Tag: Academic Essay

Living With Questions: The Socratic Method in Classroom and Culture

By Jill Szoo Wilson

Socrates left a legacy without pages or diagrams. No book, no formal lectures, no chalkboard sketches survive him. What endures is the way he lived with others: asking questions, listening intently, and then pressing further. His gift is a method of dialogue that unsettles, clarifies, and invites. To teach in the Socratic tradition is to resist performance and cultivate a climate where inquiry carries more authority than certainty.

That tradition speaks as directly to the classroom as it does to a fractured culture. In both settings, the Socratic method interrupts the rush to easy answers. It honors the long pause. It elevates the well-placed question above the polished explanation. What begins as a teaching practice matures into a posture for living, one that dignifies thought and relationship by daring to stay with questions.

The Marketplace Origins: Asking Instead of Telling

Athens in Socrates’ lifetime was a city at once confident and restless. Fresh from its victories over Persia, it stood as the cultural beacon of Greece. Marble temples gleamed on the Acropolis, dramatists filled the theatres with tragedies and comedies, and statesmen praised the promise of democracy. Yet beneath this brilliance ran deep fissures—political rivalries, the scars of war, and a constant struggle over who truly held power.

The agora, Athens’ central marketplace, embodied this tension. It was a place of commerce and spectacle: stalls piled with figs and olives, artisans hammering bronze, and heralds shouting the news of decrees and battles. Philosophers debated beside fishmongers; politicians addressed citizens over the clamor of bargaining; incense smoke mingled with the smell of fresh bread and animals waiting for sacrifice. It was here, amid noise and distraction, that Socrates carved out his peculiar space.

He would stop citizens in their errands and ask them to define justice, courage, or piety, slowly unraveling their answers until their certainties frayed. In Euthyphro, he presses a man outside the courthouse to explain piety, only to show that each attempt contradicts the last. In Laches, he asks two generals to define courage, and their confident replies dissolve into confusion. In the opening of Republic, he challenges Cephalus and Polemarchus on the meaning of justice, demonstrating how easily their definitions falter under questioning. What seemed like simple conversation became a mirror, exposing how fragile even the most assured convictions were. Plato’s dialogues preserve these encounters not as tidy resolutions but as open-ended confrontations with truth.

What set Socrates apart was not the possession of wisdom but the way he pursued it. He treated each encounter as a mutual investigation, overturning the idea that knowledge could be handed down like a finished object. Truth, for him, was something coaxed into view through dialogue, through the disciplined art of asking.

Socrates’ conversations in the marketplace did more than unsettle individuals; they modeled a form of learning that has echoed across centuries. What began among merchants and magistrates in Athens set the pattern for dialogue wherever teaching takes place. The classroom, no less than the agora, can become a site where questions break open assumptions and where truth takes shape in conversation.

The Classroom as Dialogue

In a modern classroom, the Socratic method unfolds in deceptively simple ways. A student offers an answer. Rather than affirm or correct, the teacher presses: Why? What evidence supports that? Could it be otherwise? The questions circle, sometimes frustratingly, until the student is forced to examine not only the conclusion but the reasoning beneath it.

Educational research helps explain why this works. In a classic study published in Cognitive Science, Michelene Chi and her colleagues found that students who were prompted to generate their own explanations remembered concepts more deeply and transferred their knowledge more effectively than those who were simply told the answer (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994). The act of reasoning aloud forces the mind to weave fragments of knowledge into coherence. In other words, the question matters more than the answer.

The Socratic method also relies on what psychologists call productive struggle. Manu Kapur, writing in Cognition and Instruction in 2008, demonstrated that students who wrestled with challenging problems, even to the point of initial failure, ultimately achieved more robust learning than those given immediate instruction. The discomfort of not knowing is not a flaw in the process. It is the process. A teacher’s role is not to step in too quickly, but to sustain that tension just long enough for students to find their own foothold.

Silence, too, is part of the method. Mary Budd Rowe’s pioneering research on “wait time” in the 1970s revealed that when teachers extended their pause after asking a question from one second to three or more, students’ answers became longer, more thoughtful, and more complex. What can feel like an empty pause to the teacher becomes essential space for the student, a place where thought can ripen. The Socratic method depends on this kind of patience.

This approach does not abandon structure. It requires precision. The teacher must listen closely, know when to push further, and know when to let silence do the work. In this sense, Socratic teaching is less about performance and more about orchestration. It is the art of drawing forth what already exists in the room.

One can think of it as choreography. Students move between certainty and doubt, between answer and reconsideration. The teacher’s role is not to correct their steps but to keep them dancing.

Everyday Questions: Beyond the Classroom

The Socratic method is not confined to philosophy seminars or literature courses. Its spirit belongs equally to the conversations of daily life. In relationships, questions can transform conflict into dialogue. A child says to a parent, “You never listen to me.” The reflexive answer is defensive. The Socratic one is curious: What do you mean when you say I don’t listen? Can you give me an example?

This instinct to probe rather than defend rests on something deeper than style; it rests on the nature of curiosity itself. Psychologists remind us that curiosity is more than idle wondering. George Loewenstein, in a landmark 1994 article in Psychological Bulletin, described curiosity as an “information gap,” the restless tension that arises when we sense something missing in our understanding. More recent work in Frontiers in Psychology shows that when students encounter uncertainty, curiosity becomes the force that drives them to explore and make new connections (Vogl, Pekrun, Murayama, and Loderer, 2020).

In friendships, in workplaces, even in disagreements over politics or faith, asking rather than asserting changes the emotional temperature. A statement closes the door. A question cracks it open. Curiosity reveals something essential about imagination: how a person envisions not only what is, but what could be; the possibilities they long to explore, the connections they hope to forge with themselves, with others, and with the world.

Neuroscience reinforces this. Celeste Kidd and Benjamin Hayden, writing in Neuron in 2015, define curiosity as “the motivation to seek information for its own sake.” In a related study, Matthias Gruber and colleagues demonstrated that curiosity activates the brain’s reward circuits and strengthens memory formation (Neuron, 2014). A good question, then, does more than elicit an answer. It calls imagination into play, deepens memory, and builds connection.

This does not mean questions are neutral. They can unsettle. They can demand honesty. Yet precisely because they do not declare, they invite the other person into the act of discovery. Socratic questioning is not about winning an argument. It is about honoring another’s mind enough to linger with them in uncertainty and to treat their imagination and hopes as worthy of exploration.

The Risks of Unsettling: A Real Life Example

To live by questions is to embrace vulnerability. Students often resist when pressed beyond their first answers. They want the comfort of being told they are correct. Adults, too, may bristle when asked to explain themselves. The Socratic method exposes the fragility of our assumptions, and this exposure can feel threatening.

On the first day of one of my Theatre classes this semester, I asked my students, “What is art?” I called on each of them to give me a definition and wrote down the key words from their responses: skill, technique, motivation to create, free speech, passion, purpose, beauty, subjectivity, therapy, communication, no rules, and evolving.

We then took each word and examined it together. “Beauty,” I asked, “is beauty art? Is art beauty?” One student pushed back: “Well, art can be beautiful, but it can also be scary. Or ugly. Or even neutral, depending on who’s looking at it. So, no. Beauty is not art.” I pressed further: “Can we agree that beauty is a descriptor of some art? Maybe we could even say all beauty points to an artist?” Another student jumped in: “Not really. A tree is beautiful. Clouds are beautiful. They appear from natural processes. So they aren’t art.” I redirected, “Can we agree that beauty is a function of art?” And on the conversation went until the students decided to cross beauty off the list.

One by one, we worked through each of the words on the list in the same way, weighing assumptions, testing counterexamples, and listening carefully to each other’s reasoning. By the end, the only words left on the board were creation, purpose, and expression. Together, we concluded that art is “creative expression on purpose.” The definition wasn’t handed down. It was discovered.

Moments like these illustrate both the risk and the reward of the Socratic method. Students feel unsettled at first, stripped of the security of a quick, “right” answer. However, the unease compels them to move past preconceived notions and into genuine thought. Jack Mezirow, in his work on transformative learning, called these moments “disorienting dilemmas,” disruptions that compel us to reconsider our frames of reference (Mezirow, 1991). Similarly, research on “desirable difficulties” in learning shows that challenges that slow down the process often produce stronger retention and deeper understanding (Bjork & Bjork, 2011).

Teachers who practice this method must learn patience. Silence stretches. Frustration mounts. The temptation to resolve the tension with a quick answer is strong. But to yield too soon is to miss the point. Socratic dialogue insists that truth is not a prize handed down but a path walked together.

These moments of questioning can be charged, uncomfortable, and revealing. They carry the risk of resistance, but they also create the conditions for genuine transformation. To teach Socratically is to accept that unease is not failure. It is the very ground where change takes root.

The Gift of Dialogue

The gift of the Socratic method lies in its redefinition of authority. The teacher’s power is not in providing answers but in dignifying students with the capacity to seek their own. To be asked a serious question is to be taken seriously. It signals that one’s perspective matters, that one’s reasoning deserves attention.

This gift matters far beyond the classroom. The United States is in a season of turmoil. Every time an angry word is shouted, a bullet flies through the air, or a cultural symbol is weaponized, dialogue fractures into generalizations, name-calling, and heels dug into the soil where the blood of ancestors who fought in the Civil War still lingers. When dialogue collapses, we don’t only lose civility. We lose the possibility of understanding.

One afternoon, I set aside my lecture notes and simply asked my class, “How are you all? If there was one thing you would want my generation to understand about your generation, what would it be?” The room quieted. Students looked at each other, then at me, and began to speak. Their answers were not rehearsed. They spilled out of anxiety, depression, numbness, confusion, and a sense of chaos. And yet, as they named these things, the fire burning in the world outside our classroom seemed to recede. No one was trading positions or slogans. We were speaking above them. Each person had the opportunity to share complex thoughts, emotions, and ideas, while others listened.

All I did was ask a question and then pay attention.

Conclusion: Living With Questions

The Socratic method is more than a teaching strategy. It is a way of being present to the world with curiosity. It slows the rush toward certainty and leaves room for ambiguity while honoring the dignity of another person’s thought.

To live by questions is not easy. It asks for patience, humility, and a willingness to stay with silence. Yet in that space, understanding becomes possible. Dialogue deepens. Connections form. Perhaps this is why the method endures. Not because it guarantees answers, but because it keeps us searching, together.

Beauty and Destruction in the Work of Sam Shepard: A Theatrical Collision

By Jill Szoo Wilson

Introduction

In the plays of Sam Shepard, beauty and destruction are not opposing forces so much as interdependent elements, continually coexisting, colliding, and reconstituting one another. His characters, often broken men in desolate landscapes or fraying domestic spaces, search for transcendence but are tethered to the ruins of family, memory, and myth. This essay explores Shepard’s use of beauty and destruction as thematic counterpoints and mutually generative forces in works such as Buried Child (1978), True West (1980), and Fool for Love (1983). In Buried Child, a child’s corpse buried in the backyard serves as a symbol of familial disintegration that resurfaces through surreal harvests. In True West, the kitchen becomes a battleground where toast and typewriters fly, and in Fool for Love, the rhythm of two doomed lovers is rendered audible through physical contact with a set built from drum skin. Each play demands intense physical and emotional presence, and together they form a trilogy of destruction drawn in poetry, silence, and sound. This essay considers the structural and performative demands these themes place on both text and actor.

In contrast to playwrights who treat destruction as a moral end or beauty as a redemptive balm, Shepard constructs a theatrical world in which the two often co-occur. In Shepard’s work, we see raw violence framed in lyricism and spiritual longing undercut by physical collapse. His stage directions read like prose poems. His dialogue pulses with the tension of characters reaching for something sublime while pulling the trigger on their own undoing. This paradox resonates deeply with the teachings of Sanford Meisner, who insisted that “acting is the ability to live truthfully under imaginary circumstances.” In Shepard’s imaginary worlds, the truth is frequently unbearable and, at the same time, luminous.

Destruction as Inheritance — Buried Child

In Buried Child, Shepard excavates the American family mythos, exposing its rotted core beneath the pastoral iconography of the Midwest. The play opens with Dodge, an alcoholic patriarch, coughing on a couch while rain lashes the windows of his decaying farmhouse. The setting is already decomposing; destruction is not merely happening, it has happened, and its aftermath persists like mold on the American Dream.

What makes this destruction poetic rather than gratuitous is Shepard’s language. Dodge’s sardonic wit and Tilden’s fractured monologues evoke a kind of haunted beauty. When Tilden carries in freshly harvested corn and carrots, impossibly, from land long presumed fallow, the vegetables function as both an eerie miracle and a symbol of buried truth. The farm yields again, but only as a sign that the past cannot stay buried.

