Naturalism, Feminism, Marxism, and Biblical Worldview in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men

by Shawn Hassen

Since worldview is a filtered lens through which we see “the world,” (see my early post defining worldview), it colors everything—it can’t be parceled out. So to discuss the worldview in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men--the naturalism, the Marxism, or the feminism--we would necessarily keep circling back to characters, plot, and themes, often repeating ourselves as all of these ideas overlap. The best way to organize the discussion for students, therefore, is by theme. The themes and author’s commentary are central to the literary work (see earlier post) and will reveal the influence of philosophies and ideologies—and pave the way for students who are pursuing a biblical worldview to develop discernment.

Theme: Isolation

One of the characters for which Steinbeck creates extraordinary sympathy is Crooks. The author makes clear that Crooks is lonely, exiled to a tack room in the barn because of his skin color. Steinbeck comments clearly on the injustices of racism, showing how it creates, in this case, a simmering anger. When Crooks lashes out at Lennie, the only person on the ranch over whom Crooks can possibly have any authority or power, Steinbeck implies that people robbed of respect and dignity may assert themselves to gain that which has been lost.

Another character asserting herself, or in essence, demanding validation is Curley’s wife. Steinbeck demonstrates his feminist concern for women living in the shadows of a man’s world. By creating a nameless character, Steinbeck demonstrates a patriarchal world where a wife’s name is irrelevant. At best, Curley ignores her, and at worst, he is mean or abusive. Her account of Curley’s nasty personality is supported by his arrogance and violence toward some of the men on the ranch—particularly those who are weaker than he is. And what effect does this anger and neglect have on a person? Steinbeck creates great sympathy for Curley’s wife. She is ignored, lonely, and dies just as unjustly as she has lived. Yet there is a complexity to how she has responded to her environment. On the one hand, she has been manipulated by Curley and by life. With his naturalist influence, Steinbeck creates a character who has been robbed not only of her dignity, but also of her dreams and aspirations. On the other hand, she has also manipulated others. Steinbeck implies that neglect has fueled her flirtatious behavior and her longing to have some sort of social authority on the ranch. Like Crooks (and her own husband), she lashes out at the two “weakest” men on the ranch—Lennie and Crooks—almost as if a survival of the fittest instinct is driving her to reclaim her dignity and worth by wielding power over the two people who are even more socially insignificant than she is on the racist, misogynist ranch. The tragedy of her life is brought to its fullness when she becomes Lennie’s accidental victim.  

George and Lennie also demonstrate the theme of isolation. With his depression-era novel, Steinbeck recreates a somewhat historic representation of the lonely life of migrant workers traveling from farm to farm. While this novel is not nearly as influenced by Marxism as The Grapes of Wrath, we are given the clear impression that the ranch owner (and his son) lives in comparative luxury to the workers’ bare-bones bunkhouse of cots and bedrolls. The naturalist bent of the novel emphasizes the men’s loneliness. Multiple characters comment that men never travel together. The relationship between George and Lennie showcases their unique loyalty, but it also serves as a foil to a larger world where no one trusts anyone or cares enough to have anyone else’s back. Survival of the fittest. And unfortunately, with his physiological challenges, Lennie is particularly unfit for survival in a world dominated by the strong.

Theme: The American Dream

Many novels of the modern period explored the American dream. When students are trying to ascertain a writer’s commentary on this theme, remind them that it is a two-part study. First, we have to ascertain how the dream is defined—what the dream is. Secondly, the details explaining how or if this dream is achieved will complete the commentary.

The Great Depression left many people jaded and disillusioned, so the timing was prime for alternative Marxist or Marxist-influenced ideas. Of Mice and Men defines the American dream as ownership. According to Steinbeck, ownership brings freedom. If Lennie and George do not have employers to answer to, they are free—free to work for themselves and to enjoy the fruits of their own labor or harvest, free to savor life by taking time off for recreation if they choose, and free to determine their personal environments. With home ownership, they are not subject to working with other lonely, mean guys—they can live and host others according to their own desires instead of being tossed around from ranch to ranch in search of menial work for survival.

