Throughout class discussions, we’ve addressed and discussed the question of whether political science should be considered a science or not and why. One of the biggest critiques of political science is the lack of empirical evidence to support the claims it tries to make. This flaw in research is clear in two places in David Lerners’s “The Passing of Traditional Society”. In both places, Lerner claims to have insight into the minds and hearts of the people he is interviewing. When writing about the grocer, Lerner claims that the grocer was “nervous and also proud to be interviewed although he tried to hide it” (Lerner 22). This is a bold claim with very little evidence to support it. Later when Lerner explains how the Balgati people interpret the grocer, he writes that “Some Balgati were talking loud about the Grocer to keep their own inner voices from being overheard by the Chief- or even by themselves” (Lerner 25). Again, another bold assumption with no sufficient supporting evidence. I think this problem goes beyond the ability of Lerner to produce sufficient evidence. Here, Lerner is assuming he can break into the world of the private, a world that its by definition exclusive. No one can see into the minds and hearts of other people, period. Lerner, armed with the assumption that he can, makes two different claims about the feelings of other people. It is possible that Lerner is trying to do what Scott says we must do and provide our own interpretations to what we observe, but I don’t think Lerner has enough authority or credibility to interpret the actions of these people and comment on their motives, thoughts, or feelings.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
Lerner’s views on modernity focus on societal progress, highlighting the shift from traditional to more dynamic structures. He emphasizes the role of communication in modern societies. For a deeper exploration of Lerner’s ideas, best-writing-service.com offers valuable research assistance, providing in-depth analysis and resources that help you understand his theories and their impact on modern sociological thought.
I think Learner feels comfortable getting into the minds of these people because he knows how the story ends. He knows that Balgat will succumb to modernization, that people will speak retrospectively about the grocer as if he was a prophet. That gives him some license to interpret the things he sees and hears in the way that he does. Is it empirical? No, it isn’t, but I don’t think that Learner’s piece suffers for it. It would be boring to read if he just brushed over everything intimate about modernization and said, “The town has changed rapidly.”
This seems to relate to Gaventa’s work, in that, as an observer, it is nearly impossible to analyze power dynamics that fall under the third dimension. Both Tosun B and David Lerner make bold claims based on nothing but personal bias, and this seems to undermine the validity of the piece. This becomes especially apparent on page 56 where Lerner admits that he was searching for the answer that the grocer had been right all along. This illuminates his bias towards modernization, indicating a lack of knowledge concerning the actual efficacy of the modernization in the context of Balgat.