's attempt, or failing to perceive the victim's attempt (Sacks, 1972; 1995). Sacks states, then, that it is diffi cult for suicide survivors to become free from such social perceptions and judgments (Sacks, 1995: 20). Suicide survivors are often accused of causing or allowing the victim to commit suicide (Wakabayashi, 2003: 16). Moreover, in present day society where psychiatric and clinical psychological interpretations of motives are widely accepted, the public tends to believe that families and intimate friends could have prevented victims from committing suicide (Mori, 2004; Nagai, 2004 2) ). As a result, suicide survivors are forced to accept the public's interpretation that their inappropriate acts, or failure to act appropriately, resulted in the suicide of survivors' intimate persons (or persons who survivors must intimately communicate with, for example, family members or/and friends).
Suicide survivors, therefore, inevitably develop a strong sense of guilt and even begin to believe that they killed the victim (Soeda, 2001: 205-6; Wakabayashi, 2003: 15-8). Under the condition that suicide survivors are robbed of their narratives and are forced to accept cruel alternatives by their society, it is natural for people of common sense that suicide survivors must experience wounds related to their feeling of guilt over an intimate persons' suicide 3) . By accepting the above-mentioned psychiatrists' discourse, for instance, suicide survivors tend to develop a strong sense of guilt (Fujiwara, 2007b).
The above discussion leads to the following conclusion: Regrettably, our society does not regard suicide survivors as true suicide survivors unless they feel guilt and responsibility for the suicide of their intimate persons. To be acknowledged by society as true suicide survivors, they need to show their “wounds” of being tormented by feelings of guilt. This is extremely cruel and brutal for suicide survivors, but this is the state of society at present.

1.3 Diffi culty Involved in Denying Responsibility and Guilt

Despite the general experiences and perceptions of suicide survivors that I have thus far described, some suicide survivors either refuse to accept the social interpretation that they are responsible for the suicide, or try to mitigate their sense of guilt by assigning the responsibility to someone else. In this way, they try to withstand the cruel notions of society that demand that they feel responsible for their family member's death and to show their wounds as the evidence of their narratives' truth. Such suicide survivors tell their stories by adopting “vocabularies of motive” (Mills, [1940]1963; Gerth & Mills 1953 4) ), or “legitimation” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966: 110-22 5) ). James D Henslin discussed that suicide survivors neutralize their guilt based on their intimate persons' suicide by following vocabularies of motive: (1) other persons, and/or impersonal factors as the causal agents (for example, associations, companies, and/or their societies) drove the victim to suicide, (2) the suicide was inevitable, (3) the victim killed oneself for altruism, and (4) the victim died not of a suicide but another causes (Henslin 1970: 222; 228). Soeda also suggests that suicide survivors adopt one more of the following vocabularies of motive: (1) the suicide is attributable to social evils, including failure of political systems or economic recession, (2) the victim committed suicide because of an illness, and (3) in reality it was not a suicide. (Soeda, 2001: 205). Some suicide survivors deliberately neutralize adopting vocabularies of motive or instruments of legitimation although they relate their own experiences. By suspending decision-making—whether they would accept their responsibility or would assign the vocabularies of motive to others—such survivors continue to live in a long moratorium period (Fujiwara 2007a). In other words, they continue to avoid making the decision as to whether or not they will accept the guilt 6) .
In summary, to neutralize responsibility or mitigate the sense of guilt, suicide survivors tell their stories by adopting one or more of the following seven vocabularies of motive or instruments of legitimation: ① to ascribe the responsibility to others (other individuals or specific organizations/groups), ② to ascribe the responsibility to social evils, ③ to attribute the death to the victim's illness, ④ to stress that suicide was inevitable, ⑤ to explain that the victim killed himself/herself for altruism, and ⑥ to deny the fact of suicide. In addition, suicide survivors may also ⑦ relate their stories without adopting vocabularies of motive or instruments of legitimation 7) . Yet, adopting any of these vocabularies of motive or instruments of legitimation involves diffi culties that are unique to each option, although this depends to a signifi cant extent on individual context.

