Government In Civil Disobedience And The Grapes Of Wrath

Since government was first created, there has been controversy, death, and even war over principles of the government. In both The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck, and “Civil Disobedience,” by Henry David Thoreau, this topic is discussed. Both of these views have many similarities and differences, exposed by many implicit messages in the writings. Through analysis one can discover those differences and similarities of the two views of government.

Thoreau discusses his perspective of government by describing his version of the function of government in his essay “Civil Disobedience.” Thoreau opens Civil Disobedience with the maxim "That government is best which governs least," and is in favor of government that does not intrude upon men's

lives. Government exists because the people have chosen it to execute their will, but it is susceptible to misuse.

Thoreau asserts that government as an institution hinders the accomplishment of the work for which it was created. It exists for the sole purpose of ensuring individual freedom. Denying an interest in abolishing government, he states that he simply wants a better government. Majority rule is based on physical strength, not right and justice. Individual conscience should rule instead, and civil government should confine itself to those matters suited to decision by majority rule. He deplores the lack of judgment, moral sense, and conscience in the way men serve the state. A man cannot bow unquestioningly to the state's authority without disregarding himself.

On the other hand, Steinbeck depicts his ideas of government by showing them through times where

hundreds of people relied on each other to get West. He describes how families unite as one when “In the evening a strange thing happened: the twenty families became one family, the children were the children of all” (Steinbeck 193). At night the multiple, non-related families would gather to strengthen their group as a whole and establish a form of self led government. These families spect long nights together, “sitting about fires the twenty were one. They grew to be units of camps” (Steinbeck 193). These families would travel and live together, creating a very strong, family-like bond between everyone. Between everyone, rules came about which everyone followed. This led to a self sufficient form of government because those who decided to disobey these rules were left behind. This is a circumstance that nobody wanted. In these small governments, “[Then] leaders emerged, then laws were made, the codes came into being” (Steinbeck 194). These leaders made sure to enforce these laws which added to the factor of not wanting to disobey. The primary purpose of the unification of the migrants was to keep a sense of order in such a chaotic time. This helped create a fairly normal atmosphere that everyone could feel more comfortable in. Steinbeck uses these scenarios to depict the necessity for government by showing the need that these migrant families feel to have order. Without this sense of order coming from their impromptu government, their lives would be far too chaotic to manage while traveling across the country.
Although their views on government differ, Thoreau and Steinbeck have many similarities in their views as well.

For example, both writers believe that government is necessary and needs to be kept in place to maintain order. In times of migrant workers traveling West, they did not have much law enforcement to keep them in check. Insted, “As the world's moved westward, rules became laws” (194). This form of government was created by the migrants to maintain a form of civility and was park of their survival on this treacherous journey. Thoreau also acknowledges that some form of government is necessary to keep people maintained by writing “I ask for, not at once no government, but once a better government” (Civil Disobedience). He realizes the need for government, but finds the one that is currently in place incredibly flawed and unfair. Thoreau would also agree with certain points of Steinbeck's view of government as well as his depiction of it because of his transcendentalist ideas. Steinbeck’s view of governments follows the transcendentalist principle of self sufficiency by showing that the migrant families can take it upon themselves to reduce the chaos in their life through government. These families took it upon themselves to do this when nobody forced them to and no previous government was established for them. Thoreau would appreciate the self reliance and independence that these families showed through their

travels.
When analyzing these two pieces of literature, the similarities and differences between the two are very apparent. While Thoreau calls for a government that does not intrude on people, Steinbeck feels that a form of government is needed in the lives of everyone. When traveling across the country on wagon and foot, government proved to be a unifying factor keeping the chaotic lives of each family in check. Although Thoreau might not have been able to see things this way, both could come to an agreement that some form of government is necessary to maintain the basic order of life. Without this order, the lives of all people will fall apart into chaos and leave the world in ruins.