Similarities Between Grapes Of Wrath And Civil Disobedience

The Grapes of Wrath Versus Civil Disobedience As long as government has existed, so has conflict over which type is best-suited to unite and serve an advanced society. John Steinbeck presents his vision of an ideal government, as created by migrant families in Chapter 17 of his novel, The Grapes of Wrath. In his earlier essay, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau promotes his own idea of the optimal government: little to no government at all. Moreover, there are several differences and similarities between the ideas about government, democracy, and the nature of humanity suggested by Steinbeck and Thoreau that are crucial to the broader impact of each work and their combined significance. One of the most notable differences

For example, both writers express ardent support for a simple, limited kind of government based only on individuals’ needs. Steinbeck describes how the families develop a “world” built with “their hearts and their brains,” meaning that the camp’s government depends on the will of each member (Steinbeck 267). In other words, their government is formed by the migrants and for the migrants, such that the makeshift state exists only to serve its people. This parallels Thoreau’s belief that a government’s power derives solely from the community that it governs. For it to be honorable and just, it should have “no pure right over [any] person or property but what [he or she] concede[s] to it” (Thoreau 14). Should a society wish to withdraw support for its government, such government would cease to exist in the society. Like Steinbeck, Thoreau stresses the notion that the public should form its own need-based union that only upholds the welfare of its members. It is in human nature to create unions that enact laws and serve justice in an effort only to secure human well-being. Both Steinbeck and Thoreau agree that the type of government best suited for this task is one created and maintained by the people it