THE UNSUCCESSFUL CLASS STRUGGLE AS REPRESENTED BY KINO’S EXPERIENCE IN JOHN STEINBECK’S “THE PEARL”
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Rut Arsari Christy 112008112
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
THE UNSUCCESSFUL CLASS STRUGGLE AS REPRESENTED BY KINO’S EXPERIENCE IN JOHN STEINBECK’S “THE PEARL”
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Rut Arsari Christy 112008112
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA 2013
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any courses or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the text.
Copyright@2013. Rut Arsari Christy and Lany Kristono, M. Hum
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the permission of at least the copyright owners or the English Department, Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.
Rut Arsari Christy:
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic community, I verify that:
Name : Rut Arsari Christy
Student ID Number : 112008112
Study Program : English Education
Faculty : Faculty of Language and Literature Kind of Work : Undergraduate Thesis
in developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
The Unsuccessful Class Struggle as Represented by Kino’s Experience in John Steinbeck’s The Pearl.
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in : Salatiga
Date :
Verrified by signee,
Rut Arsari Christy Approved by
Thesis Supervisor
Lany Kristono, M. Hum
Thesis Examiner
Purwanti Kusumaningtyas, M. Hum
THE UNSUCCESSFUL CLASS STRUGGLE AS REPRESENTED BY KINO’S EXPERIENCE IN JOHN STEINBECK’S “THE PEARL”
Rut Arsari Christy ABSTRACT
Anyone who gets a fortune will most probably be rich. However, The Pearl, depicts Kino, a pearl hunter who found a fortune; i.e. the biggest pearl ever, to remain poor. Kino should be able to have a better life because if he sells the pearl, he will get a lot of money. Therefore, it is quite surprising that Kino and his family are depicted to remain poor at the end of the story. Since The Pearl doesn‟t portray an economically homogenous society, such a society fits Marxist ideas, which divides a society into two big groups, i. e. the rich and the poor. The study tries to find out why Kino failed to improve his life although he had already owned the biggest pearl ever. The finding of this research is to explain about the facts of class struggle. Through this research, it will be known that one‟s success is not only determined by individual efforts, but also by external forces. A society may not support a lower class‟s struggle to go to the higher class, and that individual attempts to fight against the domination of the powerful group will be mostly useless.
Keywords: class struggle, oppression
INTRODUCTION
People often argue that money is the root of all evils. However, in reality, everyone needs money to survive so that people make much effort to get money. Many people even value and; thus, pursue wealth. Generally, there are several ways to gain wealth; first, the person inherits a fortune from his/ her family. Second, that person has a good job that enables him/ her to earn a lot of money. Third, he/ she gets a lottery or fortune.
However, those ways are not absolute. Take for example, most Papuans still live in poverty although they inherit the biggest gold mine in the world. Ponco and Alam wrote in Kompas.com, that the Papuan local governments don‟t have any stocks of Freeport. Since the gold mine is not managed by the Papuan government, the Papuan can‟t enjoy their own
2
company that manages the gold mine. Despite its valuable natural resources, the province remains one of the most left-behind in Indonesia. This condition is similar with Marx explanation about "alienation" in his 1844 essay:
“The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces ... the object that labour produces, its product, stands opposed to it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer.”
The Papuans are controlled by the foreign company by working in Freeport. The more products they produce, the wealthier the people who manage the company. So, the one who gets benefit from the gold mine is the company.
The facts about Papua reminded the researcher of what happened to Kino, the protagonist of John Steinbeck‟s novel, The Pearl. As a pearl hunter who found a fortune; i.e.
the biggest pearl ever, Kino should be able to have a better life because if he sells the pearl, he will get a lot of money. Therefore, it is quite surprising that Kino and his family are depicted to remain poor at the end of the story. Therefore the researcher would like to find out why Kino failed to improve his life although he had already owned the biggest pearl ever. In other words, this research would aim to analyze the reasons behind Kino‟s failure in
getting a better life.