2. Purposes and Method of the Investigation and backgrounds about the Suicide Survivor
In this presentation, I would like to introduce the interview given by Mrs. M, who lives in District B in Town A in Iwate Prefecture, Japan. Her husband committed suicide. Before discussing the interview, I would like to explain the purposes and method of the investigation. I would also like to give a profile of Mrs. M, who is a suicide survivor; her husband, Mr. N., who committed suicide; and the community in which they live[d] in.

2.1 Purposes of the Investigation, and Difference from the Psychological Autopsy 8)

Through this investigation, it was my intention to clarify the reactions of a suicide survivor after her husband committed suicide. Specifically, I intended to determine which choice she made from among the following three options: accepting her responsibility and guilt, refusing to accept her responsibility and guilt, or trying to mitigate her sense of guilt. In addition, I tried to determine which vocabularies of motive the survivor adopted in order to assign responsibility for her husband's suicide. It was also my intention to clarify the diffi culties arising out of her decision-making regarding the selection of these options.
This investigation differs from a psychological autopsy which conducted in the fi eld of psychiatry in the following respects. First, the primary focus of the psychological autopsy is the victim, rather than the suicide survivors, even though they are asked to give interviews as part of the autopsy process. In contrast, the focus of this investigation is on the suicide survivor. Second, in a psychological autopsy, an interviewer must ask a fi xed set of questions, although the order of questions can be changed (Chō, 2006: 29-32 9) ). In this investigation, however, the researcher did not ask the survivor a fi xed set of questions. Third, whereas the psychological autopsy is based on psychiatry, this investigation is primarily based on sociology, particularly phenomenological sociology and ethnomethodology.

2.2 Investigation Methods

To fulfi ll the purposes of the investigation, which I have just described, I conducted an interview with Mrs. M for two hours and 20 minutes in March 2006. At that time, Mrs. O, Mrs. M's neighbor who is engaged in farming like Mrs. M, attended the interview and helped the inexperienced interviewer (myself). On obtaining Mrs. M and Mrs. O's consent, I recorded the interview, from which I have compiled a script. I have obtained the consent of Mrs. M and Mrs. O to use the script in order to write this report. (I have translated some of the local dialect into standard Japanese.)
The role of Mrs. O was to help me, and to ensure that I would not embarrass Mrs. M, since I am inexperienced in interviewing suicide survivors. As described in Section 4 onward, however, Mrs. O actively participated in Mrs. M's storytelling. This helped me significantly, promoting my understanding about the life history of Mrs. M, her husband Mr. N, other family members, relatives and community members, as well as helping me to understand her dialect. Obviously, Mrs. O also facilitated Mrs. M's storytelling. At the same time, however, Mrs. O might have possibly guided Mrs. M's narrative in the direction that Mr. N's suicide resulted from his being an alcoholic. Even in that case, however, I believe that the presence of Mrs. O did not interfere with the interview or prevent it from fulfi lling its purposes.

2.3 Mrs. M, Her Husband Mr. N, Who Committed Suicide, and Their Living Environment

Mrs. M, who gave the interview, is a 64-year-old woman (as of June 2008), engaged in farming. Mrs. M's husband, Mr. N, committed suicide in 2000. Mr. N was born in 1939. Upon graduation from the local high school, he joined a company, while helping his family with work on the farm. Later, he dedicated all his time to farming. In 2000, he ended his life of 61 years by committing suicide. Following his death, Mrs. M seldom went out. To date, Mrs. M has not attended any meeting held by self-help groups for suicide survivors. Neither has she told others about the experience of losing her husband. Concerning Mr. N's motive for committing suicide, Mrs. M continues to argue with her mother-in-law. District B in Town A is a farming area close to the capital city of Iwate Prefecture. Nevertheless the prefecture is one of the poorest in Japan, and has one of the highest suicide rates in Japan, because of the proximity to the capital city, residents in the district enjoy better access to educational, business and medical facilities than other areas of Iwate Prefecture. As a result, college enrollment rates and employment rates in the district are relatively high for this prefecture. Unlike other sections of the prefecture, the district has not become depopulated. At the same time, many residents maintain strong relationships within self-help organizations in their community.

