The Kite Runner Socratic Seminar #1 Reflection

 This particular seminar focused on the use of emotional appeals, which exposed me to a number of ways of thinking about situations. By hearing the thought processes of my classmates, and the decisions they would individually make in similar situations in The Kite Runner, I was able to see the complexity of the many decisions we are faced to make. This would include the idea of prioritizing- who do I put before myself? When do I put myself before others-, the effects of events on one’s life – the death or departure of a family member or the way others treat you- and many other such topics. The seminar made me think more about the tradeoffs that people make in their lives, and how these shape who they are. A particular statement that I hadn’t thought of in such depth was when someone stated, “I love my mother, but I don’t like her.” I though it was interesting to hear of the personal parent/child relationships of my classmates. This made me think of the complexity of such roles. While parents must care for their children, they must also ensure that they teach them and prepare them to act individually, which may often involve methods that children do not enjoy.  

The statement that I agreed with the most was when someone stated that Amir strives to meet the demands of his father, and is driven by his desire to please his father. Amir seems to think that he was responsible for his mother’s death, and has failed his father by not being like him. In his quest for acceptance, Amir neglects Hassan, who may be his only true friend. In the alley, Amir describes Hassan as a sacrificial lamb who must be given up so that he can gain his father’s respect. Although Amir’s actions were unacceptable and deemed immoral by everybody in the discussion, the group was able to recognize his motive, and why he acted the way he did. The statement I agreed with the least was when someone stated that all children want to be better than those that surround them. While I agree that being “better” than someone at certain skills is a feeling many desire throughout their lives, I believe that the driving force of this feeling is the search for identity. Particularly in the earlier stages of life, people look to establish their own identity. The question of identity is one that a person must find on their own, and each set of skill every person builds makes them who they are. If there had been more time to discuss/opportunity to bring up anything, I would have liked to further discuss the prevailing discrimination in Afghanistan, and how The Kite Runner acts as an accurate depiction of this society, and others as well. Religious, racial and ethnic tensions exist worldwide, and such feelings drive wars and resentment. I would have also like to speak of how this discrimination emotionally effects the characters in The Kite Runner. Hassan and Ali seem to receive the most discrimination due to their ethnicity and religion, which makes their characters seem more submissive, both in their jobs and personalities. I think that these are important themes to address because they are so prevalent in the world.

A particular aspect that worked really well for the seminar was the use of emotional appeals. Past Socratic Seminars saw the domination of logical, or even ethical appeals, where it was harder to generate emotional responses. I think that The Kite Runner brings up some very pressing themes and questions that many people may find themselves asking individually. Because the text was so emotional, everybody was able to generate their own emotional opinions. Further, many of the questions asked generated emotional responses. For example, would you want Baba or Ali as a father? Would you risk your life for somebody? Should children and parents automatically have the respect of each other? Through questions such as these, many emotional responses were shared, and it made it possible to hear what my classmates were thinking. I feel that the use of emotional appeals made it easier to connect to the text, and even clarify what the characters would be thinking, and how we would react in similar situations.

I believe that the group should work on incorporating a wider range of topics as well as connecting the plot to real life. A particularly great thing about this past seminar was that we were able to discuss topics from the book in relation to our daily lives without straying too far away from the text. Regardless, it would have been nice to spend more time on some of the subjects that had been brought up. For example, one participant asked why rape victims often do not speak up.  I feel that this topic, and specifically the rape of Hassan, was danced around, but never fully discussed. Much of the conversation focused on father/son relationships or the friendship between Amir and Hassan. The Kite Runner brought up a variety of themes, including discrimination, ethnic hatred and social injustice, a wealth of topics to discuss. I think that incorporating all of these themes into the discussion would enrich it and give everybody a deeper understanding of the plot, and even the world issues and injustices that exist in our own society.

Socratic Seminar #4 Preparation

Summary of the Assigned Reading

Captured by the government, Winston discovers that O’Brien had manipulated him and had been working for the party. Winston is brutally tortured in the Ministry of Love, in the dreaded Room 101. O’Brien proceeds to re-teach Winston, using torture/pain to force him into total submission to the Party.

Level 2 Questions

1.)   How do the connotations of “the place where there is no darkness” change throughout 1984?

