Hill 1
SentimentalityandPoliticalAgenda:IdealizationofLaborinGreatDepression-Era
AmericanArt
“Everyoneisapartisanandtosomeextentapropagandistofwhathelikes.”So
wrotetheartistBoardmanRobinsoninaletterpublishedina1922editionoftheradical
leftistmonthlyTheLiberator.Hewasaddressingthenotionof“proletarian”art,andwas
partofthecontemporarydebatearoundwhetherornotartshouldbeusedaspropaganda.
ForRobinson,artwasneverimpartial:anartist’svoiceandviewswillalwaysinfluencethe
worktheyproduce.Itendtoagree–itisimpossibletoseparatemotivationsintobiased
andunbiased,particularlyintheactofcreatingart,whichisanotoriouslypersonaland
emotionallyinvolvedprocess.Whilepersonalpoliticsalwaysinfluencethecreationofart,I
thinkitisimportanttorecognizewhentheintentionofartinterfereswithobjectivityand
producesarepresentationthatcontradictscertainrealities.Thisisofcoursenotlimitedto
anyonetimeperiod,butI’dliketolookathowthisphenomenonemergedintheGreat
Depression.Americanartinthe1930ssawanincreaseofimagesrelatedtolaborand
laborers,buttheseimageswereoftenidealizedandexploitedforthesakeofpromotinga
politicalagenda.
Howisthisargumentdistinctfromsimplyacknowledgingthatanartist’sbiasesplay
intotheirartisticproduction?I’llbelookingatthreedifferentthingsinthispaper:visual
art,mostofwhichwasproducedunderthefederalgovernment’sWorksProgress
Administration;RobertFrost’spoetry,particularlyhiswork“ALoneStriker”;andJohn
Steinbeck’sTheGrapesofWrath.WhatIhopetoshowisthatineachofthesethreedistinct
formats,thepoliticalagendasthattheworkspromotenecessitateanidealizedvisionof
whatitmeanttobeaworkerinthe1930s,orarewritingofthecontextsurroundingthat
Hill 2
work.Intheprocessofidealization,afacetoftruthislost–andwhileIdon’tmeantoinsist
thatartmustmaintainsomearbitrarystandardofhistoricalobjectivity,whatI’dliketo
exploreiswhereeachformatorwork’spoliticalaimsenduperasinghistoricalcontext.
Funnily,itistheera’shistoricalcontextthatprovidestheaestheticbackgroundforthe
worksIwilllookat:workbecamethesubjectofheightenedartisticinterestintheyears
afterthemarketcrashof1929specificallybecauseofthenationallaborcrisis.Thus,Iwill
trytocompareeachformatorwork’sdepictionoflaborandthesurroundingcontextwith
thehistoricalphenomenonitdepictstounearthwherepoliticalagendascomeintoplay.
VisualArt
ErikaDoss,aprofessorwhohasworkedinArtHistorydepartmentsinvariousU.S.
universities,haswrittenextensivelyonAmericanartfromtheGreatDepression.Inapaper
onwhatshecallsthe“iconographyofAmericanlabor,”sheexploresthetrendtoward
depictinglaborinartasspecifictotheDepression(TowardanIconography53).Dossnotes
that,despiteanideologicalidentitythatisbasedon“acertainreverenceforwork”and“an
abidingfaithintheworkethic,”Americanshaveproducedasurprisinglysmallamountof
artthatfocusesonlabororlaborers(53).Inthe1930s,though,artists“respondedtothe
crisisoftheGreatDepressionwithanextensiveiconographycelebratingworkand
workers”(53).Dossarguesthatthisturntowarddepictingworkfunctionedasafederal
attempttorestoremoraleandfaithinanationwhoseidentitywasbuiltuponworkethic.
BetweenDoss’workandtheworkofotherswhohavewrittenaboutWPAartwecanpoint
totwoartistictropesthathighlightDoss’ideasandwhereidealizationshowsup
Hill 3
prominently:inthehyper-focusonthemalebody,andintheconspicuouslypeacefuland
hopefuldepictionof1930slabor.
AcrucialfactorinunderstandingtheproductionofartduringtheGreatDepression
isthat“duringthe1930s,thefederalgovernmentbecamethemajorpatronofAmerican
art”(LookingatLabor249).FundingfromtheWorksProgressAdministration,partof
Roosevelt’sNewDealstimulusplan,producedthousandsuponthousandsofworksfrom
muralstoprintstosculptures,andthousandsofartistsfoundemploymentundervarious
federalartprograms(250).Thispatronagewasnotmerelyforeconomicoraltruistic
purposes.DavidHorowitzarguesthattheWPAwasawayforWashingtontoputartiststo
workwhiletakingadvantageoftheirculturalproduction,whichtheyrealizedcouldboost
nationalmoraleand“socialsolidarity”(321).Artbecamepublicizedanddemocratizedin
ordertomakeitsmessagemoreappealingandaccessibletolower-classpeople,asbefore
the20thcentury,arthadlargelybeenthepurviewofthewealthy.ErikaDossechoesthis
sentimentevenmoreexplicitly.Shearguesthat“thefederalgovernmentcametorecognize
thevalueoflaborimageryasawayofsalvagingthenation’scapitalistandcorporate
economyandofsustainingidealizednotionsoftheworkethic”(Looking249).
