Comparing The Grapes Of Wrath And Civil Disobedience

The issue of how government should function has long been debated. In both The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck and “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, this issue is discussed. In specifically chapter seventeen of The Grapes of Wrath , Steinbeck discusses the birth of civilization from physical needs to government issues. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau talks about the function of government. Their views on government collide in some aspects and agree in others. Steinbeck and Thoreau hold contrasting beliefs about the level of government control and individual conscience but agree on the type of people needed in government. Thoreau continuously emphasizes that a government that governs least and has less control over the people is best in his essay. the only times when government has been useful has been when it has stood aside. He believes the government is not efficient and does not keep the country free, settle the West, or educate. Rather, “the character inherent in the American people …show more content…
Thoreau believes individual conscience should be the guide in determining what action government should take. He states that people like “soldiers, colonel, captains…[march]...against their wills...and consciences” and therefore only have a respect for the laws of the governemnt and not their own conscience (Thoreau 2). He criticizes these kind of people who serve the state not as men, but as machines who blindly follow the majority. Contrary to Thoreau, Steinbeck comments that the newly established government of the migrants made “social conduct...fixed and rigid, so that a man must say “Good morning” when asked for it (Steinbeck 266). Unlike Thoreau, Steinbeck does not criticize this and describes it to be just part of the technique of building their world. The behavior reflects that of a machine, a characteristic Thoreau deeply