The conclusion to Gessen’s article leaves me unsatisfied. To me, the idea that hopelessness is the cause for so much death, seems incomplete and untestable. The unavoidable flaw to the study lays in the fact that the subjects are all dead. Nonetheless, the piece highlights the importance of both qualitative and quantitative research to dig deep into the problem in Russia. Cultural research, institutional research, and historical context all play a critical role in untangling the anthropological question at hand—yet the final conclusion still feels shaky. The article reveals that in social science there is no ultimate truth; we can only approach truth and come short. There will always be alternative arguments, and we need multiple view points to help piece together a whole. So yes, there is a “truth” that lies beyond the grasp of social science. We should absolutely not stop striving for it.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
While I agree that we may not be able to find an ultimate truth in political science and that this truth is unsatisfactory. I do disagree with the idea that we cannot find an accepted truth that satisfies the question. While it may not be entirely complete, it does not mean that consensus cannot be generally reached and those general theories cannot arise. Therefore I think using language like comes short or that truth is beyond the grasp of social science becomes problematic and delegitimizes a field that is very capable of making scientific and “truthful” conclusions.
I agree that Gessen’s conclusion is unsatisfactory. Despite using multiple sources of information (Parsons and Eberstaht) that likewise use different methods of searching for truth (i.e. deductive and inductive reasoning), neither scientist comes to a stable answer. I disagree, however, that the ultimate conclusion to be made from the lack of truth, is that no definite truth can ever be determined in the social sciences. Perhaps at this moment in time and understanding such truth is impossible to attain, and yet, by the very nature of science, humanity strives to understand more patterns and come to more truths. If we conclude, therefore, that this truth is unattainable we are discounting all previous truths found as well as limiting ourselves through a perception that truth just is not possible in some cases. It is far more optimistic and more similar to human nature- as exhibited by the history of science and the search for truth-to simply acknowledge our lack of knowledge of all the variables and constraints of political and social situations, as exemplified by Gessens’ question of Russian mortality. In this way, Gessens conclusion can be seen as reasonable given the current circumstances, and her lack of a truthful and distinct answer should not be discounted as a valid result.
While I agree with most of your assertions–especially that we should continue to strive for the unattainable truth–I think you miss the point of Gessen’s conclusion. Of course hopelessness as a cause of death is completely untestable and falls short of the real truth, but that’s the point. In this, I think Gessen illustrates why we must continue striving for the truth–because our current conclusions are so inadequate and not even close to anything that can be scientifically confirmed as true. In an ironic twist, this incompletion is the best representation of the human relationship with knowledge. While I agree it is frustrating and unsatisfying at first, once you look at it through a lens beyond “Dying Russians,” it begins to make more sense.