3. Mrs. M Discusses Confl icts with Her Parents-in-law
Mrs. M's narrative focused on her relationship with her parents-in-law. Regarding her husband, Mr. N, she only referred to the topic as far as it concerned her relationship with her parents-in-law. Accordingly, her narrative generally proceeded without referring to Mr. N's suicide. She seemed to have avoided discussing his suicide.
Mrs. M (and Mrs. O) continued to emphasize that Mr. N's parents (Mrs. M's parentsin- law), particularly his mother, spoiled him when he was young, and even after he reached adulthood. According to Mrs. M (and Mrs. O), the mother continued to spoil him until he ended his own life. Mrs. M also stated that Mr. N was an alcoholic, and because of excessive drinking he became unable to drive a car, or even to work on the farm. Mrs. M, however, mentioned this only in connection with her own relationship with her parents-in-law.

(Transcription 1: When Mrs. M and Mr. N were working late at night, Mrs. M's mother-in-law [Mr. N's mother] advised Mr. N to go to bed, but she ignored the fact that Mrs. M was also working with her husband.)

M: So, when we were both working around ten o'clock in the evening, and we had so much left to do, my mother-in-law said to my husband, “Why don't you take a bath and go to bed soon?” Interviewer: Is that so?
O: That means Mr. N had to fi nish the work by himself.
M: That's right, and I did all the work alone.
Interviewer: Oh really?
M: When my mother-in-law told my husband to take a bath and go to bed soon, I objected to her, saying, “We still have much to do.” I meant that my husband could not go to bed. However, my mother-in-law just said, “Is that so,” and went away. She always spoiled my husband in this way, so I believe it is my mother-inlaw who is wrong.
　(Omitted)
M: Well, my mother-in-law said that only my husband should go to bed. This made me angry. I don't understand how she could behave in that way.
O: He became an alcoholic because your mother-in-law spoiled him.
M: It's true that my mother-in-law spoiled my husband.

(Transcription 2: Mrs. M explained disputes with her parents-in-law, when she tried to stop Mr. N's drinking.)

M: My parents-in-law would never accept that my husband was an alcoholic and that we prevent him from drinking alcohol. I could never understand why they were unable to comprehend [such a simple thing]. When I asked them, they just said, “We don't understand.” They hated me because I took alcohol away from my husband.
O: You had disputes with your parents-in-law [about stopping him from drinking alcohol].
　(Omitted)
M: No matter how much I explained, my parents-in-law never accepted the fact that my husband was an alcoholic.
O: They never accepted this fact.
M: They didn't want to believe that their son was wrong. So, they hated me. Interviewer: They hated you because you did not allow him to drink alcohol?
M: I guess so. They didn't understand why I didn't let him drink alcohol . He was so eager to drink alcohol.
O: Mr. N wanted to drink alcohol. But being his wife, it is natural that you tried to stop him from drinking alcohol because she was so worried about her husband. She was worried about his health.
M: Yes, I was extremely worried about his health.
O: Mrs. M's parents-in-law spoiled him. They pitied their son, because his wife did not allow him to drink.
M: They pitied their son, because he was not allowed to drink alcohol. But, you see….
　(Omitted)
O: Mrs. M's mother-in-law cherished and blindly loved her son, because she gave birth to him.
M: Yes, she cherished him, and let him drink alcohol even before breakfast.
O: That's wrong.
M: Certainly, that's wrong. I say that's wrong.

(Transcription 3: Mrs. M explained disputes with her mother-in-law, when Mrs. M took away the car keys from Mr. N because he was an alcoholic.)

M: Although my husband was an alcoholic, he drove a car even after drinking alcohol. So, I fi nally took away his car keys.
O: You should have done so.
M: But my mother-in-law told me that she would never forgive me for taking away his car keys.

