The way in which government should perform has been a long standing debate. Many different authors and social figures have presented their viewpoints on the way in which the people should be governed. Most notable are John Steinbeck in “The Grapes of Wrath” and Henry David Thoreau in “Civil Disobedience.” Specifically, in chapter 17 of “The Grapes of Wrath” Steinbeck comments on the birth of civilization from physical needs to government issues. Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” analyzes the function of government. Although Steinbeck reflects some of the ideas expressed in “Civil Disobedience” in his novel, many of his ideas contradict that of Thoreau’s as well.
Chapter 17 is a very important intercalary chapter within “The Grapes of Wrath.”
…show more content…
As the migrant families travel west, they create their own communities, each with their own set of laws, punishments, and social expectations. Migrants came from all over the country and “the twenty families became one family, the children were the children of all” (Steinbeck 264). They became one unit, and created a government within their small little world. As time went on, and more worlds were created “families learned, although no one told them, what rights are monstrous and must be destroyed” (Steinbeck 265). Some of these included “the right to intrude upon privacy” and “the right of adultery and theft and murder” (265). This idea that individuals should have the ability to rebel when they disagree with the actions of the government is heavily expressed in “Civil Disobedience.” Thoreau states that “all men recognize the right to revolution; the right to refuse allegiance to and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable” (Thoreau 3). Both Steinbeck and Thoreau emphasize the importance of resisting laws and reforms that one deems unjust. The migrants, as one should, realize the rights that cannot exist within their worlds and must be abolished. Individuals should resist, no matter the cost. They must protect justice and should never, under any circumstances, concede to the government. Steinbeck stresses the need for government in order to provide order and a sense of normalcy; however, Thoreau believes that the government only hinders the people and prevents them from being true to themselves.
The migrants created a government, because they had none. They felt a need for order in their chaotic lives. Soon, “there grew up government in the worlds, with leaders” and “a kind of insurance developed” in the nights in which the families banded together (Steinbeck 266). The migrants look to the governments they create for protection, for order. They live a life of chaos and disorder and see government as a form of safety. Thoreau highly advises against this. He believes that government only creates more problems for the people, and should play a very little part in the individual's life. Thoreau states that “it does not keep the country free. It does not settle the west. It does not educate” and that “men would fain succeed in letting one another alone” (Thoreau 1). Government has never proven to be useful and obtains all of its power from the majority. Individuals should live within and depend on themselves. Government as Thoreau states “is best which govern least.” (Thoreau 1). Steinbeck and Thoreau differ in their beliefs on the amount in which government should play in people’s …show more content…
lives. Despite their ideas on how much government should play in a person's life, both Steinbeck and Thoreau believe that the government’s power is derived from the people, and as a result should be commanded by the people directly.
Within Chapter 17, Steineck illustrates how all of the migrants work together as one. They become one being, and if they create laws that come out of respect for others, than it is possible for them to govern themselves. As the families and the worlds they create move Westward “they were more complete and better furnished, for their builders were more experienced in building them” (Steinbeck 265). The more the families travel, they become more experienced into what makes a good government. They learn which laws benefit everyone, and create them based off of respect for one another. Unlike the laws created by those in power, like the bank, their laws do not target the weak. Thoreau expresses a similar view when he states “let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it” (Thoreau 1). Like the migrants, man should make laws that revolve around respect for others. Rather than creating a government that only benefits one social class, it should work to benefit all. The migrants learn through living with many families, what is disrespectful and what is allowed. Both Steinbeck and Thoreau agree that the government should be controlled by the people and based off of
respect. “The Grapes of Wrath” is much more than a story about a migrant family and their journey across the country. It is a critique on society and the government that has allowed it to become so disgusting. It takes some of its critique from “Civil Disobedience,” which analyzes the government at present and the urgency to improve it. Both works take very different takes on critiquing the government, but still express similarities in their ideas. They both offer thought-provoking insight on society as a whole and the individuals within it.