It is written in the novel that there are two different groups of society; people who lives in the brush houses and people who live in the city of stone. People who live in the brush houses are the poor pearl hunters, while people who live in the city of stone are the rich. It shows that the novel doesn‟t depict an economically homogenous society. Such a society fits Marxist ideas, which divides a society into “the have” and “the have not”. As Tyson
wrote, “…between the “haves” and the “have- not” between the bourgeoisie…- and the
3 Society in Marxist Perspective
Marxists divide a society into two big categories; i. e. the poor (proletariat) and the rich (bourgeoisie) (Tyson 54), and Marxism tries to explain the relationship between the poor and the rich. Implied in the existence of a class-divided society is an unequal power relationship represented by the dominating and dominated groups. As Bressler says, “…A Marxist approach seeks to oppose the dominant class, to demonstrate how the bourgeoisie‟s ideology controls and oppresses the working class, and to highlight the elements of society most affected by such oppression.” (221).
Marxism exists to reveal the ideology that is made by the dominant class. If ideology is made by the dominant class, it means that the dominant class controls the dominated class people under their control by using the ideology. Because of the control of the dominant class to the dominated class, there is a conflict between them. As Bressler‟s states,”…there‟s an ongoing conflict between social classes, it is caused by various ways the members of society work and use their economic resources.” (219).
Marxist view sees that the root of the class conflict is economic differences, which divides the society into two economic- based poles.
Class Struggle
According to Fulton, class struggle is, “….the economic fight for the
improvement of the position of the workers and the political one for the extension of the rights of the people” (89). In other words, it is the economic struggle of the working class
4
researcher makes a conclusion that the bourgeoisie defines how much money the proletariat gets. As a result, the proletariat will not earn more than the bourgeoisie, because the proletariats are just employees. Because of the control of the wage from the bourgeoisie, there is a class struggle from the proletariat.
Another reason why a class struggle happens is proposed by Marx and Engels. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels state that the lower and middle class fight against the bourgeoisie to save their existence as fractions of the middle class from extinction (19). Implied is the proletariat is not consent with their life as it is. They strive not only for a better life, but also for their position in the society. Marx says that the dominant class controls the working class economically, but there is another way of the dominant class controlling the working class, which is through ideology.
Ideology
Ideology is a conscious instead of unconscious process. People are aware of the notion of ideology; and they realize that it is bad or good. However, their awareness is a “false consciousness”. As Engels maintains:
“Ideology is a process accomplished by the so- called thinker, consciously indeed but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. Because it is a process of thought he derives both its form and its content from pure thought, either his own or that of his predecessors.” (qtd. in Williams 65).
5
Althusser defines ideology as a system (possessing its logic and proper rigour) of representations (images, myths, ideas or concepts according to the case) endowed with an existence and an historical role at the heart of a given society (qtd. in Barry 163). Similarly, Tyson explains that ideology is a belief system, and all belief systems are products of cultural conditioning (56). Therefore, as Althusser and Tyson argue, ideology includes ideas, belief system, and culture. Althusser also maintains that:
“Ideology expresses a will, a hope or nostalgia, rather than describing a reality, it is fundamentally a matter of fearing and denouncing, referencing and reviling, all of which then sometimes gets coded into a discourse which look as though it is describing the way things actually are.” (qtd. in Williams19).
Althusser proposed another meaning of ideology; i. e. a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to the real conditions of existence. Ideology is no longer seen as body of ideas, but as a lived, material practice – rituals, customs, patterns of behavior, ways of thinking taking practical form – reproduced through the practices and productions of the ISAs (Ideological State Apparatuses) (Storey 117).
The bourgeoisie‟s domination as reflected in their creating a hegemony, which represents how their supremacy is accepted without any physical force. However, the bourgeoisie also use physical force to make the proletariat obeys the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie has some apparatuses that work by force to make the proletariat obeys the bourgeoisie. Althusser called it Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) (Wolff 225).
Hegemony
It was in the Prison Notebooks that Gramsci developed the concept of hegemony (qtd in Litowitzaq 4):
6
were dominated (a phenomenon that Gramsci variously called “leadership,” “direction,” or “hegemony”)”.
The words “through consensual submission” here means that the lower class people become submissive to the dominant class people without being forced. The lower class people willingly obey the dominant class people.
Gramsci argues:
“hegemony is a concept which at once includes and goes beyond two powerful earlier concepts: „culture‟ as a „whole social process‟…‟ideology‟…in which a system of meanings and values is the expression or projection of a particular class interest.” (qtd. in Williams 108).
It can be said that hegemony can‟t be separated from culture and ideology. There are many ideologies inside one particular culture or ideologies live inside a culture. Usually, people don‟t realize that they are controlled by the ideologies inside the culture. Therefore,
without realizing it and; thus, without being forced, the lower class people are already led by the dominant class people. In other words, hegemony implies the lower class‟ willingness to
obey the dominant class. To maintain ideology and hegemony in the society, the oppressors need apparatuses. Althusser proposes another terms which are Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) and Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) (Wolff: 224).
Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) and Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) by Althusser
Althusser argues that certain ideologies and their apparatuses supported the class structure of capitalist societies (Wolff 224). Althusser distinguished between two sets of apparatuses. The first was political and comprised the state and most of its various activities and branches: the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) (Wolf 225). Second is:
7
The RSA maintained and wielded a monopoly of the means of force in capitalist societies and applied that monopoly to support capitalist class structures (Wolff 225). By repressing the threats to capitalist class structures that it recognized, the state‟s branches,
activities, and officials constituted a repressive state apparatus. The apparatuses that can be considered as RSA are government, administration, court, prisons, police and army (Cole 30).
Althusser includes among ISAs the schools, the family, religions, and religious institution, and the mass media. These worked less by power and politics and more by ideology (qtd. in Wolff 225). They inculcated children and adults with specific ways of imagining- thinking about and thus understanding- their places within and relationship to the societies within which they lived (Wolff 225) so that they would think in specific ways and act according to the ideologies.
DISCUSSION
The Society in The Pearl
As Tyson maintains that Marxists divide the society into the poor and the rich (54), The Pearl also describes these two economically contrasting groups in the society. The poor is represented by Kino and the other pearl hunters; whereas the rich is represented by the pearl buyers, the doctor, and the priest. The story depicts a society by a big economy gap.
“They came to the place where the brush houses stopped and the city of stone and plaster began…” (Steinbeck 10)
The writer of the novel uses the word “place where the brush houses stopped” and “city”.
8
city. The passage above emphasizes that the poor and the rich live in a completely different place.
The two classes, which are the poor and the rich, are also portrayed differently. The big differences are represented by their houses, their properties, and their food.
The first difference between the poor and the rich is reflected in the physical look of their houses, the place where they live.
“They came to the place where the brush houses stopped and the city of stone and plaster began, the city of harsh outer walls and inner cool gardens where a little water played and the bougainvillea crusted the walls with purple and brick- red and white.” (Steinbeck 10)
The paragraph above reflects the definition of “the haves and the have not”. The poor (Kino and other pearl hunters) live in the brush houses that are made of brush, simple materials, and don‟t require much money to build. On the other side, the rich live inside the stone walls.
They even have beautiful gardens that decorated with colorful flower. The stone wall houses show that the owners are rich people.
The second difference between the poor and the rich is reflected in their properties. The poor almost doesn‟t have any valuable thing. For Kino and his family, the
most valuable thing he has is his canoe.
“Kino and Juana came slowly down to the beach and to Kino‟s canoe, which was the one thing of value he owned in the world. It was very old. Kino‟s grandfather had bought it from Nayarit, and he had given it to Kino‟s father, and so it had come to Kino.” (Steinbeck 19)
“…It was at once property and source of food, for a man with boat can guarantee a woman that she will eat something. It is the bulwark against starvation.” (Steinbeck 19)
The canoe isn‟t originally Kino‟s. It is a legacy from his grandfather. Even though it is old, he
still uses it and treasures it, because he doesn‟t have anything valuable other than the canoe.
9
The canoe is not only property for Kino, but also the source of food, particularly because he is a pearl hunter. As Marx and Engels proposed in The Communist Manifesto, the lower class people struggle to maintain their lives in the society (19). If by any chance Kino loses the canoe, he will not be able to feed his family or in other words he can‟t maintain his
life and his family‟s.
The canoe seems to be the most valuable goods for not only Kino, but also his grandfather and his father, who were all pearl hunters, because it is the only thing mentioned have been inherited from generation to generation. It means that they have been poor people for generations. They can‟t have a better job, because they don‟t have other skill and
knowledge. They only know how to find a pearl in the sea.
Kino doesn‟t have any expensive goods in his house. He didn‟t have a bed, only a
mat for him and his wife to sleep, and a hanging box for his child.
“Kino‟s eyes opened… he looked at the hanging box where Coyoti slept. And last he turned his head to Juana, his wife, who lay beside him on the mat…” (Steinbeck 1)
The last difference between bourgeoisie and the proletariat in this novel is reflected in the food they eat.
