As always, the third Socratic seminar on 1984 helped me think about the different ways in which my classmates had processed and thought about the book on a personal level. It was especially interesting to me that whereas in my first reading of Book II I had focused mainly on the political aspects of the revolution and the heavy reading that Winston does in Goldstein's manifesto, most of my classmates talked instead about the relationship between Winston and Julia and the definition and veracity of love in the book's totalitarian society. This allowed me to think about 1984 in a more emotional way, and relate it back to my own life and the relationships I have both seen and experienced, instead of simply thinking about it in terms of similarity to historical events. I love getting the opportunity to hear the unique and distinct opinions of my classmates every time we discuss the sections that we have read.
During this discussion, the statement that I disagreed with the most was probably when Stuart said that Syme was dangerous because he did not use doublethink. In my reading of the book, I had concluded almost exactly the opposite: it seemed to me that Syme was the model example of a Party member besides the fatal flaw of his great intelligence, because he both understood what he was doing in changing the entire language of the people of Oceania and reveled in it, and remained loyal to the Party to the utmost degree, without ever entertaining even the slightest thought of rebellion despite his knowledge of the power of the written and spoken word could hold. This is probably one of the best examples of doublethink, albeit a more subtle one, present in the entire novel. One of the statements that I most agreed with was Victoria's when she said that she thought that Winston and Julia's "romance" was primarily a political act, though it may later have developed into something more as they got to know each other. When I first read the first chapter of Book II, I was very surprised when Julia dropped the note that said "I love you" into Winston's hand despite the fact that they had never talked in person before. Based on this, it seemed obvious to me that the main reason Winston and Julia were together was to enact a form of rebellion, a sort of solidarity between each other against the suppression of their government. I was glad to know that someone in the class agreed with me and did not think that Winston and Julia were simply instantly attracted to each other. I really wished that I had gotten the opportunity to speak at the end of class after Victoria said that she thought that the United States would fall eventually. Everyone laughed, but I didn't think that it was that funny-- I thought that we could have had a really interesting conversation about it. I think it needed to be said that the United States and our oh-so-perfect government is not as perfect as we may be led to believe it is. Someone mentioned the possibility that one of the three great powers in 1984 could eventually decide to wage war for real and exterminate the remaining two powers. What wasn't mentioned was that this could also easily happen in the United States. Our country has spent decades upholding dictatorships in "Latin" American countries that have killed thousands of innocent people, fighting wars abroad, and sponsoring drone attacks on civilians and even American citizens in the Middle East-- but somehow we never think about what might happen if someday somebody gets fed up and decides to strike back. I wanted to be able to talk about this more during the Socratic seminar and hear about what my classmates thought about these important ideas.
I was incredibly impressed by my classmates' maturity in beginning the Socratic seminar while Ms. Hunter was held up by traffic. There were no teachers watching us and we easily could have split into groups and talked instead of doing any actual work, but instead we organized ourselves and started the discussion without any outside prompting. We even distributed the tracking sheets and wrote the questions on the board because there were not enough papers for everyone in the outer circle. I actually thought that the discussion that took place without Ms. Hunter there was one of the most thoughtful, enlightening conversations our group has ever had, perhaps because there was less pressure to speak and ask good questions, and instead we could actually talk about what we had actually thought about the book. Probably due to this, I noticed much more emotional appeals during the Socratic seminar than had been used in previous discussions, which really added another level of depth and maturity to the conversation.
One thing that I think still could be improved is overall participation. Throughout the seminar, a few students talked for a large percentage of the time, while several barely talked at all. I think that one good way to change this would be to include more level three questions in the discussions, so that even students who didn't have the chance to read the selection or didn't understand it fully would be able to get some points and participate in the conversation. We could also try to set aside a few minutes at the beginning of the seminar to ask some simple level one questions about what happened in the assigned section of the reading, or to read and share our summaries and ask questions about it. This would give people who didn't feel as if they understood the reading completely the opportunity to share their uncertainties with their classmates. Then in the following discussion they would be more confident about talking about their deeper ideas because they would not be focused on whether their interpretation of the basic plot and facts of what happened was correct.
During this discussion, the statement that I disagreed with the most was probably when Stuart said that Syme was dangerous because he did not use doublethink. In my reading of the book, I had concluded almost exactly the opposite: it seemed to me that Syme was the model example of a Party member besides the fatal flaw of his great intelligence, because he both understood what he was doing in changing the entire language of the people of Oceania and reveled in it, and remained loyal to the Party to the utmost degree, without ever entertaining even the slightest thought of rebellion despite his knowledge of the power of the written and spoken word could hold. This is probably one of the best examples of doublethink, albeit a more subtle one, present in the entire novel. One of the statements that I most agreed with was Victoria's when she said that she thought that Winston and Julia's "romance" was primarily a political act, though it may later have developed into something more as they got to know each other. When I first read the first chapter of Book II, I was very surprised when Julia dropped the note that said "I love you" into Winston's hand despite the fact that they had never talked in person before. Based on this, it seemed obvious to me that the main reason Winston and Julia were together was to enact a form of rebellion, a sort of solidarity between each other against the suppression of their government. I was glad to know that someone in the class agreed with me and did not think that Winston and Julia were simply instantly attracted to each other. I really wished that I had gotten the opportunity to speak at the end of class after Victoria said that she thought that the United States would fall eventually. Everyone laughed, but I didn't think that it was that funny-- I thought that we could have had a really interesting conversation about it. I think it needed to be said that the United States and our oh-so-perfect government is not as perfect as we may be led to believe it is. Someone mentioned the possibility that one of the three great powers in 1984 could eventually decide to wage war for real and exterminate the remaining two powers. What wasn't mentioned was that this could also easily happen in the United States. Our country has spent decades upholding dictatorships in "Latin" American countries that have killed thousands of innocent people, fighting wars abroad, and sponsoring drone attacks on civilians and even American citizens in the Middle East-- but somehow we never think about what might happen if someday somebody gets fed up and decides to strike back. I wanted to be able to talk about this more during the Socratic seminar and hear about what my classmates thought about these important ideas.
I was incredibly impressed by my classmates' maturity in beginning the Socratic seminar while Ms. Hunter was held up by traffic. There were no teachers watching us and we easily could have split into groups and talked instead of doing any actual work, but instead we organized ourselves and started the discussion without any outside prompting. We even distributed the tracking sheets and wrote the questions on the board because there were not enough papers for everyone in the outer circle. I actually thought that the discussion that took place without Ms. Hunter there was one of the most thoughtful, enlightening conversations our group has ever had, perhaps because there was less pressure to speak and ask good questions, and instead we could actually talk about what we had actually thought about the book. Probably due to this, I noticed much more emotional appeals during the Socratic seminar than had been used in previous discussions, which really added another level of depth and maturity to the conversation.
One thing that I think still could be improved is overall participation. Throughout the seminar, a few students talked for a large percentage of the time, while several barely talked at all. I think that one good way to change this would be to include more level three questions in the discussions, so that even students who didn't have the chance to read the selection or didn't understand it fully would be able to get some points and participate in the conversation. We could also try to set aside a few minutes at the beginning of the seminar to ask some simple level one questions about what happened in the assigned section of the reading, or to read and share our summaries and ask questions about it. This would give people who didn't feel as if they understood the reading completely the opportunity to share their uncertainties with their classmates. Then in the following discussion they would be more confident about talking about their deeper ideas because they would not be focused on whether their interpretation of the basic plot and facts of what happened was correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment