Biological and Animal Imagery in John Steinbeck's Migrant Agricultural Novels: A Re-evaluation

Critical reception of the work of John Steinbeck often makes note of that author's use ofbiological and animal imagery. Early evaluations of Steinbeck's use of biological and animal metaphors concluded that the author suffered from an "obsession" with biology that minimized the significance of the human experience. Much subsequent criticism echoes these early findings. An examination of Steinbeck's migrant agricultural novels, In Dubious Battle (1936), Of Mice and Men (1937), and The Grapes ofWrath (1939), suggests that in fact the author's use ofbiological and animal imagery aids in defining and enhancing the human experience. Such imagery places humankind on an evolutionary spectrum that aff1llIlS our inherent ties to the nonhuman community, while concurrently focusing attention on the struggle ofspiritual, political, and community values that are unique to the human animal. These three novels together show a progression of the human spirit that is inseparable from biological realities and relationships with nonhuman animals. These relationships delineate the need for a specifically human community that encourages its members to achieve their own individuality through participation in group decisions that affect their lives. Thus the biological influence in Steinbeck's fiction does not detract from his human characters, but rather enhances their struggle to realize what it means to be a human being. Critics who fault Steinbeck for the inclusion of animals and biological references in his fiction usually fail to exhibit an understanding of the philosophy of which Steinbeck writes. They instead view nonhuman animals as objects of derision or sentimentality, and by definition their inclusion lowers the quality of literature produced. Many critics associate any use of animals or biological metaphor with the more negative connotations of "animalism," a tenn used to isolate the negative drives ofhuman beings to the realm of the nonhuman animal, which in turn denies the existence of a harmonious duality between our two natures, physical and intellectual, and instead demands that the intellectual element ofourselves conquer and dominate the existing residual atavistic urges. Steinbeck, however, writes of what he views as an underlying reality ofhuman nature, neither bad nor good in itself, but simply existing. Charles Child Walcutt appropriately expresses Steinbeck's philosophy as one that explores "the realities of nature and spirit, which have their fusion in human experience"(264). Those who fault Steinbeck for his use of biological and animal imagery are unable to grasp the role this imagery plays in the author's vision of human nature. Their own prejudice against Steinbeck's biological