What Is Upton Sinclair's Use Of Figurative Language In The Jungle

America is considered to be a melting pot, which is that several different cultures meld together to create a climate that can only be known as American. Whether one walks down loud, bustling Michigan Avenue or takes a stroll down a winding country lane, both climates scream Americana, however different they may be. Literature is no exception. Although much of American literature contains similar motifs, this genre embodies diversity at its finest. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is a prime example, describing the brutality of the American Dream from the point of view of those who understand its impact the greatest; the common immigrant. The story narrates the struggles of young Jurgis Rudkus and his family, who hope to go from rags to riches

Nonetheless, Sinclair uses a large amount of symbolism to get his point across. The gruesome slaughter of the animals reflects on the struggles of the family and is reminiscent of how their superiors treat them. The canned meat symbolizes the corruption of capitalism and its attraction to immigrants. The cans look shiny and appetizing from the outside, but hold disgusting meat on the inside, which is similar to the expectations and reality of the family’s living situation. It is also similar to the animals on the inside of the can. They were once strong creatures with a purpose, now a stinking pile of flesh due to the disadvantages of industry, like weak little Ona or doped up Marija. In fact, the title of the novel is a symbol, comparing the brutish competition of capitalism to a Darwinian jungle. The diction of the story leaves little room for doubt or confusion of the plot, which enhances the reading experience. However, the wordiness does make the passages harder to understand when they are first read. When the diction fails, the symbolism fills in for it. The symbols were not obvious but also not

However, the way Sinclair supported his arguments was a bit juvenile—he did not even acknowledge the other side of the argument—that capitalism works. In the late 1800s, Isaac Lewis Steinberg, (also known as I.L.) a young Lithuanian immigrant traveled down from Chicago, making a living on peddling until he reached Spring Valley, Illinois. There he settled down, raised a family and opened a dry-goods store. One hundred twenty-five years and four generations later, his store is still in business, now known as Steinberg’s Furniture. I.L. came from the same situation Jurgis and his family did and his prosperity still lasts for generations. This is not to say that the struggles of the urban poor are not real, for they were and still are. It is frustrating that they are being used. They are always pitied, but never helped. Sinclair uses them to campaign against capitalism. When their grief and squalor are exposed, people are terrified. But what do they change? They change the food laws. They do not help the poor, or change laws to let them climb out of poverty—people make sure their meat is alright. Sinclair may have destroyed the sanctity of the American Dream for the sake of socialism, but that is not what makes this experience unique; what makes this unique is the realization that people use the American dream for their own benefit, instead of the benefit of all