Machines vs. Transcendentalism

In The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck's indirect plug for transcendentalism comes in his critique of the machines that are now dominating farming. In a nutshell, Steinbeck makes the case that people's relationship to the land should be spiritual and should have some meaning - it should not simply be directed toward getting the most profit from land. In Chapter 11, when Steinbeck is comparing the lifeless tractor with the living farmer who used to blow the land, he writes:

'And this is easy and efficient. So easy that the wonder goes out of the work, so efficient that the wonder goes out of the land and the working of it, and with the wonder the deep understanding and the relation.'

In Steinbeck's view, having machines work the land and treating the land only as a way to make money got in the way of man's connection to nature. Transcendentalists would argue that mankind requires a sense of connection to the land and to nature in general in order to live in harmony with the universe.

The Oversoul

The concept of the oversoul is related to transcendentalism, particularly in the sense that it speaks to the importance of connection and unity. Throughout The Grapes of Wrath, the oversoul is generally referred to in terms of the human spirit or a soul that connects everyone. The only two characters who provide any explanation or description of this concept are Casy, a former minister, and Tom Joad, who is persuaded toward the concept by Casy.

Casy and the Oversoul

We first hear about the oversoul from Casy, who travels with the Joad family to California. He explains to Tom early in the book that he has given up Christianity because it no longer makes sense to him. Instead of individual relationships with Jesus, Casy has a sense that a person's connection to something bigger than himself is actually a connection to the rest of humanity. He explains it like this in the fourth chapter:

'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.'

Casy explains that he has never met God or Jesus, but that he knows he loves people ('An' sometimes I love 'em fit to bust,' he says), and perhaps there is no reason to include the idea of Christianity in this sense of love and connection. So to Casy, the idea of an oversoul that binds all of humanity together in love feels like a more adequate explanation for his own experiences.

Tom and the Oversoul

Although Casy provides the first reference to the oversoul, Tom's endorsement of the philosophy is perhaps more significant because we can see his journey throughout The Grapes of Wrath and what leads him to believe in the oversoul. Tom learns time and again that individualism accomplishes nothing, and that the only hope people have comes from sticking together. In Chapter 28, when Tom is hiding in a cave after killing a man and has had lots of time to think, he tells his mother about his new view of life:

'Well, maybe like Casy says, a fella ain't got a soul of his own, but on'y a piece of a big one - an' then... Then I'll be all aroun' in the dark. I'll be ever'where - wherever you look. Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever they's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. If Casy knowed, why, 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.'

At this stage, Tom has come to the conclusion that people are meant to live in unity and are connected to one another. He has tried consistently to get by on his own, and has finally come to the conclusion that this does not work. Tom has also been moved by the suffering he has experienced and seen, and has developed a sense of empathy with the world around him. Therefore his speech about the oversoul has an emotional impact, since the reader has journeyed with Tom to get here.

Lesson Summary

In The Grapes of Wrath, Casy and Tom explore the philosophical ideas behind transcendentalism and the oversoul, both in their comments and experiences. Steinbeck provides commentary on the negative impact of machines on man's relationship with the world, which gets at the transcendentalists' belief in people living in harmony with nature. In The Grapes of Wrath, the oversoul is generally referred to in terms of the human spirit or a soul that connects everyone.

 

The Grapes of Wrath' is a dark story about migrant workers in California and the challenges they face. This lesson discusses the ending of the story and how the final images stay with readers.

The Grapes of Wrath

Can you imagine having to move across the country during hardship, only to find more hardship when you get there? John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath in the late 1930s to address just this issue. It shows how families from the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma migrated to California only to endure more scarcity and hardship. The story specifically follows the Joad family and their journey of losing their farm. They traveled to California in search of work but instead, found other starving people, conflict, and death. The Joads lose family members along the way to death or because they have to follow their own path.

The darkness of the novel isn't broken with comedy or even very much hope. Steinbeck strove to show the rawness of these people's lives as they would have lived them. Steinbeck decided to write this novel after he interviewed real migrant workers in California and grew angry at their treatment. This lesson takes a look at the controversial ending of the novel and what it might mean.

Flood and Despair

By the last chapter, the Joad family are trying to find a way to build up the embankment to keep the train cars from flooding. All the men help once they realize Rose of Sharon has gone into labor and will give birth. Rose of Sharon is in agony all night as she tries to have her baby. But just as the baby comes, a tree falls due to the storm, breaks the embankment, and allows water to rush in.

The water destroys any possibility of the cars being able to drive and is also threatening the safety of everyone living in the train cars. Things go from bad to worse when they realize that Rose of Sharon's baby is stillborn. Their hard lives and lack of food had not allowed the baby to live. They put the baby in a cardboard box and send it down the river, unwilling to bury it, and then travel on from the flooding area.

The rain continues to pour, which drives them into a barn to take shelter. The Joads see that they are sharing the barn with a sickly man and his young son. The son explains that his father is dying of starvation. The food he had tried to feed his father was too much, so he needed something milder to give him, like milk. It's here that Ma Joad looks at Rose of Sharon, and they seem to come to an unspoken agreement. Ma shoves the rest of the family out of the barn, and Rose of Sharon lays next to the old man and breastfeeds him. The very last sentence states she had a 'mysterious smile.'

A Lasting Impression

The last chapter had serious controversy due to the sexuality attributed to breastfeeding an adult. Steinbeck doesn't provide a happy ending for the Joads, or even an idea of what will happen to them in the future. He chose to show the gravity of the situation of migrant workers, and that happiness is not always the end result. This last chapter illustrates that hard work and a giving nature doesn't guarantee a much deserved break.