In Henry Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government, the harmless actions he takes to rebel against the government are considered acts of civil disobedience. He talks about how the government acts wrongful such as, slavery and the Mexican-American war. This writing persuades Nathaniel Heatwole, a twenty-year-old college student studying at Guildford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, to take matters into his own hands, by smuggling illegal items on multiple Southwest airplanes. The reason in that being, is to show the people that our nation is unsafe and dangerous. In doing this, he takes his rebellion one step too far, by not only jeopardizing his life, but as well as many other innocent lives.
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck had many comparisons from the movie and the book. In 1939, this story was to have some of the readers against the ones that kept the American people in poverty held responsible for their actions. This unique story was about the Joad’s family, who were migrant workers looking for a good decent job. They were also farmers from Oklahoma that are now striving to find some good work and success for their family in California. This novel was one of Steinbeck’s best work he has ever done. It was in fact an Academy Award movie in 1940. Both the movie and the novel are one of Steinbeck’s greatest masterpieces on both the filmmaking and the novel writing. Both the novel and film are mainly the same in the beginning of the story and towards the end. There were some few main points that Steinbeck took out from the book and didn’t mention them in the movie. “The Grapes of Wrath is a
“All machines have their friction―and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… But when the friction comes to have its machine… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 8). In Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the author compares government to a machine, and its friction to inequity. He believes that when injustice overcomes a nation, it is time for that nation’s government to end. Thoreau is ashamed of his government, and says that civil disobedience can fight the system that is bringing his country down. Alas, his philosophy is defective: he does not identify the benefits of organized government, and fails to recognize the danger of a country without it. When looked into, Thoreau’s contempt for the government does not justify his argument against organized democracy.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attention than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, are present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose. To begin with, Thoreau expresses that civil disobedience should be more implemented when the just resistance of the minority is seen legally unjust to the structure conformed by the majority. Supporting his position, Thoreau utilizes the role of the national tax in his time; its use which demoralizes the foreign relationship of the U.S.; its use which “enables the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood”; its use which supports “the present Mexican War” (Thoreau 948, 940).
Steinbeck's relationship to the transcendentalists [Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman] was pointed out soon after The Grapes of Wrath appeared by Frederick I. Carpenter, and as the thirties fade into history, Jim Casy with his idea of the holiness of all men and the unreality of sin seems less a product of his own narrowly doctrinaire age than a latter-day wanderer from the green village of Concord to the dry plains of the West.
In Thoreau’s view, he felt that the government was insufficient. At times such as these, government may not always be the best way to turn, yet it provides guidelines. This theme in his essay is just another opinion. Justice cannot be fully defined in one sentence by every person. It depends on the background and the experiences one has had.
From these three men, we can learn the significance of detaching ourselves from the social norm and instead, fight for our values in a non-violent way, in order to make a change in our government’s corrupt and unjust laws. In “Resistance to Civil Government,” Thoreau articulates the importance he places on resistance against a powerful, controlling government. He opens his essay with a reference to the quote, “‘That government is best which governs not at all,’” and shares the motto, “‘That government is best which governs least’” (Civil).... ...
Thoreau was against the The Mexican American War and the act of Slavery in our society and was very skeptical towards the U.S government regarding these issues. The U.S government did more to harm the citizens of America more than it did to protect them and Thoreau realized that and was not afraid to speak his mind.. The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free” Thoreau is saying that don't just wait for change to come, make the change happen. He stand for what is right regardless of the consequences, therefore, he wanted the citizens of America to be bold enough to do the same.
In a democracy, people choose representatives to lead and govern. However, these representatives might take unpopular steps. In such instances, the people may show their disapproval of a policy and vent their grievances through acts of civil disobedience. Henry Thoreau said, “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” It is both the right and responsibility of a person to fight an unjust law, and civil disobedience allows one to convey his thoughts and ideas in a passive, nonviolent way.
In this short story Thoreau plays the protagonist as well as a pacifist. He continually reiterates his beliefs of law and conscience. Thoreau believes we have a conscience to determine right and wrong and views the government, at a state level at least, as useless. He gives the reader several examples of things the government does that would be against most conscious decisions. Such as: The listing of accomplishments the “government” made possible, included in this list is the repetition of the word “It” referring to the government. “It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished”(221).
In John Steinbeck's novel The Grapes of Wrath, the Joad family and the changing world in which they live is portrayed from a naturalistic point of view. Steinbeck characterizes the Joads and their fellow migrants as simple, instinct-bound creatures who are on an endless search for paradise (Owens 129). The migrants and the powers which force them to make their journey--nature and society--are frequently represented by animals. The Joads, when they initially leave home, are a group of simplistic, animal-like people who barely understand or even realize their plight, but as the story progresses, they begin to grow and adapt to their new circumstances. They evolve from a small, insignificant group of creatures with no societal consciousness into a single member of a much larger family--society.
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was a philosopher and writer who is well known for his criticism of the American government during the time. During Thoreau’s life, there were two major issues being debated in the United States: slavery and the Mexican-American War. Both issues greatly influenced his essay, as he actually practiced civil disobedience in his own life by refusing to pay taxes in protest of the Mexican War. He states that the government should be based on conscience and that citizens should refuse to follow the law and have the duty not to participate and stay as a member of an unjust institution like the government. I argue that the notion of individualism and skepticism toward government is essential to the basis of many important reform movements in the modern society.
As the turtle is attempting to cross a road, an obstacle in the way of the turtle, it’s “back legs [go] to work straining like elephant legs,” (Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath,3) as he struggles along his path as one car swerves to avoid hitting it while another car swerves to intentionally hit the turtle. The avoiding car is a symbolic representation of the farmers and the supporters of immigrant workers while the car that aims to hit the turtle is symbolic of the big businesses and the banks. With this analogy, Steinbeck alludes to how individuals can fight for injustice, but an individual’s fight can be drowned out by the fight of a group because there is strength in numbers, and frankly big businesses have more influence than an individual. In chapter five, Steinbeck refers to the individual as a whole unit, and if they worked together, they could accomplish many things, such as standing up against injustice. This view describes the collective fear of American farmers who were worried about the immigrant farmers prospering because then they would be a force of their own to be reckoned with in a time where immigrants were viewed as less than Americans. A parallel to the interactions between Americans and immigrants can be seen in On Compassion by Barbara Ascher with the interactions between those who have money and those who are poor, homeless. Showing compassion to the homeless man would be a fight against the injustices in America such as when the woman on the street corner “finds what she is looking for [in her purse] and passes a folded dollar over her child’s head to the man who stands and stares.” (Ascher, On Compassion). The author makes it a point to question the action of this woman, was it an act done out of fear of the man who “does not know that acceptance of the gift and gratitude are what makes [the] transaction
There has been a long-established controversy over the duty of a citizen in a democracy, on which the Athenian philosopher, Socrates, and the American writer, Henry David Thoreau, had their own thoughts. Both philosophers had varying views on numerous subjects relating to government and conscience. Should the citizen obey all laws, even unjust ones? Or, should they rebel for the sake of doing what is right? Democracy is ruled by the people, for the people. In both Socrates’ time, and Thoreau’s, the question remains on whether this was, in practice, true. The two iconic philosophers’ opinions regarding the duty of the citizen in a democracy, the role of conscience, and the importance of nonviolent resistance, still influence people to this day. Their views augment the understanding people have of the current democracy, how consciences deal with right and wrong, and roles as citizens questioning every issue. Philosophy is often ingrained in the history, politics, and the environment
In "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau criticizes the American government for its democratic nature, namely, the idea of majority ruling. Like earlier transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thoreau believes in the importance of the individual. In a society where there are many individuals with conflicting perceptions and beliefs, Emerson chooses passivity and isolation to avoid conflict with others. However, unlike Emerson, Thoreau rejects passivity and challenges his readers to stand up against the government that focuses on majorities over individuals. Thoreau argues that when power is in the hands of the people, the majority rules, "not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" (Thoreau 64). Thoreau portrays this very fundamental element of democracy, w...