130
PARTISAN REVIEW
related by Raissa Orlova, the chief literary figure responsible for the
translation of American fiction in the Soviet Union in the
I930S.
The community of ideological writers in the Soviet Union were
enthusiastic about the prospect of having a Russian translation of
The
Grapes of Wrath,
the great novel demonstrating the depths of poverty
under capitalism and pointing to the wave of future American socialism.
Yet no less a figure than Stalin himself blocked the translation. Finally,
the reasons for the veto emerged. Stalin had realized that the ordinary
Russian reading this novel would not be appalled by its narrative of
rural poverty, farm foreclosure, and the Okies' road to cheap migrant
labor. Instead, in Stalin's view they would react with incredulity to the
fact that the impoverished American peasant could pile his goods into
his own owned private car
and take to the road to California to find
work.
Shifting the referents of the discussion from political and economic
policies toward literary models increases the resonance of this book, but
it does not eliminate the necessity, so assiduously avoided by Rorty, of
considering the adversary position. Sinclair, Dreiser, and Steinbeck rep–
resent one value cluster in America's literary inheritance. Yet the
achievement of this country also includes the novels of Herman Melville
and Henry James. Any chart of the American future at the end of the
twentieth century should consider not only the socialist authors' critique
of capitalism, but the analysis of human nature, with its potential for
evil and the possibilities for regression, that are implicit in the writings
of the American masters.
It
would malign Melville or James to read their
novels as carrying a message for political conservatism. Yet, in achieving
the American future, the moral lessons of these works-so contradic–
tory of visions of socialist transformation of human nature-have at
least as important a place as do those of Sinclair, Dreiser, and Steinbeck.
Whether Rorty's directive for the American future is traced from his
views on American history and economics or from his appeal to Amer–
ican literature, the underlying criticism remains that he does not take
into account either the negative evidence or the contrary themes.
Rorty is a strong advocate and deeply committed spokesman for the
Left who can draw on multiple intellectual resources. His voice
expresses the sincerity of his conviction as well as his disdain for the
opposition. Yet, in striking contrast, there is the absence of any sub–
stantive grounds for the conviction or for the disdain. Based on this
book, the conclusion would have to be that the Left claims the right–
but has not shown the authority-to be able to speak to the issues of
our times.
