Victor Duenas Gonzalez

Ms. Storer
English 3H; Block 5
January 22, 2020
Socratic Circle Reflection on Transcendentalism
The overall group performance was strong, and it was evident that the members were
clearly prepared for the Socratic seminar. A lot of textual evidence was used to support views,
especially by the third inner group. During the second inner circle, two questions were discussed:
“What are some of the things that surround us in the United States today about which Thoreau
might cry, ‘Simplify, simplify’?” and “What was your reaction to Emerson’s discussion on
nonconformity? In your experience, how valuable a trait is the type of nonconformity that
Emerson recommends?” The texts used were Emerson’s Self-Reliance and Thoreau’s Walden.
Andres did a really great job as a facilitator because for the first question asked (the “Simplify,
simplify” question) almost no one gave a response. However, he kept giving ideas—some related
to economics, others to social structures, and others to politics—until people started participating
more and more. In another inner group, I liked how Priscilla was clear and confident when she
spoke. The collaboration in each inner group was good and each person was respectful towards
one other; each adding a deeper meaning to the discussion.
My individual performance was average. What I did well is that I was able to give a
coherent opinion and participate in the conversation. I only said one thing in an inner group in
relation to the question “What was your reaction to Emerson’s discussion on nonconformity? In
your experience, how valuable a trait is the type of nonconformity that Emerson recommends?”
This question was based on Emerson’s Self-Reliance. I stated, “I think in most cases
nonconformity is neither correct nor efficient, but it depends on the situation. I think it would
only apply if one were forced by law or coercion to partake in an immoral or harmful act.” This
was a new point of view. According to my partner “I contributed to the conversation.” Although
I positively impacted the discussion, I still need a lot of improvement. I did not use textual
evidence to support my view. Also, the point I made was rather superficial; I need to make
deeper points. Another thing that I need to work is that I need to speak more clearly and loudly.
What happens is that I become really nervous and I start messing up. I need to work on being
tranquil and comfortable when speaking.
Through the views discussed in the Socratic seminar, it is clear that transcendentalism has
many apparent positive benefits towards society; however, in reality it contains many false
teachings that could lead society towards destruction. Transcendentalism promotes a utopian
society. Socialism is an example of a type of a government found in a utopian community.
However, all throughout history such communities have never had true success. The reason that
Transcendentalism has not been successful in human history is due to its inefficiency. Perfection
cannot be expected from imperfect humans. Only the best effort can. A person can most fully be
himself when he or she has true freedom and not when the government controls him or her. True
freedom in this context is not what transcendentalism teaches—truth dependent on the
individual's desires and experiences—but rather true freedom is acting in a way that not only
benefits an individual, but the overall community. Individualism, supported by Thoreau and
Emerson through their writing, will destroy a society because it will lead to disunity. Humans are
interdependent not solitary beings.
I want to focus my connection on nonconformity and individualism. Since a very young
age, I have had trouble forming social relationships; most of my time in elementary and middle
school I spent alone. This is in effect, led me to form a passive and conformal attitude because I
wanted to fit in. People would sometimes make fun of me and I did not tell anyone I just let it
pass. Also, many people took advantage of me because they would ask me for academic help,
and I would end up doing their work instead. I have come to learn that I have to be
nonconformal, as I stated on the Socratic seminar, when it hurts me, or it is immoral. But I
remain conformal to those in authority, such as school, my parents, the Church, and the law. I am
not completely against nonconformity, but I am completely against individualism. In Campus
Ministry I have learned that individualism damages people because it leads them to become
narcissistic. It also supports relativism. As a Catholic, I am completely against relativism. As
humans, we must not ask ourselves “how I can benefit myself?” but “how can I do good for
others?”