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.