While it is interesting to examine death rates through a social/psychological/historical lens, Gessen runs into fairly predictable dead ends. Historical facts are important, however it appears that Gessen overlooks the importance of how the Russian people view their history as well as their current society. With Gaventa and Scott, we have established that as an outside observer, it is important not to assume that anyone views their situation as owe view it, regardless of how clearly we feel we’ve analyzed it. Interviewing the wrong people might also have played a role here. Clearly, interviewees who are not of the appropriate age or who are not among those reporting to experience exceptionally low “hope levels” would not be able to provide accurate insight into the social causes, as they would not be operating with the same private transcript. Finally, the psychological correlation that Gessen proposes seems somewhat misplaced. A correlation based on odd statistics seems to be the least direct way to approach the problem. Not only is a correlation untrustworthy, but statistics, especially concerning something like “hope,” are also a questionable approach to a phenomenon that is clearly complex, especially when the statistics represent a large variety of people. Furthermore, this seems impersonal in that it doesn’t deal with the individuals’ conceptions of hope. Overall, it seems as though Gessen would do well to look to anthropology’s more immersive approach. While she seems to attempt a Middle-Range approach, she misses the importance of depth in her three approaches. Rather than search further socially, it seems as though Gessen would rather search for the answer elsewhere. While it is essential to conducting research that one is searching for something, it seems that the lesson here is that searching means nothing without adequate depth and constant re-evaluation.

The article “The Dying Russians” presents the studies done surrounding the increasing death rates and depopulation of Russia over the past few decades. One study was done by Michelle Parsons, an anthropologist. It largely focuses on the cultural influences that could have led to this “problem.” Much of her research and conclusion, while based on cultural observances, fails to be based on facts that focus on the gradual and smaller changes that occurred in Russia that led to its depopulation. This leads to her study being less accurate because instead of focusing on the many little things that have led to this problem in Russia, she only focuses on general trends. As we have learned, the answers are usually found in the smaller details rather than the larger overviews. Parsons’s methods and conclusions are then contrasted with Nicholas Eberstadt’s methods and conclusions. Through this contrast, it is easy to see why a focused study is important. By looking at many little facts, researchers are able to gain a more accurate picture of what was happening during the time period they were studying and why it was happening. His study was extensive, analyzing not only what the causes could be, but also what the causes could not be. While not a perfect study, this study is much more reliable and believable. It behaves more like the common scientific studies we know. We will never be able to know for sure what the definite reasons for Russia’s depopulation are; however, in a way, that is the beauty of political science. Some say that there should be no distinction made between sciences (i.e. social sciences, natural sciences). However, I think that this article shows exactly why those distinctions are necessary. The different sciences are inherently different. That statement does not mean that one is necessarily better or more accurate than another, but just that they are different and should not be treated as entities that are one in the same.

Gessen’s investigation into the high mortality rates in Russia represents a symbolic struggle for truth which may be beyond the grasp of social or physical sciences. Gessen clearly uses ‘empirically’ valid approaches to solve this underlying question, to find the greater answer to the stories of individual events she had been writing about for years. First is Parson’s extensive set of interviews that aim to get past the public mask and to the private one, which, as she points out, is inherently flawed as the subjects are naturally the survivors, not the victims. Beyond this, even if Parson was hypothetically able to interview victims, a person outside this private mask will never know if the subjects account actually represents the private mask or is simply a false layer of the public one. Second is Eberstadt’s in depth approach of a range of demographics. This clearly points to another issue; again, these are simply observations and numbers, upon which an analytical framework based in hindsight is used to find causation. But the “why?” in social science cannot be based on general statistics, as the field is innately made up of individuals with personal private masks and (perhaps) differing motivations for action. Thus, any cultural, institutional or historic methodology to understand the grand truth, by definition, approaches it asymptotically, serving only as the most current and closest estimation of what is actually occurring.

I’m generally of the opinion that as long as social science is carried out with rigorous scientific methodology, it is no less valid than that of a “hard science”, such as the sort Eberstadt is employing. Smug positivist STEM majors sneer at social science, forgetting that their idols once revered such illustrious “sciences” as phrenology, astrology, and alchemy. That said, I still have a problem with Parson’s research in that it seems quite haphazard. For example, if young people are dying the most, why interview people who were middle aged during the 90’s, the focal point of the crisis? That sort of research is bad whether it’s anthropology or physics.

However, Masha Gessen’s explanation is the worst of the three. She tries to combine historical, political, and sociological analysis in order to come to the conclusion that Russians are dying of broken hearts, but her analyses of all three are flawed. Correctly or not, Russians today largely have a positive view of both the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin, yet Gessen writes that they made, and continue to make, Russians feel hopeless and worthless. If totalitarianism is to blame, why does China not have the same situation? Under Mao’s totalitarian system there were famines, large losses of life, high amounts of poverty and social upheaval. Where is the record breaking death rate?

I don’t believe this is a situation where the truth is outside the scope of the scientific method. Perhaps outside the domain of the “hard” sciences, but not of the social sciences. But if researchers approach the problem with ingrained ideological leanings the way Gessen does, I don’t think it’ll ever be solved.

It is obvious that out of the two researchers compared by Masha Gessen in “The Dying Russians” Eberstadt uses a more “scientific” approach to understand the high mortality rates. It is noted that Eberstadt “systematically goes down the list of usual suspects” and “is interested in the larger phenomenon of depopulation, including falling birth rates as well as rising death rates.” This is juxtaposed with Parsons who conducted “a series of long unstructured interviews with Muscovites” more than 10 years after the population decline of the early 1990s. The initial obstacle faced by Parsons is mentioned in the reading by Scott, citizens mask their private thoughts and it takes a tremendous amount of effort and time to break down the barriers and reveal the truth. It is impossible to say if the information Parsons received in those interviews were the true feelings and rationals of the subjects interviewed. The larger cultural obstacle facing Parsons, Eberstadt, and Gessen is the Russian culture of deceiving outsiders. Neglasnot, the distrust of foreigners, was the way of thinking in Russia from the time of the tsars through Gorbachev’s rule, when he implemented his Glasnost policy in 1986. Despite Russia becoming seemingly transparent in thee late 1980s, this progress was destroyed by the immense corruption and government secrecy under presidents Yeltsin and Putin. Without being an integral part of this system, there is no way that an anthropologist or journalist will be able to hunt down the facts and find the true source of the high mortality rate. Organized crime is the backbone of Russian elites, and there have been many documented cases of journalists being targeted and killed in Russia, so the cultural aspects of Russian society prevent even the most “scientific” approaches from succeeding. This case serves to show the inherent difficulties associated with social science, namely cultural barriers and unpredicatable human behavior.

Masha Gessen’s explanation for the “dying Russian” puzzle is not scientific in the traditional sense of the word. She presents no quantitative data to back up her conclusion that Russians are dying from lack of hope. She presents no data on hope because the data don’t exist. Eberstadt’s and Parson’s studies approach science when they analyze the statistical relationship between mortality rates and various factors (drinking, infectious disease, economic prosperity, etc.). Gessen’s essay turns more theoretical and qualitative when she concludes that hope is the culprit for Russia’s low life expectancy. The idea of hope is arbitrary and likely impossible to quantify. Gessen’s explanation hinges on the subjective classification of periods as hopeful or hopeless. Who says that the Khrushchev and Gorbachev led Russians through periods of greater hope? In science, even in political science, we can’t know why lies within the metaphorical black box with any certainty. Yet, just because a study isn’t strictly scientific doesn’t mean that we should disregard it. Gessen’s conclusion is still useful for what it is: a qualitative answer to a complex and possibly unsolvable puzzle.