Socratic Seminar Reflection: Grapes of Wrath

            This seminar made me rethink my ideas about the function of man being different for different people. Throughout the seminar, I began to realize that I was treating the words “function” and “expectation” as similes, when they are clearly not. The basic function of all mankind is to survive, and beyond that it is to achieve our desires. The American Dream is more of an expectation of mankind, a socially imposed standard that men are supposed to reach, which can vary between various social classes and economic classes. Differentiating between these two was crucial to my understanding of the novel and the message that Steinbeck was trying to get across, so I was very glad to learn it during the seminar. The comment that I thought the most about, and in the most depth, following the conclusion of the seminar was a comment that Charlie made in which he said that the function of man was “to strive for self-betterment and power!” I believe that this is very true because no matter where someone is in their life, they will always spend their life trying to reach a better place with themselves and those around them.

            The comment from the seminar that I agreed with the most was that there is no sin or virtue because when things get tough, it gets harder to pass judgments and determine what’s right or wrong. For instance, people always say that it’s a sin to turn someone away who asks for help. However, if you were a tenant farmer during the Great Depression and you were barely able to feed your family, and someone asked you for help, and you knew that giving it to them would hurt yourself and your family, would it be a sin to turn them down? These ethical lines get blurrier as the situation gets harder. Jim Casy says it himself, “there ain’t no sin and there ain’t no virtue. There’s just stuff people do. It’s all part of the same thing.” On the other hand, the statement I agreed with the least was when Nina said that she believed a homeless man and a CEO had different functions. I fully understand the differences in their lives, but I do not believe that these men would have different functions. I believe the function of all men is to survive and fulfill your wants and needs, and just because the wants and needs of these men differ does not mean that their functions differ. If I could respond to anything in the seminar, it would be the question that Elizabeth asked of why we believe the Joads were unable to stay together. I would answer by saying that although the Joads loved each other and wished to please Ma by remaining intact, almost every member of the Joad family had different desires which caused them to need to fulfill these desires and carry out their functions differently. This made it impossible for them to stay together and carry out their functions at the same time.

            I believe that, overall, this seminar was highly successful. The conversation flowed continuously, and there was never an awkward silence or dull/boring moment. Additionally, people did a great job of building off of one another. As soon as one comment was made, someone would come around with something to add to that comment. All of the ideas were deeply developed and left people with a strong understanding of the question/topic. Another strong suit that I saw was that when people were disagreeing with one another, it was in a very respectful way. While people pointed out the flaws in others arguments, they also made sure to show that they respected the argumenter’s opinion. No one used phrases like “That’s wrong!” or “No, I’m right!” This created a very professional and safe space for people to share their opinions without feeling judged for them.

            However, there is always room for improvement. Although so many things were good in our seminar, there were also some things that could use some major work. Our conversation was very dominated by a few people. This created much competition in which people found it hard to have time to speak, and thus many people remained quiet. This really hurt the seminar because the whole point of a seminar is being able to hear the opinions of ALL your peers. Some people did not speak at all, and others spoke very minimally. No one in our seminar encouraged the quieter people to speak, which was also a mistake. Next time, I think it would be very beneficial if someone would direct a question at someone who is quieter so they feel safe and encouraged to contribute to the conversation. I think overall, group dynamics was the big downfall of the seminar, and something to work on.

Socratic Seminar Reflection: PIA 2



This seminar forced me to analyze the PIA exam in a whole different way. Before this seminar, I used to make all sorts of excuses for why I struggled with the exam. I believed that the test was written poorly, or that the questions were phrased badly. However, during the seminar I began to see the mistakes that I had made, and how they had led me to that conclusion. For instance, on the question that was comparing Martin Luther King's speech and Roosevelt's speech, I was sure that both A and B were correct and that the test was misleading. However, when my classmates explained why B was correct, I realized that Martin Luther King's main point was not how we should treat each other, but was that supervision is needed for people to do the right thing. I had thought answer A was correct because both passages mentioned that detail, but the question was asking for similar main ideas. Thus, it was simply a matter of me not reading the question accurately. Another point that made me think about something more in depth was when our group was discussing the last question. I thought that the phrase, "Justice is blind," meant that justice was not fair because it did not see what was really happening. During the seminar, however, my classmates challenged this by explaining that this phrase means that Justice does not change based on who you are or what you look like, it is constant and fair. This changed my whole approach to the question and made me realize that I should not jump to conclusions on what things mean.

            The statement that I most agreed with was that the social message of the Jane Eyre passage dealing with John being homeschooled due to bad nutrition was poor parenting. Many people believed that it was poor nutrition but I disagree because although that was a part of the problem, the passage clearly stated that the doctor did not agree with John's mother's choices. He thought she was being selfish and that it was hurting her son. This is clearly trying to prove a point about her lack of good parenting skills, and thus I agreed with that as the correct answer. The statement I agreed with the least was when Ryan said that Roosevelt believed the main problem America was facing was unjustified fear. Roosevelt states in his very speech that only a foolish optimist can look away from the dark realities of the moment. Roosevelt believes that fear is needed to push people to make a difference. The correct answer, I believe, was selfish wrongdoing because Roosevelt consistently states it as a major problem that needs to be addressed. If I could say anything else in the seminar it would be that I do not believe many of the questions really have a "right answer." Obviously, the comprehension questions will have only one answer. However, on some of the analysis questions, I truly believe that some of the answer choices that were "wrong" could be argued to be correct. Sometimes I got a little angry during the seminar because someone would make a great point that I agreed with, but I still had to say that they were "wrong" just because it wasn't the answer that the PIA was looking for. I think that we learn in school to analyze everything and form our own arguments about a text, but the PIA doesn't allow us to utilize those skills. Rather, it forces us to think very literally which can be challenging and hard when you try to overthink it.

