A writer is someone who is committed to communicate with an audience through creative writing. That is illustrated by Steinbeck “who succeeded in drawing with words one of the most honest pictures in the history of modern American novel” [1]. In the 1920s, a group of foreign writers sprung up in the United States with committed works emphasizing disappointment in modern civilization and the loss of educational ideals exacerbated by the tragic experience of the first World War. It is to that literary movement called the literature of the Lost Generation that John Ernest Steinbeck belongs. As such, John Steinbeck has mostly oriented his literature of disappointment towards the hurdles encountered by migrant workers of California, which is an area he knows well, to make his literary production more authentic. That has led Tahsin Oskay to draw attention on this: “all his life, Steinbeck advocated writing which grew from personal experience and direct observation […] He travelled and worked together with the migrants especially Tom Collins, the migrant camp director to whom The Grapes of Wrath was dedicated” [2].

Besides, the depiction of the American capitalism as the main cause of the disappointment undergone by migrants is one of the major themes of his novels. In that perspective, The Grapes of Wrath reveals to be an analysis of the dehumanizing aspect of American capitalism through the inhuman attitudes of landowners, bank representatives and other people towards the poor farmers of Oklahoma. 

This work seeks to demonstrate that even if the established system is not free from reproach, it is man, himself, who is the source of hardships of his fellowman. 

This study is structured as follows: it beforehand analyzes the struggles of the dominant class to preserve its position and maintain farmers in poverty, then examines the loss of male authority in gender leadership shift as a consequence of the economic crisis, and last but not least explores the spirit of otherness or the differentiation native Americans make between them and the Oklahomans.              

The Capitalists’ Struggle to Preserve their Dominant Position 

In a period of economic crisis, a sense of mutual suspicion generally takes place, nobody trusts nobody else. That is what happens in The Grapes of Wrath where Steinbeck asserts, “Got to keep ‘em in line or Christ only knows what they’ll do! Why, Jesus, they’re as dangerous as niggers in the South! If they ever get-together there ain’t nothin’ that’ll stop ‘em” [3].

Thereby, the Californian capitalists suspect the Oklahoman farmers who they say are hungry men. And as the saying goes “a hungry man is an angry man.” That sense of hostility makes the rich capitalists do whatever they can to prevent the farmers from externalizing their anger. And, they thrive to maintain them in their initial position of poverty. If that mission is succeeded, farmers will remain eternal poor workers and the capitalists, eternal masters. They know that many people from rural areas are illiterate, and instead of helping them learn, the capitalists do their best to maintain them in that state of ignorance in order to better control and exploit them. In that similar vein, Steinbeck argues, “Those farmers who were not good shopkeepers lost their land to good shopkeepers. No matter how clever, how loving a man might be with earth and growing things, he could not survive if he were not also a good shopkeeper… Now, farming became industry, and the owners followed Rome, although they did not know it. They imported slaves although they did not call them slaves: Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, and Filipino. They live on rice and beans, the business men said. They don’t need much. They wouldn’t know what to do with good wages” [3]. 

That assertion makes a rapprochement between slavery and capitalism. Capitalism is another form of slavery we can label a disguised slavery. The difference between the two practices is that in slavery you buy people against their will and make them your servants who call you masters whereas in capitalism you give the impression to recruit people in their own consent who recognize you as bosses with a view to paying them salaries. In slavery, the exploitation is overt while it is disguised and concealed by a salary in capitalism.   

In reality, the farmers are slaves. They work endlessly on farms; they don’t eat and sleep well and are paid miserable salaries. The worst is that, as stated in the novel, they buy from the capitalists what they spend all their time growing with the meager income they receive, “The landlord paid the men, and sold them food, and took the money back” [3].

Thus, it can be stated that capitalism is cunning, it gives you money with this hand and takes it back with the other one while making you work relentlessly. 

