Jean-Paul Sartre, John Steinbeck and the liability of liberty in the post-war period

Abstract

The polarities of the Cold War impelled many intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic to take sides either with capitalism or communism. Both Jean-Paul Sartre and John Steinbeck famously attempted to respond to this ideological choice and would differ in their political leanings: Sartre was an outspoken critic of American capitalist hegemony, whereas Steinbeck became an avid opponent of the communist bloc. They nonetheless shared a dedication to engaging with the social issues of their time, becoming arguably the pre-eminent proletarian writers of the period and eventual Nobel Prize winners. Sartre believed Steinbeck to be `the most rebellious, perhaps' of American writers, whilst Steinbeck so admired the French intellectual scene typified by Sartre that he spent nearly a year in Paris writing for Le Figaro. Their pivotal promotion of individual freedom may have nudged them towards both ends of the political spectrum respectively; yet their emphasis on the changeability of human existence constantly destabilized any position they approached. In this article I argue for a productive return to their writing in order to underline the alternations both encounter when seeking to put the libertarian ideal of individuality into practice. In their novels L'Âge de raison (1945) and East of Eden (1952), as well as in their journals, we can observe how their mutual emphasis on man's indeterminism as an autonomous subject inevitably dissolves the foundation of any normative political ethos. As such, it is crucial to reiterate that their engagement with the post-war period in fact deeply complicates the drive for totalization and systemization implied in the strict allegiances of the Cold War political terrain.

Beyond Eden: Revising Allegory in Steinbeck's “Big Book”

“…An allegorical framework can have undetermined and unlimited referents and restructure itself through time. Accordingly, pointing to post 9/11 rhetoric and the “freezing [of] any fluidity of political movement into a static opposition across the ‘Axis of Evil,’”Stephens argues that Steinbeck's mythic pattern and the allegory through which it is established are just as relevant today as they ever have been (178). Still, though East of Eden 's allegorical elements allow for substantial flexibility in interpretation and application, they do not simply suggest that “anything goes.” There remains a grounding framework for humanity from the original myths that cannot be dismissed, no matter to what extent they are revised.…”

“…Despite today's resistance to absolutes, many recognize a need for the stability that Steinbeck sought in the 1950s. Resistance to the idea of “one story” may be stronger than ever, but reread as an attempt to offer the stability a changing world lacks and the flexibility it requires, East of Eden still has much to offer, for, as Stephens notes, “Unsure of its future, this world continues to crave clear‐cut answers” (178).…”