            I think that many things worked very well in the seminar. I think one of the major highlights was Ryan's discussion leading. We worked in a timely fashion, and we were able to complete all the questions we were assigned. Another positive part of the seminar was that people really built off of each other's ideas. In past seminars, people would often not really listen to each other and then just state a new opinion. These seminars were still interesting, but we didn't reach that level of deeper thinking and analysis because once someone made a statement, it wasn't further addressed. This was not the case in this seminar. People listened to each other, challenged each others statements, and furthered each others ideas. It was really cool to be able to see that happen and reach those levels of thinking. Lastly, I think that people were well prepared for this seminar. Everyone had answers to all of the problems beforehand and thus, everyone was able to participate.

            However, some things did not work as well in the seminar. There were a lot of dominators in the conversation, which made a lot of people hesitant to contribute. I saw a lot of people starting to say something and then stopping because someone else began to talk. This was hard to see because everyone has great opinions and things to share and I wish that everyone had a chance to share them, rather than hearing from the same people. This also created a competitive vibe in the seminar in which people were fighting to speak and talking over each other. This made the seminar very stressful and not very welcoming. I believe that a big factor of this was the timing situation. I don't believe anybody in the seminar felt that it was long enough, and many of us felt pressured to talk because we were feeling rushed.

Chapters 23-27: Family Discussion Reflection

Research

 

Summary: For this family discussion, I read an article that dealt with the psychological effects of the Great Depression and how it impacted peoples' daily lives. The article addresses how factors such as lack of consistent education, instability in the job market, constant pressure to support one's family, and the fear of the unknown could cause families to reach severe levels of depression and anxiety. Additionally, threats of diseases and malnutrition jeopardized the farmers' (and their families') well being. It's hard to imagine getting through the physical aspects of life during the great depression, but when you add on the mental challenges that so many people faced at the time, it is hard to understand how they made it through.

 

Evaluation: This text is related to Grapes of Wrath because the Joad family faces many hardships on their journey that push them physically and mentally beyond their limits. Ma Joad struggles with depression and helplessness as she feels the family is falling apart and she cannot stop it. Noah Joad feels that his family does not love him and eventually strays away from them. The whole Joad family undergoes three deaths - Granma, Granpa, and their dog - which causes severe emotional strain. Rose of Sharon's husband is unable to cope and leaves her alone with an unborn child. Every single character struggles emotionally, but they are unable to experience their pain because they must be strong and continue to fight to survive.

 

MLA Citation: "Life During the Great Depression." N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Jan. 2014. <http://academic.mu.edu/meissnerd/depression.htm>.

 

Philosophical Questioning

 

As I was reading these chapters, I developed some questions that I felt would be good to discuss and analyze deeper. They were as follows.

1) If you had to choose between economic stability (holding a job that could support your family) or mental stability (being happy and enjoying life), which would you choose and why?

2) Is it ethical to help another family when yours is in need? If you and your family were struggling in the Great Depression and someone came to your doorstep asking for help, should you give it to them even if it might hurt your own family?

3) Do you believe that poverty can lead to mental health issues? Give an example in modern times.

 

Reflection

 

The most memorable moment in my family discussion was when my father and I discussed whether mental stability or economic stability was more important. This was tough because it's easy to say mental stability because if you're happy than nothing else should matter. However, if you're happy but you can't afford healthcare and you get sick and pass away, then maybe it's not as important. Ultimately, we did not land on a decision, but discussed the importance of each. Personally, I would rather die young and be happy than be miserable with financial security. Life is about so much more than money, yet it really does "make the world go round" as this unit title says.

 

In this discussion, I was surprised by how much my father and I discussed question two. My dad believed that you should never turn down somebody in need no matter what the cost. He said that when you think of it in the abstract, it makes sense to put your family's needs first, but in reality if someone comes to your begging for help, you would not be able to refuse them help. However, I disagreed. I think that it's important to draw the line between when you are giving too much. Of course, I don't think that you should ever turn someone away, but I think that you can't give to the point that you yourself are at risk. If you try to feed five people in need, your child might not receive as much food and might, consequently, suffer from malnutrition and diseases that come with it. Is it ethical to put a stranger's needs before your child's? I disagreed. We debated this all over our discussion and through the next few days and still have not fully reached a consensus.

 

For the next family discussion, I will try to make all of my questions equally as thought-provoking. In my discussion with my father, we discussed question 2 almost three times as long as either of the other questions. Question 1 and 3 were a bit too straightforward, and did not push us to debate them or think deeper on them. However, my father and I continued to debate over question 2 for days. I think that next time my questions should be more evenly spread out and equal to each other in value.