It is fashionable with the new breed of novelists to separate politics from art. But in the case of John Steinbeck, this distinction is not evident. The author, in the process of creating a work of art had also taken upon himself to ask questions of social injustices in general and economic disparities in particular. Hence, Steinbeck’s body of work are in essence are full of his own perspective on the state of rural American society; the medium of the novel have given Steinbeck the requisite scope and opportunity to fulfill his role as a social commentator. The rest of the essay will cite instances from the two novels as well as foray into the biographical aspects of the author himself to support this assertion.
To understand this social activist trait in Steinbeck’s character one has to look at the experiences and circumstances that shaped his vision of America. Firstly, his years as an adolescent in Salinas, where he got a first hand experience of his parents’ struggle for survival is a formative influence. It is the next phase of his life however, that will prove more important – his long-time relationship with the radical social worker Carol Henning. The influence of Carol Henning cannot be underestimated, for her socialist views on life had clearly rubbed off on Steinbeck, which is evident from the earliest journalistic assignments that Steinbeck undertook. His years as a novice journalist also had a key role in the shaping of his character, for these early writing assignments were the foundations for his later literary pursuits. In both the works in discussion – The Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men, the influences of these formative stages of his early life are quite obvious.
While Steinbeck never really espoused a particular political ideology, the socialist principles of economic justice that are at the heart of The Grapes of Wrath can trace their origins to his association with Carol Henning. The central socialist principle of workers owning the means of production is brought forth in the following powerful passage from the novel,
“Is the power (tractors) that turns the long furrows wrong? If this tractor were ours, it would be good – not mine, but ours. We could love that tractor then as we have loved this land when it was ours. But this tractor does two things – it turns the land and turns us off the land. There is little difference between this tractor and a tank. The people were driven, intimidated, hurt by both. We must think about this…Okie use’ ta mean you was from Oklahoma. Now it means you’re a dirty son-of-a-bitch. Okie means you’re scum. Don’t mean nothing itself, it’s the way they say it.”
The rise of John Steinbeck as a novelist and social commentator coincided with the economic turmoil of the years of Great Depression. Although Steinbeck, in his interviews and essays, stated that he does not espouse any particular economic system, yet his novels have a socialist, if not Marxist orientation. As a variation, Steinbeck claimed to have only exposed the darker realities of the then working class America. Without impinging his social critique on a particular ideology, he rather considered his novels as open-ended projects, with the reader supplementing necessary rectification of economic injustices as he/she sees fit. To illustrate this point, we only need to scrutinize his novels a little closely. While his earlier works, including The Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men had a strong element of social realism, his later works were less focused on the rural working class. This implies that the two novels in discussion were compelled by the temporal social conditions than any perennial economic and political ideologies. This is not to say that the two books are devoid of political content. To the contrary, both the books act as suitable political platforms for the author to raise important questions of human pathos without being ideologically self-indulgent. His earlier works stand independent of the fact than Steinbeck attended a few Communist Party meetings during the time of writing these masterpieces.
But this is not to say that Steinbeck neglected the fact that rural America is religious. This is quite a challenge for Steinbeck to portray reality on the basis of theoretical political ideas. But where there is conflict between the two, Steinbeck had chosen the real over the ideal. The staunch faith in God exhibited by the Joad family, even under trying circumstances is one of the highlights of this masterpiece. This is best illustrated by the following lines from The Grapes of Wrath,
“Before I knowed it, I was sayin’ out loud, ‘The hell with it! There ain’t no sin and there ain’t no virtue. There’s just stuff people do. It’s all part of the same thing.’ . . . . I says, ‘What’s this call, this sperit?’ An’ I says, ‘It’s love. I love people so much I’m fit to bust, sometimes.’ . . . . I figgered, ‘Why do we got to hang it on God or Jesus? Maybe,’ I figgered, ‘maybe it’s all men an’ all women we love; maybe that’s the Holy Sperit-the human sperit-the whole shebang. Maybe all men got one big soul ever’body’s a part of.’ Now I sat there thinkin’ it, an’ all of a suddent-I knew it. I knew it so deep down that it was true, and I still know it.”