Administratorsthuspushedaveryspecificaestheticoflabor(250).Whilethenumerous
agenciessetuptofundpublicartundertheNewDealwereeconomicallymotivated,there
wasaclearpoliticalagendaaswell,anditwasapparentintheartproduced.
ManyoftheworksthatDossexaminesinherearlierpaperareintentionally
uplifting.ShearguesthatthefederalartagenciesactiveatthetimeunderRoosevelt’sWPA
“recognizedthepowerfulsocialandpoliticalimportofupbeatimagesofrugged,dynamic
workersduringthesevereunemploymentandculturalmalaise”thataffectedthe
Hill 4
populationduringtheDepression(Toward53).Dossarguesthat“aniconographyoflabor
wascourtedbyAmericanartsadministrators”verydeliberately,andthusthepaintings
producedforfederaluse–suchasmuralsingovernmentbuildings–oftendepicted
picturesquescenesof
menatwork(53).
GeorgeSamerjan’s1942
mural“Lettuce
Workers”(fig.1)was
Figure1.GeorgeSamerjan,"LettuceWorkers,"1942
selectedforapostoffice
inCalexo,California,
andexemplifiestheaestheticDossdescribes:itdepictsalineoffarmerswhoareperhaps
notparticularlyrugged,butappearstrong.Theimageissereneandnatural,reflectingDoss’
suggestionthatfederalworkstendedtoward“optimisticviewsofagriculturaland
industrialproduction”throughtheirsettingandshowingworkersdirectly“accompanied
bythefruitsoftheirlabor”intheimage(Toward54).Ratherthanhighlightingthe
unemploymentandoftenbrutalworkingconditionsthatlaborerssufferedunder,
government-promotedartattemptedtorelievetheanxietiesabouthunger,lackofwork,
andpovertythatcharacterizedtheGreatDepressionbyportrayingunrealistically
attractivescenesoflaborlikeSamerjan’s.
Inallowingaveryselectiveportionoftheworkers’experiencetoenterthenational
iconography,thegovernmentused“theseimagesandobjects…tocastandconstrictwage
laborasaclasslessandcollectiveenterprise”(Toward55).Wecanseethisin“Lettuce
Workers’”identical,facelessmalefigures,andthefactthatnolandownerispresent.
Hill 5
Instead,thefarmersappeartoworkforthemselves.PatriciaRaynor’sbriefoverviewofthe
TreasuryDepartment’sSectionofPaintingandSculpture,whichwasseparatefromthe
WPAandlargelycommissionedworksforpostoffices,offersasimilarviewtotheoneDoss
andHorowitzhold.Whileitwasaseparateagency,TheSection(asitcametobeknown)
hadgoalsnearlyidenticaltotheWPA’s:“theSection'smainfunctionwastoselectartof
highqualitytodecoratepublicbuildings....Byprovidingdecorationinpublicbuildings,
theartwasmadeaccessibletoallpeople”(Raynor1).Justlikethemass-distributedWPA
art,artproducedunderTheSectionwasintendedasademocratic,accessibleartform,but
wasselectedbygovernmentofficials.Thus,thechosenpiecescantellusaboutthetypeof
laboraesthetictheadministratorswishedtheircitizenstoseeandwhatmessagethey
hopedcitizenswouldinternalize.
Samerjan’s
“LettuceWorkers”
wasselectedbyThe
Section,aswasasixpartmural
entitled“Historyof
Springfield,”(fig.2)
Figure2.UmbertoRomano,"AftermathofWWIandtheDepression,"1937/38
whichnowhangsinafederalbuildingbutwasoriginallydisplayedinaMassachusettspost
office.PaintedbyUmbertoRomano,itissubtitled“AftermathofWWIandtheDepression.”
BasedonDoss’discussionofhowmasculinitywasaddressedinDepression-eraart,Ifeel
comfortableinassumingthatthemuscularmanemulatingChristisalaborer.Sheargues
that,inadditiontorestoringnationalfaithinlaborasanenterprise,theaesthetictrend
Hill 6
towarddepictingworkersalsoaddressedalossofmanhood.ForAmericanmen,“laborhad
beentheprimaryformofidentity,”andthusnationallossofworktriggeredacrisisof
masculinity(Toward62).WhileRomanoisclearlymakingastatement,likelyaboutthe
trialsandtribulationstheworking-classsufferedthrough,hislaborerisidealizedinthe
waysDossaddresses:hismusclesareexposedandemphasized,andthoughthisisno
heroicportrait,themanonthecrossisstrongandcapable.Ratherthanpuncturedbynails,
leanandweakasweoftenseeChristincrucifixionimagery,thisworkerlooksrelatively
healthyandinverygoodshape,althoughheldbackbywhatareremarkablyloosebindings.