Initially, “the place where there is no darkness” appears as a place of refuge and enlightenment to Winston. Before he knows about O’Brien’s true nature, Winston is convinced he can trust O’Brien, and that he could be a part of the Brotherhood and widespread rebellion. “The place where there is no darkness” symbolized a place wherein there is light. This appeared as a positive place to Winston, who saw the manipulation and oppression of the Party to be the darkness that covered the truth up from him and the citizens of Oceania.  In reality, “the place where there is no darkness” is a place of pain and torture: the Ministry of Love. In the Ministry, Winston concludes that “in this place, he knew instinctively, the lights would never be turned out […] there were no windows.” Realizing his vulnerability in the Ministry of Love, Winston recognizes that he cannot tell the time of day, nor will he see the outside world, or any true light. “The place where there is no darkness” turned out to be referring to Winston’s torture chamber in place of his freedom from oppression. (Pathos)

2.)   How do the Party criminals differ from the common criminals?

The common criminals within the Ministry of Love seem to enjoy more freedom and power within the prison society. Conversely, the Party members, who completely control society outside of prison, exercise no power within the walls of the Ministry of Peace. The hierarchy of the holding facility is that “the positions of trust were given only to the common criminals, especially the gangsters and the murderers, who formed a sort of aristocracy. All the dirty jobs were done by the politicians.” The common criminals are viewed as less of a threat, although their actions (such as murder) are perceived as much worse and extreme in the real world. More than anything, the party is threatened by thoughts. If feelings of resentment or ideas of rebellion manifest in the minds of their people, the possibility of losing power and control only increase. The Party is more concerned with its members, who have committed thought crime and know the inner workings of the party. These individuals have the minds and possibly the means to rebel, making crimes such as murder seem minute as long as they possess ideological control over those who commit them. (Logos)

3.)   Why does the Party look to change the mindsets of its criminal rather than simply kill them?

As expressed by O’Brien himself, the party’s system ensures “…there are no martyrdoms.” The party wishes to completely suppress rebellion, and ensure that revolutionary thoughts die before the thoughtcriminals do. The danger of martyrdom is that it only encourages others to fight, and even die for their beliefs. The Party understands that many people would rather die with their own beliefs than live under complete submission to the beliefs of another. In the past martyrs have inspired revolution and other individuals, making it vital for the Party to eliminate beliefs. O’Brien says to Winston, “Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To cure you! To make you sane! […] We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.” Changing one’s enemy can be seen as a more drastic action. There are many fates worse than death, and brutal torture to end free thought, is one of them. (Logos)

4.)   How does the Party use forces such as children and doublethink to effectively indoctrinate their society?

Through the use of children and doublethink, the party is effectively able to halt the spread of revolutionary ideas, and maintain control over its people in a twisted way.

When Winston asked Parsons who had him arrested, he replies, “It was my little daughter […] I’m proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway.” This entre scenario perfectly exemplifies the idea of doublethink. Parsons had said “down with Big Brother” in his sleep, and might have felt resentment and hatred towards the Party, yet is proud of his daughter for denouncing thoughtcriminals, even though it cost him a life in jail. The fact that children are used to spy on their own parents demonstrates the Party’s desire to eliminate all relationships or feelings of love that are not expressed towards Big Brother. Without such relationships, the Party would be sure of its total control, and have less fear of rebellion against Big Brother. Through doublethink, the Party is able to ensure that its citizens believe what they want them to. Although individual thoughts exist, they are overridden by Party propaganda. (Logos)

5.)   How prevalent is betrayal in the society of 1984? Why does Winston believe in people such as O’Brien, only to be betrayed, and why would he betray Julia?

Winston is betrayed multiple times in 1984. He foolishly chooses to trust Mr. Charrington and O’Brien, to the extent that they can easily catch him for his thoughtcrime. Winston states that O’Brien was “ … the tormentor, he was the protector, he was the inquisitor, he was the friend.”  Winston had seen O’Brien as a ray of hope, an escape from Party control. Winston chose to simply believe him and follow him as it was the only hope. O’Brien’s alleged Brotherhood was the only known alternative to the Party, making Winston clasp on to anything he could to escape from the Party. This made it easy for O’Brien to manipulate him. The party deliberately set out to find thought criminals, and deeply rooted themselves in order to effectively manipulate them. Winston and Julia even found themselves betraying each other. Under intense physical pain, their love for each other seemed to crumble. Both of them could only tolerate so much, and were both physically and emotionally broken by torture, to the extent that they betrayed each other to try and save their own lives. (Pathos)

6.)   What is the role of Room 101 in the plot? Why would such a concept exist?

