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.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
I also agree that a qualitative statement is still valid in the search for truth. Perhaps it is difficult to say with certainty whether Kruschev and Gorbachev’s eras were ones more filled with hope, however I think there are moments in history when it is actually valuable and useful to generalize. No one thought the Soviet Union would collapse until it did. I think the method of mass interviewing is a valuable one because it allows the researcher entry into the psychology of the Russian populace. Ultimately, the author’s conclusion is poetic, but perhaps this is just as valid as a more quantitative conclusion. There are phenomena that cannot be boiled down to the numbers and I think this is something we should take into consideration when trying to solve puzzles like this.
I think you bring up an interesting point. Since the hard sciences and social sciences are inherently different, it is hard to quantify studies from each realm of the sciences in the same way. However, as you said, that does not mean we must disregard conclusions from people like Gessen as false. Instead, I think it means that we are allowed to look at conclusions like these with a more critical eye. Often criticisms made in the hard sciences are seen as facts and that is it. However, since the social sciences are more interpretive, it is important to recognize that political scientists not only have the ability to question and analyze conclusions but also have the duty to do so.