Saturday, May 10, 2014

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment