Rough Draft (Research Paper)

A Sociological Perspective on the ambiguity of the In Dubious Battle

Every person has his or her own way to protest to external pressure and injustice. John Steinbeck, a writer who got the opportunity to examine the social injustices, decided to show his inconformity by writing a book called In Dubious Battle using this as his particular form to protest. In Dubious Battle, published in 1936, shows the importance of two main characters, Mac and Jim, through the process of an apple pickers’ strike in a small town in California. After the crash and depression of 1929, Steinbeck presents us how a group of people united by a common cause decided to fight for their rights after the growers’ association cut their wages to fifteen cents. Most of the story takes place in a fictional town called Torgas Valley, California, where the main economy centers on apple orchards. Furthermore, Steinbeck clearly describes how the workers lived, how small farmers suffered and how some organizations, such as American Communist Party, made some efforts in order to improve life for the poor workers. In Dubious Battle is a master piece that teaches us how communism acts merely as a canvas to paint other abstract themes.
The need to belong to a group is the first theme that appears In Dubious Battle. Steinbeck introduced Jim Nolan as a lonely person claiming that his “whole family has been ruined by the system.” His father was a “sticker in a slaughter house” and “had a reputation for being the toughest mug in the country.” According to Jim, his father fought the system by himself and was killed by a riot gun (6). In addition, Jim’s mother died because “she just did not want to live.” As a result, Jim turned to the party because he was looking for a place to “work towards something.” When Steinbeck wrote the importance that Jim felt to belong, he also showed how Mac used this knowledge to influence strikers. For example, during the birth scene Mac decided to delegate tasks which made the whole camp felt they were involving in the delivery. All people in the camp were working together creating a “current of excitement.” After the woman delivered the baby, Mac burned the used and unused cloth that people had donated. Mac states, “Every man that gave part of his clothes felt that the work was his own. They all feel responsible for that baby. It’s their’s, because something from them went to it. To give back the cloth would have cut them out. There is not better way to make men part of a movement than to have them give something to it” (99). Steinbeck used the “human” side of communism to show how a person who had lost his family had the need to be a member of a group. Furthermore, Jim sacrificed his individual identity when he joined the party because now the cause of the strike was the main objective for him.
Another abstract theme that Steinbeck presents is the power of wealthy people. Even though Steinbeck described migrant workers as “ignorant, dirty people, that they are carriers of disease, and that they increase the necessity for police,” (“The Harvest Gypsies”) he examined the way that migrant workers were living during a period of injustice. For example, Mac explains to Jim, “Now these few guys that own most of the Torgas Valley waited until most of the crop tramps were already there. They spend most of their money getting there, of course. They always do. And then the owner announced their price cut” (26). According to Steinbeck, migrant workers arrived in California in a state of semi-starvation, with the only idea of finding a work at any wage in order to feed the family (“The Harvest Gypsies”). Ironically, the few cents that were cut in wages did not give a big profit for the owners. However, the migrant workers who lived hand to mouth were impacted significantly. Consequently, the workers decided to strike, but the owners considered the farm workers as radicals and utilized any resource to stop them.
As the book advances it starts to be apparent that Steinbeck wanted to show that strike was a little brick to complete a strong wall. Although it is very difficult to control a group, it is the only way to preserve the cause and win. For example, Benjamin Gitlow, one of the founders and early leader of the American Communist movement was first accused in 1919 of violating New York’s old Criminal Anarchy statute of 1902. During his court Mr. Justice Sanford states, “It advocates and urges in fervent language mass action which shall progressively foment industrial disturbance and through political mass strikes and revolutionary mass action overthrow and destroy organized parliamentary government… This is the call of direct incitement” (Mayers). Sanford was trying to provoke the urban working class to fight for their rights, even when he knows that the change would be step by step. In Mac’s case, he was more concerned in pervert the minds of the workers with self-confidence, define their identity and give them a common enemy-the capitalist than whether or not the strike succeed. Mac really knew that without identity and objective, people are lost. He offers this idea to London saying, “If the thing blew up right now it would be worth it… They know how much capital thinks of them and how quick capital would poison ‘them like a bunch of ants… We showed them two things-what they are, an’ what they have to do” (151). It is very important to know who you are and where you are going in order to accomplish any goal. Mac, as Sanford, wanted to spread the infection that is the idea that every worker has rights. Steinbeck clearly shows that even if the strike failed, there was a bigger goal that had been accomplished.
The way that people use symbols to represent a common cause is a theoretical theme used by Steinbeck. At several points in the book it appears that the strike is collapsing all around the pickers. At every one of these critical turning points, something happened that kept the strike going by slightly changing the focus. The workers were distracted by a fight involving London when it seemed that they were about to turn on Mac and Jim. During this fight a vigilante shot Joy. Since the pickers knew Joy only as a face, it became the face of the common workers. As a result, all pickers decided to fight not only for them but for that face. Also, Jim, who was a significant leader, was killed. This fact did not slow anything, yet it put the ball rolling again. Mac used Jim’s death to create another concrete face on the abstract ideas he tried to push. However, this time the workers knew Jim very well and what he stood for. Mac tried to emphasize this by preaching, “This guy want nothing for himself” (269). As Mac used Jim’s death as a symbol, some other leaders of the farm workers also used symbols. One example was the flag that Cesar Chavez, the founder of the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, designed to represent his people’s cause. Chavez stated, “A symbol is an important thing. That is why we chose an Azteca eagle. It gives pride” (UFW). Cesar Chavez’s intention was to give a powerful symbol to motivate the farm workers to fight for their rights. The use of symbols gave to Mac and Chavez the opportunity to unit people in a common purpose. It is clear that united people need something that represents their desires and goals. Even today most of the associations that have a collective intention need a symbol that identify them and provokes other to join the group.
Works Cited

Mayers, Marvin. “Gitlow v. New York.”(1969): 295-98. Print
Steinbeck, John, In Dubious Battle. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.Print.
“The Harvest Gypsies”, San Francisco News, Octuber5, 1936.
UFW: The Official Web Page of the United Farm Workers of America: Web. 08 Dec.
2011.