(Transcription 4: When Mrs. M described disputes with her mother-in-law regarding her stopping Mr. N from drinking, Mrs. M also explained that she worked hard since her husband was unable to work.)

M: I have the impression that my mother-in-law hates me because I repeatedly told my husband not to drink alcohol.
O: You are right. She wanted to let him drink alcohol. She even offered drinks alcohol to him even before breakfast.
M: Yes, my husband was drinking before breakfast. He became drunk, and well…..
O: He was unable to work [since he was so drunk alcohol].
M: He could not work. So I worked hard, operating the machine all by myself.
O: You worked really hard. You are a real hard worker. I am lazy, and so I am often scolded by my father-in-law. But you are different.
Mrs. M's narrative continued to focus on her relationship with her parents-in-law. Even when she had to refer to Mr. N's suicide, she adhered to the topic.

(Transcription 5: After I returned from the restroom, Mrs. M and Mrs. O said to me, “Isn't there anything else you want to ask?” So, I asked them about Mr. N's suicide.)

Interviewer: Well, well, err, after your husband's death, err, regarding his death, how others reacted, including, well, your father-in-law, your mother-in-law, and well, your relatives, neighbors and…
M: My parents-in-law told me that I killed their son.
Interviewer: Why? How could they…
M: I guess that they don't forgive me for not letting my husband drink. My mother-in-law said to me, “You killed my son,” in 2002. My father-in-law said the same thing to me in 2004. When we were talking about something else, he said to me, “You killed my son.”
Interviewer: At that time, did they say anything else? The reason for believing that you killed him, for instance? Didn't they give any hint?
M: I did not argue.
　(Omitted)
Interviewer: Even then, didn't they tell you the reasons for believing so? Didn't they say anything else? Did they say simply that ….
M: They did not give me any reason. I believe, however, that they don't forgive me for stopping my husband from drinking alcohol, so they told me that I killed him.

In this way, Mrs. M continued to talk about Mr. N's suicide in connection with her relationship with her parents-in-law. Mrs. M (and Mrs. O) tried their best to avoid referring to Mr. N's suicide. Even when they had to refer to the topic, they reduced the issue to Mrs. M's relationship with her parents-in-law. For an hour or more, they continued to talk about the confl ict with her mother-in-law_without referring to Mr. N's committing suicide. Whereas Mrs. M is a suicide survivor, she is concurrently a daughter-in-law in a rural farmer's family. She has had trouble with her parents-in-law over the past decades. She has multiple other roles and tasks to fulfi ll in her family and community. Her primary concern is her relations with her parents-in-law, even when she is faced with her husband's suicide as a great diffi culty. Or rather, we could say that because of that diffi culty, she cannot tell the story of her hardship without referring to the relationship with her parents-in-law.

At this stage, however, Mrs. M did not try to specify Mr. N's motive for committing suicide. This led me to believe that Mrs. M was going to adopt the option of telling her story without adopting the vocabularies of motive or instruments of legitimation (case ⑦ ). Before long, however, I found that I was wrong.

4. Ascribing the Responsibility for Mr. N's Suicide to Others
Eventually, Mrs. M stated that Mr. N committed suicide because of his being an alcoholic. This statement, however, does not mean that she selected his illness as one of the vocabularies of motive for his committing suicide (case ③ ). In actuality, Mrs. M assigned the responsibility for his death to her parents-in-law, through the medium of his being an alcoholic. In other words, Mrs. M decided to refuse to accept any personal responsibility and guilt, by ascribing to others the responsibility for her husband's suicide (case ① ).

(Transcription 6: Encouraged by Mrs. M and Mrs. O to ask them more questions, I went on to ask Mrs. M about how Mr. N's being an alcoholic and his committing to suicide were related.)

