One of the most notable differences between Steinbeck and Thoreau’s views is that they disagree with regards to the will of the majority and collective opinion. In Chapter 17 of his novel, Steinbeck narrates the evening life in migrant camps. Within these camps, the only punishments are murder or ostracism, and of these two, “ostracism [is] the worst” (Steinbeck ). By deeming isolation from the majority comparable to, and even worse than death, Steinbeck highlights upon his point that collective opinion and community companionship are vital principles by which a people should be driven. To further emphasize his perspective, John Steinbeck recounts that as the families create their temporary collective worlds, they begin to learn which rights must be observed and which must be sacrificed for the betterment of the majority. …show more content…
That is to say, the individual families all accept the rules as laws that are applicable to the one joint coalition, a group not needing to be decisively told of this truth by anyone other than itself. Steinbeck establishes this in order to show not only the strength of a collective acumen and human companionship, but also point out that those rules made and understood by the whole faction are acceptable as lawful. This viewpoint directly contrasts Thoreau’s opinion on the collectiveness of society. In fact, with regards to ostracism, Thoreau proclaims that “to be put out and locked out of the state” is “the true place for a just man” (Thoreau 7). Thoreau, contrary to Steinbeck, believes that righteous men are strong enough in their own beliefs to practice them independently of society’s pressures to conform, and will therefore thrive in isolation from the majority. While Steinbeck views serving the majority of humanity as indispensable, Thoreau sees this act as unjust, immoral, and