I find Masha Gessen’s claim in “The Dying Russians” that broken hearts were the cause of dying in Russia provocative but not scientific and therefore ultimately not compelling. Her story about her time in Russia which she begins the piece with is captivating. It probably does capture certain aspects of the problems that effect Russia. However, it is just anecdotal. Gessen is unable to recognize or chooses not to acknowledge the limitations of anecdotal evidence and that is ultimately the reason why her argument fails. She chooses to fit the data to reflect her initial explanation of her experience rather than be open to amending or changing her explanation entirely. This is an example of the “method-driven” political science that Shapiro talks about. Her methodology is also very flawed.  She focuses on “[ticking] off a list of culprits” instead of proving her own claim. She argues that if it’s not infectious disease, not diet, not the environment, not alcohol, not a typical cause then it must be a broken heart. Eliminating other popular explanations is never enough evidence itself to prove your claim. She needed to provide evidence for her explanation, and she does not do so, nor does she provide a framework for studying what she means by “broken hearts” (i.e. tangible indicators). Broken hearts are also less causal factors of death then correlated symptoms of the same problem. It is as much the cause of death as per capita cheese consumption is the cause of people who die by becoming tangled in their bedsheets.

In Shooting an Elephant, Orwell asserts that the system of imperialism has the power. Orwell says referring to the role of the colonizers, “For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the ‘natives’, and so in every crisis he has got to do what the ‘natives’ expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.” Orwell attributes his actions to “the condition of his rule”, demonstrating that he is bound by structure, just like the Burmese. He also presents in this quote the argument that performance shapes attitudes (i.e. the mind and the body become blurred). These arguments are very similar to Havel. Also like Havel, Orwell believes that the system is absolute. He presents his decision to shoot the elephant as the only option, because deviating from the role of the “sahib” would undermine the system.

Orwell contradicts this argument at the beginning of the essay. In the first paragraph, he describes the small actions of the Burmese, in the streets and on the football field, which served to demonstrate their hatred towards Europeans. These small acts of defiance are not performative of the roles of the Burmese in this system and therefore would not be allowed to exist if in fact the system was absolute. Orwell therefore also had a choice to not shoot the elephant. He falsely attributes his insecurities, of “looking a fool”, to his powerlessness under the system of imperialism.

While I agree with Gatto’s argument about the role that the modern education system serves in the reproduction and repression of the citizenry, his solution to the problem, self-educating children, fails to addresses the wider influence on society that our education system has. Education teaches people what to value and what not to value. Gatto himself points this out when breaking down the six functions. He writes, “Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes.” Schools label the “unfit”, but more importantly they socialize people to also unconsciously label the “unfit.” The same process, informed by the obedience and conformity that are taught in school, occurs in other institutions. Gatto’s example from his experience in the New York Public School System demonstrates this. His efforts to work outside of the norms of the classroom led to his eventual firing. Deviance is always met with sanctions. The unconventional thought that Gatto strives for would not be valued in society. It would be dismissed and sometimes would be actively repressed. The solution to the problem of the modern education system therefore cannot be circumvented just by individual action. Reforming the education system to value the unconventional would be the only way to promote the kind of education that Gatto strives for. However, perhaps it is not possible to reform, because education systems were not built to manage citizens, not educate them.