This return of growth serves as a central metaphor in the play: the truth, once buried, has taken root. It now pushes upward in ways the characters cannot fully comprehend or control. The new growth is ambiguous—both miraculous and monstrous, both a sign of life and a symptom of rot. As the character Shelly remarks, “You can’t force a thing to grow.” Her observation, offered with both innocence and frustration, frames one of the play’s central tensions: the futility of control. What has been buried, especially when traumatic or unacknowledged, does not remain dormant. It germinates in silence, demanding recognition. The corn and carrots become emblems of this paradox in that the land produces life not in celebration, but in indictment. The soil remembers.

As acting theorist Uta Hagen writes in Respect for Acting, “the objective must always be rooted in the truth of the moment, however elusive that truth may be.” In Buried Child, the actor’s task is to embody emotional disorientation within a physical world that no longer obeys rational laws. The characters’ denial of the unspeakable crime (an incestuous child murdered and buried in the backyard) structures their entire relational dynamic, making truth both the threat and the only possible redemption. Destruction in this play is not explosive but ambient; it lingers, infects, and ultimately demands to be unearthed. When Dodge mutters, “He’s not dead. He’s lying out there in the rain,” or when Tilden brings in armfuls of crops and states flatly, “I picked it. I picked it all,” the audience begins to grasp the scale of denial wrapped in ritual and decay. The crime at the heart of the family has not simply been buried; it has become atmospheric, altering everything it touches.

Beauty on the Brink — True West

If Buried Child presents destruction as something buried within the familial structure, True West stages it as a volatile performance, immediate, escalating, and bound by an unstable intimacy. The play centers on two estranged brothers, Austin and Lee, whose identities slowly collapse into one another in a taut, absurdist spiral. Their interactions shift from passive aggression to full-blown physical chaos, culminating in a nearly feral regression.

What emerges, paradoxically, is a strange kind of beauty: a dark symmetry between the brothers, a primal dance of dominance and dependence. Their chaotic exchanges echo Meisner’s call for emotional truth: “Don’t do anything until something happens to make you do it.” Every gesture in True West is reactive, impulsive, and dangerously real. The play becomes a study in what happens when actors are fully present within characters who are fully unraveling.

In one of the play’s quieter yet more hauntingly resonant moments, Austin asks his mother if he can take some of her china with him into the desert. The request, almost absurd given the play’s building chaos, reflects a deeply human impulse: to carry something civil, refined, and domestic into a wild and untamed place. It is a moment of tragic tenderness. Austin, whose identity has begun to dissolve under the pressure of his brother’s presence and the unraveling of his life, tries to hold on to something emblematic of order. The china becomes an anchor, a symbolic plea for beauty in a world rapidly losing form. But the attempt to impose civility on chaos is ultimately futile.

This desire to preserve the daily rituals of safety, represented by dishes, meals, and domestic customs, is swallowed by the very wilderness he is stepping into. The destruction of the daily order becomes, paradoxically, an act of liberation: a refusal to replicate the emotional sterility and performative masculinity modeled by their father. Their unraveling, though chaotic, is also an act of anti-inheritance. It’s a way of rejecting the rigid, lifeless structures passed down to them. In destroying the structure, the brothers reach, however destructively, for something that might be more authentic.

Their final confrontation, circling each other with cords and toasters, lit in a harsh wash of kitchen light, culminates not in resolution but in a mutual snarl of recognition. As the lights go down, they are frozen, both caught in mirrored stances, each a grotesque reflection of the other. The beauty here is not in their harmony but in the stark exposure of their inherited chaos. It is the raw, unvarnished honesty of the moment—the shedding of illusion, the physical embodiment of the emotional lineage they have both tried to escape—that becomes beautiful. In seeing themselves reflected in each other’s ruin, they finally confront the truth that has been simmering beneath the surface all along. The symmetry is terrible, but it is real. In Shepard’s world, reality, no matter how brutal, carries its own strange and terrible grace.