“Kino squatted by the fire pit and rolled a hot corncake and dipped it in sauce and ate it. And he drank a little pulque and that was the breakfast. That was the only breakfast he had ever known….” (Steinbeck 5).
10
the taste is sour yeast-like taste. That is the only breakfast that he knows or he can eat. It shows that he is really poor that can‟t afford to buy more nutritious food.
Kino‟s condition is really different with the doctor‟s; which is the bourgeoisie.
The doctor has many properties.
“Beside him on a table was a small Oriental gong and a bowl of cigarette. The furnishings of the room were heavy and dark… The pictures were religious…” (Steinbeck 14)
Unlike Kino who only has primary goods, the doctor has many expensive and luxurious goods. He even has mistress (Steinbeck 14).
The doctor which represents the bourgeoisie has really different breakfast. Unlike the poor, he has much money, so he could buy delicious food, which is expensive.
“He poured his second cup of chocolate and crumbled a sweet biscuit in his finger.” (Steinbeck 14)
The doctor‟s food is really different with Kino‟s. The doctor ate sweet biscuit, while Kino ate
corncake. The doctor drank two cups of chocolate; Kino only drank a little pulque. As Tyson maintains (54), “the have” and “the have-not” are vividly different. Money makes people have proper and delicious meal.
It is clear that there‟s a big social gap between the proletariat and bourgeoisie and there‟s class- divided society in the novel, The Pearl.
The Struggle of the Lower Class as Represented by Kino
To pearl hunters, pearl is very valuable. First, they feed their families from the money they get from selling the pearls. Second, it is very difficult for them to get pearls. As Steinbeck describes:
11
Since finding a pearl is luck, it can be inferred that most pearl hunters are not rich despite the fact that pearl is a valuable jewel.
Moreover, when a pearl hunter is quite lucky to find the jewel, it‟s the pearl buyer who is really lucky. The pearl hunters get the lowest price they could stand; while the pearl buyers get the most profit they could earn (Steinbeck 29). Such practice reflects the status of the pearl hunters and buyers in the society, which is constituted of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. According to Marx, the proletariat maintains their lives by working for the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeoisie defines how much money the proletariat gets (qtd. in Fulton 90). As a result, the pearl hunters would most probably remain poor the rest of their lives.
Kino was also one of the pearl hunters. He and his family lived in poverty for generations. Fulton states that the lower social class people struggle to get a better life (class struggle) (89). It means that the poor don‟t want to remain poor. Their desire to have a better life implies their intention to move to the higher social class. Similarly, when Kino as a lower class member found the pearl, he dreamed to use the money to do the following: getting married in church, buying clothes for him and his family, buying a rifle, and sending his son to school (Steinbeck 31- 33). What Kino would like to do reflects what Fulton says about the lower class‟ desire to get a better life.
It is interesting that the first thing he wants to do after he has sold the pearl is getting married in church.
“…In the pearl he saw Juana and Coyotito and himself standing and kneeling at the high altar, and they were being married now that he could pay.” (Steinbeck 31)
12
The second thing he will do after he gets the money from the pearl is he will buy clothes for him and his family (Steinbeck 32). Clothes are a symbol of social status. Through clothes, people can be differentiated between the rich and the poor. Since what one wears reflects the person‟s social class. Clothes can show someone‟s means or power. By wearing police or army uniform, people can show to others that they have power in military. Then by wearing luxurious and expensive clothes, people show that they are rich. Buying new clothes shows that Kino is not a poor guy anymore.
The third thing he will buy is a rifle (Steinbeck 32). A rifle is a symbol of manliness and power. Being a poor Indian, Kino is doubly powerless. First, he is powerless because of his poverty. Second, he is powerless due to his skin- color. As depicted in the novel, only the bourgeoisie, who are identical with the white, have guns.
“In the distance he could see three figures, two on foot and one on horseback.” (Steinbeck 95)
“…Behind them, on a horse, was a dark man, his nose covered with a blanket, and across his saddle a rifle gleamed in the sun.” (Steinbeck 96)
The hunters have power to kill Kino. Horse and rifle become a symbol of power. Kino is powerless compare to them. He doesn‟t have rifle, and moreover he runs with his wife and his son; it makes his moves slower. The three hunters are all men (Steinbeck 107), and one of them rides horse; it makes them move faster than Kino. If Kino has a rifle, it‟s not only to show his manliness, but also to show his power. Gun can give a sense of security to its owner, and it also can take a life. By having a rifle that can give him power, Kino can be considered as a bourgeoisie. It is because he can make people obey him; he can oppress people using the rifle. If the people do not obey Kino, he can shoot them. Kino has the power to take someone‟s life with the gun. However, what makes Kino powerless is not simply the rifle, but
13
The fourth thing is Kino will send his son, Coyotito, to school. He hopes by sending his son to school, his son will become smart and know everything.
