Making Sense of Critical Suicide Studies: Metaphors, Tensions, and Futurities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to read this article. As someone with a long and deeply invested interest in CSS I found it quite rewarding and useful to read this reflexive study. The following are offered as suggestions to strengthen the manuscript, while it is already plainly obvious that it will be a useful and undoubtably transformative contribution!

- There were moments when a deeper comprehension of the participants' backgrounds could have been helpful. Maybe my bias as a qualitative researcher, but I found myself wanting to know these people more. The majority of quotes appeared to stem from students, yet there were instances where the clarity regarding their academic disciplines and other aspects of their social contexts was lacking. In general, a more detailed depiction of the participants would have been beneficial.

- Although referencing the recruitment protocol from another published paper is acceptable, it seems fair to expect a brief explanation of it in this article.

- In critical suicide studies, the term "mainstream" and "conventional" is frequently employed to delineate a boundary between the kinds of suicidology that are ... (positivist, modernist, psychocentric, etc.) and the critical perspectives that CSS offers. I've used this dichotomy in my own work for a while as it can be useful for highlighting the innovative contributions of CSS, but increasingly I feel that it risks oversimplifying the diversity of thought within the broader field(s) of suicidology. The characterization of "the mainstream" as a static or monolithic entity fails to acknowledge the diversity and nuances present within what in fact highly diverse suicidology approaches. Locating and situating suicidology as a mainstream, and other such portrayals may inadvertently create a "straw man," simplifying complex viewpoints into a singular, easily refutable position. To enhance the robustness of its arguments, this paper would benefit from recognizing and perhaps more precisely naming elements constitutive of a kind of suicidology that CSS critiques. By doing so, it can more effectively articulate its critical stance while avoiding the pitfalls of homogenizing the field it seeks to critique... which has the unintended consequence of alienating scholarship which shares similar assumptions but might not be located as overtly within the emerging body of work within CSS. T

- In your manuscript, the terms "suicide studies," "suicidology," and "suicide prevention" are used interchangeably at times. Each term, however, signifies a distinct aspect. To enhance clarity and accuracy, I recommend a thorough review of the manuscript to ensure the precise use of these terms throughout.

- In your statement on page 3 regarding the aims of critical suicide studies, you imply a move away from traditional psy-discourses and positivist research frameworks. This point made me reflect on the position of the now many psy-professionals and preventionists actively engaged in CSS. Does CSS intend to outright reject these peoples work and their research perspectives, including but not limited to positivism, or is it advocating for increased pluralism within CSS or broader field(s) of suicidology? It would be beneficial to examine how this perspective is influenced by the authors' underlying assumptions about the field. Clarifying this could enrich the manuscript's discussion on the scope and intentions of CSS.

- On page 3, you highlight the contribution of diverse critical perspectives, including feminist, activist, queer, mad, Indigenous, critical disability studies, and critical race theories, to understanding and responding to suicide. This interdisciplinary approach is praised for its ability to uncover the multifaceted socio-cultural and political dimensions influencing suicide. However, the exposition would benefit from a deeper exploration of how each perspective uniquely contributes to the discourse. For instance, feminist and Indigenous studies offer insights into affective politics, and especially biosocial politics of (settler colonial) violence; crip, mad, and disability scholarship examine sanism, suicidism, and ableism; queer studies delve into failure and transgression; while cultural studies highlight the role of language and place in suicidal distress. Expanding on some (obviously not all) these distinctions would provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the field's complexity and the specific ways in which these area studies illuminate the lived experiences of suicidal individuals within various oppressive contexts. Given that some readers may view this article as a navigational tool through critical suicide studies, a more detailed mapping of the field's scholarly landscape would significantly enhance its utility and impact.

- The section on Critical Suicide Studies as a site of respite and fortification, employing metaphors of home, was indeed intriguing. However, I found myself curious about the specific contexts in which participants engage with CSS. When you mention on page 7 that CSS serves as a home or refuge, providing a semi-private space to reduce isolation and foster a sense of belonging within a family or collective, the details of these actual spaces remain vague. Are these references to CSS conferences, writing groups, organizing committees, or network gatherings? Clarifying these contexts could enrich our understanding of how CSS creates spaces that are both privatized and protective, offering harm reduction and a sense of community. Such specificity would not only deepen our comprehension of the metaphorical 'home' within CSS but also highlight the tangible settings that contribute to the sense of fortification and respite for its members.

