Socratic Seminar

In our class's seminar, we discussed Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In this group discussion, we encountered new ideas, had our own ideas challenged, learned interesting information related to the book. All of us had to come prepared for this discussion, in order to enrich our understanding of the book, so that means no thoughts from scratch. There were some aspects of my performance in the seminar I wish I could change, and some I feel I did well on. Because of the seminar, I have become a better listener and speaker.

Since other people had input, they introduced a few new ideas to me. Thomas brought up the fact that there was a difference in surviving and living, which I had never thought of before. Kelsey actually read about Henry Ford and learned that he was very racist and, ironically enough, supported Nazism. I always thought of Henry Ford as an all-American wholesome man, but I never really looked into it.

My ideas were never challenged; we all pretty much agreed on everything. If anything, I challenged my own thinking. I first thought that since Henry Ford was a big-shot during his time, Huxley praised him with giving him a religious title in the story, but I then proposed a new idea: Perhaps Huxley condemned Ford.

Preparing for this seminar with research enriched my knowledge and understanding. I went into the research naive of the rich background information and came out of research informed and, oddly enough, refreshed. I made connections to the text, making the text more clear.

As far as participation goes, I had a lot more to say in the first discussion I was in about Huxley giving Henry Ford the role of the society's god, because it's a more touchy subject to me and researching the topic was easier than the latter topic I participated in, so I felt a bit more fulfilled in the Henry Ford topic than the topic that involved Huxley's beliefs versus Orwell's beliefs on what will destroy us.

What was difficult on the latter was research, and because of that, I was less prepared for that discussion. The question asked for my thoughts, and I did not know what could really support my thoughts. I also had a load of difficulty putting the scattered thoughts in my brain in actual sentences, which I have always had trouble with. If I had to anything over, it would be better preparation for the latter topic. If I had done that, I would be far more satisfied with my role in the group's discussion.

On the flip side, I really enjoyed the first discussion I was in, because I get some strange kick out of discussing semi-religious topics in a small group. I liked the fact that I was able to express my thoughts and have others retaliate in a respectful manner, which was something much different than my experiences of discussing a deep subject with a group (my former experience was mainly debate). Along with Kelsey's thoughts on Fordism, I loved listening to Sam and Thomas's thoughts on whether love or hate will destroy us.

I learned that I am only a good communicator, having a clean ratio of speaking to listening, when I am very well prepared and have all of my thoughts in order. Otherwise, I listen much more than speak, thus giving me a very unbalanced "speak to listen ratio." That seems to be the case with everyone-- how can one thoroughly communicate something he or she does not quite understand him/herself? I might get overly excited about a subject and feel as if I should pour all my thoughts out at once. I recall getting the feeling that words were building up in my mouth, almost distracting me from truly listening.

I am a fan of the Socratic Seminar, though I do get slightly nervous. There is nothing wrong with the Socratic system, just me. These seminars will probably assist in helping me with public speaking. I hope we can do another seminar soon.