Precise Techniques

Nicholas Eberstadt looks to avoid the usual biases and pitfalls facing most interpretations of the “Dying Russian” situation. He’s willing to look beyond the general theories that dominate the argument, expand the historical scope of his study and avoid the temptation of coming up with an answer to the problem. He compares what seem to be statistical abnormalities in Russian mortality, such as heart disease, to other countries. He shows the normal culprits, high calorie consumption and drinking, are not what’s causing Russian heart disease, as similar conditions exist in other western countries and they have lower deaths related to heart disease. He looks at Russian population growth over the course of the 20th century, and shows high mortality isn’t just a 1990s problem. Previous studies have made conclusions on their limited scope and misinterpretation. His dedication allows him to shatter myth after myth surrounding the Russian mortality problem. His comprehensive study is able to deliver a very precise analysis, but no answers. Which brings into question, if precise methods prove we have no answers and imprecise methods give us answers, can we really hope to understand our world?

Taking a Closer Look

Depending on the knowledge you possess of the event, the balance of power shifts. From an external view, say someone studying the event through empirical archives, you would determine Orwell had the power in the situation. As he put it “legally I had done the right thing” (4). In accordance to British law he had full right to shoot the elephant. He’d put down a “mad” elephant that had killed a man. However, upon examining Orwell’s account of the situation, you would see the balance of power shift out of his hands.

“Suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward” (3). Despite Orwell’s legal power over the situation, his public transcript demands he be decisive in front of the crowd. He is so engulfed in the persona of being a rigid imperial officer of the British empire that his actions are beyond his control. Though we would not know this if Orwell hadn’t shared his thoughts on the event, he’s become a total “puppet” to the expectations of the Burmans, thereby totally relinquishing his power to them (3). To me, this story highlights Scott’s point of how important it is to study the hidden transcript of a society ruled by domination. For without Orwell’s account we would have totally misjudged who had the power in this situation.

Domination and Subordination in Public Schools

I find Gatto’s description of the effect of public schooling strikingly similar to Lisa Wedeen’s assessment of the effects forced complicity has on a population. Public schooling subjects students to perform countless mundane, menial tasks that students have trouble relating to. Students who obey and complete assignments efficiently and on-time are rewarded and those who don’t are punished. As Wedeen sees it “By complying, each soldier demonstrates the regime’s power to dominate him,” and creates a person who “is capable of inventing and avowing dreams that are unbelievable and not, in fact, his own” (Wedeen 516). Gatto’s assessment of American public schooling aligns with Wedeen’s. In a students struggle to reach the top of the class they must give up essential functions of being a human being. Our options for professional careers are very much limited by the subjects offered at our high schools. Any rejection or disinterest of the mandated public schooling is met with punishment. All the while believing in the system results in reward, but seem to cost students’ individuality. The public school system seems to only promote schooling for occupations essential to the the country’s functioning. If you aren’t looking to become a doctor, researcher, lawyer, educator, engineer or business administrator you will be hard pressed to find support from your public school. Overall, I agree with Gatto in the sense that schooling limits childrens’ belief in what they can become by not providing them the support to reach their individual dreams.