I found Gessen’s article extremely compelling, and I think it teaches us that the sciences cannot tell us the entire story. Statistics and data can state that there is a mortality problem in Russia and that people are dying sooner than in similar post-Communist countries (e.g. Hungary, Ukraine, and Czech Republic). But it is much more difficult to explain why this is happening. Gessen proves this point, explaining that the usual suspects of smoking, alcoholism, and health care are bigger problems in countries with higher life expectancies. Instead we have to look at the cultural and historical factors that contributed to the fluctuation of birth and death rates. And I think Gessen explores these potential problems effectively.
In many ways, Russia’s history is perfect for exploring this type of problem. Its political history is rich with change and turmoil, leading to a multitude of factors that could cause a low birth and high death rate. These historical changes are all explained well, and the cultural repercussions seem especially convincing. But I think Gessen missed a key potential problem in her work. Is it not possible that the combination of all the factors she listed led and currently leads to the “Russian mortality crisis?” Perhaps substance abuse, a volatile political climate, and a sharp economic divide all contribute equally to the problem. Similar post-Soviet countries may not have this same cornucopia of issues, dodging them of a “mortality crisis.” This would explain why Russia is such an exception. Ultimately, I think that the conclusion that Russians are dying of a “broken heart” is merely a blanket term for the many issues that plague the country.
David, I agree that Gessen’s usage of the term “broken heart” is too general, and blankets the variety of issues plaguing Russian society. However, I do believe that Gessen failed to appropriately link of all her included data back to the concept of a “broken heart,” and had she done so, the breadth of information could have worked more in her favor. Additionally, a more in-depth cultural examination of neighboring Soviet countries would provide a better context than the slew of quantitative data thrown at the reader.
I think the problem with Gessen’s conclusion is that it is too blanketed.
Gessen’s article works to connect the audience through emotion but ultimately her conclusion that Russia is dying of a “broken heart” is almost comical. I agree that it is important to look at the cultural phenomena of the time to ascertain the issue, but Gessen does a poor job of flushing out the reasons why Russians are specifically dying due to this “broken heart” theory. I agree that it is possible that a combination of all of these problems that the Russians were facing might have resulted in a lack of morale and therefore a potential for high rates of depression but Gessen’s inability to connect all these factors makes her article seem too compelled to the emotion and less about the actual journalism.