Heretainsasenseofmasculinity,andisashowof–admittedlyrestrained–strength.His
definedtorsoisthevisualcenterofthepainting,bothinlocationandinitscontrasttothe
moredarklycoloredfiguresaroundhim.
TheCaliforniamuralisnearlytheopposite,capturingtheotherendoftheidealized
workspectrum.Inthesetwoverydifferentmurals,wecanseetheglorifiedworkand
workerthatDosspointstoinheranalyses:thehyper-masculine,muscle-boundlaborer;
andthecheery,calmdepictionofoutdoor,non-industriallabor.Whiletheseareonlytwo
murals,theytypifyTheSection’sselectionofpublicart,whichtendedto“avoidtragic
portrayalsofindustrialaccidents”andother“hardrealitiesofAmericanlife”(Raynor).Like
theWPAthatErikaDosslooksat,worksproducedunderTheSectionignoredsocial
realities,favoringpositiveimagesofworkover“veryrealscenesofjoblessAmericans
standinginbreadlines”(Raynor).Theartproducedinthisperiod,particularlythe
publicallyfundedart,engagedwithpublicinterestatthetime–scenesoflaborand
laborersenteredtheAmericanaestheticenmasse.However,itwaslargelyusedasa
relevantaestheticbackgroundtoproduceacertaineffectinthepublic:toidealizethe
Hill 7
contemporarysituation,toassuagepublicanxieties,andtoleavecommunitiesnotwith
imagesofviolentstrikesandpovertybutofmenworkinginpeace.
Literature:RobertFrost
RobertFrost’s“ALoneStriker”isthefirsttextI’lllookatthatidealizesthenotionof
theworkerintheDepressionera.ThispoemisilluminatinginitsrelevancetoFrost’sown
life,aswellasitsclearignoranceofhistoryandtheconsequentidealizationoftheworker’s
experience.Thenarrativeisactually“basedon[Frost’s]ownexperienceasamillworker”
inLawrence,Massachusetts,afterarrivinglatetoworkandfindinghimselflockedoutof
thegrounds(Goldberg114).Theshortpoemrelaysthestoryofonemill-worker,the“lone
striker,”whofollowsinFrost’sfootsteps:heislockedoutofthemill,andafterpeeringin
thewindowsbrieflytoobservehiscolleagues,decidestoleavethemillbehindfortheday
andpasshistimeinleisure.Inthefollowingsection,Iwillcomparethetextof“ALone
Striker”bothtothehistoricalcontextofLawrenceandtoFrost’searlierpoetrythatseems
alsotobesetinLawrenceinordertotracetheentranceofaclearpoliticalagendainto
Frost’swork,andhowittrackswithFrost’sidealizationofworkingconditionsinhistown.
Frost’stitularstrikersaysnearlyasmuchaboutFrost’spoliticsasthebodyofthe
poem.Themereideaofalonestrikerislaughable.Whatcanonemanachievebyleaving
hispostwhileeveryoneelsestillworks?Further,thestriker“[fails]tomaketheclosing
gate,”andthusfindshimself“rebukedandunemployed.”Thisisnoconsciouspolitical
standbutanaccident,andwhiletheworkerknowshisabsencemeanshewillendupwith
“hispittancedocked,”heisunconcerned.Thestrikerleavestopursue“apaththatwanted
walking”and“aspringthatwanteddrinking,”feelingenoughateasethathecanleavethe
Hill 8
mill“inthelurch”(ALoneStriker).ThisreflectstheattitudeFrostexpressedabouthisown
lockout.Atapublicreadingofthepoem,heelaboratedontheinsignificanceofhispersonal
“strike,”stating“thisisthewayitwastome,notaveryseriousthing”(Goldberg115).
TheeasewithwhichbothFrostandhisfictionalstrikerturnawayfromtheirwork
andtakeuptheirlonestrikescontrastsharshly,though,againstLawrence’sveryreal
historywithlabororganization.In1912,thetownearneditself“anationalandeven
internationalreputationasaradicallaborcenter”afteratwo-monthstriketowinbacklost
wagesaftercutstoworkinghours(Goldberg91).Thestrikewasorganizedaroundthe
AmericanWoolenCompany,whichhadbecomethelargestemployerinLawrence,putting
nearlyathirdofthetown’spopulationtoworkinitstextilemills.Thelargestofthese
employed7,000workersandwasthe“world’slargestworstedmill”atthetime(Goldberg
84).ThestrikewassuccessfulbutlaborunionizationinLawrencecontinued,peakingin
1919,whentheUnitedTextileWorkersbeganadvocatingforaneight-hourworkday,or
fifty-fourhours’payforforty-eighthours’work(theworkweekatthetimewassixdays).
Localauthoritiesusedquestionabletacticstotrytoforcecitizensbacktowork,andmany
familiessentchildrentoothercitiestowaitoutthestrike.Goldbergarguesthata“war
psychologyprevailedinLawrence”duringthetime(111).After107daysofstriking,
though,victorywassecured,demonstratingtheimportanceandefficacyofunionization
andstriking(Goldberg122).ItisinlightofthishistorythatRobertFrost’slonestriker
seemsparticularlyridiculous.Bypositioningthisoneworker,accidentallybarredfromhis
factory,asastriker,FrostismakinglightofLawrence’simportantandinfluentialhistory
withstrikingasatoolofresistance.
