The
Socratic seminar on 1984 made me see the novel in a completely different
light. While before I had viewed it as an allegory to the totalitarian rule of
Nazi Germany, Stuart’s comment near the end made me consider the possibility
that the novel could actually be about prominent political figures in Russia
during the same time. I had never thought about the connections between Stalin
and Big Brother, or Goldstein and Trotsky, who both were former allies of their
country’s political leaders before they were turned on as traitors and
banished. I enjoyed the different perspectives introduced in the discussion that allowed me to see the possible historical context of the novel.
I
think that I probably agree most with Lina’s statement about how life in the
United States today is frighteningly similar, though not to the same degree, to
life in Orwell’s dystopian society. While reading 1984, I also thought
about the similarities between the surveillance of Big Brother and the current
scandals occurring in the United States with NSA privacy invasions and illicit
information-gathering. Many people in our class defined a dystopian society as
one where there is widespread poverty and the voices of many people are
silenced—but in fact that is going on today in our very country, including a
few blocks from the Capitol where poorer DC residents are being exploited and
forced out of their homes by gentrification. I disagreed most with Khanh when
she said that she didn’t think that Winston’s life was that bad. I know that at
least I was taken aback by the lack of freedom that Winston has in 1984—not
only can he not remember his former family, he is not even allowed to write in
a book or experience physical pleasure. Living with virtually no personal
liberties, even those that we take for granted in our own society, is not
something that I would wish upon anyone. One thing that I thought should have
been touched on during the seminar was the issue of revising information and
history in today’s society. I know that most people were taken aback when they
read the first three chapters of 1984 at the idea that a government
could exert so much control over its citizens, but in reality this happens in
our own government without us even knowing it. For example, primary and
secondary school curriculums cover very little about the genocide of Native
Americans that occurred on domestic soil not too long ago, simply because it
would make the United States look bad.
The
seminar got off to a bit of a rocky start, but I thought that after the initial
awkwardness one of the best components was the depth of each participant’s
questions. No one randomly inserted their questions into the circle just to get
points; instead, it seemed like it flowed fairly naturally and each question
led into the next quite well. I also thought that it was a great idea for
people who were asking questions to share their own answers with the group before
opening the idea up for discussion. This allowed people who hadn’t prepared for
that exact question an opportunity to gather their thoughts, as well as a
well-thought-out point that they could then respond to.
One
of the parts of the seminar that needs improvement was the role of the discussion
leader. Although the leader did a great job in stimulating conversation, they
did not ensure that every person was participating, and as a result there were
some participants who did not get a chance to speak a full three times while
others almost dominated the conversation. This meant that a fewer amount of
opinions were able to be shared in the seminar, and voices that could have
added different perspectives and ideas to the discussion were drowned out by
more confident participants. In the future, I think that the discussion leader
should try harder to make sure that everyone is included and able to share
their thoughts on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment