Lerner’s argument in 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?

Masha Gessen’s article The Dying Russians seeks to answer a lofty question of why the mortality rate of young people in Russia has been so exponentially high following the fall of the Soviet Union. Gessen attempts to use historical data of other Russian eras with high mortality rates, using them as examples to rule out their causes as the cause for this particular era. Gessen’s argument fails in that by trying to provide so many different types of analysis (cultural, historical and empirical) she loses the one shining moment of her argument that could have been fully fleshed out into a more satisfying answer than “dying of broken hearts (7).” Bringing in Michelle Parson’s book “Dying Unneeded” seems to be the shining moment of this argument, the place where she could make a somewhat valid conclusion is Gessen were to analyze and contextualize this phenomenon further. By generalizing her argument, Gessen loses this close focus on what could actually provide an answer to her question.

However, there are still noticeable flaws in Parsons’ analysis as well. As Gessen’s audience we are not given any validity of Parson’s book nor the people she interviewed, and therefore it reduces the validity of Gessen’s overall argument, if she were to make one based off Parsons, claims. Moreover as pointed out in a previous post, Parsons seems to be looking at the middle-age range of Russians where Gessen is looking at younger Russians. Overall this argument is muddled and overlapping, providing historical and cultural analysis that draw the reader away from the initial question at hand and providing a catchy yet unrealistic answer to a very real Russian problem.

Orwell’s Shooting An Elephant represents an interesting display of the power dynamic between the British Imperialists and the Burmese population they are oppressing. While Orwell attempts to create a sympathetic look on the white man oppressed by his own system and tries to discover some type of power that lies with the Burmese people, his story fails to recognize the violence and systemic race politics that clearly keep any power from the larger oppressed majority.

A quote from the story, “And my who life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at (3),” shows the starkly ironic contrast between the fears of the Burmese people and the white officer. The Burmese are subjected to violence, regardless of failing to perform their social roles, and they have no choice in the matter. The lives of these people are not valued in this system, and only at the end of the story does Orwell acknowledge this, “…because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie (4).” Orwell’s characters inability to reconcile his own power dynamic in contrast to the one he perceives in the elephant situation elucidates his lack of understanding of the way his race and position really affect the performances of those around him. He seems absurdly concerned about his public image when he could easily use his own power along with the incredible power of the system he works in to reinstate his place above the Burmese.