The first seminar
influenced my thinking by applying the themes of George Orwell’s 1984 to our current society. Many comments were made on how the war,
hangings, and appreciation of violence in the book compared to violent video
games and the excitement of school fights in our world today. Also, the subject of privacy was discussed,
and the increasing prominence of targeted ads and email verification paralleled
to the lack of privacy Winston experienced in the story. One thing that was said which I hadn’t thought
about so much before was how the name “Big Brother” was meant to sound
protective and reassuring when in reality, Big Brother was an oppressive dictator. This also could relate to our world today, as
many authoritarian leaders are embraced by the people living under their rule.
The statement made by
one of my peers that I agree with the most was that the Party’s regime very
closely resembled that of Nazi Germany. It
was mentioned that the Two Minutes Hate rally was meant to turn the people of
Oceania against soldiers resembling Jews and Asians. This favoritism of a “superior” race was one
of the main components of Hitler’s administration during World War II. The statement made by one of my peers that I
agree with the least was that the entire population of Oceania was brainwashed
into supporting the government. If I had
the opportunity to respond to anything in the seminar, I would have responded
to this question, saying that Winston’s revolutionary thoughts are proof of
hatred towards the Party.
Some things that went
well in the seminar were extensive preparation, participation, and use of
logical appeals. Everyone in the seminar
had obviously prepared, as excellent points and textual evidence were used
throughout. Also, almost everybody in
the conversation made helpful contributions that in general, helped maintain
the flow of the conversation. Only one
or two people did not fully engage in the seminar, and this may have been due
to lack of preparation or shyness.
Finally, the use of logical appeals was very strong because most people
referenced the text or their own lives to prove a point.
Some things that needed
improvement in the seminar were use of ethical and emotional appeals. As the seminar was meant to practice the use
of all three rhetorical devices, the lack or ethical and emotional appeals
caused a sort of gap in the conversation that was never filled. Some people, including myself, attempted to
bring up an ethical or emotional argument, but the conversation always quickly
steered away from the appeal. Although
the seminar was educative and gratifying, the use of these appeals could make
the next seminar stronger.
No comments:
Post a Comment