Similarities Between Grapes Of Wrath And Civil Disobedience

In John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, he writes about how physical needs and governmental issues create civilization. In Henry David Thoreau’s essay, “Civil Disobedience,” he discusses the government’s control of society. In both pieces of writing, Steinbeck and Thoreau examine the ideas of how individual conscience should make the rules of government and of incorrupt people in society. Despite these similarities, the two authors express differences in their writing about unity and a governing leader. The development of the migrant people’s rules reflects John Steinbeck’s beliefs about the types of rules that should be implemented by government. They should outline the people’s rights as well as protect and secure the rights of the

In Steinbeck’s perspective, he believes in synergy. Throughout chapter seventeen of his novel, he explains how the twenty families “were one” (Steinbeck 265) and that they no longer considered themselves to be farm men, but “migrant men” (Steinbeck 267). As the families come to work together, they label themselves by the same name because they are linked as one family. With a single family, they could be stronger together and each individual could grow “into his proper place [and] into his duties” (Steinbeck 267). For the treacherous trip ahead, families could unite and attack any challenge that they come across. Steinbeck believes that without unity, families would not be able to bear the feats ahead of them. In contrast, Thoreau greatly focuses on individualism in his writing. He describes the society that men support are forced to “pay homage to and support [his] own meanness” (Thoreau 5). Men have the ability to make his own decisions, so why should he have to support a system that silences his own judgement? A government represents a mass amount of people, which means that this group of representatives who make decisions “leave it to the majority” (Thoreau 4). Not all voices will be heard in the final decision, so a man having the capability to be representing himself makes it better than participating in a group that does not support all his

Steinbeck explains how the worlds of migrant men need leaders and elders. A “man who was wise found that his wisdom was needed in every camp” (Steinbeck 266) and his leadership would help with the governing aspect of the migrant’s society. Being able to have a leader can help settle disputes as well as bringing people together. Conversely, Thoreau believes otherwise. Besides his opposition against unity, he finds that leaders do not give a voice to all people. Rather than depending on a leader who “cannot do everything” (Thoreau 6), each person should take care of himself. To prove his point, he talks about how acorns and chestnuts “obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can” (Thoreau 10). The same idea applies to humans; they should be able to follow their own laws because everyone is different. No leader would be needed if this were the