Daniel Lerner’s “The Grocer and the Chief” equates History with change. Before the election of 1950, the village of Balgat is essentially static. People have set, comfortable social positions and traditional values govern the way they live their lives. The state of society is not called into question, despite the sharp discrepancy in technological development between the village and the city of Ankara, not far away. The Chief of the village is a prime example of Balgat’s “pre-Historic” way of life. He is comfortable with maintaining the status quo. Perhaps the first Historical figure in Balgat’s narrative is the grocer, who alters the social equilibrium by openly stating his desire to live with more material wealth and technology, and seeking to belong to a society that mirrors American capitalism. Even though the grocer’s views are frowned upon by his fellow villagers, they serve as a precursor to the changes to come. Four years later, the grocer’s vision is viewed through a more “modern” historical lens. “He was the cleverest of us all…he was a prophet.” In the case of Balgat, change leads to the development of history, which ultimately shapes the concept of modernity. Modernity is exemplified through material wealth and more social mobility. Meanwhile, Balgat is integrated into the city of Ankara, and citizens lose many of their traditional values and economic independence. Overall, the anomaly of the grocer in Balgat foreshadows the rapid social and economic change that will shape the modern historical narrative of the small Turkish village.

Lerner’s account is reminiscent of Gessen’s piece in the way it complicates the idea of Positivism and the scientific quality of political science. While I do believe that empirical data is necessary for a complete picture of an issue, it seems the Lerner’s type of journalism—in its hyper-specificity and qualitative nature— allows us an understanding of Balgat that empirical data lacks. Ultimately, political science comes down to the interaction of human beings and the way in which their decisions affect the larger scheme of their society. Lerner’s metaphorization of the grocer and the chief allows us to characterize some of the opposing attitudes that existed in Balgat before modernization. This is especially highlighted in the way these men interpreted movies. For the chief they acted as a “moral prophylactic”, whereas for the grocer they were “an avenue to the wider world of his dreams”.  This passage illustrates the shortcomings of the “modern myth”, as modernity does not necessarily lead to a unity of opinion. It seems, in fact, that modernity (or the possibility of it) creates a stage for more dissent. The grocer was the agent of modernity and was ultimately criticized because of it. Journalistic pieces like Lerner’s allow us to understand the plight of specific people that lived through modernization. It remind us that behind the facts and figures, the people of Balgat are beings with moral worth that are individually affected by the political and social forces around them. This piece makes the reader feel something. Despite the fact that this piece is highly opinionated, it seems that the insight it provides outweighs the the author’s personal stakes.

Lerner has wholeheartedly bought into what Gray calls the “modern myth”. To him, before the rise of the Demokrat party, the introduction of shops and neckties, Balgat was out of sync with the universe. To steal a metaphor, modernity is a train that’s leaving the station, but luckily the villagers just managed to board on time, with the help of the Grocer, “the cleverest of us all”. This is made eminently clear when Lerner writes, “the irony of the route by which Balgat had entered History stayed with me”. History with a capital H, that irrepressible force that pushes everyone and everything towards one endpoint, or at least that’s how it’s presented in the religion of modernity. Before the arrival of the neckties, the people of Belgat refused to “get out of their holes”, but now there are radios and shops, and everyone has obediently gotten their tickets stamped and boarded the train.

To harken back to last weeks’ topic, on social sciences and the like, I have the same problem with Lerner as I had with Gessen. Its not hard to understand why social science has a bad rap when writers like these wear their biases and ideologies on their sleeves. You have absolutely no doubt what Lerner’s opinion is of these people. The Grocer was a prophet who knew the Word, and the rest of them were ignorant and needed to be shown the light. Yes, he has respect for the Chief, but in the same way Rousseau respected the noble savage.

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.