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.