The naturalist bent toward an uphill battle with a capricious cosmos, however, determines that the dream in unachievable. As hard as George and Lennie work, as hard as they try and plan, and as much as they dream, something will stand in the way and rob them of the dream.  

Theme: Survival of the Fittest

Naturalism and Marxism influence this theme in the novel, as well. Students should have no trouble recognizing Candy’s dog as foreshadowing Lennie’s death. Steinbeck intends to create striking parallels. Candy’s dog is aged and sickly. It’s also made clear that he is a nuisance—he stinks up the bunkhouse. After one of the ranch hands shoots the dog, Candy later laments not doing it himself. Furthermore, in a poignant conversation he wistfully hopes that someone will put him out of his own misery when he is old and useless. In other words, when he is no longer able to produce, which is what the working class had been reduced to per Marxist belief.

The end of the novel is complex, but at the very least students should recognize a naturalist survival of the fittest, as well as Steinbeck’s suggestion that putting Lennie out of his “misery” (presumably the misery of a life of running and struggling to function in a society that he is not equipped for and/or the misery of torture from Curley) is an act of mercy. George has been solidly loyal to Lennie; furthermore, the unquestioned, respected god-like character of the novel, Slim, assures the shaken George that it was necessary. Through this evidence, we see that Steinbeck suggests that survival is for the strong, and it is an act of mercy to end—or in this case preemptively end—suffering.

While some of the ideas in this novel correlate with a biblical worldview, there are many ideas that Scripture challenges. I hope you will keep reading if you are curious or if you are teaching specifically in an environment where you are encouraging students to sort through ideas biblically. . .

The Novel’s Correlations/Contrasts to Scripture 

Anyone who reads this novel should be struck by the power and the beauty of Steinbeck’s writing. It is a moving piece of art. Now what should Christian readers think about the ideas presented?

At first, the relationship that Steinbeck creates between George and Lennie is a beautiful, biblical picture of compassion and loyalty. The ending of the novel, however, is the exact opposite. God calls us to defend the weak. Today’s movie culture will make it easy to have students picture a great warrior King rallying his men inside the castle walls just before an attack—students might think of Lord of the Rings, or any number of riveting scenes between warring kingdoms. Now picture the King’s charge to his men, as he cries out, “The odds are against us. We are outnumbered. I will assume that we cannot win. So I’m going to end it before it begins by putting all of you out of your misery in advance.” It sounds laughable, right? Who would do that? But on a more sobering note—it is exactly how this novel ends. A king, a warrior, a leader, or a true friend should defend, fight, and protect. A crime has been committed, but both Lennie and Curley’s wife deserve justice.

Let’s first consider the foreshadowing of the novel’s end. When Carlson wants to shoot Candy’s dog, he unwittingly reveals a self-serving motivation by pointing out that the dog smells bad. In other words, the dog is an inconvenience. (Ironically, without Lennie, George’s life would be easier and more convenient.) The notion of “convenience” can also be thought of as usefulness or the ability to be productive or helpful. Before Hitler began murdering Jews, he first murdered the mentally ill and infirm. But life and death cannot be determined by convenience, cost, or productivity—not for animals, and not for human beings.

So what about suffering? Slim, whose authority is unquestioned, speaks of the misery that the old dog is likely experiencing—it’s certainly believable according to the descriptions of the poor dog’s condition. Unlike Carlson who complains about the dog, Slim laments that the dog is suffering. That is a justifiable reason to intervene. God has given humans stewardship over the earth and the animals, and sometimes the difficult kindness is to end an animal’s suffering.

Lennie, however, is not an animal.

This is one extraordinary difference between naturalism (or Marxism) and a biblical worldview. If there is no separation between animals and humans, then the same ethical rules apply to both. But the Bible establishes that humans were created in God’s own image. As such, they have the highest earthly value with infinite worth and dignity apart from any other factors. Humans have been granted life and death authority over animals—not other humans. Aside from a complex, biblical discussion of capital punishment which is well beyond our immediate scope, humans do not have the right to take another human life based on any qualification, even the heartbreaking circumstance of suffering.     