Shepard writes the destruction of these men with startling elegance. Their violence is framed in precise stage directions and taut, almost musical dialogue. Beauty resides not in the content of their actions, but in the way the play choreographs collapse with clarity and control. The kitchen, once a place of order and domesticity, becomes the site of total disorder. Toast burns, typewriters smash, and identities merge. And yet, in this implosion, Shepard captures something elemental: the deep, even mythic pull toward self-annihilation in the search for meaning.

Desire on the Edge of Ruin — Fool for Love

In Fool for Love, Shepard explores the entanglement of beauty and destruction through the lens of obsessive love. The play unfolds in a Mojave motel room where May and Eddie, bound by shared history and irrevocable desire, attempt to extricate themselves from a relationship that has long since passed the point of salvation. Their love is violent, cyclical, and relentless: a collision of longing and despair.

Here, destruction takes the shape of repetition. Eddie leaves, returns, makes promises, and breaks them. May pulls away, only to be drawn back in. Their intimacy is a closed circuit, sparking and sparking but never resolving. The presence of Martin, a well-meaning outsider, introduces a strategic third element, used by May to reestablish her autonomy and disrupt the intensity between herself and Eddie.

Martin becomes a foil, not only to Eddie but to the rhythm of the couple’s collapse. He functions less as a romantic rival and more as a symbol of distance, a grasp at sanity, and an invitation to something less volatile. In Martin’s calm and steadiness, Eddie’s chaos becomes unmistakable, and for a moment, May can see it for what it is and see herself as someone who might choose differently.

In one unforgettable scene, Martin asks simple questions—about Eddie, about the past—but is met with silence or deflection. He becomes a quiet observer, watching the frayed edges of a relationship he cannot fully comprehend. When Eddie returns with rope and a motel bedpost in mind, Martin shifts from passive guest to unwitting witness, positioned just outside the emotional violence unfolding before him. His bafflement mirrors the audience’s own, offering a point of contrast: where Eddie and May are entangled in a closed circuit of obsession, Martin represents the rational world. He is detached, orderly, and unprepared for the depth of their volatility. In this way, Martin’s presence underscores the gulf between emotional entrapment and emotional clarity.

The language of the play is undeniably beautiful. Shepard allows lyricism to rise through the violence, crafting lines that vibrate with poetic realism. In the original production, that lyricism was made visceral through sound. The set design included walls made of stretched drum material, allowing the actors to fall against, roll against, and hit the surfaces. Their bodies created percussion with each physical interaction resonating audibly in the space. In one key moment, May launches herself against the wall in anguish, and the reverberation stuns both the audience and her scene partner, making the violence not just visible but visceral. The drum-like resonance blurs the line between action and underscoring, allowing the architecture itself to speak the unspeakable. The walls held their pain, amplified their pulses, and gave form to the emotional choreography that defined their bond. In this way, the set itself became an instrument, conducting the music of destruction.

Uta Hagen reminds us that “the best performances are those in which the actor ceases to act and begins to live.” Fool for Love demands exactly that. The actors must inhabit emotional extremes without ever veering into melodrama. They must make devastation look inevitable but never rehearsed. It is step by step that Eddie and May unravel. The characters are not caricatures of dysfunction; they are portraits of the human impulse to chase beauty (love) even when it leads to ruin.

Conclusion

In Shepard’s theatrical universe, beauty is never pristine, and destruction is rarely complete. The two are fused in an uneasy duet with one rising through the other, undoing and remaking what came before. His characters do not simply live in the aftermath of chaos; they create it, inherit it, resist it, and remake themselves through it. They destroy what they love in the same breath that they reach for transcendence. Truth, in this world, is not a final destination but something that emerges only through rupture and rebirth.

For actors, Shepard’s work is both an invitation and a crucible. It demands presence without pretense, risk without rehearsal, and emotional exposure without easy catharsis. As Sanford Meisner reminds us, the actor’s task is to live truthfully under imaginary circumstances, and in Shepard’s plays, those circumstances are often brutal. The performer must inhabit contradictions so fully that they cease to be contradictions and become character. For audiences, the reward is a visceral encounter with the kind of upheaval that often defines real life, rendered before them with clarity, immediacy, and form. Shepard’s plays are not about fixing what’s broken. They are about what is revealed when the breaking is allowed to speak.

✨ If you’d like to keep reading more essays like this, you can also find me on Substack: https://substack.com/@jillszoowilson