In her article, “The Dying Russians,” Masha Gessen juxtaposes the research techniques of two professionals eager to identify the source of the heightened death rate in Russia. As others have said, and as I concur, this piece aligns nicely with Ziblatt’s article on the Middle Range Theory. Parsons represents what Zilbatt refers to as a hedgehog, as she was on the quest “for a single grand synthesis of politics,” in her goal to explore the cultural context of the Russian mortality crisis. Her scope of study manages to be simultaneously too broad and too narrow. To study the “cultural context” as a whole is both unrealistic and almost unachievable given Parson’s limited cultural context. She lives in the very context that she attempts to study, and because of this, she is blind to certain truths about Russian culture. Gessen makes this clear when she writes, “Parsons and her subjects, whom she quotes at length, seem to have an acute understanding of the first two forces shaping Soviet society but are almost completely blind to the last.” Conversely, Nicholas Eberstadt works inductively which allows him to identify the more gradual changes that have been underway well before 1991. Though his methodology is more fox-like, and thus (as said by Ziblatt) becomes superior, I think that he is missing a key part of study. A lot of students have expressed a distrust in Parsons interviewing of Russian middle-aged citizens, I think that it adds a crucial element to this investigation. You cannot come to a conclusion about a culture without what Geertz describes as a “thick description.” And in order to gain a thick description one has to immerse themselves in that culture, and realize their own bias as an analysis. I feel that Eberstadt does not do enough to immerse himself in this culture, and seems to miss key interactions with the very people who live in this context. But in conclusion, I would say that it is hard to know if there is a truth that lies beyond the grasp of social or even medical science. I say this because it is hard to prove something to the point where it can never be disproven, and it is easy to say that something is law and have it later uncovered. This does not meant that we should stop trying, because I think that parts of the objective truth are being uncovered everyday.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
I think that you make a lot of good points, especially in the value of the Middle Range theory which encompasses many of the useful interdisciplinary aspects of political science. I also find your argument, that it may be nearly impossible to find truths in some areas, very compelling. Research is often extremely difficult to both gather and analyze, especially in deciphering a correlation between the Russian rate of death and hopelessness. “The study has an obvious structural handicap: her subjects are the survivors, not the victims, of the mortality crisis (Gessen).” In this case, it is far too late to interview the subjects most germane to the issue at hand, those who would have given the researchers a better idea of the private transcript. Overall, while researchers should strive to explain phenomena using the Middle Range Theory, they must be willing to avoid definitively explaining the unexplainable.
I agree that both modes of analysis have value. I don’t know if I agree with the idea that either Parsons or Eberstadt “missed” something, though. Both demographic analysis and participant interviews are valid, important ways of conducting research, but neither claim to be the ultimate method of analyzing changes in a population. I think it’s best if both methods remain rather limited in their scope during their examination of the culture then are combined into a broader analysis.