Steinbeck also stresses that those who know nothing about capitalism are not likely to survive in the capitalist system. No matter how smart farmers may be, they are bound to fail if they don’t know how to do business. That proves that the world is led by a new mode of regulation for which the capitalists are the masters. That shift from the agrarian system to the capitalist one, has redefined the social and economic relationships and put farmers in a position of under-domination. The farmers who once were masters have become slaves even in their own lands. Thus, the new masters, who are the capitalists, do whatever they can to keep their position. 

The capitalists are aware of the fact that farmers whose only source of survival was the land, are in need. They profit from their state of weakness to encourage them to move to California in search for better living conditions through these words: “Why don’t you go on West to California? There’s work there, and it never gets cold. Why, you can reach out anywhere and pick an orange. Why, there is always some kind of crop to work in. Why don’t you go there?” [3].

For farmers, this is an occasion not to miss in such a period of total economic crisis. The capitalists who are the land owners, have evicted them of the land they were living and growing for centuries to offer them an alternative life. Nevertheless, the only choice let to farmers is profitable to capitalists. “Capitalism damaged the owners of farms or little amounts of land […] Big owners took advantage of the situation since they could both acquire the dispossessed land and benefit from unemployment by offering a lot of working positions, but with reduced salaries” [4].

In fact, the land owners, made farmers believe that California was a Promised Land. That belief would naturally drive farmers who are the job-seekers there, and then allow the land owners gain an enduring work force without paying much money as they selfishly declare that farmers don’t need money, what is essential for them is food to fill their bellies and be happy. 

As already claimed, capitalism is tricky; it lets people believe that they are in free-enterprise, and unlike slavery, nobody forces them to work. But it is the system itself that mischievously enslaves and traps people in the job market, makes them spend all the money they earn and forces them to take loans to be materially equipped. As a result, workers endlessly live under the stress of expense and loan paying till retirement. Capitalism exhausts them through hard and relentless work before almost emptying what it gave them. As a matter of fact, capitalism gives the impression to make people work in freedom, but it takes back whatever it gives them through trade. For instance, when Pa Joad wanted to buy a razor, Uncle John told him that he didn’t need it and Pa retorted that buying things you don’t really need is one of the aims of capitalism in these words: “I know that. An’ I don’t need no safety razor, neither. Stuff settin’ out there, you jus’ feel like buyin’ it whether you need it or not” [3]. 

In a sense, the so-called wages given to workers make them feel that they have a purchasing power and make them forget the capitalist subjugation they undergo. Subsequently, the rich capitalists exploit them by making them raise their own profits while impoverishing them on the other side. 

As a reminder, a decade of economic and social recession took place during the Great Depression of the 1930s, which drastically affected the American citizen. In that perspective, The Grapes of Wrath “is the representative novel of the people who were the prey of the recession going throughout America” [5].

Along with the Great Depression, another calamity known as the Dust Bowl occurred in the rural agrarian states of the Midwest to environmentally and socially devastate them. The term Dust Bowl refers to a series of droughts coupled with the dust storms that hit the Midwest plains of America. That unbearable situation forced farmers to move Westwards in search for better living and working conditions. In that context, John Steinbeck represents in The Grapes of Wrath, a family of farmers named the Joads, who went to California to flee the economic difficulties of their area. Nevertheless, not only didn’t they find job in America, but they also faced hunger, sickness and death. That unexpected situation undergone by the Joads in America is due to the economic recession on the one hand and to the capitalists’ struggle to preserve their dominant position on the other. In their attempt to make profit, the capitalists described by John Steinbeck ruthlessly disadvantage the working class, what only matters for them is making profit as illustrated by Steinbeck here, “and crops were reckoned in dollars, and land was valued by principal plus interest, and crops were bought and sold before they were planted” [3]. That illustration makes it clear that the land and the farmers welfare are none of the capitalists’ interests.

Steinbeck is overtly criticizing capitalism while defending the workers’ rights. That’s why “the laborers regarded Steinbeck as their spokesman and the novel as their manifesto” [6].