Hill 9
Byfurthersuggestingthatthestrikerisunconcernedenoughtocasuallyshrugoff
thelossofhisday’swagesandcanviewhis“strike”asanopportunitytoreturntonature
andescapehisindustriallife,Frostignoresthestakesthatworkersonwalkoutdealtwith.
Oneofthereasonstheworkerswereabletoholdoutsolong,Goldbergargues,isthat
althoughunemploymentrateswererisinggiventheendofthewartimeproductionboom,
thatsameboomhadallowedworkerstosaveupenoughmoneytolastthemthemonths
withoutpaythatthestrikerequired(100).ThatanytextileworkerinLawrence,as
presumablyanyindustrialworkerinLawrenceatthetimewouldbeemployedinatextile
mill,wouldnothavetoworryaboutlostwagesorpotentialretributionformissingwork
seemsahistoricalincontext.
Somelinesin“ALoneStriker”doappeartosympathizewiththetitlecharacterand
vaguelyindicatethatmillworkwaslessthandesirable.Inthepoem’ssecondstanza
however,Frostdescribesthelaborbeingdoneinthemillassoslowthat“ithardly
overtaxed”theworkers,andtheyarnbeingmadeasspun“safely.”Frosttooemphasizes
thehumanelementofproduction:
Thespinnerstillwastheretospin.
That’swherethehumanstillcamein.
Herdefthandshowedwithfingerrings
Amongtheharplikespreadofstrings.(Striker)
Thepoemheremakesastrongercasefortextileworkasenjoyableandskills-basedthan
forthemillsasaplaceofdifficultanddehumanizinglabor.Comparingtheworker’s
experiencetothatofatalentedmusiciangivesthelaboradistinctlyartisticsense,evoking
animageofcottageindustry-scaleproduction.Despitethefewindicationsthatthemilland
Hill 10
theworkarelessthanideal,thetoneofthepoemisfarmoreneutral,andattimespositive,
abouttheworkthatweknowtohavebeendangeroustotheworkers.
EventakingintoaccountthatFrost’spersonalexperiencewithindustrialwork
wouldhavebeenaroundtwodecadespriortoLawrence’sfamedstrikes,hisdepictionof
factoryworkstillcomesacrossasgrosslymisleadingwhencomparedwiththestateof
millworkinthe1890s.ContrarytoFrost’squaintvisionofskilledindividualwork,
LawrencewasahubofmassindustrialeconomicactivityevenbeforetheAWCwas
foundedin1899.InvestorsfromBostonfirstopenedlarge-scaleindustrialmillsin
Lawrencein1845,andfifteenyearslater,oneofthesemillscollapsed(Goldberg83).The
accidentkilledeightyworkers,andtheworkingconditionsatthatpointwereevidentlyso
awfulthattheyinspiredaWinslowHomerwoodcutdepicting“men,women,andchildren
sadlytrudgingtoworkin…‘darksatanicmills’”(83).The“harshlifeinthemills”that
GoldbergdocumentsinhishistoricalaccountofLawrencedirectlycontradictsFrost’s
assertionthatanyfactoryhecouldhaveleftwas“veryfine”(88).
“ALoneStriker”isnotFrost’sonlyworkthattreatslabor,however,andsomeofhis
earlierworkismuchmoresympathetictoworkersandopenlyanti-industrialist.Tyler
Hoffmannotesthat“TheParlorJoke,”writtenin1910,positsascenarioinovertopposition
withtheunconcernedworkersandeasylaborportrayedin“Striker.”Thispoemtooseems
tobesetinLawrence.Thenarratorhopestotellusof“amoderncity/Wherethere
shouldn’thavebeenany,”likelyreferencingtherapidconstructionoftheindustrialmills
thatchangedLawrencefromatowntoapropercity(TheParlorJoke).Inthesecond
stanza,henotesthatthefoundersofthiscity“drewonEllisIsland”insourcinglabor,and
DavidGoldbergtellsusthat“Lawrence’sworkforcehadalwaysbeenlargelycomposedof
Hill 11
immigrants”(86).Asisthecasewith“Striker,”thecoincidencesbetweenLawrenceand
Frost’spoetryaretoogreattobeignored,particularlygivenFrost’sownworkexperience.
