The
seminar greatly deepened my understanding of 1984 as a whole, as I was able to see other people’s view of the
dystopian society. I realized more in depth how the propaganda of the
totalitarian government dictates the thoughts of the people and directly
controls their actions. When someone mentioned the woman Winston works with who
claims that Big Brother is her savior, I thought she was saying so to avoid
suspicion from the thought police. The discussion got me thinking and I
realized that she actually believed this man was a god due to propaganda.
I
most agreed with the statement that this dystopia was a possibility if World
War II had ended differently. However, I disagreed with the statement that our
current desensitization toward violence could eventually lead us to this. If I could
have properly responded to this, I would have said that basic human instinct
and emotion will prevent us from the level of desensitization outlined in 1984. A fully dystopian society would be
necessary to create such an apathy towards violence, and as the world moves
towards democracy, this scenario seems more and more unlikely.
The
seminar flowed very smoothly, and I think it was evident that almost everyone
read the assigned reading. Multiple arguments developed, and both sides could
support their claims with textual evidence.
However,
the biggest problem to me was my personal contribution. While I was operating
on a half hour of sleep, my responses were weak, unsupported, and I only utilized
logical appeals throughout the seminar. I plan on focusing on textual evidence
to support claims for all three rhetorical appeals for next seminar.
No comments:
Post a Comment