Similarities Between Grapes Of Wrath And Civil Disobedience

The involvement of Government is a global issue in which subjective opinions about petty details reign over the objective truth- that the main job of the government is simply to regulate the people. These opinions mask the greater problem that society faces, which is what exact actions a government should take in order to effectively regulate its citizens. Two Authors who are very opinionated about this subject are John Steinbeck, who presents his opinions in his novel The Grapes of Wrath, and Henry David Thoreau, who offers his insight in his essay on “Civil Disobedience.” Although the two influential pieces of writing have many prominent similarities and differences, the most apparent similarities deal with altruistic sacrifice and morality,

Both Thoreau and Steinbeck agree that altruistic sacrifice is a necessity not only for survival, but for government as well. Thoreau adds firsthand that “if [he had] unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, [he] must restore it to him though [he] drown [himself]” (Thoreau 3). This representation of sacrifice and love for humanity is apparent as well in The Grapes of Wrath when Steinbeck claims that “a man with food fed a hungry man, and thus insured himself against hunger” (Steinbeck 266). These claims of individual sacrifice may seem to not demand the attention of the government. However, both authors undoubtedly agree that the government should widen its perspective and make sacrifices for the betterment of humanity, as individuals do for eachother. This will unite the citizens and create a more unified and grounded government. The two authors also concur on the fact that laws should be based on universally moral truths, rather than the overshadowing

Thoreau strongly asserts that “most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient,” believing that the government is simply ruled by the opinions of the majority, and therefore disregards opinions of many civilians in the process (Thoreau 1). On the contrary, in The Grapes of Wrath, the migrant families feel as though they have a better sense of direction and that they were “complete and better furnished” as subjects of a government (Steinbeck 265). Steinbeck obviously disagrees with Thoreau’s claim after depicting the migrant families thriving after they create a system of government. However, this is because the migrant families are in a different circumstance than the citizens of society that Thoreau discusses. Thoreau’s observations on “the many versus the few”, all possessing different visions, goals, and aspirations, clash with Steinbeck’s depiction of the migrant families unifying under the government, solely because they have the same goal- survival. The two authors discuss different societal circumstances in their works, which is why these views clash. In addition, the encouragement of rebellion is another differing view. Thoreau supports the right to rebel if one disagrees with the law or finds it unjust. He accurately claims that “unjust laws exist,” but then prompts the reader by asking if society will “be