Giventheevidencethat“Parlor”isaboutLawrence,thedifferencesbetweenthis
earlypoemsand“Striker”areevenmorepronouncedandperplexing.Frost’snarrator
describescapitalistswhocomeintobuildanewcity,andthenretreattotheircomfortable
countryhomestowatchthecity’sprogressfromafar.Whilein“Striker”Frostfocusesona
singlelaborer’sthoughtsabouthiswork,“Parlor”addresseslargerconceptsof“thefew”
owningthesourceofatown’scapital,andthespiritofrevolutionthatcanriseupagainst
suchasituation.Here,Frostopenlydiscussesthedangerousworkingconditionsin
factories:thelasttwolinesofstanzathreeread“Onlythentheydealtwithwater/Andnow
withhumanblood,”referringtotheowners’enterprises.Later,thedisembodied“presence”
ofworkers’rebellionareheardspeakingof“bloodadyeforwool.”Further,Frostmakes
explicittheclassednatureofLawrence’slaborstruggle.Hereferstothecapitalistsas“the
few,”“therich,”and“gentlefolk”;theimmigrantlaborersare“thepoor”whose“tenements
creptnearer”tothemillowners’“villasonthehill”(Parlor).“TheParlorJoke”criticizesnot
justmillworkbutthemillownersaswell,approachinglaborinanentirelydifferentlight
fromtheonetakenin“ALoneStriker.”
Whereassixteenyearslaterheclearlyhadadifferentartisticmotive,in1910Frost
wasusinghispoetrytoadvocatefortheworkingclassinsomesmallway.Frostwaswilling
toopenlycriticizethecapitalistindustrializationofsmallriversidetowns,andwriteabout
thedeathandviolencetheycouldbringtothepopulation.Whiledramatized,theseearlier
representationsofLawrencedonotglossovertheabuseoftheworkersandthedangerous
Hill 12
conditionstheyfaced–theydonotidealizeindustriallaborandindustrializedtownsthe
way“ALoneStriker”definitivelydoes.
Sowhatchanged?TylerHoffmanassertsthatwhatchangedwasFrosthimself,and
thepoliticalclimatethatFrostfelthehadtoaccountforwhenpublishingnewwork.The
individualismthatdroveFrost’sownpoliticslefthimfirmlyopposedtotheNewDeal,and
thushewrote“ALoneStriker”to“[consciouslyresist]theprogressivepoliticalforces”of
Roosevelt’snationalplan(114).Theidealizationofmills,industryandlaborthatwecan
pointtoin“Striker”isnotastaticpositionforFrost,butanacquiredone.Whileperhaps
Frostsawhimselfasthetitularstriker–leavingthepoliticsoftheindustrialworldbehind
altogethertoreturntonaturewherehecoulddohis“furtherthinking”–giventhetimingof
theshiftinhiswritingandthepoliticsheopenlyexpressed,theabsenceofadvocacyin
“Striker”canbeunderstoodasapoliticalstance,oratleastoneheavilyinfluencedby
politics(Striker).
Unlikemanyartistsoftheperiod,Frostwascommittedtoanideologyof
individualismandself-sustenance,andrefusedtosupportunionizationandcollectivism.
Indeed,bythetimeFrostwrote“ALoneStriker,”hehadlongsince“[come]tobelievethat
communism[presented]apotentthreattoAmericandemocracy”(122).Frostwas
particularlyopposedtoRoosevelt’spolitics,andHoffmanarguesthat“Striker’s”“rejection
ofsympathyfortheworkingpoor”wasadirectresultofFrost’s“fearofNewDeal
liberalism”(117).HoffmanclaimsboldlythatitwasRoosevelt’spoliticsthat“forced[Frost]
tolookawayfromsuchsufferinginhisefforttodefendtheclaimsoftheindividualagainst
thestate”(119).ItisthispoliticalleaningthatexplainsFrost’sobviousrefusaltoengage
Hill 13
withtherealitiesofindustriallaboratthetime,andactivelyignoreLawrence’swellknown
historywithlabororganization.
Literature:TheGrapesofWrath
Itwouldbeamistake,Ithink,totalkaboutlaborpoliticsinDepression-eraart
withouttreatingSteinbeck’sTheGrapesofWrath.Notonlyisitanera-definingepicofa
novelthatspeaksspecificallytolaborundertheGreatDepression,itisaworkthatexhibits
someofthesameproblemsIhavealreadybeguntoaddressinotherformsofart.
Steinbeck’smigrantfarmworkersarearguablyglorifiedforthesakeofapoliticalagenda,
andtheirportrayalandpurposeinthenarrativeleadtounfairtreatmentofotherclasses,
aswellasadetachmentfromhistoricalcontextthatrecallsFrost’slaterwork.Whilesome
havepraisedtheepicnovelforitsaccuratedepictionofthelifeofamigrantworker
(includingthen-U.S.PresidentRooseveltandhiswife),othershavenotedthatcertain
aspectsarelessthanaccurateandsomewhatnostalgic.EvenBernardWeisberger’s
Afterwordtomyeditionsaysthenovel“isaWPAmural…overlysentimental,andfilled
withstereotypes”(440).Steinbeckuseshisleadcharacters,andthewidercommunityof
migrantfarmers,astoolsofpoliticalchange,andthenovelpositsthemasuniquelyableto
enactthischange.Indoingso,hereducesothercharacterstostereotypes,sacrificingthe
dignityofsomeworking-classpeopleandNativeAmericansfortheglorificationofthe
migrantfarmworker.
