Daniel Lerner’s “The Grocer and the Chief” provides an interesting case of the perception of power and the process of change. Lerner portrays the Grocer as an unacknowledged prophet who was “the cleverest” of all the villagers because he was able to accurately forecast the future of Balgat while Tosun depicts the Grocer as “this fat and middle-aged man yearning to be comfortably rich in an interesting city.” In either case, the Grocer possessed no power to change his own situation or reputation and he could not speak against the traditions of the Chief, so rather than a cause of the modernizing changes that came later, perhaps the merchant was an example of the desire for change that grows with contact with the city and its economic opportunities. At the time, the Grocer was the only one of his kind, and his occupation required him to travel to Ankara often. However, the village of Balgat only collectively gains access to the city when the men of the Demokrat party build a road between the two. Perhaps the subconscious desire for change already existed within the village as Lerner suggests when he says that some Balgati spoke badly of the Grocer to “keep their own inner voices from being overheard by the Chief–or even by themselves.” Perhaps the transition was so smooth and fast because the Grocer’s ideas had already existed in the minds of these traditional men whether subconscious or not. The concept of a private exploration of the new before public evidence of it continues with the interview of the Chief’s younger son regarding neckties.

In “The Grocer and the Chief,” Balgat is a great example of a town in the transition from traditional ways to modernity. During the initial interviews, the Chief represents tradition and the Grocer represents modernity in the sense of wanting to get out of his “hole.” This idea comes from increasing globalization is a very modern one, as John Gray explains. The Grocer wants to take control of his life and actively impact it by going to Ankara or even America to realize his dreams. On the other hand, the Chief is grateful for what life has given him and does not wish to change things. Another interesting thing was that Lerner seemed to use the word History to mean modernity or modernization, perhaps part of Gray’s modern myth that History truly began with modernization.

In addition, the relationship between Ankara, the capital of Turkey, and Balgat reminded me of the Scott reading on cities. As the modern Turkish state emerged in Ankara, it became the hub of traffic and activities, like Paris in the reading. Even before Balgat is developed, Ankara serves that role for the Balgati. It is where the Grocer gets his supplies, where people go to buy or sell things, where they watch movies, and where they get their news from. After Balgat’s modernization, Ankara’s role expands as it is physically more connected via the bus. Every hour, a bus full of Balgati heads to the capital, and most young men go there to work in factories. It was also interesting that although Balgat is “developed,” it still does not have the geometric layout of a planned city. This means that the locals still hold some power over outsiders or officials from the capital since they require a guide to navigate Balgat. For example, Lerner and Tahir must be guided to the Chief’s house by local children.

In Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern, Gray describes modernity as the idea that humans are capable of perfecting life and the attempt to perfect it, particularly through science. The Grocer encapsulates Gray’s image of a Positivist; he believes in rational improvements to achieve progress, whatever that might mean. In the original interview, the Grocer says that if he were president of Turkey, he would “make roads for the villagers to come to towns to see the world and would not let them stay in their holes all their life.” For the Grocer, progress is synonymous with outside influence and with wealth. The Grocer dreams of moving to Ankara or America, of building a bigger and nicer grocery store, and of accumulating wealth. In contrast, the Chief is anti-modern. The Chief is content in his way of life and incapable of imagining life beyond his beloved village. If he had more funds, he would ask for “help of money and seed for some of our farmers.” The Chief envisions progress as a continuation of the present; he is incapable of imagining a village where the majority of the population no longer farms.

The Grocer’s worldview comes with a price however. The Grocer was never content. He strove for progress and looked longingly at the wealth of the city. The modern man is constantly hungry for more and can never be content with stagnation. Meanwhile, the Chief was happy when the village was still agrarian, and is still content four years later when the village connects to Ankara. By not assuming the need for “progress”, the Chief appreciates its benefits but doesn’t suffer in its absence.

I found this account extremely interesting and eye-opening. This type of rapid modernization is something I am familiar with from 19th century America, so to learn that this occurred so quickly in 1950s Turkey was something I never considered. This series of interviews again exemplifies the hidden personal thoughts noted in the Scott reading. In many instances, the villagers avoided questions completely or responded with non-answers or just plain laughter in the shepherd’s case (page 21). The lack of answers and obvious uneasiness about the questions expose a flawed aspect of social science research. We can only learn so much when the subjects are not completely free to express their inner desires. That being said, we do observe clever political tactics used by the Chief, such as moderating outside influence, by way of the radio, to keep his position as village leader (page 27). His intelligence does not stop there because he quickly realized that his village was modernizing, so he allowed his sons to follow the path of the Grocer, who the Chief initially thought of as a foe (page 42). This is reminiscent of Machiavelli in a way, by the Chief putting aside his own personal beliefs and morals in an attempt to have himself and his “heirs” remain in power. The Machiavelli theme is also apparent when many villagers were initially too nervous to respond to the interview questions because they feared what the Chief would think of them if they spoke out. From the Chief’s perspective it is clear he chose the route of being feared rather than loved in that instance.