There are two issues that I take with Lerner’s interpretation of the intricacies of social life in Balgat. Firstly, speaking to his methodology, it was very clear that Lerner came into his observations with a bias—wanting to paint the grocer as his hero. He talks about one of the “wiser heads” speaking, “the words I was seeking” when the man calls the grocer, “the cleverest of us all” (Lerner, 56). This blatant admittance of preference casts doubts over the entire picture we have just watched Lerner pain for us. However, perhaps the underlying issue of his bias stems from his assumptions about the nature of progress. Lerner portrays the Grocer as a prophet, years ahead of his time, embracing the lifestyle of urban Ankara and attempting to incorporate elements of the more industrial society, like neckties and commercial goods, into the more traditional Balgat life. Lerner glorifies this way of life, asking, “What would happen next in Balgat if more people discovered the tingle of wondering what will happen next?” (Lerner, 51). It is clear that Lerner sees commercialism, public transportation, urban labor, and new technology as “progress” in society, and so he takes the Grocer, the only one in society brave enough to embrace these developments, as a revolutionary and a hero.
However, this progress came at a great cost, namely conformity to Ankara to the point where Balgat is scheduled to be swallowed up into the greater Ankara region. This will undoubtedly mark a great loss of tradition and identity for the Balgati people as they are now being forced to embrace everything that urbanization brings with it. Perhaps, then, this is not so much progress, but conformity. Perhaps this loss of tradition is more detrimental than the positive effects of embracing Ankara. Perhaps Lerner’s assumptions about change and progress being admirable are misguided, and blind him to the societal harms that might be inflicted on the Balgati with such rapid and compulsory change.
I completely agree with Ruairi in that Lerner’s language is very leading. Although Lerner lists alternative points of view (as David points out), I think that he largely brushes aside any developments that counter the argument he is most interested in making, namely that the Grocer is a hero and progress is good. In assuming that progress is good, Lerner discounted the disgruntled farmer and the Halk party members that he encountered in his study. Although he included them in his article, he did not give them merit.
I definitely agree that the inclusion of Balgat into Greater Ankara led to a loss of Balgat culture and individuality. However, I do not think that he ignores the negative effects of modernity. He mentions the anger of the farmers and the subtle disappointment of the Chief. I think Lerner is aware of these effects but is making the conscious decision to dwell on the positive effects instead. Lerner is arguing that the changes in Balgat are net positive, and I think he does it convincingly.