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\u2019 frustration and the change of Balgat\u2019s culture. The Chief spoke to this, explaining that the younger generation is significantly less invested in the town\u2019s success. But even though I generally disagree with Lerner\u2019s assumption of progress, I think that the changes that occurred in Balgat were ultimately beneficial.<\/p>\n
By including Balgat as part of Greater Ankarra, the small town was given access to a chunk of Ankara\u2019s 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 \u201clast Muhtar of Balgat,\u201d was happy to see a change that benefitted his people.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … Continue reading