- Your section on the metaphorical use of "war" is both fascinating and compelling, particularly the powerful lines from 399 to 402. These lines effectively highlight the tension and anticipation of conflict that critical scholars often face, even when their aim is to initiate dialogue rather than confrontation. The quote from Lily vividly illustrates the perceived binary outcomes of engaging in critical discourse, emphasizing the harsh realities of dissent within academic spaces. This discussion prompts reflection on the inherent nature of critical scholarship and its potential to antagonize. It raises important questions: Is there a way for criticality to be both incisive and welcoming? Can critical scholarship engage in a manner that invites dialogue and bridges divides, rather than preparing for backlash? Furthermore, your analysis suggests that the reception of critical perspectives may vary across different disciplinary contexts, indicating that hostility or acceptance is not uniform across academic and professional fields.

- The section on felt experience in your manuscript is engaging yet calls for a little further development. The emphasis on sensory descriptions, particularly through orality and embodiment, is interesting. However, framing these experiences as metaphorical may limit their depth. The discussions around shared language and the absence of language suggest these are not merely oral metaphors but critical aspects of how CSS communicates and understands affect and experience. It appears that there is a misalignment between the intent to discuss the metaphorical representation of felt experiences and the actual discussion that emphasizes affective claims as material realities. Considering the arguments from members of the CSS community, who advocate for understanding these affective claims as concrete rather than symbolic, it might be beneficial to revisit both the framing and the title of this section. A more accurate representation could offer a deeper insight into how CSS navigates the complex terrain of emotional and sensory knowledge, thereby enriching the manuscript's exploration of the field's unique epistemological contributions.

- The section on roadbuilding and pathbreaking is intriguing and introduces valuable metaphors for navigating this emerging field. However, considering environmental studies of suicide risk, it prompts reflection on how these metaphors might unintentionally perpetuate anthropocentric views of liveability by emphasizing human-centered infrastructure and alteration of (Indigenous/occupied) lands. This observation is not a critique but an invitation to contemplate the choice of language and its implications on broader environmental and philosophical discussions within CSS. 

- The exploration of yearning within your manuscript was both moving and stimulating. It reminded me of Andrea Davis's often-cited quote on abolition as a dual process of rejection and affirmation. This notion resonates deeply with the current juncture for scholars in the field. While the community has honed its skills in that which we reject, the discussion of yearning poignantly shifts the focus towards what we are collectively building and affirming. This aspect of your analysis is particularly compelling, encouraging a deeper consideration of the positive constructs and visions that CSS aims to advance. It's a powerful reminder of the importance of not only deconstructing existing paradigms but also of the creative and constructive endeavors that define the future of the field. 

- page 15 -- line 730 -- comma should be a period?

- The application of Paulo Freire's work to your conceptual framework is a highlight of your manuscript, particularly in lines 739-742 where you discuss the necessity of disrupting various oppressive systems through deeply personal and collective social actions. This invokes Freire's concept of conscientização, or critical consciousness, which could be further explored in relation to a critical pedagogy within suicidology. I found myself wanting to hear further the ways that CSS can be useful not only for social analysis but how it engages (or still yet might engage) in the development and application of skills for political action and addressing the felt dimensions of structural violence. 

- In my opinion, the assertion on line 829 regarding a perceived tendency towards joylessness in activist circles warrants reconsideration. It's important to recognize that at the core of most community organizing and activism lies a hopeful vision of how life could, should, or ought to be, aligning with what Muñoz describes as utopian desire. The subsequent reference to Goldman underscores the significance of joy and beauty in sustaining activist endeavors. It may be more accurate to critique the prevalence of joylessness within academic scholarship, where the pressures and structures might contribute to a more pronounced sense of solemnity. 

 

Author Response

We truly appreciate the careful feedback. Please find the response in the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is beautifully written, engaging and important paper which provides an interesting and timely engagement with critical suicide studies. I think the framing of the analysis in terms of metaphors is particularly poignant. 

Overall I think the paper is well structured and clear. I have a few suggestions of areas that could be slightly expanded/ clarified to further strengthen the paper:

In the section on Mobilizing Other Critical Frameworks - I think it would be helpful to expand a bit on why the work of Freire and Goldman is particularly useful for engaging with the study of critical suicide studies. I think this is picked up well in the discussion section but I think the relationship/value of these perspectives and the specific focus of the paper could be better framed here.

In the Methodology I think it would be helpful to provide some more details about the participants (to provide a broader contextualisation of who is engaging with critical suicide studies). In particular, I was interested in what 'career stage' they were in and how this might shape their experiences of engaging with critical suicide studies?

You mention that participants were given the opportunity to engage with your analysis - did any of them change or add anything?

In the discussion section, in line with your point about "care-centred politics" and some of the key points from your analysis (going to war; holding/feeling this kind of work in the body) I was wondering about expanding on the potential (painful) impacts of doing this kind of work on researchers, activists and practitioners (alongside the joy, creativity and hope that you have highlighted) and perhaps a need for further engagement with these issues in future research?

A minor point - Line 672, Lily should be italicised. 

Author Response

We truly appreciate the careful feedback. Please find the point-by-point response in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf