Professor Daniel Lerner, in The Grocer and the Chief, assumes what many Americans also assume, which is that modernity is the pursuit of a material improvement from traditional or subsistence lifestyles. Lerner’s assumptions are obvious in his characterization of the Chief as a self-sufficient and martial man, and his preoccupation with the Grocer as a caricature of “modern” culture and forward-thinking. The Chief values individual valor and his own position of power within his village, which Lerner conflates with holding on to tradition. The Grocer’s awareness of cinema and coffeehouses, on the other hand, seems to Lerner to signify a desire for a life marked by modern technology.  One of Lerner’s key assumptions is that these men are unwilling to change and that while collective society may force alterations in daily life and the economy, individuals remain the same, conveniently representing distinct ideals of personhood.

Lerner concludes his piece stating that the Grocer has won out in an imaginary contest between tradition and material modernization.  However, he neglects the important fact that the Chief has notably modernized himself.  As Balgat is incorporated into Ankara, the Chief incorporates himself and his family into the changed society.  Yes, the Muhtar keeps a small grove of trees, but he allows his sons, whom he once saw as heirs he must make ready for war, to open moderately successful westernized businesses.  The Chief, over four years, gives up his farmland and his most integral values of makes a successful man.  In this way, I believe that Lerner makes the same mistake as Tosun did in judging based on appearances.  Lerner does not consider the effects of modernization on the individuals who adapt to their current situation and the interplay between individuals and material change within a modernizing society.