An Exercise of Restraint

I suppose in American Conversation one of the things we are learning to do is converse effectively. Our exercise today, although I can see its purpose, almost discouraged conversation mainly for three reasons: 1) at its start the exercise puts enormous pressure on the first person to start, 2) spectators who may have an opinion or a response to something said are forbidden to speak, and 3) by the time people shift out of the hot seats, the opinions or responses that people in the outer circle had to the previous conversation are no longer relevant. Although this made the discussion very uncomfortable and frustrating to endure it does reflect some important points about our own society.
    1) At the start of the exercise the responsibility to begin the conversation rested entirely on the shoulders of one person. Not only is this exclusive to everyone else who may have an idea of how to begin, it also mounts enormous pressure on one person to begin the class period. It puts the student underneath the magnifying glass so to speak because amidst the silence one person is expected to speak and, in the class setting, speak intelligently. I believe that when put on the spot, people are less likely to argue or assert a point effectively because the person feels as if everyone is staring at him or her and fear that he or she will be judged by those watching. I don't believe people function properly when they are afraid. Fear is nonconductive to conversation and is thus a restraining element in the classroom setting.
    2) During the exercise people in the outer circle were forbidden to speak. There was a seat for people from the exterior to come in and out of the center conversation, but this seat quickly became just another permanently occupied spot. This kind of conversation seems contrary to the purpose of the class. When people are prevented from speaking, the conversation becomes restricted, and closed. I think this is really a shame when others may have legitimate points or responses to arguments made within the circle. Other points could have opened the conversation up to a higher level of intellectuality and widen the spheres of consideration of the middle people. Inclusion of points or topics in a conversation generally makes conversation richer and more meaningful. Because the conversation was restrictive rather than inclusive, it was difficult to have a real comprehensive view of what was being discussed.
     3)  Because people were prevented from speaking and giving opinions, by the time the people who had comments to offer got a chance to reach the middle and speak, the conversation had been steered in a different direction and their points were no longer relevant. The conversation as a whole was choppy and many points were revisited in order to mention points that had been rendered irrelevant. Additionally fear of the conversation moving beyond an appropriate point to interject a response made it difficult for the audience to pay attention to what was being discussed in the center. The tension in the outer circle of people getting ready to race to the center to say something as well as peoples' comments when someone didn't get to the hot seat in time was very distracting. There were a number of points that I missed because of this.
      Although today's conversation was difficult to endure I can see the value or intended lesson. Firstly it got everyone to participate and make at least three important points as opposed to simply agreeing with points others had made. The exercise also spoke volumes about our own society. There are certain demographics or groups or people who do not have opportunities to make points, defend themselves, and contribute to our society because of prejudices or fear of judgement or lack of power. The four people in the center of the class held all the power to steer the conversation. They controlled what got discussed and what was said about the topics. The feelings of restraint of the people in the outer circle are very real for many citizens in discussing issues much larger and that have much greater consequence than our classroom discussions. This kind of conversing also reflects our own system as a republic. We put our trust in Senators and Representatives to represent the viewpoints of an entire region or larger group of people. Of course the four people in the center couldn't represent the views of all the other students in the class. The feelings of those in the outer circle probably reflect those of the members of the  Tea Party Movement who feel they don't have a voice in political matters because the power of conversation is concentrated on a smaller group whose responsibility it is to represent larger areas. This makes the points of the Tea Party much more real to me. Perhaps they aren't all crazy radicals or loud republicans. Perhaps they just feel restrained.