“…And my son will make numbers, and these things will make us free because he will know- he will know and through him we will know…”(Steinbeck 33)
Kino seems to realize that he did not know anything besides searching the pearls in the sea. He was not an educated person, he did not know how to read or count (illiterate). However, Kino seems to believe what Engels assures that “education could contribute to increase awareness” (qtd. in Cole 30). By sending his son to school, Kino assumes that his
son will be aware of the oppression. Oppression here means the oppression from the rich in economy, education, ideologies and hegemony in the society. If an educated proletariat is aware about the oppression, it can make him free from the oppression. Therefore, the words “make us free” mean freeing Kino‟s family from the bourgeoisie oppression. By sending
Kino‟s son to school, it will also make him be able to “make numbers”. It means that Kino‟s son will know how to count and he will know the value of money. As Steinbeck states that the pearl buyers always give the pearl hunters the lowest price for the pearls (29). If Kino‟s son goes to school, he will know the real price of the pearls. He will be able to make them free from the economic oppression.
Oppression through ideology and hegemony is also rooted in church.
“But there was a price below which they dared not to go, for it had happened that a fisherman in despair had given his pearls to the church.” (Steinbeck 29)
14
agent, church works most by ideology, not force (Wolff 225). It makes the congregation obey its ideological rules by using the name of God. The pearl hunters are aware that giving the pearl to the church is the right thing to do. However, as Engels said, their awareness is a “false consciousness” (Williams 65). The proletariats (pearl hunters) are unaware that they are
controlled by such instance with its ideology. By manipulating the poor using ideology, the rich makes the poor being the oppressed. If by any chance there is someone who wants to be free from the oppression, his struggle will bring danger to himself.
Kino‟s struggle to get a better life makes himself and his family in danger. Even though he and his family are in danger, he will not give the pearl to anyone.
“This pearl has become my soul,” said Kino. “If I give it up I shall lose my soul. Go thou also with God.” (Steinbeck 87)
It is a strong statement which explains that Kino will fight for the pearl to the end. It is also supported by his struggle against someone who wanted to take his pearl, and because Kino did not want to lose the pearl, Kino killed him (Steinbeck 73). Kino‟s determination to own the pearl reflects his strong desire to reach his dreams, which will finally change his and his son‟s life. His strong will may also represent a lower class‟ desire to move to a higher social
15
to the upper class. He will not become a doctor, a pearl buyer, or a priest who represent the upper class people; he is still a pearl hunter.
Kino‟s endless struggle finally stopped when he lost his only son.
“…And in the surface of the pearl he saw Coyotito lying in the little cave with the top of his head shot away.” (Steinbeck 117)
By losing his son, he can not get one of his dreams, i.e. to send his son to school. His inability to send his son to school means that he can not make his family free from the rich‟s oppression. It is impossible for Kino and his family to get a better life. Because he realizes that he can not get his dreams, he throws his pearl into the sea.
“And Kino drew back his arm and flung the pearl with all his might. Kino and Juana watched it go, winking and glimmering under the setting sun…” (Steinbeck 117)
Kino‟s losing Coyotito and throwing the pearl back to the sea characterize the failure of the
proletariat in getting a better life. Instead of getting a better life, he lost everything; his house, his canoe (Steinbeck 84), and his son (Steinbeck 117) and the pearl, which will enable him to be successful in his class struggle. It is clear that the struggle from the poor against the rich is impossible, as Gramsci clearly maintains that no oppressed class in history had yet succeeded in liberating themselves from the dominant group hegemony (qtd. in Kolakowski 3: 242).
The Society’s Response
16
“It came to the priest walking in his garden, and it put a thoughtful look in his eyes and a memory of certain repairs necessary to the church.” (Steinbeck 28)
The word “it” in the quotation refers to the pearl. It explains that the priest, who should not belong to any class, also wants the money from the pearl for the church benefit. He did not even think of how Kino‟s life should improve from selling the pearl. Instead, he asked Kino to give an offering to the church.