John Steinbeck’s social commentary comes out loud and clear in his critically acclaimed book Of Mice and Men. The book was written at a time when the country was in the grip of the Great Depression and poverty reaching unprecedented levels. The story traces the life of two poor migrant workers who are on the move – George and Lennie. These two move through the desolate countryside in search of labor opportunities and with a dream of having their own two acres of land and a house one day. The choice of these central characters is quite masterly, in that, the bigger and stronger Lennie is shown to be slow of thought and gullible. On the other hand, his partner and companion George is more worldly-wise and street smart, if not all that strong. This interesting juxtaposition of mental and physical features adds a touch of irony to the narrative and serves the author in illustrating his theme. The author makes it quite clear that the motive behind George’s protectiveness of Lennie is no more than one of economic opportunism, given that Lennie is quite industrious and quite good at performing repetitive tasks. Yet, in spite of the grinding poverty that had cast a spell on the entire country and had forced its citizens to adopt a policy of “every man for himself”, George does show some genuine affection for his companion Lennie. What Steinbeck was suggesting is that the rural poor of the 1930’s America still retained a basic value system even at a time of intense economic and social turmoil. This is quite true in reality as well. Some of the subaltern documentaries of the period do indicate that the poor people did not abandon their sense of community and an ethic that is worthy of humanity. In effect, Steinbeck is seen using the medium of the novel to comment on a poignant social reality.
Moreover, the author also portrays instances of cross-racial solidarity and harmony, which is an exception than the rule for the genre. For example, Lennie is shown to act in defense of a fellow worker although the latter is black. The following passage is how Steinbeck introduces Crooks in the story.
“Crooks, the Negro stable buck had his bunk in the harness room; a little shed that leaned of the wall of the barn…Crooks was a proud, aloof man. He kept his distance and demanded that other people keep theirs. His body was bent over to the left by his crooked spine, and his eyes lay deep in his head, and because of their depth seemed to glitter with intensity. His lean face was lined with deep black wrinkles, and he had thin pain-tightened lips which were lighter than his face.”
What is important to note is the stamp of dignity and self-respect with which Crooks is shown to carry himself, despite several setbacks. This implies that though the black American community during the early part of last century was treated as second class citizens, they internally maintained a sense of dignity and grace. And the character of Crooks seems to epitomize the community’s condition as a whole.
Arguably Steinbeck’s greatest work, The Grapes of Wrath is a microscopic narrative on the lives of poor rural farmers and their struggles during the Great Depression. Here too, the author assumes a composite role of a littérateur and social commentator rolled into one. Through an emotionally rich and detailed portrayal of life on the move, the author captures the essence of the farmers’ plight. The aspect of human dignity is a key quality in most Steinbeck’s characters. As is shown in the character of Crookes (from Of Mice and Men), here too, the Joad family display courage and tenacity in the face of hostile social and climatic conditions. However, the attitudes of Americans today are not sympathetic to the plight of Depression struck farmers two generations back. To the contrary, they believe that it was due to poor planning and unfounded optimism that the economic system around them collapsed. Although Steinbeck did not endorse any particular political ideology as a solution to the problems of the Great Depression, there are undeniable Marxist underpinnings in The Grapes of Wrath, as in the following lines:
“The tractors which throw men out of work, the belt lines which carry the loads, the machines which produce, all were increased; and more and more families scampered on the highways, looking for crumbs…The great owners formed associations for protection and they met to discuss ways to intimidate, to kill, to gas. And always they were in fear of a principal – three hundred thousand – if ever they move under a leader – the end…And the great owners, who had become through their holdings both more and less than men, ran to their destruction, and used every means that in the long-run would destroy them.”