It is important to note that in the novel, Lennie’s suffering is presumed. It is presumed that no one will be able to protect Lennie from suffering at the hands of Curley. Lennie is afraid and confused until George locates him in the brush, and then if anything, he is relieved and happy to see his friend again. He is not actually suffering when George kills him. But since it is under this guise of suffering that Steinbeck presents the idea of a friend “dutifully” taking a life—and since it is a serious and profound reality of the real world—it is worthy of further exploration even beyond the boundaries of this novel.

Suffering exists in a fallen world, and it haunts every single person. Though Jesus was fully God and sinless, he was also fully man when he chose to come to a fallen world where he, too, suffered the untold horror and pain of death by crucifixion. Suffering evokes many painful emotions, and only a person devoid of compassion would not want to avoid it or end it. But we have to carefully differentiate between two popular cultural approaches to “ending suffering.” One way that people may choose to end suffering is by refusing medical care that may bring additional suffering or that may prove futile. As agents of free will, we can choose to pursue extreme, experimental, or uncertain treatments--or we can choose not to. Life support is one such treatment, since it is often a means of prolonging life without any significant hope of recovery. (On a side note, life support scenarios can be a gut-wrenching circumstance that families may find themselves thrust into. Free will is a God-given gift that feels more like a curse when we must exercise it on behalf of a loved one, so proactively communicating our end-of-life desires to friends and family might help relieve the tragic burden of them having to make such decisions for us.) Opting out of medical care that brings us more pain or sickness or that may be futile is a right of choice by which we can end suffering. By contrast, the other approach to ending suffering, the one we see in this novel, is not a human right. Often termed euthanasia or “mercy killing,” it is the taking of a life. And it is positively forbidden.     

Our views on the dignity and worth of fellow humans will inform other topics within this novel, as well. Steinbeck takes a powerful anti-racist position with his character, Crooks. Like Steinbeck, Christians should be grieved by racism. It is a scourge that people from all walks of life and all belief systems have historically participated in, and it is an evil that still exists in human hearts. The Bible declares equal worth and dignity for people, irrespective of race or ethnicity, and Christians should be leading this charge alongside Steinbeck.

Another character, Curley’s wife, demonstrates some parallels between the biblical view of social equality and some of Steinbeck’s feminist ideas. In the purist, academic use of the term, we could argue that Jesus was among the first historically recorded feminists. In the ancient world, women held little or no social value, but it was Jesus who defied misogynist regimes of the day in order to restore their worth and dignity. He freely extended his compassion and healing to women who had been rejected or spurned by their culture; he revealed himself to women (not just men) and performed miracles at their request; and he included women in his very own inner circle. Christianity has historically championed the rights of women, but a culture is only as equitable as the flawed humans within it. Conflict still continues in a fallen world. It is with a righteous anger that we should demand justice be meted out to any man who has abused a woman (and vice versa). We should loathe Curley. We should also be disgusted by the other men’s failure to defend her, even though in this Depression-era novel influenced by increasingly popular Marxist ideas, Steinbeck compellingly implies that the men cannot stand up to Curley because they are too afraid of losing their jobs and, hence, their survival.

We should be angry about Curley and frustrated with the other ranchers’ cowardice. And we should also absolutely sympathize with Curley’s wife. Steinbeck presents a woman who has been neglected and likely abused by her husband, and we should grieve such circumstances. Furthermore, we should grieve the effects these circumstances have had on a young woman. We can agree with Steinbeck that the environment impacts us. As Christians, we believe in “nature” (DNA which God ordered to create each unique individual), and we also believe in “nurture.” Children must be trained and taught, or in other words, influenced.  And adults are also able to be influenced. Scripture cautions us, for instance, to guard our hearts—to be careful about the company we keep and the ideas upon which we meditate. Clearly, we are indeed affected by our surroundings. In the novel, Curley’s neglect and meanness have influenced his wife. It should make sense to us that she is starved for attention and will get it by any means she is able. We should be able to understand her flirtations, and we can see some of the motivations for the chaos she has caused on the ranch.

