“A Man in a Group Isn’t Himself at All”: Revisiting Steinbeck’s Phalanx Theory

IF 0.9 0 LITERATURE, AMERICAN
C. Berardino
{"title":"“A Man in a Group Isn’t Himself at All”: Revisiting Steinbeck’s Phalanx Theory","authors":"C. Berardino","doi":"10.5325/STEINBECKREVIEW.18.1.0055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Steinbeck formulated his phalanx theory in 1933, in an atmosphere of social unease with the rise of fascism, communism, industrial unionism, and other mass movements. Though perhaps conceived originally as a scientific attempt to explain group behavior, Steinbeck’s theory seems to stray (perhaps not intentionally) from scientific objectivity toward subjective sociological appraisal. As it is presented in his literature, I argue Steinbeck’s phalanx theory must not be taken as science, but rather, as a model for understanding his exploration of collective behavior and human potential. This broadened concept of “phalanx potential,” as I call it, should be understood apart from mere extension of the original theory itself. I argue, in instances where Steinbeck’s phalanx theory seems to fulfill its capacity as a creative force, the phalanx itself requires the efficacious leadership of a “collective individual.” That is, the success of Steinbeck’s phalanx, paradoxically, relies on an individual, a remarkable “other,” simultaneously outside of, and within, the phalanx itself. While Steinbeck’s earlier works, namely, “The Vigilante” and In Dubious Battle, present a critical view of the dangers and destructive possibilities unharnessed phalanxes present, his later works, namely, The Grapes of Wrath and Cannery Row, offer a more redemptive and productive view on the potential of these collectives. I contend that the reason for this progression lies in Steinbeck’s treatment of these unique “collective individuals,” and their ability to foster democratic, participatory communities.","PeriodicalId":40417,"journal":{"name":"Steinbeck Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"55 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Steinbeck Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/STEINBECKREVIEW.18.1.0055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, AMERICAN","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:Steinbeck formulated his phalanx theory in 1933, in an atmosphere of social unease with the rise of fascism, communism, industrial unionism, and other mass movements. Though perhaps conceived originally as a scientific attempt to explain group behavior, Steinbeck’s theory seems to stray (perhaps not intentionally) from scientific objectivity toward subjective sociological appraisal. As it is presented in his literature, I argue Steinbeck’s phalanx theory must not be taken as science, but rather, as a model for understanding his exploration of collective behavior and human potential. This broadened concept of “phalanx potential,” as I call it, should be understood apart from mere extension of the original theory itself. I argue, in instances where Steinbeck’s phalanx theory seems to fulfill its capacity as a creative force, the phalanx itself requires the efficacious leadership of a “collective individual.” That is, the success of Steinbeck’s phalanx, paradoxically, relies on an individual, a remarkable “other,” simultaneously outside of, and within, the phalanx itself. While Steinbeck’s earlier works, namely, “The Vigilante” and In Dubious Battle, present a critical view of the dangers and destructive possibilities unharnessed phalanxes present, his later works, namely, The Grapes of Wrath and Cannery Row, offer a more redemptive and productive view on the potential of these collectives. I contend that the reason for this progression lies in Steinbeck’s treatment of these unique “collective individuals,” and their ability to foster democratic, participatory communities.
“群体中的人根本不是他自己”:重新审视斯坦贝克的方阵理论
摘要:斯坦贝克于1933年在法西斯主义、共产主义、工业工会主义和其他群众运动兴起的社会不安气氛中提出了方阵理论。虽然斯坦贝克的理论最初可能是作为一种解释群体行为的科学尝试,但它似乎偏离了(也许不是有意的)科学客观性,走向了主观的社会学评价。正如斯坦贝克在他的著作中所呈现的那样,我认为斯坦贝克的方阵理论不应被视为科学,而应被视为理解他对集体行为和人类潜力的探索的一种模式。这个被我称为“方阵潜力”的广义概念,应该被理解为不仅仅是原始理论本身的延伸。我认为,在斯坦贝克的方阵理论似乎履行其作为一种创造性力量的能力的情况下,方阵本身需要一个“集体个人”的有效领导。也就是说,斯坦贝克方阵的成功,矛盾的是,依赖于一个个体,一个非凡的“他者”,同时在方阵本身之外,也在方阵本身之内。斯坦贝克的早期作品,即《治安维护者》和《可疑的战斗》,对未受控制的方阵所呈现的危险和破坏性可能性提出了一种批判的观点,而他的后期作品,即《愤怒的葡萄》和《罐头厂街》,则对这些集体的潜力提供了一种更具救赎性和生产性的观点。我认为,这种进步的原因在于斯坦贝克对这些独特的“集体个体”的处理,以及他们培养民主、参与性社区的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Steinbeck Review
Steinbeck Review LITERATURE, AMERICAN-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Steinbeck Review is an authorized publication on the life and works of American novelist John Steinbeck (1902–1968). It publishes scholarly articles; notes; book and performance reviews; creative writing; original artwork; and short intercalary pieces offering fresh perspectives, including notes on contemporary references to Steinbeck, discussions of the contexts of his work, and an occasional poem. Steinbeck Review has a threefold mission of broadening the scope of Steinbeck criticism, promoting the work of new and established scholars, and serving as a resource for Steinbeck teachers at all levels.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信