The protagonist of the novel, Tom Joad, evolves as a person during the course of the narrative and goes from being a victim of a flawed judicial system to one of a revolutionary fighter who pledges to bring justice to the under-privileged farmers. Again, this element in the novel is not irrelevant to the social realities of the time. The early decades of the twentieth century saw a minor revival of egalitarian political movements in America that were based on the principles of Socialism. The roots of Socialist thought within working class America goes back a century. In fact, documentary evidence shows a thriving and open working class press during the mid nineteenth century, essentially run by the so-called “factory girls”. But eventually, the small-scaled labor press succumbed to better financed and larger mainstream press and with it declined the working class solidarity; this is reflected even today by the obvious lack of labor unions in many American corporations. Hence, it is an understatement to say that The Grapes of Wrath is a realist novel. The novel surpasses such simple categorization and can reveal to a discerning reader profound truths about the evolution of American society over a course of a century.
Continuing on the relation between the Socialist movement and its imprint in The Grapes of wrath, the following passage illustrates the sense of social cohesion amid poverty and despair:
“In the night one family camps in a ditch and another family pulls in and the tents come out…Here is the node, you who hate change and fear revolution. Keep these two families apart; make them hate, fear, suspect each other…For here ‘I lost my land’ is changed; a cell is split and from its splitting grows the thing you hate – ‘We lost our land…'”
By the time Steinbeck finished The Grapes of Wrath in 1939, the readers have already had the bitter taste of the Great Depression. The Joads, on whom the story was based, were heavily indebted tenant farmers having been suddenly pushed off their meager lands and made to adopt a nomadic way of life. They had two options in front of them – remain in Oklahoma and become servants to the mechanized farms or to head West in search of better opportunities. The family, ever dignified, chose the latter option. But what they do not know at this stage is that the prospect of a better life further west is only an illusion. Their vision of a plentiful Eden with plenty of plots available for cultivation is quite far-fetched during the Depression years. The Joad women, however, were skeptical of this adventure and their doubts were to be proved correct. After a long and tiring journey to California the family is welcomed with more bad news. As opposed to a thriving agricultural industry manned by people, they find a modern, industrialized, impersonal economic system that treats wage laborers as disposable pack animals. The family also confronts a political system that blatantly supports the rich and the powerful and that denies the farmers of their fundamental rights. The irony of the story is that a supposed work of fiction by the author has a strong documentary, if not journalistic quality to it. The form of the novel had provided Steinbeck what column-space could not provide his compatriot journalists. This is a brave attempt by Steinbeck, given the tyrannies carried out by the press and publishing houses against people who offer a different, dissident perspective to the normative one. There have been accounts of people disappearing in thin air for taking a stand against the Establishment. So, what Steinbeck had brought forth, should be seen in light of these pressures of self-preservation and survival. To gain a deeper understanding of the author’s mind-set at the time of writing the book, we need to take a look at his formative years. There are hints in the conditions of upbringing of John Steinbeck that point to the social awareness and conscientiousness that is on display in the book.
Another aspect of the two novels in discussion is Steinbeck’s interweaving of his own experiences into the fabric of the novel. For instance, Steinbeck’s father was a hard-working yet financially unsuccessful man who ran a small store. In spite of his hard work he lost his store and consequently became reclusive and depressed, before finding a job as a manager in a sugar factory. Nevertheless, his father was deeply affected by the failure of his small store and this made a strong impression on his son. Steinbeck was also quite close to his grandparents, who as first generation immigrants would tell fascinating tales about exotic wildlife, crossing the Atlantic in a ship, etc. This translates into admiration for simple things and their beauty in the novels. The author assumes the role of an Epicurean philosopher apart from the more obvious role of a social commentator in these two works. The following lines from Of Mice and Men capture the author’s sense of fascination with nature and a simple way of life that were essential ingredients of his own childhood environment,
“Whatever we ain’t got, that’s what you want. God a’mighty, if I was alone I could live so easy. I could go get a job an’ work, an no trouble. No mess at all, and when the end of the month come I could take my fifty bucks and go into town and get whatever I want ……George, on the worker’s dream: “All kin’s a vegetables in the garden, and if we want a little whisky we can sell a few eggs or something, or some milk. We’d jus’ live there. We’d belong there. There wouldn’t be no more runnin’ round the country and gettin’ fed by a Jap cook. No, sir, we’d have our own place where we belonged and not sleep in no bunk house” (63).
The Police and other powerful members of the society harass the Joad family and thousands of other migrating farmers who do not know where their next meal is going to come from and don’t have a roof over their heads. Owners of large areas of farmland, needing laborers to pick the harvested fruits quickly during the all too brief harvesting season, attract these nomadic and desperate laborers to work in their fields with false promises of a prosperous future. Later, when there is a surplus pool of workers, the owners turn opportunistic and start paying lesser wages, which cannot even cover food expenses. To top it all, the farmers are asked to leave as soon as the harvesting is done. But there is more cruel treatment awaiting the poor migrants from government institutions. After the harvest is complete, the police steps in to expel the workers so that the land owners can continue living in a pollution free environment. Having helped the rich people and protecting their profit margins, the itinerant families were pushed onto the road in a state of hunger, despair and poverty. This sentiment is succinctly put together in the following profound words:
“And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people is hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed….how can you frighten a man whose hunger is not only in his own cramped stomach but in the wretched bellies of his children? You can’t scare him–he has known a fear beyond every other.”
The author adopts a microscopic approach to these novels, bringing out the small nuances and subtleties that give color and character to domestic life. The Joad family is described in great detail, with the idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of its members brought forth effectively. Starting with the grandparents, Steinbeck covers three generations of rural farmers living in Oklahoma. The grandparents succumb to old age and despair. The three adult men in the family have taken their own course and have left the clan, with one of them taking an illegal path. Another member is misled by advertisements of non-existent job opportunities and abandons his pregnant wife in search of money. But in spite of these departures, the rest of the clan hold together and support each other in any way possible. This pattern reaches its climax when Rose of Sharon, their heavily pregnant daughter goes into labor. But tragically, due to the turmoil of the long travel westward and lack of proper nutrition, Rose of Sharon was too malnourished to deliver a healthy baby. In the end she barely manages to survive the ordeal of giving birth to a still born baby, by which time the torrential rain was flooding their dwelling. To escape from the floods, the family members are forced to climb a hill, where they find a man and his child in a barn whose walls have partially crumbled. In one of the most touching moments in the novel, Rose of Sharon, seeing that the stranger in the barn had not had any food for a long time, feeds him her breast milk. With it the novel comes to an end. This is certainly the most poignant moment in the whole of the novel and certainly a very powerful end to what is arguably the most influential American novel from the staples of “social realism” in the nineteenth century. And John Steinbeck’s social awareness had had no small part to play in its final impact, as the following passage illustrates
“Men who have created new fruits in the world cannot create a system whereby their fruits may be eaten. And the failure hangs over the State like a great sorrow . . . . and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage….”
The Grapes of Wrath, while finding favor with most readers, was severely condemned by the ruling classes. The capitalist classes, who then had a monopoly stranglehold on the American economy, saw a threat to their way of life in this book. Hence, a campaign of banishing the book began which continues to this day. The remarkable success of the novel should be seen in light of these attempts at censorship and control. The battle for free publication and access to the book even reached the floor of the House of Representatives, where reactionary politicians heaped abuse on the book and its author and suggested severe punishment for the latter. But fortunately, the novel survived mainly because of support from the then President and the First lady, who were more sympathetic to the plight of the working classes.
Despite the vitriolic attempts to abolish the book, The Grapes of Wrath not only survived but had risen to become one of the greatest novels of the Twentieth century. Alongside Of Mice and Men, it continues to define the author and his milieu. A particularly provocative passage from the book that had radical revolutionary tones to it comes in the form of a statement made by Tom Joad:
“Whenever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Whenever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there . . . . I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad an’-I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folks eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build-why, I’ll be there.”
Hence, John Steinbeck’s recognition as one of the greatest American novelists is based on his artistic skill with the pen as well as his empathy for his poor compatriot that manifests itself as social commentary in his works. It can even be asserted that Steinbeck was first and foremost a social commentator and he choose the medium of the novel to fulfill this primary urge in him. The fact that both The Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men continue to be read widely by young and elderly Americans alike is a testimony to the novels’ qualities of universality and exposé on perennial problems afflicting humanity.