In Lerner’s parable, two characters represent the opposing forces of old and new. However, neither is portrayed particularly positively. The Chief derives his power from “some useless, mystic wisdom,” and is “the absolutely dictator.” He is described as a parochial force with ties to “traditional Turkish values.” He is seen to be outdated, a ghost. Then there is the Grocer, who is constantly seeking betterment and progress. The Grocer is described as being somehow lesser than Tosun because Tosun makes him nervous. Tosun, who traveled from the city of Ankara, is seen to be somehow superior because of his urban roots. Progress and development somehow elevate him above the grocer, who strives for this progress. Rather than admiring him for his valiant efforts to bring about change, Tosun actively dislikes the Grocer, describing him as “unimpressive.” The Grocer, even though he is aligned with Tosun in his desire at least for modernity, is seen as an undesirable wannabe. Here we see demonstrated the tensions between the old, the new, and those who seek to bring about change. Rather than extending a helping hand to the man who hopes to bring about change, Tosun sees his imitations of modernity as subpar and therefore resents him. However, Tosun also resents the Chief for being overly traditional and tied to the past. How can Tosun, who is presented as superior in this case, interact with the people of Balgat in a productive way in order to produce progress?

In comparing Lerner’s piece to John Gray’s concepts of Positivism and globalism, it becomes apparent that Gray’s opinions are in some ways affirmed by the case of Balgat. First of all, Gray defines Positivism as the idea that progress leads to virtue, a belief that he condemns, and he claims that globalization is linked to the fallacious American concept that America can be used as a helpful model for the rest of the world to follow. In Balgat, the grocer appears to hold some Positivist views in that he conceives of progress as the key to a better, more fulfilling life. In addition, he seems to have an innate desire to see and understand more of the world, which he sees as achievable through the industrialization and general modernization of Balgat. Lerner seems to place value the grocer’s ideas, despite their incongruence with the rest of the people of Balgat. In this way, Lerner’s bias towards American-like modernization becomes very apparent. This suggests the validity of Gray’s conception of globalization, as Lerner appears to admire the grocer’s desire to be more like an American. After Balgat has become somewhat modernized, most of the people of Balgat appreciate the change. They are able to buy useful things that they were not previously able to buy. However, there is some ambivalence, particularly in the chief and the man at the coffee shop. While progress has undoubtedly given them more access to resources, it has not led to a more virtuous community. Rather, it has decreased some of the community’s work ethic, sparked an interest in buying unnecessary things, and eliminated much of the nationalistic values. In this sense, Gray’s condescending description of Positivism is given more validity. Progress may have given this community more wealth, but it also left behind some of its core values.

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.

The Grocer and the Chief’s presence in a 1955 issue of Harper’s magazine is an interesting example of how traditional journalism can supplement social science (in this case, surveys) in capturing idiosyncratic realities and the larger trends they potentially represent. The narrative style is deeply immersive, focusing on the physical details of Lerner’s journey and interviews (complete with illustration), and grounds its narration firmly in the lived experiences of the individuals the journalist interacts with, even as the article is framed in such a way as to illuminate a broader historical transformation. The conflict between tradition and modernity is complicated by the relationship each subject has to the fluid history in which they are living, and certain conventions of bitter intergenerational conflict are not followed because the human beings being interviewed are fleshed out in ways that go beyond broad-stroke archetypes. That complexity doesn’t dilute the implications for the larger cultural context so much as clarify and enhance it; the modernization of the Turkish state is a not a discretely defined process that will provoke a universal reaction, but a set of evolving circumstances based on dynamic systems of politics that has a unique and nuanced set of effects on both those individuals who represent traditional power structures and those whose professions are harbingers of an emergent cultural status quo. That this piece of long-form journalism, itself responding to a data-driven study, is able to illuminate the intersections of the quantitatively different but fundamentally co-dependent time scales of human life and political history is a testament to the effectiveness of multidisciplinary works that blend academic and popular media to try to better understand the world.

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.

This article is interesting because it provides a twist to the normalized power dynamic. The article points out that those we think have the power in the society are not always the ones that actually have the power over in which direction society will head. It raises the question of who has the power in society? Is it the people who seem to currently have the control or the people who control what the society will look like in the future? This article answers the question by stating that those who actually control society are the ones who point shape the society of the future. Those are the people who will be most successful. In this case, the grocer was treated as an outcast, but as society modernized, the grocer became the example by which most people in society lived by. In this way, the article also brought up the point of the progression of society and how society is continually shifting to make room for new ideas and the most modern ways of living.

Another issue this article raised for me is the role that outsiders have in commentating and passing judgements on a society. The first and second visitors to Balgat had contrasting views on many things, including the chief. However is it their place to pass judgements on these people?

In “The Dying Russians”, Masha Gessen sets out to piece together the puzzle of unusual death rates in Russia following the downfall of the Soviet Union. Gessen’s ability to understand Russia’s mortality crisis is an example of the enlightening nature that the relationship between “good journalism” and social science can create. Whereas others studying this Russian phenomenon had taken a quantitative approach, Gessen utilized the thick description of the situation in looking more qualitatively at the issue.  The article looks to understand this crisis by analyzing explicit patterns of cultural and social relationships and putting them in the context of the situation. Gessen studies the way in which certain political structures alter and shape a society’s culture. As explained in the article, within the communist nature of the Soviet Union, Russians felt a sense of belonging and meaning. Using the third dimensional method of power, the Soviet Union successfully manipulated it’s people into a mindset of equality even though behind closed doors and tall fences it was quite the opposite. This surprised me when I first read it. When learning about manipulation in political systems, I initially perceived these methods as crippling and oppressive, however, after reading this article it gave me new perspective on how the third dimensional approach can actually foster a sense of community and purpose amongst despair. Gessen uses both empirical and cultural approaches to understand why Russians are dying off at a higher rate. Whereas this approach may not have been as accurate or exact as the statistical approaches mentioned in the article, it does provide a more contextual basis of analysis that is helpful in understanding the issue an its roots. However, I believe it is important to consider analyzing complex cultural and political problems in a well rounded view rather that in an absolute fashion because figures are important to understand patterns yet context is equally important in explaining these patterns.

I think this article seeks to examine the various means of conducting social science research and the pitfalls and benefits to both. Eberstadt employs a much more “typical” and “accepted” approach in categorizing the various factors which may have been causing the high death rate among Russians. By looking at a variety of different factors and seeking a qualitative means of explaining this increase in the death rate and the decrease in population he exhibits the ways in which a more qualitative approach can examine more factors in explaining a social phenomenon while also reaching, what many view as, a more defensible conclusion. This method, while being viewed as “more accurate” fails to reach any results and instead leaves the question as to why Russians are dying in higher numbers unanswered. Parsons, on the other hand, engages in what is typically viewed as a less accurate means of examining a social phenomenon and conducts interviews with Russians. The problematic nature of this approach, however, is the way in which Parsons tries to create a singular turning point in Russian history and attempts to gather evidence for this perspective through the interviews she conducts. The question then becomes what to do when the “typical” method does not yield a result and the “flawed” measure yields a result that is unconvincing. I believe the combination of both approaches can yield useful observations and seems to answer the problem while independently their explanations may be lacking. The way in which Eberstadt’s quantitative approach excludes any of the traditional causes to explain the decrease in the Russian population seems to be just as important as the answers provided by Parsons. By removing the scientific causes for this phenomenon Eberstadt validates Parsons claims that the Russians may be dying because of a broken heart and the absence of hope.