Steinbeck and Determinism: Of Mice and Men

It is no doubt that John Steinbeck is a naturalist. The class conflicts are portrayed in the book, and the “uncensored” characters are a way to apply naturalism. It is a way to show society’s worst parts. Yet, I do not believe that a man does not possess the power to make decisions about his life. Our genes have an unstoppable effect on our daily lives. If you want to be a basket player and you are just 150 cm, you would hardly ever get a chance to achieve your dream. Or if you are born with a mental or physical disability, it is evident that overcoming everyday tasks would be hard. Aside from these physical aspects, there are also environmental aspects that determine the way of someone's life. Being rich or poor, coming from a high class and being dependent on education, or coming from a low class and using your physical abilities for labor. Naturalism suggests that these are the aspects that we need to accept since we cannot change them. But is it always true?

Determinism is a philosophical term that implies none of us have free will and everything has been decided by a greater power, so we cannot be responsible for our actions. But I don’t think that it is fair to diminish a human’s function like this. Humans have consciousness and the ability to think through their actions. Rule one of being a person is to find another way. If you see a rock on your pathway, you would choose to walk beside it. Animals cannot act like this and that is the biggest difference between us. But I’m not saying that we always have choices to make and that we always have pathways that lead to different routes. We can make assumptions about our future but we cannot actually find out when and where our fate will change. I think that is the beauty of being human. Living in a world full of possibilities, yet, do not possess a map to the exact solution. We need to work hard to change our surroundings and “défauts” that our genes gave us. Disadvantages may turn into advantages, we might just not see it at first.

Yet, in Lennie’s situation, if you had asked me if it got prevented, I would have replied as a simple “NO”, because of his mental disability. Implying the determinism aspect here, Lennie’s end was inevitable. Although, the time and the events that led to his downfall may be different. If George had decided to find a cure for Lennie or dedicated himself to it, the events might have been different. Lennie’s death was an effect of natural selection and it is normal. If he just managed to focus on his physical strength and used it properly, he would have turned it into an advantage. But the lack of his mental incapabilities turned it into a disadvantage, which he failed to overcome. Maybe if he had a chance to get medical help, he would not be an outcast in society and would have learned to “function” more properly with his incapabilities.

Lennie’s case is a good example of naturalism, I’m not going to lie. But if we take a look at George’s case, it changes. He did not have to shoot Lennie but he decided to do it. After he killed Lennie, he might have achieved his dream someday, we did not know it. George is the one who had free will in this book, not Lennie. George had choices and plans to make, he possessed the power to break the cycle.

So, as a final thought, I think both determinism and free will exist for people. The difference is how devoted we are to our goal, how well we use our surroundings, and if we have a “fatal” disability that prevents our goal or not. There are so many amazing people out there in the world. There are people who play basketball in wheelchairs, and even artists that lack both of their hands that are taught themselves how to draw with their feet, creating amazing portraits. They turned their handicaps into something beautiful through their hard work and dedication. Not everybody has the strength to achieve these things. Everybody has different paths to choose from.