Masha Gessen provides a relatively lengthy discussion in order to analyze Russia’s mortality phenomenon. She does so through various forms of explanation: cultural, institutional, and historical. By discussing Michelle Parsons’ theory on Russia’s death rates, Gessen calls upon Russia’s history. However, the historical context is insufficient to answer the question. Nonetheless, Gessen utilizes this instrument of explanation in conjunction with Russia’s cultural context to get to her conclusion. Interestingly, despite Eberstadt’s attempt to systematically search for an answer to Russia’s epidemic, Gessen’s conclusion is far from scientific. Russians dying from “a broken heart” cannot be proven. But there’s a slight draw to it. We are creatures who search for answers, even when answers cannot be fully achieved. As a writer, I think Gessen is victim to this flaw. It’s hard to write about a topic that doesn’t seem to have a clear outline to it. No one has been able to find the reason as to why Russians are dying so quickly and so young. But she keeps encountering it and it lies heavily on her emotions. Her scope is extremely limited. There is no way for her to come to a conclusion in a matter of one article piece. More research has to be done–moreover, more diverse research should be taken into account. There is no way to acquire the truth with work that is so limited. I think it’s possible for social scientists to find truth in their work, but it must be work that is fully researched, explained, and analyzed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Masha Gessen provides a relatively lengthy discussion in order to analyze Russia’s mortality phenomenon. She does so through various forms of explanation: cultural, institutional, and historical. By discussing Michelle Parsons’ theory on Russia’s death rates, Gessen calls upon Russia’s history. … Continue reading