“I hope thou wilt remember to give thanks, my son, to Him who has given thee this treasure, and to pay for guidance in the future.” (Steinbeck 36)
Instead of stating what was actually in his mind while he was walking in his garden, the priest uses God to remind Kino to give an offering to church. Therefore, what the priest says is ideological. As Wolff maintains, as an Ideological State Apparatus, church uses ideology and hegemony to control the congregation (225). By mentioning that the pearl is a gift of God, the priest clarifies that Kino should give thanks. If Kino does not do it, he will behave improperly. Although Kino intended to be married in church after he has got the money from selling the pearl, the priest actually does not really care about Kino‟s intention. The priest only cares about how the church may benefit from the pearl.
The news that Kino has found the biggest pearl ever has changed people‟s attitudes toward Kino. Besides the priest, the doctor now treats Kino differently. Before Kino got the pearl, the doctor did not want to examine Kino‟s son who was bitten by the scorpion. He even did not want to meet Kino, who was at his door (Steinbeck 15). However, after Kino had got the pearl, the doctor came to Kino‟s house to examine his son (Steinbeck 39). He even gave the medicine to Kino‟s son. The doctor changed his mind because he wanted to get the money from the pearl too.
17
in there as a great and luxurious place…he saw himself sitting in a restaurant in Paris and a waiter was just opening a bottle of wine.” (Steinbeck 28)
It is clear that the doctor considers Kino as his client only after he has known who Kino is. At the same time, he was thinking of having the money from Kino; he will get the luxury he used to have. People, including the priest and the doctor treat Kino differently. To the doctor and the priest Kino exists now because of the pearl. It will be a benefit for them. The pearl has made Kino financially useful for them; to fund the cost of repairing the church and to pay for the doctor‟s lifestyle.
It is not only the priest and the doctor who wanted Kino‟s pearl for their benefit, but the pearl buyers also wanted to get it. They even said that Kino‟s pearl is a like a “fool‟s gold”.
“”You have heard of fool‟s gold.” The dealer said. “This pearl is like fool‟s gold.” It is too large.” (Steinbeck 64)
Fool‟s gold means any of various pyritic minerals resembling gold (Merriam Webster). It
means that it is not genuine. By claiming that the pearl is like fool‟s gold because it is too large, the pearl buyers are instilling a false consciousness into Kino‟s understanding to make him believe that it was a fool‟s gold that is valueless.
Such a false consciousness is solidly built because all pearl buyers will express the same idea. As Steinbeck describes:
“Now there was only one pearl buyer with many hands…” (Steinbeck 54)
18
moves to higher social class, Kino will know that actually the pearl buyers lie to the pearl hunters about the real price of pearls. Being one of the rich will make Kino free from the oppression. Therefore, the rich cannot let Kino get much money from his pearl.
Instead of obeying the pearl buyers, Kino does not want to let the pearl go (Steinbeck 74). Kino even would go to the cities in the north to find the right price for his pearl (Steinbeck 86). Since the rich do not want Kino to find out the right price for the pearl, and they do not want Kino to get a better life despite the false consciousness they have tried to instill in Kino, they do not use ideology anymore to oppress him, but violence.
“Kino lay on the ground, struggling to rise, and there was no one near him…But the evil was all about, hidden behind the brush fence…” (Steinbeck 73)
“He stumbled toward the beach and he came to his canoe. And when the light broke through again he saw a great hole had been knocked in the bottom.” (Steinbeck 80)
“He saw a little glow ahead of him, and then without interval a tall flame leaped up in the dark with a crackling roar… Kino broke into a run; it was his brush house, he knew. And he knew that these houses could burn down in very few moments.” (Steinbeck 81)
“They were the trackers, they could follow the trail of a bighorn sheep in the stone mountains.” (Steinbeck 96)
19
Kino‟s struggle against the rich shows that there has always been a conflict caused by class struggle (Bressler 219). In the conflict between Kino and the rich, as represented by the pearl buyers and those who want to take his pearl, other people did not help Kino at all. It proves that even they believe that being poor is their fate. Or, they are afraid of what happen to Kino may happen to them. They are afraid if they help Kino, the rich will take their lives too. Even Kino‟s brother was afraid to help him.
“And Kino… saw deep worry come into his brother‟s eyes and he forestalled him in a possible refusal.” (Steinbeck 84)
The statement above describes that Kino‟s brother is afraid to help Kino and Kino knows it. However, he helped Kino. He let Kino stayed in his house until the night had come (Steinbeck 84). That is the only thing that Kino‟s brother could do for Kino.
