Blog #1 - Tyler C.

Question 4:  The social class conflict in Oleanna is difficult to analyze because it's hard to pinpoint what exactly Carol's intentions were from the very beginning.  From the short class discussion we had on Thursday, it seemed that most people assumed that Carol had already intended to revolt and bring John down from the beginning.  If this is the case, then the conflict arises from Carol's group feeling that their social class is being exploited and treated unfairly by John and those like him in his upper social class.  However, if initially Carol genuinely did want to see him to talk about her grade, then the conflict that arose afterwards resulted from misunderstanding or misinterpretation from both parties based on their social class perspectives.

I do think that John's use of specialized language did contribute to the conflict, but I don't think it was intended to be elitist.  From Carol's perspective, I could see how it could be interpreted as a tool of oppression or exclusion, but to say that was John's intent is too presumptuous.  To me, it just seemed like that was the type of language John was most comfortable using since he seemed perfectly fine with explaining what he meant (he never belittled her for not knowing what he was talking about.)  It's frustrating to analyze, because Carol (presumably) came to this university to learn, yet when John uses vocabulary and language she doesn't understand she views it as him trying to hold a position of power rather than an opportunity to learn.  So, in my opinion, because John did not intend to use his language for elitist or exclusionary purposes, viewing it in that fashion as Carol did is a one-sided misinterpretation.

Question 8:  I have to agree with Showalter.  I really don't think that Mamet provided a balanced perspective since it's too easy to take John's side in the conflict and view Carol's actions as being mostly malicious.  

John did do many things wrong, such as manhandling her inappropriately, appearing self-absorbed at times, and arguably not using his position of power to the best that he could.  However, it's hard to see many of John's actions as anything but good-intentioned, especially in the first act.  This might be due to the lack of contextual information outside of the office setting which the entire play took place.  Carol did note a few remarks John made towards female classmates (something like "Don't you look fetching?") but without more of that outside information, it's difficult to see John and Carol as equally abusive.  The most balanced argument I can think of is that John simply misunderstood Carol's social background, which caused him to act in a way that made Carol misinterpret the intention of his actions and use of language.  But even then, I can't say that John deserved what he got just because of a misunderstanding.