We think that the American capitalists should have a sense of humanity and bear in mind that even if the land doesn’t officially belong to farmers, there is a spiritual relationship between them and the land. As Dafalla puts it, “This mutual relationship of give and take is in itself an unwritten law, a spiritual bond that fosters feelings of affinity and belonging. When that land becomes impotent or infertile, neither dreams nor people grow [1].

It is claimed in that quotation that the relationship between the farmers and the land they grow has surpassed the mere fact of giving and taking, or of land whose only purpose is to feed the farmers. Instead, the latter have developed a deep feeling of affection towards the land, which ends up creating a sense of ownership. That is the reason why those farmers view the land as their own and not as a simple rented space to grow and feed on. That appropriation of the land by farmers drives the American capitalists, as Steinbeck expresses it, to call them robbers. They say that “these goddamned Okies are dirty and ignorant. They’re degenerate, sexual maniacs. Those goddamned Okies are thieves. They’ll steal anything. They’ve got no sense of property rights [3]. 

In short, the capitalists consider the farmers as ignorant people and stealers who seek to usurpate their position to survive in California. For them, farmers have no sense of property and think that whatever they use belongs to them. As a result, they mistrust them and do whatever they can to maintain them in their initial position.

Gender Leadership Shift 

Gender leadership shift can be understood in this part of the study as the sudden change from male leadership to female leadership.

Traditional families are customary led by men who give commands to women and children. In The Grapes of Wrath, the economic crisis resulting from the great depression and the dust bowl has put male characters in a position of weakness as they can no longer provide food nor expense to their families. After losing the privilege of being at families’ heads, some of them simply run away as Connie Rivers, Rose of Sharon’s husband did, and others stay all day long wandering and gaming like Pa Joad. As a result, they have no say anymore in family matters. Women who are constant in their position, have become the new decision makers. Despite the unbearable living conditions in which the Dust Bowl has put the country, women do their best to still remain good wives and mothers. For that, John Steinbeck points out, “in one of the tents, a child wailed in complaint, and a woman’s soft voice soothed it and then broke into a low song. [3].

They keep on playing their traditional role of nurturing, giving useful advice and soothing the family in distress. One day, Ma encouraged Tom by telling him: “We are the people that live. They ain’t gonna wipe us out. Why, we’re the people-we go on” [3]. Symbolically being the new leader of the family, Ma Joad embodies their moral and conscious spirit and boosts them to move whatever the circumstances. Being aware that it is no longer possible to survive in Oklahoma, she is the first one to decide that the family moves to California for a new start. Thanks to her devotion, there is still hope in the family. So, instead of staying a submissive woman who waits for males’ decisions, she voluntarily and bravely takes over the family leadership, and looks for alternatives for the family to survive. As a reminder, in any traditional family, the eldest, especially men, are supposed to be at the head. That’s why in Oklahoma, when all was going well, Grampa was in control of the Joads family. He was the decision maker. But after the calamity that resulted in hunger, hit the area, social order became the least of village people’s concern, what only mattered was how to survive. That’s then that Grampa lost his leadership position, and was unexpectedly obliged by the other members of the family to move to California. He unfortunately passed away on the way to California. After Grampa’s death, birthright automatically assigns Pa Joad the legacy of the family leadership. But he too was disarmed by the tough situation in a way that he was no longer apt to take over. He was so morally and physically affected and exceeded by the events that he nearly lost the desire to live. As a result, Ma Joad, who was the best option left, took control of the family. Nevertheless, that upset Pa who felt offended in his male pride, and threatened to kill her to take his position back. This is how he reacted to Ma’s behavior: “Come time we get settled down, I’m gonna smack her” [3].

In her new position as the leader of the family, Ma Joad makes an appeal to unity as highlighted in the following illustration, “all we got is the family unbroke. Like a bunch of cows, when the lobos are ranging, still all together. I ain’t scared while we’re all here, all that’s alive, but I ain’t gonna see us bust up” [3].