Room 101 solely functions to inspire fear in the prisoners in the Ministry of Love. As described by O’Brien, “the thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.” Each person is subjected to their worst fear, making them do anything to end their time in Room 101. One of the prisoners even stated, “I’ve got a wife and three children[…] You can take the whole lot of them and cut their throats in front of my eyes, and I’ll stand by and watch it. But not room 101!” This man was willing to give up his entire family in order to avoid room 101, a repulsive fact, indicative of the Party’s successful use of Room 101 to beat down their prisoners. The terror expressed towards the idea of Room 101 illustrates the maltreatment of the prisoners by the Party. With the idea of their greatest fear in mind, prisoners are willing to confess to anything to end their pain, a psychologically terrifying fact. (Pathos)

Level 3 Questions (x3)

1.)   Why are power and corruption so often directly linked?

As stated by Lord Acton “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” As seen in 1984 and in history, human beings enjoy exercising power over others. This is seen on a number of scales, but the acquisition of power often leads to the desire for more power. If people go through great measures to obtain power, the chances are they will go through even greater measures to maintain power, and corruption is a means of maintaining power.

2.)   To what extent is torture effective?

Ethically speaking, torture is viewed as immoral in many societies who believe that deliberately inflicting pain on another to extract information is a horrendous act. The truth about physical pain is that it can be increased to the point that individuals would rather die than have to endure another second of pain. Torture physically and emotionally weakens people, to the point that they are ruined. (Pathos) Though it may be effective in obtaining information, it also must be considered that innocent people can be tortured. Torturing victims either know information, or do not. The scary fact is that innocent people who do not know anything can be tortured for information they do not have. Multiple factors must be considered, for example, if the person is actually telling the truth, or a lie, whether the information is relevant, if it is possible that the truth changed over time. Considering all of these factors, torture can largely be ineffective. Individuals have been severely psychologically damaged by torture, and would be willing to say anything to end the pain. It is unknown as to if the information is true, or relevant. (Logos)

3.)   Can torture change personalities and behavior? Can emotions, such as love, be driven out by torture?

Torture can definitely change behavior. For example, a dog that has been severely beaten is likely to be more reserved. They shy away from humans, and are very weary of new people, and sudden movements. Torture could have the same effects on humans. The psychological imprint of torture can lead individuals to become more reserved, or fear that it might happen again, and allowing this fear to run their lives (Logos).  Torture can make people stop caring about the world, and simply want death. The degree of physical pain that is inflicted upon them may be so severe that they do not want to feel anymore. Experiencing intense pain may make people forget about other feelings, as they would be focused on the moment. Torture would create feelings of helplessness, desperation, and if the pain would not end, many would rather die and not have to feel it any longer. I believe that emotions such as love may still exist; however, the immediate feelings may override these emotions. (Pathos)

Quotes

1.)   “We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.” Pg. 210

2.)   “There were times when his nerve so forsook him that he began shouting for mercy even before the beating began, when the mere sight of a fist drawn back for a blow was enough to make him pour forth a confession of real and imaginary crimes.” Pg. 199

1984 Socratic Seminar #3 Reflection

Due to the many thoughts/opinions of my classmates, the seminar influenced my thinking in a number of ways. Being able to hear the variety of questions made me see just how much could be discussed about the book. Although 1984 is a relatively short book, so many ideas have been bought up over the seminars. With this seminar in particular, I saw more emotional appeals used during the discussions regarding the idea of love and relationships. This made me think more about the emotional side of 1984 as opposed to the political rebellion side, or the structure of the government. A particular topic that I had not previously thought of in as much depth was the reason for the relationship between Winston and Julia. I had recognized the strange nature of their relationship, and how their society seemed to shape their interactions; however, I had not completely thought of why it existed in the first place. My classmates brought up many ideas, include the perceptions of love, lust, and even the political aspects. This made me think more about how Julia and Winston initially began seeing each other as an act of political rebellion, which may have grown into something stronger later.

A statement I agreed with was a response to a question regarding why Winston simply trusted O’Brien. A classmate of mine argued that Winston needed something else to believe in, making O’Brien the only other option to the Big Brother Regime. They also brought up the idea that Winston seemed to have a gut feeling in trusting O’Brien, making their interactions seem as if they were destined to happen. 

A particular part of the discussion that I did not per say “agree” with was when some of my classmates expressed shock or disbelief towards my thoughts about how long countries or governments could stay in power. I believe it to be perfectly plausible to think that the US will eventually cease to be the most powerful country in the world. History has seen the collapses of all empires. From the mighty Roman, Persian and Egyptian Empires, to European monarchies, to dictatorships in Latin America, Africa and worldwide, both the most oppressive, and the most stable/economically prosperous societies have fallen. A classmate argued that this might not be the case with the United States because of its democratic system; however, there remain flaws and unhappiness in the US. Countries such as China continue to make huge strides in development, and are on track to become the largest economies on earth. Personally, I believe that the world is incredibly fragile, and no society is indestructible.