Steinbeckuseshisnoveltoshowjusthowmuchstrength,spiritandcapacityto
enactchangethefarmershave.Inhiscriticalessayexploringthefarmers’“political
capacities,”CyrusZirakzadehcallstheworka“celebrationofpreindustrialfarming
Hill 14
culture,”onewhichleadsreaderstoview“onlyoneclass(theformeryeomanfarmers)[as]
worthyofpoliticalpower;otherpoorfolkevokepityfromreaders,butdonotappearto
deservingofpoliticalpower”(616).Thisstemspartiallyfromthenovel’sfocus:inwriting
aboutafamilyofdisplacedfarmers,itisofcoursetheirlivesandburgeoningpolitical
awarenessthatSteinbeckshowsus.Heis,though,pushingaviewofparticularpolitical
capacitybornoftherecentandviolentdisplacementtheJoadsandthethousandsofother
farmingfamilieshaveexperienced.Attimes,thiscapacityisbroughtintofocusbycontrast
withotherworking-classcharacters.Inencounterswithgasstationattendantsandauto
mechanicsonthewaytoCalifornia,weseethatTom,atleast,isangrierandmore
politicallyengagedthantheseworkers,andthatotherworkersareoftenopenlyhostileto
thefarmingfamiliesandtheirradicalideas.
IseethiscontrastasawayforSteinbecktounderscorethethemethatrunsthrough
hisentirenovel:thatitisdisplacementfromlandwithwhichthesefamilieshavehadsuch
strongconnectionthatgivesthemradicalpoliticalpotential.Overandoveragainweare
givennarrativehintsthatlifeistiedtoland,andthatthereisasacredconnectionbetween
landthatyoufarmandownership.JustasDossarguesthatlosingworkwasalossof
identityformenthatthenappearedinartisticmotifs,Steinbeckshowsusthelossof
directionandfamilyhistorythatcamewiththeirlossofland.Aftereachfamilyisstripped
oflandandidentity,theyfindeachother,andinrealizingtheyarenotalonetheybeginto
expressradicalpotential.Thefarmers,meetingalongtheroadorinCaliforniamigrant
camps,haveashadowofunderstandingthattheyaremoredeservingoflandthanthe
bankers,andtakestepsthataccumulateinthesecondhalfofthenovelintoboldstrides
towardaradicalreclamationoftheirdignityandrights.Itisthesharedrecognitionthat
Hill 15
landandlifeareinextricablylinkedthatSteinbeckrewardswithroughpoliticalawareness.
Thoseworkerswhodonotunderstandandempathizewiththemigrantshavenotbeen
connectedtoapieceofland,andthusdonothavethesenseofinjusticethatdrivesthe
moreradicalcharacters,notablyTom,todemandchange.
InChapterFive,whichshowsthescopeoftheevictionstakingplacethroughout
Oklahoma,Steinbeckestablishesthevalueheplacesinthisideaofconnectiontoland.Here,
weareshownthatthefarmersdeservetheirlandbecausetheyunderstanditandloveitas
hiredhandsandcorporatemanagerswillneverbeableto.Whilethelandowners,who
demandceaselessproductionofcotton,areunabletomakethelandproductive,the
“squatters”beingkickedoffoftheirplotknowwhatthelandneeds:“theyknew,Godknew.
Iftheycouldonlyrotatethecropstheymightpumpbloodbackintotheland”(36).Laterin
thesamechapter,atractordriverappears,butheisnotworthyofthelandeither.“He
lovedthelandnomorethanthebanklovedtheland,”astarkcontrasttothefarming
familieswhohadsupportedthemselvesbyworkingcloselywiththeearth(41).
Steinbeckneverstopsremindingustheinjusticeofremovingthesefamiliesfrom
theirhomes.InChapterSix,weseetheconsequencesofforceddisplacementonMuley
Graves,wholethisfamilymovewestwithouthim.HetellstheJoadshecan’tleavebecause
the“placewherefolksliveisthemfolks”(56).Hehasnoidentityoutsideofhishomestead,
andwecanseethathisevictionhasseverelydestabilizedhim.Whenyoubuyaplotofland,
thenarrationreads,“you’rebuyingyearsofwork,toilinthesun”–you’rebuyinglives,and
“howcanwelivewithoutourlives?”(88).AsweseetheJoadspreparingfortheirjourney,
Gramparefusestoleave:“Thishere’smycountry.Ib’longhere”(109).Afterhisdeath,this
idearesurfaces:thepreacherCasysaysthat“Grampaan’theoldplace,theywasjus’the
Hill 16
samething”(143).Litteredthroughoutthenarrativearetheseassertionsthatpeopleare
tiedtothelandtheyliveandworkon,increasingthereader’ssenseofoutrageonbehalfof
thedisplacedworkers.