Interviewer: Well, well, is there any relationship between your husband's death and, err, well, his being an alcoholic? I see no defi nite causal relations….
M: He was an alcoholic, and he died from drinking alcohol too much.
Interviewer: You mean he died because he drank alcohol too much?
M: Well, I mean…
O: What else can you think of?
M: No, I cannot think of anything else.
　(Omitted)
Interviewer: Err, that means, well, if he had not been an alcoholic, he would not have committed…
M: That's what I mean.
O: I agree. Because he was such [an optimistic] man.
M: Yes, he was like that, indeed.
O: Mr. N was not a man who would worry about what other people said about him.
M: No, he did not worry.

While Mrs. M chose Mr. N's being alcoholic as a reason for his having committed suicide, she also maintained the viewpoint that the incident was related to his relationship with her parents-in-law. It seemed me that she absolutely needed to maintain this viewpoint.

(Transcription 7: Mrs. M attributed Mr. N's being an alcoholic and his committing suicide to his relationship with his parents (her parents-in-law).)

M: The medical doctor told us that when any member of the family wanted to drink, they should avoid drinking when my husband was at home. So my son and my father-in-law observed that instruction. However, a few days later, my motherin- law let my husband drink alcohol, saying a little bit of alcohol might be OK.
　(Omitted)
O: I cannot think of any other reason [for Mr. N's death being due to his alcoholism]. It must be that your mother-in-law spoiled him.
M: That's right. She spoiled him. Because of the doctor's instruction, I was watching him so that he would not drink alcohol, but …..
O: That's right. If all your family members had stopped him from drinking alcohol, it would have been all right. But, Mrs. M's mother-in-law….
M: Yes, since my mother-in-law said a little bit of alcohol would be OK, and so he began drinking alcohol again.

As indicated by her narrative that I have thus far quoted, Mrs. M claimed that Mr. N's suicide was the responsibility of her parents-in-law, particularly her mother-in-law. Using his being alcoholic as a cause, she ascribed the responsibility for his death to her parents-in-law. This justifi cation helps her to neutralize her feelings of guilt. Although her relationship with her parents-in-law, particularly with her mother-in-law, does not seem to have any implications regarding her experience of her husband committing suicide, it was necessary for her to construct her mother-in-law as a character that has driven her own son to commit suicide.
Next, I would like to consider the effect of Mrs. M's attitude of placing responsibility for her husband's suicide on her mother-in-law.

5. In Conclusion: Diffi culties of the Suicide Survivor
As I have described in chapter 2. 3 and 3 (in Transcription 5), to date Mrs. M has been in confl ict with her mother-in-law concerning the vocabularies of motive for her husband's suicide. In other words, from among the seven options described in chapter 1.3., Mrs. M has selected option ① : to assign the vocabularies of motive to others (her mother-in-law). By doing so, Mrs. M was able to neutralize feelings of guilt concerning her husband's suicide. On the other hand, she will have to continue to suffer from confl icts (or “war,” probably “cold war”) with her mother-in-law and her supporters regarding the cause of Mr. N's suicide.
Should Mrs. M accept her responsibility and guilt for her husband's suicide, rather than placing responsibility for his death on her mother-in-law? Should we encourage her to accept her responsibility, and wrestle with the pain resulting from the acceptance? There is no knowing which is better. Whichever options she chooses, I can defi nitely say that she will have to suffer tremendously.
I believe that our present society creates an extremely cruel and brutal circumstance for suicide survivors. Our society demands that suicide survivors accept their responsibility and guilt. Unless survivors suffer from their wounds, they are not acknowledged as true suicide survivors. Even worse, our society provides survivors with various options that appear to release them from their guilt. Yet, in actuality, suicide survivors remain trapped in a deadlock, no matter which option they choose.

