Grapes of Wrath begins when Tom Joad, imprisoned for homicide, returns home on parole. Near the end of the novel, in a shocking scene of violence, Jim Casy, the preacher who no long preaches -- now a union organizer -- is brutally murdered by the police and Tom attacks the police with their own weapon, probably killing one of them. Yet, despite the fact the film is bracketed with violence, there are other moments of peaceful resistance as when Huston and Tom thwart an attempted riot and do not seek vengeance on the infiltrators.
Is the novel taking a stand on violence? Under what conditions does it flourish? Is it ever justified? What about things like self-defense, vengeance or political action? Is violence inevitable -- or is there a better way?
The novel stands for the fact that violence is inevitable in a cause for change and that in order to benefit the cause you must remain nonviolent so that you cannot be held accountable for it. Many times in the book, not only the Joad family and the people they bring along the way but all the migrants traveling West encounter violence at some point and have to deal with it. Additionally, all of these people have been lied to and have experienced oppression through violence and are striving for change throughout the plot. The Joads' and other characters in the story are used as an example of people of this time moving West and the violence they face. Although they are each faced with violence firsthand, they do not show violence back so that their cause can continue without them being held accountable for violence themselves. Also, showing violence would cause them to be aggravated and the migrants need to be calm and smart about their choices in order for change to happen. One time this is highlighted in the book is when the Farmers Association and the police attempt to start a riot in the migrant’s government camp so that those people will become aggravated and police can take them out of the camp and oppress them since they were violent. After the three men who were caught trying to start the riot are caught, Huston, one of the men in the camp, declares, “‘Awright, boys, put 'em over the back fence. An' don't hurt 'em. They don't know what they're doin'.’” He understands that the violence towards them is inevitable, but he knows that however hard it may be, they must stay true to their cause and participate in any acts of violence. In turn, this display of non-violence will pay off for them because more and more people will stay out of trouble and the police won’t be able to keep them down if they are not doing anything violent.
ReplyDeleteThrough the characters of Tom and Ma Joad, and Jim Casy, the novel The Grapes of Wrath suggests that while violence can be a reaction to oppression, real change comes through collective organization and resilience rather than aggression. The novel depicts violence as a final resort when a person feels they have no choice but to retaliate physically during an extreme situation. These kinds of situations are normally of great suffering, injustice, or contempt. This can be seen when Tom fights back against the cops after Jim Casy’s brutal murder. Jim Casy, who was arrested unjustly during their journey to California, turned to labor organizing and advocating for workers’ rights upon being separated from the Joad family. Once Tom and Casy reunite, the police hear Casy’s talk of their plans for unionization and turn to brute force, striking Casy in the skull. His murder by the police represents how those in power chose to suppress change through violence during the Great Depression. Following, an enraged Tom strikes back against the police, most likely killing one of them with their own weapon. Tom has a history of letting his emotions get the best of him through violence and in this moment it is understandable, but it ultimately forces him into hiding. The consequences of his violence force him to separate from his family to protect them, and it makes his fight and journey even more difficult. Though his choice can be justified by the anger and pain he felt, those consequences show that vengeance is not necessarily the best option. Earlier in the book, Tom and Huston successfully shut down a riot set up by the police, showing how organized, nonviolent resistance can be more effective. As Huston explains, “Why don’ them deputies get in here an’ raise hell like ever’ place else? … It’s cause we’re all a-workin’ together. Deputy can’t pick on one fella in this camp. He’s pickin’ on the whole darn camp. … Jus’ stick together. They ain’t raisin’ hell with no two hundred men. They’re pickin’ on one man” suggesting that as long as the people organize together to take collective action, the police can’t reach them (Page 357). Choosing well-organized and peaceful methods is more sustainable than senseless aggression. Furthermore, the novel also emphasizes the power of perseverance through Ma Joad, who keeps the family together despite their suffering. She tells Tom, “Us people will go on livin’ when all them people is gone. Why, Tom, we’re the people that live. They ain’t gonna wipe us out. Why, we’re the people—we go on” (Page 280). Her words highlight that true strength and potential for progress lies in perseverance, not revenge or brutality. Despite the “rich folks” constant efforts to harm the migrants, it makes them tougher and they can always keep moving forward as long as they have patience. By showing both violent and nonviolent responses to injustice, the novel shows that while violence may seem inevitable, real progress comes from unity and endurance rather than aggression.
ReplyDeleteSteinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath does not take a stand on violence; it emphasizes its consistent idea that humans do human things. The lines are gray blurs, with no right and no wrong. People make decisions based on their current and often split-second judgments. On page 386, a police officer attacks and kills Jim Casy. Casy says, "You fellas don' know what you're doin'. You're helping to starve kids," directly before the pickaxe crunches down on his skull. Tom flies into a rage and kills the officer. Objectively, killing is wrong, but does that mean Tom shouldn't have swung at the officer who killed his friend? It's debatable, and Steinbeck makes that known. The Grapes of Wrath emphatically states over and over that right and wrong are entirely subjective. For example, Jim Casy went to jail, he slept with underage girls, and he attacked a police officer. Some would say that all those acts make him sound like a terrible person who deserved what he got. But he also deeply cared for humanity; he wanted to sit and listen to people, he wanted wages for all humans to live on, and he died speaking up for his cause. He believed sin was a human concept that didn't actually exist in the world. He believed all actions were simply human. Violence is used in many ways, and it's up to humanity, not some vague idea of good and bad, to decide whether the hurt it causes is worth it. When the police officers use violence to force people off their land, the novel clearly portrays it as an injustice. When describing violence used as self-defense, the novel is significantly kinder in its judgment, demonstrating the murkiness of the issue. The Grapes of Wrath does not take a stand against violence; it simply shows it as it is: prevalent in human society, regardless of whether it's "good" or "bad".
ReplyDeleteIn The Grapes of Wrath, violence is presented as something that grows when people are stripped of dignity, stability, and control over their lives. The novel repeatedly shows that institutions, or “The Beast”, are who create the conditions that make violence more likely. Families are forced off their land, wages are pushed lower and lower, and police intimidate the migrants. This pressure eventually erupts into physical violence. In chapter 24, Huston even worries that authorities are “gonna push us into fightin’ if they don’t quit a worryin’ us,” which shows that the migrants themselves see how the pressure and harassment can make people violent when they otherwise wouldn’t be. Tom Joad even commits an act of physical violence against the police officer after witnessing brutality from that officer himself, which suggests that his reaction came from what he has experienced, and not who he naturally is.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, the novel shows that violence is not the only possible outcome. When people are given stability and treated with respect, violence and conflict become less likely. The government camp at Weedpatch shows this clearly. Because the migrants are allowed to govern themselves and maintain their dignity in many aspects of life, they are able to solve problems peacefully, such as when the dance committee prevents a fight without harming anyone. This suggests that violence is less about human nature and more about the environment they are in. In either case, it seems like violence in The Grapes of Wrath is used in desperation, and within the context of the specific person or situation, and it doesn’t necessarily stem from their own personality or morals.
The death of Jim Casy ultimately supports this idea. His murder is not simply an act of individual aggression from the officer, but rather the result of the organized effort to suppress and mistreat workers. When Casy protests that they are “helpin’ to starve kids,” he is killed for saying it, which shows how the officer used violence to silence those who opposed him (in this case Casy) to ‘feed the monster,’ if you will. Steinbeck shows that conflict and violence are not unavoidable, but become more likely wherever people are denied their dignity, stability, and control over their lives. Maybe, none of the people in The Grapes of Wrath are inherently violent, but their circumstances have led them to do violent things.
In the book we see violence as a response to violence however in moments where violence is only attempted and harm is avoided so is a violent response. We begin our story after the release of Tom Joad from prison after he killed another man in an act of self defense an action he continues to believe was necessary and if you felt the need to repeat. The next time we see Tom use violence in a potentially deadly manner is in response to the killing of former preacher Jim Casy by a police officer. Afterward Tom doesn’t regret his actions, only concerned about how it could harm him and his family. However in other times where violence and the threat of violence put his family at risk Tom doesn’t respond with violence. When Tom stops the threat of a riot he doesn’t respond with the same force as other situations. I think Tom and the story justify the use of violence in response to violence, and the threat of death or death of yourself or friends, family, and community. While Tom has no problem with violence and deadly force in defense of oneself or those around Rose of Sharon and others react in a very different manner. Rose of Sharon after learning of Tom's actions fears for her unborn child and the darkness around her through Tom. Beyond the actions of Tom there is also violence told of as the wages lower with the fellow workers fighting for work and money. The book shows violence as a sometimes necessary response to violence but also the need for peace and community.
ReplyDeleteJohn Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath does a beautiful job of implicitly conveying the essence of violence. The novel doesn't particularly take a stand on violence, but instead shows us that it's a foundational root of human nature influenced by extremist treatment of people and the situation they are in. For example, when the policeman kills Casy, the novel shows us that some violence stems from the fear of order and the comfort of some people being changed by others. This type of violence is completely evil and selfish, as it stems from personal gain and the fear of losing comfort. The novel effectively condemns this type of violence, gifting it to the antagonists. However, the book also explores “heroic” violence, done in desperate times of survival or justice. When Tom's best friend is killed, he, in a fury of emotions, takes vengeance for his friend. His doing so was his basic instinct of justice, mixed with his extreme emotions on losing his friend. Remember, Casy was murdered for trying to advocate for a strike, a symbol aimed to lift the very hard conditions that people like the Joads were in. Here, Steinbeck implicitly makes us want to justify justice, but in reality shows why it's inevitable. He shows us that we, humans, are victims of our emotions, and when the circumstances are intense enough to break us, we resort to what's most basic inside of us. When the readers finds out Casy get killed, he feels sadness; the reader can even feel a little bad for the policeman who died too. By doing so, the reader realized that any violence is unjustafiable, but sadly inevitable because of our nature. Even though there are better ways, such as strikes and protests, in foundation we will always resort to our most basic instincts.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the book The Grapes of Wrath, violence is quite prevalent, from Tom Joad having been to prison because he killed a man, to a Hooverville being burned down by a group of angry anti-migrant men. Even with this theme being so widespread in this book, I do not believe that it is the author's intention to endorse violence, but instead showing the readers the violent acts do nothing but sow seeds of wrath in individuals, who then repeat the cycle of destruction. A good example of this being shown in the story is when Tom Joad and Jim Casy are caught by a group of men after Jim Casy had led a strike against a peach farm.
