Lerner’s account is reminiscent of Gessen’s piece in the way it complicates the idea of Positivism and the scientific quality of political science. While I do believe that empirical data is necessary for a complete picture of an issue, it seems the Lerner’s type of journalism—in its hyper-specificity and qualitative nature— allows us an understanding of Balgat that empirical data lacks. Ultimately, political science comes down to the interaction of human beings and the way in which their decisions affect the larger scheme of their society. Lerner’s metaphorization of the grocer and the chief allows us to characterize some of the opposing attitudes that existed in Balgat before modernization. This is especially highlighted in the way these men interpreted movies. For the chief they acted as a “moral prophylactic”, whereas for the grocer they were “an avenue to the wider world of his dreams”.  This passage illustrates the shortcomings of the “modern myth”, as modernity does not necessarily lead to a unity of opinion. It seems, in fact, that modernity (or the possibility of it) creates a stage for more dissent. The grocer was the agent of modernity and was ultimately criticized because of it. Journalistic pieces like Lerner’s allow us to understand the plight of specific people that lived through modernization. It remind us that behind the facts and figures, the people of Balgat are beings with moral worth that are individually affected by the political and social forces around them. This piece makes the reader feel something. Despite the fact that this piece is highly opinionated, it seems that the insight it provides outweighs the the author’s personal stakes.