■Notes
1) I use the phrase “suicide survivor[s]” to describe not persons who harm themselves but persons who have intimately communicated with suicide victims, for example, family members and friends.
2) Please refer to the psychiatrists' discourses described in chapter 1.1.
3) Erving Goffman explains in the following statement how people are forced to accept other's (social) interpretation even though it is contrary to their own interpretation:… behind a willingness to accept the way things are ordered is the brutal fact of one's place in the social structure and the real or imagined cost of allowing oneself to be singled out as a malcontent. Whatever, there is no doubt that categories of individual in every time and place have exhibited a disheartening capacity for overtly accepting miserable interactional arrangements (Goffman 1983: 6).
4) In this presentation, I use a term of 'motive' as not causes of person's action and its consequence but that “a motive tends to be one which is to the actor and to the other members of a situation an unquestioned answer to questions concerning social and lingual conduct” (Mills [1940]1963: 443).
5) By imputing vocabularies of motive and instruments of legitimation as part of our experiences, we can give meaning to the experiences. Moreover, we could retroactively conduct a moral evaluation of related people, and show them what acts they should appropriately take, or which ones they should have taken after the occurrence of an incident (Mayama, 2002: 155; Fujiwara 2008: 340). Accordingly, adopting vocabularies of motive and instruments of legitimation is an essential procedure for relating our experiences.
6) Such moratorium, however, involves extreme diffi culty, since this leads to the swaying of the world and loss of “plausibility” (Berger, 1967: 17), making people face a long period of continued chaos.
7) In actuality, many suicide survivors select and combine multiple options.
8) A psychological autopsy refers to a technique to identify whether or not a death of a certain individual was caused by suicide. In a psychological autopsy, investigators conduct interviews with people related to the victim (his/her family members, relatives, friends, company colleagues, classmates, etc.), with the aim of determining whether or not the victim committed suicide, and if so, what was his/her motive and whether or not they were suffering from mental disease (Evans & Farberow, 2003: 193-4; Chang, 2006: 26-32). Although it is necessary to study defects of a psychological autopsy, due to the enormous amount of work such study would entail, I have not included a discussion about the defects in this report. I hope to prepare another report on this issue.
9) In a psychological autopsy, since questions are prepared in advance, during interviews, interviewers tend to ask questions solely about issues of their own interest. Accordingly, it is diffi cult for interviewers to understand implicated rationalities and the meaning of suicide survivors' narratives.

