This paper analyzes the book "Vasilika: a Village in Modern Greece" by Ernestine Friedl. Using observation techniques rather than objective analytical tools, Friedl has issues with biases which present themselves in the text. However, the positives of the book are that Friedl is able to interpret what is seen in Vasilika and apply it to the larger world.
Vasilika
Ernestine Friedl's 1962 text Vasilika: a Village in Modern Greece discusses an anthropological case study which showcases how one city in Greece was evolved from its ancient origin and compares to other modern cities in the country. Vasilika in Boeotia, Greece has a population of 216 people and consequently the interactions between the individual members of the village are intricately connected to one another, but are also limited by the sociology and architecture of the location. Greece is a nation which has existed for centuries and yet the city of Vasilika is still mostly the same as it was before the advent of modern technologies. One of the most important aspects of community-building that Friedl discusses is the random orientation of the building constructions in the village. Unlike some recently designed cities, the random conflagration ensured that the stone materials used and the random spacing severely limited "the ability of the members of any village household to see directly what is happening in more than two or three neighborhood houses" (Friedl 13). The author compares this to a game of hide and seek, where there actually are secrets and discretion between neighbors.
In the book, author Friedl, instead of using more quantitative methodologies, bases her analysis of the people she researched simply by observing the population and then comparing their activities with known, accepted theories of anthropology. This makes her book very interesting and it is obvious from her in-depth observation that she spent a lot of time with her subjects and did her all to provide as unbiased a report on her observations as possible. However, given that her analysis was based entirely on observation, her research is purely subjective. The kind of in-depth observation that was required put her too closely in contact with her subject matter and therefore, her intimate knowledge provides the breeding ground for biases.
The book traces Vasilika and, through the observation techniques of the researcher to find truth not only about the people of the village, but also to apply those observations to the larger world. Vasilika is comprised largely of persons of low-income, who Friedl makes particular effort not to refer to as "peasants" because of a derogatory connotation which has nothing to do with the characteristics of this group of people (6). Her careful consideration of terminologies and the attempt to eradicate preconceived notions which such terms bring about is important because she is trying to remove bias, but again by denying terminologies so vehemently she makes understanding of population archetypes more difficult.
Friedl uses the encapsulated imagery of Vasilika to make a larger commentary about village life in small Greek towns. Within the village structure, there is a highly developed sense of ethics and morals which the villagers are expected to follow strictly. There are behaviors which population members are expected to follow, particularly in terms of moral if not legal actions (Friedl 17). Males are expected to be honorable members of society while females are expected to be virtuous and virginal until they enter the marriage bed. There are also expectations of social competition, that people will support their neighbors but also that the individual families will try to outdo their neighbors and succeed, climbing up the social ladder in the village in order to achieve the highest level in the social hierarchy.
Besides the interactions between civilian members of the Vasilikan population, consideration and attention is also given to the people in positions of leadership within the community. For example, the secretary in the mayor's office has been elected, but there is little real political opposition, therefore the same person can hold an office in the community for years. In the case of the secretary, Friedl says, "The secretary tends to remain in office for many years, thereby becoming the equivalent of a permanent civil servant" (93). Even in a village with a little over 100 people there is corruption and a political dynasty which ensures that little progress can be made without dealing with this system.
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.