This is the second time I’ve read “The Dying Russians” for a class at Williams. The first time was last semester in a course on Russian politics. While I didn’t think it was perfect, I was overall convinced by her argument. However, on this reading, I cannot say the same. When examining her methodology, it becomes difficult to defend any of her conclusions. She attempts to use a historical approach to strengthen her cultural explanation for the crisis. While this would normally be a sound strategy, she takes a lot of liberalities in her analysis of the historical evidence. For example, she writes, “Yes, Russians have lived through severe economic upheaval, but there are is no indication that economic shock in a modern society leads quickly, or at all, to increased mortality – the Great Depression, for example, did not.” This quote seems to completely discount the utter chaos Russia underwent after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Earlier in the article, she does mention the horrors of shock therapy. However, she downplays the fact that many Russians completely lost their health care benefits as their country transitioned from communism to capitalism. In addition, the Russian state suffered a complete breakdown as citizens were forced to rely on organized crime syndicates for protection, rather than the police. This led to a massive increase in the murder rate. I think Gessen is onto something with her cultural explanation for Russian birthrates but her article is weakened by her selective reading of Russian history. Scientific studies must present all evidence.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
Your article really touched me, I’m so thankful for it. Explore Passing CC Score, which is packed with valuable content, freely available to help you.
Amazing content, I’m on board, liking it now. The Reliable CRISC test questions helped me climb the career ladder and earn a raise. Now, I’m sharing it for free with all of you. Wishing you success!
Thank you for your brilliant article, it’s truly mind-blowing! Take advantage of Databricks-Certified-Professional-Data-Engineer reliable braindumps free, full of valuable content, available for free.
You offer a very interesting critique of Gessen’s argument. I think the fact that Gessen uses both historical and cultural lenses simultaneously is important to parse. I think that you make a good point that comparing the Russian economic upheaval with the Great Depression in the United States is not a fair analysis. Not only were the events different, but comparing a capitalist downturn in American society with a complete economic reconstruction in the Russian society is, as we said in class, comparing apples and oranges. One would have to break down the cultural dissimilarities between the United States and Russia completely to even begin to compare the historical events. I think by using cultural and historical analyses without addressing each separately weakens Gessen’s argument.
I agree that Gessen seems to cherry-pick the facts she uses to present her claim. She does indeed seem to ignore certain aspects of Russian history, if not totally negate them.
Interestingly, she also seems to alternate her idea of sufficient evidence throughout the paper. For example, in the quote you provide, Gessen says that because there is no established link between economic upheaval and an increase in mortality rates the latter cannot be the cause of the former in Russia’s case. However, she then totally contradicts this when sharing her final conclusion, as she claims that Russians are dying from a loss of hope ( a dubious claim to start out with ) despite little evidence actually suggesting there is a link. It is this kind of change in position that harms the general credibility of her paper.