But we can’t excuse it. And this might be what separates us from the naturalists.

We fully acknowledge the powerful role that environment plays, but we also recognize that humans have free will. Logically, then, the terms “victim” and “personal responsibility” are not mutually exclusive. A culture influenced by naturalism, Marxism, and critical theory has begun to blur these lines. The term victim denotes a person against whom an injustice or crime has been perpetrated. But increasingly, the term has expanded to connote any individual or people group who feels that circumstances beyond their control—or other people—have robbed them of opportunity. As more people groups begin referring to themselves as victims, we see a movement trending toward blame and away from personal responsibility.

The Bible acknowledges that the environment has the power to influence us. But unlike animals who are at the mercy of their environment, humans have the ability to effect change. We are not humanists—we cannot merely dream it and be it. Instead, we understand that we are flawed people prone to lust after power, pleasure, sexual desire, or revenge, just like Curley’s wife. Left to our own devices, our circumstances might define us (just as these other worldviews believe.) But Christians understand that we are not left to our own devices. We are not left alone in our circumstances; nor are we defined by our circumstances. Instead, we are defined by a loving Father whose Word teaches us and whose Spirit is ever-transforming us. Even in times of struggle or when we are truly victims of evil, we take responsibility for our responses, and we move forward with hope and healing, secure in the knowledge that God is making all thing new.  

This understanding that we have choices, that we can move forward, and that we have personal responsibility creates a very different perspective on the American dream than is presented in this novel. Steinbeck defines the dream, in this novel, as property ownership and the resulting freedom that comes from being able to work independent of employers who exploit their laborers. Within the Depression-era setting of this novel, and within the context of the characters and the conflicts that Steinbeck has set in motion, the failure of this dream is plausible. Perhaps he was writing a novel to principally record the hardships of the Great Depression. But just in case he was writing a novel to suggest that the American dream is unachievable, let’s look more thoroughly at the implications.

Marxists have correctly pointed out the problem of greed in the world. The news routinely reveals a corrupt CEO who has embezzled millions, and we have all worked for—or known someone who has worked for—companies that offer less while demanding more. A few distinctions, however, keeps the Christian from the slippery slope of Marxist pessimism. First, we must stick to the facts. Corporate greed is a true descriptor of some companies—by no means all companies. Furthermore, greed and materialist desire is inherent to all human individuals. Whereas a Marxist emphasizes greed in connection with the wealthy elite, Christians must view greed biblically—as the root of all evil and inherent to all fallen humans, be they employers or employees. What two-year old shares his cookie with another two-year old without being taught to share? The one who has been taught nothing will keep the entire cookie for himself, because greed is part of our natural state in a cursed world. Everyone struggles with greed. And finally, another detail which people leave out when they are vilifying big business is that corporations often pour some of their earnings back into our communities. Companies provide millions of jobs, they fund museums and parks and places of recreation, and they make lavish charity contributions—under the right leadership.

We need business leaders who are walking with Christ because biblical principles offer the perfect blueprint for capitalism: businesses run by employers who are invested in their employees. It is fair that those who have invested the capital and the time and the resources—and taken on the risks associated with starting a business—should profit. But they also recognize their employees as the backbone of their success, so they insist that they also benefit. Profit sharing, retirement plans, generous wages, vacation time, pleasant working conditions, health benefits, and education allow families to thrive, not merely survive. Big business can unfortunately demonstrate the ugly side that Marxists so accurately describe. But led by people who are striving to bring peace and prosperity to the world, big business can also provide generously for individuals, families, and entire communities. With biblical capitalism, the American dream still exists, and everyone—employers and employees—have the right to work hard and flourish.