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.

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 20^th 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?

In Gessen’s “The Dying Russians” two methods for uncovering the truth have been shown. One, by Michelle Parsons, attempts to uncover why Russians are dying so young by focusing on one turning point. The other, by Eberstadt, attempts to do the same by analyzing many smaller factors. Despite their different perspectives, neither manages to determine what is actually causing the poor demographic situation in Russia. The former is a cut-and-dry case as it only points to one change, the fall of communism, to explain the situation in Russia. This falls under the definition of a “hedgehog” according to Berlin. However, Eberstadt is not so clear. While at first glance his argument appears to be that of a fox—analyzing many different elements—they are all of the same scientific nature. In my opinion, this defeats the purpose of a foxy argument (to cover all potential angles). Therefore, neither Eberstadt nor Parsons seem to analyze the situation effectively. Instead of treating cultural, institutional, and historical elements as being interconnected, as they should, they analyze them in independent vacuums. Treating these factors as parts of a whole would put us on the path towards finding the truth behind Russia’s “crisis.” In the end, we can’t find an overall truth. However, we can still find many other smaller truths that lead up to it. By putting these smaller truths together (for example, by acknowledging that both Eberstadt and Parsons’ arguments have elements of truth to them), we can get closer and closer to this greater truth. Although we can never fully grasp what this fully means (like infinity to mathematicians), it does not mean that it is not worth striving for. If it isn’t worth striving for, then we may as well give up on everything now, because by that logic anything less than perfection is worth nothing at all.

Masha Gessen’s piece, “The Dying Russians” illustrates the ways in which a mix of both qualitative and quantitative data can provide us a more complete picture of the problem. We tend to give our blind faith to numbers. Statistics such as the 30% of deaths from heart disease are harrowing, but it doesn’t explain the causation. Gessen explores the different, more physiological explanations for this statistic, but ultimately makes the point that numbers cannot tell us the full story, as comparative approaches with other countries’ death statistics simply do not add up. In this scenario, Ian Shapiro’s concept of problem-oriented research is well highlighted. Ultimately, it is the cultural, institution, and historical instruments of explanation that allow us to grasp a sense of why the Russians are dying at such alarming rates. Gessen mentions that one woman says that “the difference between current poverty and poverty in the postwar era is that ‘now there are rich folks'”. These personal accounts are paradoxically specific and representative of the Russian experience and the lack of hope that has resulted due to their tragic historical plight. In a way, it seems that we can approach a “truth”, but this “truth” does not lie beyond the grasp of social science. Social science is about attempting to harmonize the qualitative and the quantitative. Gessen’s piece attempts to explain a puzzle and offers us an elegant and poetic explanation. It is not clear to me that such an explanation is objectively less verifiable or valid than a traditional scientific one. Her piece attempts to encompass a population-wide sentiment that not even the Russians can fully understand. Any effort to confront a question of this magnitude with such care is helpful and leads us in the right direction.

Masha Gessen’s “The Dying Russians” is an interesting article that demonstrates the interdisciplinary quality of political science. On one hand, hard data is vital in creating any theory. The article cites the evidence of low birth rates and high death rates in Russia over the last century, specifically the modern fertility rate of 1.61 and the 27 million people lost between 1941 and 1946. While the death rate might have seemed to correlate with a lack of economic progress in the era following the demise of the USSR, it has continued to increase through the present, despite the surge of capitalism and relative economic success. In order to make sense of these patterns, one must venture into the humanities to try to find causality. It is not enough to simply site the relationship between heavy drinking and the staggering amount of cardiovascular disease. One must try to decipher the Russian population’s desire to drink so heavily. Gessen mentions both mental illness and the lack of “hope” among people. Aside from possible statics of mental illness, this causality between hope and death cannot adequately be described by hard science. It involves exploring the private transcript of the population that cannot be assessed accurately using state propaganda or the birth and death rate statistics, essentially the public transcript of modern Russia. Further, these trends will undoubtedly continue if they remained unquestioned by the people. If such widespread death is half-heartedly accepted, there will remain no impetus for change on a national scale. Overall, this issue can only be understood through a mixture of the hard sciences and humanities.

In her article, “The Dying Russians,” Masha Gessen juxtaposes the research techniques of two professionals eager to identify the source of the heightened death rate in Russia. As others have said, and as I concur, this piece aligns nicely with Ziblatt’s article on the Middle Range Theory. Parsons represents what Zilbatt refers to as a hedgehog, as she was on the quest “for a single grand synthesis of politics,” in her goal to explore the cultural context of the Russian mortality crisis. Her scope of study manages to be simultaneously too broad and too narrow. To study the “cultural context” as a whole is both unrealistic and almost unachievable given Parson’s limited cultural context. She lives in the very context that she attempts to study, and because of this, she is blind to certain truths about Russian culture. Gessen makes this clear when she writes, “Parsons and her subjects, whom she quotes at length, seem to have an acute understanding of the first two forces shaping Soviet society but are almost completely blind to the last.” Conversely, Nicholas Eberstadt works inductively which allows him to identify the more gradual changes that have been underway well before 1991. Though his methodology is more fox-like, and thus (as said by Ziblatt) becomes superior, I think that he is missing a key part of study. A lot of students have expressed a distrust in Parsons interviewing of Russian middle-aged citizens, I think that it adds a crucial element to this investigation. You cannot come to a conclusion about a culture without what Geertz describes as a “thick description.” And in order to gain a thick description one has to immerse themselves in that culture, and realize their own bias as an analysis. I feel that Eberstadt does not do enough to immerse himself in this culture, and seems to miss key interactions with the very people who live in this context. But in conclusion, I would say that it is hard to know if there is a truth that lies beyond the grasp of social or even medical science. I say this because it is hard to prove something to the point where it can never be disproven, and it is easy to say that something is law and have it later uncovered. This does not meant that we should stop trying, because I think that parts of the objective truth are being uncovered everyday.