Marissa Caguioa

Storer

ENG 3H Block 5

January 21, 2020

Socratic Circle Reflection on Emmerson and Thoreau

My group (inner circle) discussed Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau. We

found that this text was quite confusing, but I, as the facilitator, asked questions to try to better

understand the text. We all understood that Thoreau advocated for a democratic government that,

ideally, does not govern at all; it greatly appeals to the interests of the people. We also learned

(through the cellmate’s story) that Thoreau seems to believe that having an active government

was unnecessary. However, my inner circle disagreed with Thoreau. We believe that it is

necessary for some type of governing authority to ensure justice and order within society. My

group did well supporting this argument by using situational examples. Patrick specifically

mentioned how the government should hold drunk drivers responsible for their crimes, even if

the damage was unintentional; we all agreed this was true. We then compared this situation to

the cellmate’s story: event though the cell mate accidentally burned down the barn, he should be

held responsible for posing danger to the community; this would help to keep order on a larger

scale. This helped us come to the conclusion that, while a government should appeal to the

people, a government that enforces laws is crucial to keep order within a society.

In this discussion, I was the facilitator. I asked questions from the Socratic seminar

questions that Mrs. Storer provided us, but I asked my own questions in order to continue the

discussion. Additionally, I asked questions in attempt to better understand the text since it was

difficult to comprehend. I emphasized the question about Thoreau’s cellmate because I

personally did not understand how it related to Thoreau’s idea of government. As a group, we

interpreted the cellmate’s story as Thoreau’s expressing how the government gives unnecessary

punishments. Through asking questions, I was able to reach a better understanding of the text. In

the next discussion, I want to be more confident. At times, I spoke too softly or took long pauses

before I actually spoke because I was unsure of myself. My partners reminded me that I must be

confident as a facilitator so that I may successfully lead the conversation.

My essay for this text would be as follows: Henry David Thoreau’s essay, Civil

Disobedience, demonstrates that transcendentalism would create a government that appeals to

the people, but would result in anarchy and chaos. Transcendentalism deeply believes in the

fundamental goodness of the people, which would create a government that only governs those

who consent to be governed. The people must agree with the government to work

(Thoreau speaks of a democracy), which would create a government that greatly appeals to the

people. However, it believes so much in the good of the people, that it does not deem a

government to be necessary. No government would create anarchy. If there is no government to

punish people for their crimes, there would be resulting chaos; people would be less cautious of

the consequences of their actions. Without order, there is chaos.

I connected this text to my own life at home. Starting at a young age, my parents would

give me consequences for bad behavior. For instance, if I did not share with my brother or I

threw an unnecessary tantrum, they would tell me to sit in the corner. Eventually, I learned that I

have to share and that whining is unacceptable – important lessons that apply to life in general. If

I did not have parents who taught me these lessons through necessary consequences, I would

have never learned. I would be self-centered and inconsiderate of those around me. This is

similar to the anarchy which Thoreau describes. If there is no government to ensure justice and
punish people for their crimes, people would never learn and society would be chaotic. People

would be selfish and inconsiderate of the consequences that follow their actions.