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.