She insists that strength rests in unity and collaboration as claimed in the following proverb, “United we stand, divided we fall” She then tells the members of her family to remain together whatever the situation may be in order to have the will and strength to survive. In fact, she seeks to make her kins aware that in a moment of economic hardship, only unity, solidarity and faith can keep people stand. Besides, if they unite, they will not only share what they have, but they will also resist and face together the police crudeness against them. For the first time, a woman dares to take the floor in front of men to defend her position about the decisions to take. That episode has confirmed the collapse of male authority. 

The shift from male authority to female authority in The Grapes of Wrath is not casual, it can also be understood in a political context because it is in the early 1900s that women were given the right to vote, a privilege that gave them a more valuable place in the modern world.

The Spirit of Otherness

We mean by spirit of otherness the overt marginality undergone by the Oklahoman community in California. That attitude has naturally created disappointment and sorrow in that community who sought to fulfil its dreams in that part of America. 

However hard the Joads try to treat people as human beings, they, in return, are looked down on and considered to a large extent savages. The fact of Rose of Sharon breastfeeding a starving man, is an illustration of their solidarity and human affinity towards others. 

The marginality they are subject to is more noticeable through the label “Okies” Native Californians, who consider themselves superior to rural people from Oklahoma, deliberately name them “Okies” to mean savages or uncivilized people. That lack of consideration has, from the outset, created a social division characterized by an inhuman treatment towards the dispossessed. The treatment the Oklahomans undergo in California is almost similar to the one African-Americans used to be subject to in the States. Thus, Mohamed Merada underlines, “The word Okie is used in an offensive manner that is as distancing as the term Nigro as reference to the African Americans. Oklahomans are thought to be dangerous and threatening to the Californian integrity and peace and it is for the good of the indigenous people if migrants are to be overwhelmed” [7]. In fact, the Oklahomans can’t have an easy life in California simply because the indigenous people have developed a prejudiced belief towards them, they think that they are dangerous and threatening.  As a result, they are on their guard and create a distinction between them and the people they name “Okies” Such a stereotype naturally has a negative impact on the way people see, interact and treat the Oklahoman community; and legitimize hostility towards them as well. From the illustration above, it can also be deducted that the situation of the Okies has almost the same features as those of slavery. Towns people push them to the extreme and make them undergo the same kind of rejection, hatred, discrimination and hunger that existed in slavery. They consider them to a large extent as invaders. This is the explanation Tom got when he asked a man what Okie meant: “Well, Okie use’ ta mean you was from Oklahoma. Now it means you’re a dirty son-of-a-bitch’. Okie means you’re scum. Don’t mean nothing itself, it’s the way they say it” [3].

The illustration showcases that the term Okie has undergone a pejorative alteration over the years. The word used to refer to an inhabitant from Oklahoma but now it is synonymous with dirtiness, hunger, delinquency and falsehood. Rural people are generally characterized by hard work, dignity and sufficiency. This is the reason why the Oklahomans feel angry with the inhuman way they are treated, an anger that is remarkably visible in their eyes. For that, Steinbeck emphasizes: “They were hungry, and they were fierce. And they had hoped to find a home, and they found only hatred. Okies – the owners hated them because the owners knew they were soft and the Okies strong, that they were fed and the Okies hungry; and perhaps the owners had heard from their grandfathers how easy it is to steal land from a soft man if you are fierce and hungry and armed” [3].

