In Lerner’s “The Grocer and the Chief”, Lerner’s conclusions are predicated on a number of assumptions about progress and change. Chief among these assumptions is the notion that there is only one true definition of progress: a Western-style industrialized, liberal state. Lerner further assumes that urbanization and technological development is necessarily good, painting the development of infrastructure in the village as to allow them to commute to work in the city as an unabated positive. To call this work Western-centric is nothing if not understatement.
As Lerner’s Western-centric biases serve as the basis for this ethnographic work, they render many of the conclusions drawn, if not the underlying work itself, distorted and thus unsound. Every aspect of his description of the village and his inhabitants point to the reductive notion of Western good, Eastern bad. This faulty logic certainly extends to the case of the two eponymous figures, the Chief and Grocer. Lerner dismisses the Chief and the traditional values he represents as being backwards and reactionary while holding the values of the Grocer as being Western and thus enlightened and good. No sound social scientific study, much less an ethnography can proceed from such flawed premises. Irrespective of one’s personal inclinations, to so openly push an ideological agenda while dismissing all else is to dismiss the very essence and lifeblood of ethnography, different cultures and practices.
The fact that Lerner comes into the situation with such a Western-centric view on what progression looks like is inherently problematic and I agree that it without a doubt exposes issues of legitimacy when the basis of one’s argument is so heavily intertwined with issues of imperialism, western ideas of modernity, and in many ways racism. Whenever text is dealing with issues of modernity, it is crucial to understand the perspectives of those who are living and being impacted by this new expansion. Ultimately, Lerner was only able to see an area that had become acclimated to this modernization but was not able to see the immediate reactions of those who were adjusting to this “new technology.” We should always be asking ourselves, what are the economic implications to the introduction of these buses? Who legislatively enacted these laws? What are the cultural conflicts that may occur at such a juncture?
I definitely agree that Lerner’s perspective is biased by pro-Western values, but I would not go so far as to say that his conclusions are unsound. He provides a reasonable collection viewpoints both before and after Balgat’s modernization process, some more optimistic about change than others. Throughout the piece Lerner clearly implies his belief that modernization will provide positive change for the village, but also gives a voice to the more hesitant outlooks on change. In being able to recognize Lerner’s bias ourselves, we are able to make more measured conclusions about the piece based on our own perspectives and beliefs, and with the possibility of bias in mind. Just because Lerner may believe that Western ideals of modernization are what is best for Balgat, does not need to mean that we as the reader must agree.