Steinbecklinksthefarmers’connectionwiththelandandthehostiletakeoverof
thatlandbyrichownerstothefarmers’capacityforradicalchange.Passagesthatremind
ushowpotentiallystrongthefarmerscouldbeiftheyunionizedareoftenaccompaniedby
passagesderidinglandownersforgrowingdistantfromtheirland.Steinbeckpairsphrases
like,“Anditcameaboutthattheownersnolongerworkedontheirfarms”(224)with,just
twoparagraphslater,statementssuggestingthemigrantfarmers’capabilitytotakethe
landback:“theownershatedthembecausetheownersknewtheyweresoftandtheOkies
strong,thattheywerefedandtheOkieshungry;andperhapstheownershadheardfrom
theirgrandfathershoweasyitistosteallandfromasoftmanifyouarefierceandhungry
andarmed”(225).Theideathatthefarmers’radicalpoliticsaretiedtotheirconnectionto
thelandcomestoaheadtowardtheendofthenovel,whenTomleavestherestofthe
family.Thevisionhepaintsisofafarmingcommune,whereeveryoneownslandandthey
allworkforthecommongood,governingthemselvesastheydidintheWeedpatchcamp.
HetellsMahehopestoestablishaplacewhere“folks[take]careatheirselves”and“all
worktogetherfor[their]ownthing–allfarm[their]ownlan’”(402).Theradicalismthat
hasbeengrowinginTomsincethefamily’sdeparturefromOklahomafindsitsfinalformin
acommunalreturntoowningland,suggestingthatthisisanintegralpartoftheradical
potentialSteinbeckhasbestowedonthefarmers.
Thevisionofthe“connectedfarmer,”though,restsonshakyground.Thefarmers
arguethattheyworkedtoowntheland,thattheyestablishedtheirownershipofitby
Hill 17
fightingforit.Inahalf-heartedprotestagainstthelandowners,thetenantscry,“Maybewe
gottofighttokeepoutland,likePaandGrampadid”(40).Theimplication,cementedby
thelaterreferencestotheirloveandconnectiontotheland,isthattheytrulyearnedtheir
property,whereasthebankersandthefolksbackeasthaveneverevensetfootonit,never
workedonitorbotheredtolearnhowtocareforit.However,justaswehaveseenthe
visualartistsbeforehimandRobertFrostdo,JohnSteinbeckglossesovertheless-thanpicturesqueaspectsofthefarmers’historyinsupportofhispoliticalvision.While
ZirakzadehclaimsthatSteinbeck’sidealizationisprimarilylimitedtoglorificationofthe
farmersandpatronizationofotherworking-classpeople,Steinbeck’streatmentofthe
NativeAmericanpopulationisconspicuouslyshallow.
Zirakzadehclaimsinhisessaythat“thenoveldescribesindetailthematerial
sufferingofmanykindsofnon-wealthypeople,includingtruckers,clerks,gas-station
attendants,andNativeAmericans”(610).Iwholeheartedlydisagree.Whileheisnotwrong
topointoutthatSteinbeckdoesdrawattentiontootherworkers’poverty,Native
Americansfeatureinthestorymerelytodeepentheimportanceofconnectiontoland.The
firstmentionof“Indians”comesinChapterFive,mentionedearlierasthefirstchapterto
establishSteinbeck’s“landconnection”trope.Here,weseeNativeAmericansasjust
anothernaturalfeatureofthelandthatmustbedefeatedinordertoownit.Inprotesting
theireviction,thetenantscry“GrampskilledIndians.Pakilledsnakesfortheland.Maybe
wecankillbanks–they’reworsethanIndiansandsnakes”(40).Whileperhaps
tangentiallythisacknowledgesthebrutalgenocideofNativeAmericansthattookplace,
primarilythismerelyequatesNativeAmericanswithsnakes,asdangerousobstaclesthat
mustbeeradicatedinordertotakepossessionofthelandandmakeitlivable.Further,the
Hill 18
narrativepresentsthecommentfreeofirony;thereisnoindicationofthesomewhat
parallelsituationsfacedbyNativeAmericansandthedisplacedfarmers,northatthe
farmers’actionsforce“Indians”offoflandthattheyhavelivedonmuchlongerthanthe
farmershave.Rather,NativeAmericansaremerelyonegeneration’shardshiptoovercome
inestablishingandmaintainingconnectiontothefarmland.
JustasRobertFrostwasobviouslypoliticallymotivatedinthewritingof“ALone
Striker,”JohnSteinbeck’sownpopulistandcommunistleaningscomethroughinhisnovel.
Zirakzadeh,intalkingaboutSteinbeck’spoliticalmotivations,chartsareversetrajectoryto
thatofRobertFrost:Steinbeckwaslargelyapoliticalinhisyouth,andonlybeganwriting
“’proletarian’stories”inthelater1930s(604).Hecametobelieve,though,inthepowerof
thepeople,andthoughttheU.S.wasonthebrinkofwidespreadsocialchange(604).His
convictionisvisibleinTomandCasy’spoliticalawareness,whichSteinbeckgroundsinthe
injusticetheyseeinthedistantmanagementofvastswathsoflandbycorporateowners,
andtheveryrealconnectionthefarmerfamiliesfeeltowardtheirland.Insettinguphis
visionoftherevolutionaryfarmer,though,Steinbeckdeniespoliticalagencytoother
working-classpeople,andpaintsNativeAmericansasnuisancestobedefeatedbyfarmers
claiminganddefendingtheirland.Steinbeckdrivestheplotandmaincharacters’
motivationswithhispoliticalinclinationsandexpectationofsocialrevoltandendsup
stereotypingandoverlookinghistoricalcontext,similarlytootherartistsoftheperiod.
