In this piece, Gessen combines the more cultural and institutional approach of Parsons and the more scientific and historical approach of Eberstadt. Parsons attempts to provide what Geertz called a “thick description” by living in Russia and interviewing people who lived through the 1990s. She is effective in shaping a detailed narrative of the time period from her interviews but I think she could have been more effective by including people of various age groups. She only interviews people who were middle-aged in the early 1990s and perhaps the younger generation would have a different and useful perspective. As Eberstadt point outs, it is actually Russia’s young that are facing the effects of depopulation. Parsons also uses the changing political and economic institutions in Russia to explain this phenomenon. Eberstadt is more scientific and historical in that his study is data-driven and he looks at the entire twentieth century instead of the just the 90s. He uses demographic data like birth and death rates to look at Russia’s decades-long problem. He also tries to find a cause through data. Data shows that deaths from cardiovascular diseases and external injuries are much higher in Russia than in other countries of comparable development. However, these don’t seem to result from diet, pollution, or drinking. So Gessen concludes that the problem is in mental health. Although her conclusion is hardly convincing, I don’t think the truth is unreachable. I think we should utilize both cultural and scientific approaches as Gessen has done and keep on going. For me, the next step would be to look at data regarding mental health in Russia.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
I agree with your criticism of Parsons’ interview subjects. While the middle-aged people of the period are certainly a great source to learn more about the psyche of the people at the time, she certainly could have broadened her scope a little bit more, and put some attention towards the younger generations. I also agree with your assessment that the truth is not unreachable. While Gessen’s essay comes to a somewhat poetic conclusion- that Russians are dying of a “broken heart”- it is also a dissatisfying one. Gessen never really pinpoints a specific cause or causes that can be attributed to the demographic decline. I think in order to come to a conclusion, both the cultural and scientific approaches must be combined.
I’m not quite sure if I agree with your statement that the younger generation would be useful in solving the problem at hand. Gessen claims the individuals interviewed by Parsons are not as useful as one might think as their memories of survival have been tainted by the social and economic upheaval that followed. The young endured this disorder as well, having perhaps been born in it. Yes, it is important to understand all perspectives, but I think both the younger and older generations need to be taken into account. This way the thick description shows a progression of time, displaying how perspectives can change based on context. All in all, though, I agree with your conclusion that both the strictly scientific approach and the approach of social science must be combined. This provides us with a more holistic conclusion.