A subject that I would have liked to further discuss during the seminar would have been the tradeoffs made between freedom and security. I would have liked to hear what my classmates believed in regards to this idea. How big of a role should a government play in providing security? How far can governments go in protecting their citizens? The balance between privacy/freedom, and state protection (ex: police forces) is vital in determining the stability of societies, and I would have liked to see how my classmates would solve this type of problem if they had to make such decisions.

Throughout the seminar, I noticed that diverse questions were asked, creating lots of interesting conversation. I also saw that those who participated were not afraid of sharing their ideas, and openly disagreeing or agreeing with others. It was good to see people comfortable with just speaking to the rest of the class, and sharing their opinions and thoughts about the text. Many people also connected their questions to those of others, enabling the discussion to go in deeper. Such follow up questions made me personally think more in depth of the various topics. The wide range of questions helped in getting more people to participate, as different questions stirred responses from different people.  

I believe that as a group, we need to work on making sure all people participate the number of times they need to, and to overall improve participation. Throughout the seminars, I have noticed that there are some people more comfortable with speaking than others, and some that dominate discussions, while others hardly speak. This may have happened due to the longer amount of reading that had to be completed prior to the seminar, which may have made people more pressed for time in preparation. I think that by getting more people to participate, it would be more possible to discuss more topics, as well as hear a greater flow of ideas. This could be done through asking more emotional based level three questions. This would enable those less comfortable with the text to share their thoughts and feelings. This could still create interesting discussion regarding themes that connect 1984 and the real world.

1984-Socratic Seminar #2 Reflection

Each person in the discussion had brought their own set of original questions, so many topics were brought up and discussed. I found that many of my questions focused around similar topics/themes, particularly emotions. I asked more questions regarding the indoctrination of the people in 1984, and what they might have felt, or how they came to believe certain lies. Being able to have the seminar influenced me into thinking of a wider range of topics, as my classmates brought up other ideas, among many they included the corruption of power, communication and interactions between children and adults. Something said that I had not thought of so much before was a comment on the richness of language. Somebody shared their opinion that the loss of words made language less rich, and thus made it less meaningless, and harder to express oneself verbally in front of others. Before, I had considered the usage of other mediums, such as music or dance, but did not fully visualize the idea of being verbally limited in expressing ideas and emotions.

A statement I agreed with during the seminar was one made on the objective of the Party in 1984 to remove emotions, and only inflict feelings of loyalty towards the Party. Many of my peers built off of this idea, adding on that emotional bonds between people would come between the totalitarian rulers and their subjects, making human devotion towards other humans a setback, and a dangerous prospect that could even lead to revolution.  There were no statements that I particularly disagreed with. I found many of the comments of my peers to be fair arguments, which I found myself supporting/building off of.  A topic that I think should be further discussed in the seminars is that of memories. More specifically, how credible are the memories of the citizens in 1984? How credible are our own memories? I feel this is an interesting question as in 1984, the memories of many are wiped or manipulated, making their memories almost fake, incredulous, or just unreliable. Meanwhile, in our world, many people treasure memories, and share them with others. So much can be stored in the memory of one person, and we will often believe professional individuals and their capability to memorize information, and present analysis from their memories. I would have liked to know what other people thought about the differences memory plays in 1984 versus our very own society.

I feel that everybody in my discussion made an effort to get each person to speak/participate, which worked well as we were able to get a greater flow of ideas from different people. Further, I could tell that everybody was prepared based on the diverse set of questions I heard from my classmates, and the responses, as well as textual evidence that everybody supplied. I felt that because people were prepared and tried to get others engaged, the discussion was enriched, and there was never a lack of topics to discuss. Had people not come prepared, there would be a larger chance that the questions would be less interesting, and the responses less well crafted. I also felt that as a whole, the group did well at building off of the ideas of others. Little was simply repeated, instead people tried to contribute new thoughts or arguments or quotes to support their thoughts/opinions.

Similar to what my other classmates stated just after the seminar, I felt that overall people agreed with each other, and few debates took place. We were able to contribute new ideas when we built off of others, and supported their answers, yet the discussion could have been better if more controversial topics were discussed in order to hear all of the different points of views that people may possess. This would have opened more windows into the discussion, and could have opened more topics for debate, as well as more opportunities to use various rhetorical appeals. Additionally, because each person thought of their own individual questions, many people would end up answering their own questions, due to the fact that thinking of a strong answer requires time. Although it was great to have each person contribute new questions and ideas, it would have been nice to have one or two questions in advanced so that each person would have a developed answer to that much, especially if they do not feel comfortable speaking.