ReplyDelete“Shut up, you red son-of-a-bitch.” A short heavy set man stepped into the light. He carried a new white pick handle. Casy went on, “You don’ know what you're a-doin.” The heavy man swung with the pick handle. Casy dodged down into the swing. The heavy club crashed into the side of his head with a dull crunch of bone, and Casy fell sideways out of the light. (Steinbeck, 386) After Casy is killed by a group of men that believe that he is a rabble rouser, the root of evil in their community, Tom lashes out, killing the man who had just clubbed Casy to death. The reason I decided to choose this quote is because I believe that it shows how violence in this period of history was shockingly brutal. This is just one example in this story of the Joad family experiencing death and destruction born out of hate and misfortune. Steinbeck doesn't describe violence as good or bad in this story, but instead an inevitable force of human nature.
The novel’s stance on violence is that it is inevitable, a part of the way humans are, but it also advocates for a better alternative, since violence never brings lasting change. The police use violent methods to try to control the people who resist the system. For example, they burn down the Hoovervilles and crush Casy’s skull with a pick when he starts speaking against them, “You’re helpin’ to starve kids… You don' know what you're a-doin'.” (386) Out of vengeance, Tom responds by killing one of the officers with their own pick. In the face of violence and oppression, people respond with violence, allowing it to flourish. But Tom's violence ultimately doesn’t change anything; Casy is still dead, his family is still in financial trouble, and to make matters worse, the police are looking for him. In fact, even the many violent attempts made by the police towards evicting the “Okies” are mostly in vain, as in chapter 20, it's stated that they burn down Hooverville camps, but they always spring back up. Alternatively, the novel presents many situations in which change does occur, and it’s not through violent methods. On Page 343, the Joads are staying at a government camp, Weedpatch, where Tom Joad assists the entertainment committee in apprehending a couple of people who were sent by the police to provoke a fight, giving the police grounds to shut down the government camp. This had to be non-violent, as Huston mentions “That’s what they want. No, sir. If they can git a fight goin’, then they can run in the cops an’ say we ain’t orderly. They tried it before” (332). Their ideas worked out, and the cops are unable to arrest anyone at the camp. This was one of the more powerful changes made in the novel. Casy shows that the novel takes a stand on non-violent action when he says, “Try an’ get the folk in there to come on out. They can do it in a couple days. Tell ‘em… you doi what you can, the on’y thing you got to look at is that ever’ time they’s a little stepfoO’ward, she may slip back a little, but she never slips clear back.” (384) Casy urges for everyone else to strike, and to think of the 2 steps forward, one step back. Even though it may feel like nothing is changing, it is, and it will. The novel showed that violence will always be a part of human nature, and it may be hard to control the urge to retaliate; true strength comes from non-violent responses.
ReplyDeleteIn The Grapes of Wrath, violence is repeatedly portrayed as a natural instinct done without thinking, often to the person doing the violence’s detriment. For example, Casey’s last words before being killed are “You don’t know what you’re a-doin’” (386). Another example is when Huston directed the Entertainment committee to not hurt the intruders when they tried to start a riot at Weedpatch, telling them “Put ‘em over the back fence. An’ don’t hurt ‘em. They don’t know what they’re doin’” (344). This repeated phrase of “they don’t know what they’re doing” regarding violence shows that the book views it as an instinctive response when someone has no other options, something they do without thinking, because they feel threatened. Casey’s killer, and the rest of the Californian residents, are scared that the migrants will strike and change the status quo in California which benefited them greatly. Desperate, and with no other options, they turn to violence and harass the migrants, as can be seen in Casey being killed by the police. Tom, whose friend has just been killed, doesn’t have time to react, so he chooses the natural, instinctive response to fight back. In all cases, it never works out for the person doing the violence. Casey’s killer is immediately attacked by Tom, and probably killed. Tom himself is beaten up badly and has to go into hiding. Even in Tom’s bar fight that landed him in jail in the beginning of the book the violence was an instinctive response, Tom was being attacked so he fought back. There too the violence benefited nobody, the instigator ended up dead and Tom ended up in prison. However, when the characters take time to think about a response that doesn’t include violence, it ends better for everyone. For example, Huston responds to the attempted riot not with violence but with generosity, letting the instigators leave without punishment. This ended better for everyone, the Weedpatch camp didn’t have a riot and the police didn’t get to beat everyone up, and the instigators got away unharmed. By including this, Steinbeck is telling us that resisting this instinct to respond with violence is almost always the best solution, which will result in a better outcome for everyone involved.
ReplyDelete