Not only the rich want to take advantage of Kino‟s finding the pearl, but also the poor. The shopkeepers hoped that after Kino got the money from the pearl, it would bring profit to them (Steinbeck 28). It is because they thought that Kino would buy their clothes if he got the money. Even the beggars wanted to get some money from Kino.
“….and it made them giggle with pleasure, for they knew that there is no almsgiver in the world like a poor man who is suddenly lucky.” (Steinbeck 29)
20
It is like that there‟s no way for Kino to get rich. In other words, it is difficult for
the poor to get rich. Even the people from the same class do not help Kino.
“…Every road seemed blocked against him. In his head he heard only the dark music of the enemy…” (Steinbeck 71)
The quotation implies that Kino struggles alone. He struggles because he wants to get a better life. He is the only one who is aware of the oppression, because he is the only one who has the initiative to move into the higher social class. The quotation above strengthens the argument that there‟s no way for Kino to get rich, or the poor to get rich. So, it is not a
guarantee if poor people get a big fortune, they will get rich. There are many difficult things that the poor will face in their struggle, whether it comes from the rich or the same social class. The rich will oppress the poor, and make sure the poor do not move to the higher social class; while those of the same class do not want to help him because they are afraid if they oppose the rich, something bad may happen to them.
CONCLUSION
The discussion reflects that in a society which is characterized by a big economic gap, both the rich and the poor struggle. The rich would like to maintain their domination; whereas the poor try to move to the higher class. In The Pearl, the lower class‟ struggle to enter the higher social class is represented in Kino‟s efforts to get a better life.
21
behind Kino‟s failure in getting a better life. It can also be seen that the struggle from the poor to get a better life will face many difficulties. To liberate from the rich‟s hegemony and
ideology is almost an impossible thing to do. It is because not all the poor are aware about the oppression through ideology; and even though they are aware of it, they will face many difficulties in liberating themselves. Kino assumes by getting married in church, buying new clothes and rifle, and sending his son to school can make him get a better life or moves to the upper class. He might be considered as the member of the upper class and get a better life, but it does not mean he becomes one of the upper class people. Although he gets much money from selling the pearl and he can realize those four things, his job is still a pearl hunter. He will not become a doctor, a priest, or a pearl buyer who represent the upper class people. The other people of the same social class do not help him because they are afraid of the consequences they will get if they oppose the rich. It is a proof that although the proletariat gets a big fortune, it does not mean he can gain wealth and power from it or he can move to the higher social class.
From the discussion, it is clearly explained that one‟s success is not only determined by individual efforts, but also by external forces. A society may not support a lower class‟s struggle to go to the higher class, and that individual attempts to fight against
the domination of the powerful group will be mostly useless. Another significance this research offers is the readers will learn that an individual‟s attempt to fight against the
22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
23
REFERENCES
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: Marxist criticism. New York: Manchester University Press, 2002. Print.
Bressler, Charles. E. Literary Criticism : An Introduction to Theory and Practice 2nd edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998. Print.
Cole, Mike. Marxism, Postmodernism, and Education. New York: Rouledge. 2008. Print.
Davis, Robert Con and Ronal Schleifer. Contemporary Literary Criticism. New York and London: Longman. 1989. Print.
Fulton, Robert Brank. Original Marxism Estranged Offspring. Boston, U.S.A: The Christopher Publishing House.1960. Print.
Kolakowski, Leszek. “Main Currents Of Marxism. The Founders”. 1st Volume. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print.
Kolakowski, Leszek. “Main Currents Of Marxism. The Golden Age”. 2nd Volume. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print.
Kolakowski, Leszek. “Main Currents Of Marxism. The Breakdown”. 3rd Volume. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print.
Litowitzaq, Douglas. Gramsci, Hegemony, and Law. 2000. Web. <http://lawreview.byu.edu>
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: International Publisher. 2007. Print.
24
Ponco, Antonius A. and Aziz Nasru Alam. Pemkab Mimika Incar Saham Freeport. Nasional Kompas. 2 November 2011. Web. <http://nasional.kompas.com >
Storey, John. An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. Great Britain: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993. Print.
Tyson, Louis. Critical Theory Today, a User- Friendly Guide. New York: Rouledge, 2006. Print.
Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Print.
