Lerner’s argument inĀ The Grocer and the Chief relies primarily on the focus of industrialization into the dominantly agricultural community of Balgat. Lerner’s idea of modernization relies on a western viewpoint of progress as the acquisition of bigger and better technologies and places. Where I disagree with Lerner is in his heroic tale of the Grocer when the Chief seems to take a backseat to the thoughts of the Grocer. It must be noted that the Grocer, while having these ideas of what modernization could be for the Balgati, was not there (as far as we know) for the actual modernization of Balgat. And his ideas of what modernity can be is flipped on its head following the election. The road to Ankara is built, but to transport factory workers away from their lives in Balgat for 8 hours a day. The farming community is essentially gone due to competition with the factory wages and the grocer’s are not using local products. The chief’s family seems to be the most central people to the community of Balgat, with him still functioning in the traditional sense as a chief and his sons owning shops in the town. This reading made me ponder if the modernization of Balgat did anything to really enrich the Balgati or if it simply provided excess and new “shiny things” to fill the problems of the Balgati rather than solve them?
I think what needs to be asked here is what is the goal of modernization, because undeniably the modernization of Balgat Increased the standard of living in an objective sense for its inhabitants. Being able to wear store bought shoes instead of only sandals or going barefoot, or being able to refrigerate food are objective increases in the living standard. But then the question becomes did it increase the happiness of the villagers? The answer to this, in the long run is undoubtably no, now that the villagers are thrust into the throws of the cycle of consumerism and have joined the proletariat class.