1984 Socratic Seminar Preparation Sheet #4

Part I: Summarization

Winston and Julia are captured by the Thought Police and sent to prison.  Winston is brainwashed and tortured until he is forced to believe the ideology of the Party and love Big Brother.  His love for Julia is destroyed, as is her love for him. 

                                                                                                                                     

Part II: Question Development

What values does the Party fear?

When Ampleforth is put in jail with Winston, he says he was put there because he “allowed the word ‘God’ at the end of a line [of a poem].”  This shows that the Party fears religious devotion, as it might spur hope of revolution.  This contrasts with modern popular belief in the freedom of religion and the freedom to worship any god.  Ethical appeal.

What evidence suggests that criminals are still loyal to the Party?

When Winston asks who denounced Parsons, Parsons replies “‘It was my little daughter’…with a sort of doleful pride.”  This shows that even though Parsons is imprisoned, he still remains loyal to the Party by agreeing with his punishment.  Logical appeal.

What evidence suggests that Big Brother is not alive?

When Winston is in prison, he asks O’Brien if Big Brother is alive in the same way that he is, with arms and legs and u unique absolute location in space, to which O’Brien replies “It is of no importance.  He exists.”  This shows a certain level of doubt in O’Brien as he does not fully answer the question and tries to change the subject, suggesting that Big Brother might not be real.  Logical appeal.

What suggests that Oceania has hindered scientific progression?

O’Brien states that “The earth is the center of the universe.  The sun and the stars go round it.”  This ideology was an ancient thought prevalent before Renaissance times, and modern science shows that the sun is the center of the universe, which is the popular belief of all educated people.  Ethical appeal.

To what extent can the Party control humans?

When discussing future Party plans, O’Brien mentions that that “We shall abolish orgasm.”  This idea seems too farfetched for a government to exert on its people.  Therefore the Party is shown to be capable of controlling minds but its power is restricted concerning human instincts.  Logical appeal.

Based on the end of the book, is the authority of the Party really absolute?

The last words of the story are “[Winston] had won the victory over himself.  He loved Big Brother.”  This goes directly against Winston’s rebellious attitude towards the party before he was sent to prison and brainwashed.  This shows that humans are powerless in the face of the Party, and therefore that the party’s rule is unstoppable.  Logical appeal.

How strongly is human emotion influenced by other people?

Without the influence of other human beings, emotions such as love and pain cannot exist because they are impossible to apply to someone else.  Therefore, human contact is necessary for the development of emotion.  Emotional appeal.

Does human powerlessness actually exist?

Human powerlessness does exist because in the face of natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornados, and tsunamis, humans cannot do much to prevent these tragedies.  In a way, despite the pollution and deforestation of the planet, humans will never be able to gain power of nature.  Logical appeal.

Are humans weaker or stronger in the face of death?

In the face of death, humans are stronger because they are forced to accept their imminent death, regardless of if they want it or not.  This takes a certain courage which is only accessible if one is really faced with life and death situations.  Logical appeal.

Part III: Tracking Evidence

“‘It was my little daughter,’ said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride.  ‘She listened at the keyhole.  Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day.  Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?’” (Page 233)

“The beatings grew less frequent, and became mainly a threat, a horror to which he could not be sent back at any moment when his answers were unsatisfactory.” (Page 241)

1984 Socratic Seminar #3 Reflection

      The seminar influenced the way I thought about the fictional society of Oceania as a whole.  While talking about the three superstates, Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, I developed a better since of the fictional world Winston lives in, and how it came to be.  One thing said during the seminar which I hadn’t thought of in depth was a question concerning the possible nonexistence of Eurasia and Eastasia, meaning that Oceania would be the sole world power.  I thought that this could be true since there is evidence to support this.  For example, In Book Two, Julia says that she thinks the bombs dropped on Oceania are really bombs dropped by the Party to scare the citizens.

      The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the most is that the world of the Hunger Games would be a better society to live in than Oceania.  I agree with this statement because there is no constant surveillance of people in Panem, while in Oceania, the citizens are constantly watched.  The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the least is therefore that the world of Oceania would be a better than Panem because in Panem, you have a chance of dying.  I disagree with this statement because although there is a chance of dying in the games, this chance is very slight.  If I had the opportunity to add anything to the seminar, I would have pointed out that it is ironic that we are watched and assessed during the seminars just as the citizens of Oceania are supervised by telescreens.

      Some things that worked really well for the seminar were the use of emotional and logical appeals.  When talking about the love between Winston and Julia, there was a strong emotional feeling in the room, especially during a debate concerning the legitimacy of their love.  As always, logical appeals were also frequently used because they are by far the easiest of the three rhetorical devices.

      Some things that needed improvement were ethical appeals and participation.  Unfortunately, my prediction that ethical appeals would be more frequent did not come true.  Very few ethical appeals were made and in my opinion, these rhetorical appeals are not harder than emotional appeals.  Another issue in the seminar was participation.  Although most people participated, a select few clearly dominated the conversation while other were not left much time to contribute meaningfully.  

1984 Socratic Seminar #2 Reflection

      The seminar influenced the way I thought about the right for people to have privacy.  After having the seminar, I found myself asking many questions relating to this subject.  How much privacy is one allowed?  At one point does supervision become a violation of human rights?  These questions may have many different responses, and are not at all easy to answer.  One thing said in the seminar which I hadn’t thought of in depth before was how Big Brother could possibly not be a real person.  I thought this could be true, since it seems that nothing is directly carried out by him, but rather by his puppet ministry workers.

      The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the most is that the Party limits sex and sexual pleasure to enforce devotion to the government.  I agree with this because if people cannot be attached to each other, and are only brought up to love the government, it will be almost impossible to start a rebellion.  The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the least is that Big Brother is obviously a real person.  I disagree with this statement because there is absolutely no proof to concur that he exists.  If I had the opportunity to say anything else in the seminar, I would have mentioned the fact that Winston must write articles to honor a nonexistent person, which may imply that other people, such a Big Brother, do not exist either.

      Some things that worked really well for the seminar were the increasing use of emotional appeals and good question-asking.  Compared to the last seminar, there were a lot more statements made in which references from the text helped appeal to emotion instead of logic.  I thought this was definitely an improvement, although many logical appeals still dominated the conversation.  The seminar also brought about very thought-provoking questions that were applicable to our society today, such as the issue of privacy, totalitarian governments, and the effect of violence on children.

      Some things that needed improvement in the seminar were the use of ethical appeals and participation.  Because more emotional appeals were used in the second seminar than in the first, I feel confident that more ethical appeals will be used in the third seminar.  However, I cannot say the same for participation because in my opinion, many less people contributed in the second seminar than in the first.  This may have been due to lack of preparation, given that the seminar preparations are extensive.  However, I hope to see more people participate in the third seminar so that more ideas can be shared and analyzed.