That treatment the Okies find abnormal, arouses a growing anger in them as Steinbeck emphasizes it here: “and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath” [3]. They know that all the town’s corporations are against them. Even policemen, who are supposed to guarantee public safety, threaten to wipe them off. Ma tells Tom: “Tom, this here policeman – he called us – Okies. He says, ‘We don’t want you goddamn Okies settlin’ down… says he goona run us in if we’re here tomorra” [3]. The policeman overtly shows them that they are persona non grata in California because, as aforementioned, they are strong and can steal them of their jobs. In reality, the policemen are trying to protect themselves against people they consider invaders and job robbers. Their physical strength is due to the fact that they were born and grew up in rural areas where people are not subject to industrialized products, they eat natural food used without synthetic chemicals such as pesticides and artificial fertilizers. That kind of food leads to a natural state of physical and mental health. Unlike natural food, industrialized food is added chemicals, so it’s not natural and can have undesirable effects on people’s physical health. Thus, industrialization deteriorates the natural aspect and quality of food, which may lead to consumers’ physical weakness. As it is known that the Oklahomans have been naturally nurtured so far, it can be said that the hostility they face in California is also due to their physical strength. Since they are strong, native Californians scare them. The Okies’ physical strength allows them to be more enduring than the native Californians, which may draw job recruiters attention and prejudice native workers. As a result, native Californians develop a kind of jealousy and hatred towards them as mentioned by Steinbeck here, “they gonna look at you an’ their face says, ‘I don’t like you, you son-of-a-bitch. ‘Gonna be deputy sheriff’s, an’ they’ll push you aroun’. You camp on the roadside, an’ they’ll move you on. You gonna see in people’s face how they hate you” [3].

Steinbeck is against social injustice and is trying to find a way to restore justice through writing. For that, Tahsin Oskay highlights, “John Steinbeck who lived between 1902 and 1968 made a great contribution to American literature since he pictured the turbulence and chaotic ambience of the society in a very realistic and dramatic way. He succeeded in doing this by living it rather than observing” [2]. 

Thus, John Steinbeck is not a mere observer and interpreter as far as social injustice is concerned. He witnessed and experienced it, what gives authenticity to his production.

Broadly speaking, this work has especially been an analysis of the effects of the economic crisis of the 1930s on the working class. The banks had dispossessed the farmers of the lands they had been tied to for hundreds of years because they could not produce anymore in the drought. As a result, the rural people resorted to migration with only one destination being the promised land of California during the piking fruit season. Thus, Steinbeck’s testimony to the realities of the epoch, has given a social realistic perspective to the novel. 

Despite being written in the 1980s, The Grapes of Wrath still has a contemporary value as many features of the twenty first century society, such as man cruelty towards his fellowman, selfishness, exploitation, etc., are described in depth in that novel. But it is worth mentioning that the Joads family in The Grapes of Wrath have developed a sense of unity and solidarity throughout the novel. That’s the reason why, in spite of the capitalists’ efforts to crush them, they managed to survive. The capitalists’ inhuman behavior towards the working class 
coupled with the dramatic experience of migration, reflect the oppression minorities are subject to in the United States. 

Besides, John Steinbeck’s ability to depict the environmental, social and political situation of the 1930s has made of The Grapes of Wrath a sociopolitical novel.

1. Dafalla, M.M. "Maturation through suffering in Steinbeck's novel The Grapes of Wrath." Journal of Linguistic and Literary Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, 2019, pp. 220–231.

2. Oskay, T. A Photographic Exposition of American Society and the Anti-Capitalistic Resurrection in John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. Postgraduate thesis, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of English Language and Literature, 2011, pp. 1–154.

3. Steinbeck, J. The Grapes of Wrath. Penguin Books, 1986.

4. Laporta Pinilla, M., and M.B. Nadal Blasco. John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath: Sociopolitical Perspectives. Undergraduate dissertation, Universidad Zaragoza, Faculty of Philosophy and Arts, 2019, pp. 1–28.

5. Manjhi, A., et al. "The evolution of characters from a being living a life centered in self to a philanthropically social being in The Grapes of Wrath of John Steinbeck." International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities, vol. 3, no. 4, June 2015, pp. 157–163.

6. Hasyium, F. "The seamy side of American capitalism in John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath." Rubikon, vol. 1, no. 2, Sept. 2014, pp. 16–24.

7. Merada, M. The American Society During the Great Depression in John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tlemcen, Faculty of Letters and Languages, Department of English, Algeria, 2017, pp. 1–40.