I think it is clear that Lerner assumes progress is a universal path. He saw the new infrastructure and access to Ankara as undoubtedly positive, and he was encouraged to find that the Chief supported these changes. But I think that looking at progress like this is problematic. Lerner glossed over the destructive capabilities of modernization, only briefly mentioning the farmers’ frustration and the change of Balgat’s culture. The Chief spoke to this, explaining that the younger generation is significantly less invested in the town’s success. But even though I generally disagree with Lerner’s assumption of progress, I think that the changes that occurred in Balgat were ultimately beneficial.
By including Balgat as part of Greater Ankarra, the small town was given access to a chunk of Ankara’s resources. This gave the citizens access to the inner city by bus, drastically changing the job market. Farming and shepherding were no longer profitable for much for of Balgat, but I do not think that this should be portrayed as negative. Farming is intense, life-shortening work. Access to better paying factory jobs was a clear improvement for the community, giving the people more resources and more leisure time. And even though this was a transformation of Balgat culture, the majority of its people did not seem to mind it. Even the Chief, the “last Muhtar of Balgat,” was happy to see a change that benefitted his people.
I’m interested in your idea that factory jobs offer more resources to the town. Lerner does note that in Ankara, factory workers could earn five lira per day as opposed to the two lira that farmworkers were currently earning. However, Lerner interviews a farmer who was forced to retire because “there was none left in Balgat to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s lira” (53) due to competition from the Ankara labor market. The two-lira rate for farmers was only so low because of the modernization process and increasing infrastructure that allowed travel to a larger city. Factory work was more lucrative, then, but required moving out of Balgat. The “progress” achieved by incorporating Balgat benefitted individuals, but actually seemed to bring wealth out of Balgat as the only lucrative jobs were in Ankara.
I’m interested in your idea that factory jobs offer more resources to the town. Lerner does note that in Ankara, factory workers could earn five lira per day as opposed to the two lira that farmworkers were currently earning. However, Lerner interviews a farmer who was forced to retire because “there was none left in Balgat to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s lira” (53) due to competition from the Ankara labor market. The two-lira rate for farmers was only so low because of the modernization process and increasing infrastructure that allowed travel to a larger city. Factory work was more lucrative, then, but required moving out of Balgat. The “progress” achieved by incorporating Balgat benefitted individuals, but actually seemed to bring wealth out of Balgat as the only lucrative jobs were in Ankara.
I agree with your point. “Progress,” even if beneficial, always has consequences, seen here via the struggles that the farmers are now facing, but that by no indication means that progress is bad. To me, even more beneficial than the tangible resources that the villagers of Balgat now have access to – water, electricity, facilitated transportation etc. – is the increased sense of awareness that comes with them. With these resources, the villagers are now able to “get out of their holes at last” (51) and experience the world outside their village as well as the opportunities that come with it.