Conclusion
I’veonlyreallybeguntoscratchthesurfacehere.Therearemanyotheraspectsto
eachofthesectionsI’vecoveredthatcontinuetodemonstrateevenmorenuancedwaysin
Hill 19
whichDepression-eraarthelpedtomasktherealitiesoflaboratthetime.MuchoftheWPA
createdwasintheformoflithographs,whichwereoftenlessdetailedthanpaintingsor
drawingsandmonochromatic,duetothenatureofetchingandprinting,producingquite
literallylessrealisticimages.ThestoryofTheGrapesofWrathasperhapscensoringthe
uglierpartsofAmericanhistorybecomesmoreinterestingandcomplicatedwhenwe
considerthatinthesameyearSteinbeckwasawardedaPulitzerPrizeforhisnovel,itwas
bannedinKernCounty,California,oneofthelocationstheJoadfamilyvisits,forits
incendiarycontent.Further,notionsofpoliticalinfluenceonartgrowcomplexinlookingat
thedegreetowhichFrostandSteinbeckagreedinmanyways.Thetwoartistssharedvery
similarideasaboutfarmersandtheindustrializationoflabor,butaswecanseethrough
theirarttheyapproachedtheperceivedissueofdestructionoffamilyagricultureinnearly
oppositefashions.
Historicalrevisionandpoliticalagendainartwasnothingnewinthe1930s.Itisnot
particularlyremarkablethatGreatDepression-eraartistswereusingtheirplatformsto
promotecertainideasortopushcertainpolitics.Whatisinterestingisthewaythatthe
relativelynewaestheticofworkwasseizedupon,andhowitsuseinworkswithagenda
oftendidadisservicetoworkersthemselvesoroverwrotehistoricalcontext.Inlookingat
federallyfundedvisualart,whichofcoursewillalwayshaveanelementofnationalist
propaganda,wecanseethatRoosevelt’sadministrationwashopingtopacifyandrestore
hopeintheworkingclass.Frost’sdrasticshiftfromsupportoftheproletariancausetoa
seeminglyapoliticalanddeliberatelyahistoricalstanceisaclearexampleofpoliticstaking
precedenceoverobjectivity,asisSteinbeck’snearlyreversepathintoexplicitlypolitical
writing.WhattheartI’veanalyzedshowsisnotaDepression-eratendencytoward
Hill 20
idealization,butratherhowidealizationfollowsculturaltrends,andillustratesthusthat
1930sarttendedtowardignoringorrewritingrealitiesofDepression-eralabor.
Hill 21
WorksCited
Doss,Erika.“LookingatLabor:ImagesofWorkin1930sAmericanArt.”TheJournalof
DecorativeandPropagandaArts,vol.24,2002,pp.230-57.
---.“TowardanIconographyofAmericanLabor:Work,Workers,andtheWorkEthicin
AmericanArt,1930-1945.”DesignIssues,vol.13,no.1,1997,pp.53-66.
Frost,Robert.“ALoneStriker.”“OfThingsExactlyAsTheyAre:”AmericanPoetryofthe
1930s.AmericanStudiesattheUniversityofVirginia,2005,
xroads.virginia.edu/~ma05/dulis/poetry/Frost/frost2.html.Accessed8November
2016.
---.“TheParlorJoke.”PoetryExplorer.www.poetryexplorer.net/poem.php?id=10061335.
Accessed8November2016.
Goldberg,DavidJ.ATaleofThreeCities:LaborOrganizationandProtestinPaterson,Passaic,
andLawrence,1916-1921.RutgersUP,1989.
Hoffman,TylerB.“RobertFrostandthePoliticsofLabor.”ModernLanguageStudies,vol.
29,no.2,1999,pp.109-35.
Horowitz,DavidA.“TheNewDealandPeople’sArt:MarketPlannersandRadicalArtists.”
OregonHistoricalQuarterly,vol.109,no.2,2008,pp.318-28.
Marquardt,VirginiaHagelstein.“ArtonthePoliticalFrontinAmerica:FromTheLiberator
toArtFront.”ArtJournal,vol.52,no.1,1993,pp.72-81.
“OurHistory.”CherokeeNation.CherokeeNation,2016.
www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/Facts/OurHistory.aspx.Accessed8
November2016.
Steinbeck,John.TheGrapesofWrath.Reader’sDigestAssociation,1991.
Hill 22
Zirakzadeh,CyrusErnesto.“JohnSteinbeckonthePoliticalCapacitiesofEverydayFolk:
Moms,Reds,andMaJoad’sRevolt.”Polity,vol.36,no.4,2004,pp.595-618.