Lerner’s last paragraph indicates the relative myopia of political modes of analysis – they’re ineffective ways of representing the whole of a culture. They’re certainly useful , both in terms of highlighting differences within a society – why do the four remaining small farmers vote for the Halk party, and only them? – and between societies – why are Balgat men overwhelmingly Demokrat voters? – and understanding to some degree the preferences of its members. But understanding the only the political breakdown of Balgat would not give a full description of the town – indeed, it would lead to a distorted view, such as that of the newspaper man whose party required a Balgat with “their male ‘corners’ and their retail stores”, a perspective shaped by the need for ideal town that blended traditional notions with an acceptance of the new political order instead of a village with real, sincerely-felt history (Lerner 42).

To get a full, clear picture we need the thick description Geertz recommended. Lerner provides this in his nuanced, insightful analysis of Balgat, his faithful rendition of local culture, his understanding of the views of the Balgati towards modernization, and in so doing reveals the flaws of the analysis of Tosun, whose work he built on. Tosun also peered at the city through a political lens, not in the way of party politics but instead through an (at least partially) anti-capitalist framework. In approaching his study in that way he set himself up for misunderstanding – he scorns the worldview of both the chief and the grocer in order to justify his view of the town as filled with struggling, simple folk. Lerner, approaching the village with the intent of understanding, managed to better realize than either political observer the perspectives of the society’s members towards the town, its changes, and the political system closely tied to both.