■Bibliography
Berger, Peter L, 1967, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, New York: Doubleday & Co.
Berger, Peter L. & Thomas Luckmann, 1966, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City: Doubleday & Co.
Chō, Yoshinori, 2006, Hito Wa Naze Jisatsu Suru No Ka: Shinrigaku Teki Bouken Kara Miete Kurukoto (Why Do People Kill Themselves: From Psychological Autopsies), Tokyo: Bensei Publishing Co.
Doi, Takayoshi, 2008, Tomodachi Jigoku: Kuuki wo Yomu Sedai No SABAIBARU (Friendship as Hell: The Survival of the Age Forced to Feel and to Act based on Contexts), Tokyo: Chikuma Publishing Co.
Durkheim, Émile, translated by J A Spaulding & G Simpson, 1951, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, New York: The Free Press.
Evans, Glen & Norman L Farberow, 2003, The Encyclopedia of Suicide, New York: Facts on File.
Fujiwara, Nobuyuki, 2007a, “Kinsihisha No Jisatsu, Imi Chitsujyo No Sai Kouchiku, Douki No Goi (Suicide, Reconstruction of Meaningful Order, and Vocabularies of Motive),” Core Ethics, 4: 301-13.
Fujiwara, Nobuyuki, 2007b, “Izoku Ni Yoru Kinshinsha No Zishi No Imi Duke To Sono Konnan: Seishin Igaku Teki Gensetsu Ga Sanshiou Sareta Toki (Imputing a Survivor's Experience of Suicide, and Its Diffi culty: When a Survivor Is Referred to in Psychiatric Discourses), The Presentation for 23th Annual Meeting of Japanese Association of Social Problems, Sep 2007, Tokyo.
Fujiwara, Nobuyuki, 2008, “Douki No Goi Ron Sai Kou: Douki Fuyo Wo Meguru Micro- Politics No Kiziyutu To Bunseki Wo Kanou Ni Suru Tame Ni (The Debate over Mills' Vocabularies of Motive: The Politics of the Ascription of Motives),” Core Ethics, 4: 333- 44.
Gerth, Hans Heinrich & C Wright Mills, 1953, Character and Social Structure: The Psychology of Social Institutions, Harcourt: Brace & World Inc.
Goffman, Erving, 1983, “The Interaction Order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address,” American Sociological Review, 48(1): 1-17.
Henslin, James M, 1970, “Guilt and Guilt Neutralization: Response and Adjustment to Suicide,” Jack D Douglas ed., Deviance and Respectability: The Social Construction of Moral Meanings, New York & London: Basic Books, 192-228.
Mayama, Hiroo, 2002, “Gainen Bunseki To Shite No Gensetsu Bunseki: Ijime Jisatsu No Konzetsu=Kaishyou Wo Mezasite (Discourse Analysis as Conceptual Study: Toward the Dismantling 'Ijime Suicide or suicide caused by bulling)',” Kyouiku Syakaigaku Kenkyu (The Journal of Educational Sociology), 70: 145-63.
Mills, C Wright, [1940]1963, “Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive,” I L Horowitz ed., Power, Politics, and People: The Collected Essays of C. Weight Mills, Oxford, London & New York: Oxford University Press, 439-68.
Mori, Yoshitaka, 2004, “Post Kazoku No Jidai: Kazoku To Kanri Shiakai (The Era of the Post-Modern Family System: The Family System and Post-Disciplinary Society),” Gendai Shisou (Contemporary Thought), 32(10): 54-69.
Nagai, Junko, 2004, “Kiritsu Shiakai No Syuuen To Jisatsu Yobou No Yukue (The End of Disciplinary Society and the Way of Suicide Prevention),” Nakamasa Masaki ed., Kyoudoutai To Seigi (Communities and Justice), Tokyo: Ochyanomizu Publishing Co, 189-217.
Ohara, Kenshirou, 2001, Hataraki Zakari No Utsu To Jisatsu (Depression and Suicide among Middle Aged Working Men), Osaka: Sougenshia Co.
Ono, Yutaka, 2000, Utsu Wo Naosu (Curing Depression), Tokyo, PHP Publishing Co.
Sacks, Harvey, 1972, “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology,” D Sudnow ed., Studies in Social Interaction, New York: The Free Press, 31-73.
Sacks, Harvey, 1995, “On Suicide Threats Getting Laughed Off,” H Sacks (G Jefferson ed.,), Lectures on Conversation Volumes 1 & 2, Cambridge: Blackwell, 12-20.
Soeda, Yoshiya, 2001, “Zishi Izi Ni Tsuite (A Study of Suicide Survivors Who Have Lost a Parent, especially a Father),” Soeda Yoshiya ed., Shi No Syakaigaku (The Sociology of Death), Tokyo: Iwanami Publishing Co.
Soeda, Yoshiya, 2002, “Zishi Izi Ni Tsuite: Saikou (Rethinking Suicide Survivors Who Lost Their Parents, especially Father),” Boshi Kenkyu (Bulletin of Studying the Relationship between Mothers and Children),” 22: 21-37.
Takahashi, Yoshitomo, 2006, Jisatsu Yobou (For Suicide Prevention), Tokyo: Iwanami Publishing Co.
Tokioka, Arata, 2003, “Iwanai To Iu Fukai, Hanaseru To Iu Ando: Izi no Katari Au Keiken Kara (Suffering of Silence, and Relief of Telling Together: From Survivors' Experiences of Telling Together),” Syakaigaku Journal (Tsukuba Journal of Sociology), 28: 113-24.
Tsutsui, Sueharu, 2004, Utsu To Jisatsu (Depression and Suicide), Tokyo: Syueisya Publishing Co.
Wakabayashi, Kazumi, 2003, Jisatsu Shita Kodomo No Oya Tachi (With Suicide Survivors Who Lost Their Sons or Daughters), Tokyo: Seikyusha Publishing Co.