The Grocer and the Chief’s presence in a 1955 issue of Harper’s magazine is an interesting example of how traditional journalism can supplement social science (in this case, surveys) in capturing idiosyncratic realities and the larger trends they potentially represent. The narrative style is deeply immersive, focusing on the physical details of Lerner’s journey and interviews (complete with illustration), and grounds its narration firmly in the lived experiences of the individuals the journalist interacts with, even as the article is framed in such a way as to illuminate a broader historical transformation. The conflict between tradition and modernity is complicated by the relationship each subject has to the fluid history in which they are living, and certain conventions of bitter intergenerational conflict are not followed because the human beings being interviewed are fleshed out in ways that go beyond broad-stroke archetypes. That complexity doesn’t dilute the implications for the larger cultural context so much as clarify and enhance it; the modernization of the Turkish state is a not a discretely defined process that will provoke a universal reaction, but a set of evolving circumstances based on dynamic systems of politics that has a unique and nuanced set of effects on both those individuals who represent traditional power structures and those whose professions are harbingers of an emergent cultural status quo. That this piece of long-form journalism, itself responding to a data-driven study, is able to illuminate the intersections of the quantitatively different but fundamentally co-dependent time scales of human life and political history is a testament to the effectiveness of multidisciplinary works that blend academic and popular media to try to better understand the world.
I agree with you both, Keith and Cecelia, that Lerner’s narrative style is incredibly descriptive and effective at depicting the cultural realities found in this small Turkish town. Additionally, I think Keith is right on point: what authority does Lerner have to speculate on the Grocer’s “potential hopes and aspirations”, or the products of his heart and mind? Lerner can observe and record the actions of the grocer all he wants, but he lacks the credibility to, through the use of his filter, comment on the Grocer’s hopes and dreams. However, is this a result of Lerner’s incompetence, or is this the reality of the private self? In other words, is there anybody, besides the grocer himself, that has the authority or capability to determine and describe what goes on in the Grocer’s heart/mind?
I agree with your points on the effectiveness of Lerner’s narrative style in depicting the social realities of Balgat to an illuminating end – the better understanding of the modernization process in Turkey. I wonder, though, if there’s any danger in giving life to the one member of the villiage he read about in Tosun’s study but never got to meet: the Grocer. When he puts the lives and experiences of the citizens he’s met on the page, that’s a result of what he has observed; but when he does it to the Grocer, speculates on his potential hopes and aspirations, he is working off of a description filtered through both his own consciousness and the hostile one of Tosun. I’m unsure if that betrays the spirit of description – is Lerner qualified to speculate?