Rose of Sharon's baby was a small glimmer of hope given by Steinbeck to the reader, but that is ripped away too. This displays how unfair and challenging life can be. Yet, the vivid breastfeeding scene shows the tenacity of the human spirit of kindness, even in the worst of times. This explicit image would likely be an issue even today, but this book was published in 1939, making it that much more stark.

The mysterious smile that Rose of Sharon has at the end of the book isn't expanded upon. One could surmise that the character feels that she has found her place after the tragedy of her baby. It could be that she is gaining comfort from giving comfort to another, or even that she has found a way to give something of herself during such hard times.

Lesson Summary

The Grapes of Wrath is the story of the Joad family, their journey to California, and the challenges they face trying to find work. By the end of the novel, Tom has gone into hiding, family members have died, and they are in a train car just about to be overcome by a flood. Unfortunately, the situation gets worse when Rose of Sharon gives birth to a stillborn baby, and they have to flee their train car for safety. The final scene has Rose of Sharon breastfeeding a starving old man, which caused immense amounts of controversy when the book was published in 1939. The scene might be interpreted, however, as showing the tenacity of the human spirit of kindness, even in the worst of times. That Rose of Sharon gives a mysterious smile may indicate that she has found some purpose in being able to help in a stark and unfair world.

n this lesson we learn about Marxism and where it originates, Marxist literary criticism, and how we can read John Steinbeck's ''The Grapes of Wrath'' through this critical lens.

What is Marxist Criticism?

John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath can be read through many critical lenses, but Marxist criticism is by far one of the most common lenses through which to read the novel. This is because Steinbeck's narrative represents the problems a capitalist society creates for working class people. Marxists theory, named for the German philosopher, Karl Marx, who argued that society should live for the good of all, not the individual, examines social economic systems. That is, Marxist theorists ask who possess the power and wealth in a society, and how does this effect the poor and powerless. They argue that there is a lack of balance between the rich and the poor. Literary Marxist critics read text, such as novels and short stories to name a few, to see how authors make a Marxist argument in their work. In this lesson, we will ask how Steinbeck makes a Marxist argument in The Grapes of Wrath.

Material in The Grapes of Wrath

The Have-Nots

One thing we know about Capitalism --an economic system in which the market is controlled by private institutions instead of the government, is that it often places value on a person based on what they own. In the Grapes of Wrath the tenant farmers, though they have worked the land they have inhabited for decades, don't own the property. As such, their value is deemed less than those who do own the property. In fact, a lack of ownership plagues the tenant farmers, like the Joads, throughout the novel. Not only do they have to leave their farms, they have no means of purchasing a home, and though they go to California with the hopes of earning money so they can secure a home, by the end of the novel they are still living in workers' camps. This is especially important to a Marxist critic, as the Joads live in a camp, are homeless, while working for wealthy land owners, such as Hooper ranch owners, who have secured wealth by paying their workers unlivable wages. This relationship between the Joads and the owners is what a Marxist critic would call the socioeconomic relationship between the bourgeoisie --the haves, and the proletariat --the have-nots. So in the Grapes of Wrath the banks and land owners represent the bourgeoisie, and the Joads represent proletariats. For Steinbeck, the bourgeoisie are guilty of inhumanity due to their treatment of the proletariats.

Man v Machine

Tenantless Farm Taken Over by Tractor Farming

Karl Marx also believed that the machines, such as those in factories, made it impossible for people to feel connected or care for the jobs they worked. For example, if a factory worker oversaw a machine that built one car part instead of the entire car, she was distanced from the final product she was helping to create. In other words, she becomes a cog in the machine. Were she allowed to rotate jobs in such a way that she eventually built all the parts for the car, she would have more invested in her job. Additionally, if she co-owned the factory with all the part builders, she and all the builders, would feel more connected to the work and would share profits equally. In this communist scenario there would be no haves and have-nots, but each person would work for the good of all. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie are driven by personal gain, and not by the good of all, and as such they have no issue with turning proletariat people into cogs, so to speak, of their factory machines.

In The Grapes of Wrath we see Steinbeck criticize this cog making in Chapter 5 when the owners tell the tenant farmers they must leave their land: And at last the owner men came to the point. The tenant system won't work anymore. One man tractor can take the place of twelve or fourteen families. Pay him a wage and take all the crop… You'll have to get off the land. The plows'll go through the dooryard. As we can see from this passage, not only are the tenant farmers being forced from their land, but their jobs as farmers are being replaced with one man driving a tractor. As we know, the tractor does all the tilling and planting, so not only does it replace the farmers, it even distances the one man who drives it from working every aspect of working the soil and planting crops. In this way, we see Steinbeck highlighting the troubling aspects practices of capitalism.

Lesson Summary

In this lesson we learn that Marxist theory is one that is critical of Capitalism and the ways in which it creates a system of those who have, the bourgeoisie, and those who have-not, the proletariat. We also learn that Marxist literary criticism involves reading texts to see how an author is incorporating Marxism in their work. We come to understand that materialism, or that what one owns, it how they are valued in a capitalist society. Therefore, those who own nothing are seen as having no value by those who do own material possessions, such as land. We also learn how Steinbeck, in the vein of Marxism, opposed the way machines, such as the tractor, distanced people from the whole and finished product of their work.